Our recommendations were informed by an initial screen of all schools, community feedback and impact analyses, building walkthroughs, program assessments and a final school-by-school neighborhood analyses. Four Criteria to Identify Closure Options Community Feedback & Impact Analysis Building Quality −Metric: Facilities Condition Index (FCI) −Rationale: Identifies low quality buildings and targets inadequate educational facilities Academic Performance −Metric: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) −Rationale: Identifies programs that are consistently underperforming Utilization −Metric: 2012 enrollment/ building capacity −Rationale: Identifies facilities with low utilization for the purpose of closure or capacity maximization Cost −Metric: Cost per student −Rationale: Identifies cost of educating a student through a review of instructional and operational costs Community Forums −6 community forums were held −Rationale: To obtain community input on trade offs and policy choices in areas such as walkability and high performing seats. Academic Impact Analyses −K-8 Metrics: K-3 reading levels, PSSA scores (M&R), student growth scores (M&R) −HS Metrics: PSSA scores (M&R), student growth scores (M&R), on-track to graduation; college matriculation rates −Rationale: Provides a more robust understanding of the academic performance of schools under consideration for closure and to assess the quality of the receiving school compared to closing school. Climate Analyses −Metric: Average daily attendance, % of students with more than 10 absent days, students with at least one out of school suspension, and number of violent incidents per 100 students. −Rationale: Provides a more robust understanding of a school’s climate and safety. ~180 schools schools

Additional Building & Capacity Analyses Senior District Leadership School-by-School Decision-making Capacity Analyses. To ensure that receiving schools have sufficient capacity to receive students from special programs, District staff visited all schools to determine capacity needs and space availability. Specifically, the following programs were reviewed: Career & Technical Education (CTE) Special Education Early Childhood ESOL Building Analyses. To establish a baseline figure for one-time renovation costs, District staff visited schools to assess maintenance requirements as well as renovation requirements that would help facilitate grade reconfigurations and program moves. Safety Analyses. Working with the City Police, the District identified potential safety concerns related to facility closures. The Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent, along with the full FMP team, reviewed each proposed action and accompanying data to assess the strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats related to each action. 37 schools Our recommendations were informed by an initial screen of all schools, community feedback and impact analyses, building walkthroughs, program assessments and a final school-by-school neighborhood analyses.

We engaged in 7 community meetings across the city, which included 528 participants. The feedback from these meetings informed our decisions in the following ways: Academic Quality: There was a split regarding how the District should treat schools that are in poor facilities. (1) Some participants expressed a preference for closing buildings in poor condition, and in cases where there are strong programs those programs should be relocated; and (2) other participants expressed a preference for keeping a high performing program in its building even if its in poor condition and under-utilized. -We are co-locating 2 high quality programs to help increase utilization. -We are keeping 4 high quality schools open in their own buildings and are implementing strategies to increase their utilization. Middle School Experience. Many participants indicated that the District should make decisions about middle schools on a case-by-case basis, with the largest percentage (24%) indicating that they prefer a K-8 and 9-12 experience. -We are reconfiguring 4 middle schools into K-8 environments. Ensuring “Walkable” Options. It was extremely important to have “walkable” options for elementary school-aged students while it was less important to have these same options for older students. -We are closing high schools and providing many of our high school students with citywide options. For our elementary school-aged children, we have, to the extent possible identified receiving schools that are still within a walkable distance.

Upon announcement, the public engagement process will be divided into three stages: Dec. 2012: Citywide Meetings (4 total) Jan – Planning Area Feedback (8 total) Feb – Collaborative Planning (8 total) Purpose: (a) Articulate District vision; (b) share FMP methodology; (c) outline high level plan for transition; and (d) provide future meeting schedule/ community engagement opportunities Dates: 12/15 12/17 12/18 12/19 Structure: Superintendent remarks, Q&A panel Staffing: Chiefs and academic and operations deputies and staff Purpose: (a) Articulate District vision; (b) share data, trends, and recommendations by planning area; (c) obtain public comment on proposals. Dates: All meetings will be on Tuesdays and Wednesdays beginning the week of January 7 th. (01/08. 01/09, 01/15.01/16, 01/22.01/23, 01/29. 01/30) Structure: District presentation, public testimony and feedback Staffing: Chiefs and academic and operations deputies and staff Purpose: (a) Respond to community questions, concerns, comments by Planning Area based on findings fro January meeting; (b) discuss school-level transition plans. Dates & Location: All meetings will be on Tuesdays and Wednesdays beginning the week of February 4 th. (02/05, 02/06, 02/12. 02/13, 02/19. 02/20, 02/26, 02/27) Structure: District presentation with response to questions and feedback, roundtable discussions Staffing: Chiefs and academic and operations deputies and staff