FCCPS Facilities Master Plan

MASTER PLAN
Final Report
March 2011
Falls Church City Public Schools
Facility Master Plan
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1-1 Introduction 1-1
1-2 Overview 1-1
Chapter 2 – Existing Conditions

2-1 Demographic Analysis and Enrollment Projections 2-1
2-2 Capacity Analysis 2-9
2-3 Facility Evaluations 2-25
Site Evaluation – George Mason and Mary Ellen Henderson 2-27
George Mason 2-35
Findings and Recommendations 2-47
Mary Ellen Henderson 2-51
Mt. Daniel 2-61
Thomas Jefferson 2-81
Gage House 2-99
Chapter 3 – Education Specifications

3-1 Purpose of a Division-Wide Educational Specification 3-1
3-2 The Division-Wide Educational Specification Development Process 3-1
3-3 Major Outcomes of Design Committee Process 3-7
Chapter 4 – Program of Space Needs

4-1 Overview of Space Programming 4-1
4-2 Space Requirements – Elementary 4-2
4-3 Space Requirements – Middle School 4-6
4-4 Space Requirements – High School 4-8
4-5 Other FCCPS Educational Programs/Centers 4-13
4-6 Conclusion – Programming That Meets Master Plan Goals 4-15
4-7 Summary of Long-Term Space Needs 4-16
Chapter 5 – Option Development

5-1 Option Development 5-1
5-2 Scheme A (Minimum) 5-2
5-3 Scheme B 5-4
5-4 Scheme C 5-6
5-5 Scheme D 5-8
5-6 Scheme E 5-10
Massing Diagrams Scheme A Minimal 5-13
Massing Diagrams Scheme B 5-15
Massing Diagrams Scheme C 5-17
1-1 – Introduction and Overview
Massing Diagrams Scheme D 5-19

Massing Diagrams Scheme E 5-21
Mt Daniel Possible Areas of Expansion 5-23
Thomas Jefferson Anticipated Renovation/ Partial Demolition 5-25
Thomas Jefferson Anticipated Areas of Expansion 5-27
George Mason Mary Ellen Henderson Anticipated Renovation/ Demolition 5-29
George Mason Mary Ellen Henderson Possible Areas of Expansion 5-31
Scheme A Mt Daniel 5-33
Scheme A Thomas Jefferson 5-35
Scheme A George Mason/ Mary Ellen Henderson 5-37
Scheme B Mt Daniel 5-39
Scheme B Thomas Jefferson 5-41
Scheme B George Mason/ Mary Ellen Henderson 5-43
Scheme C Mt Daniel 5-45
Scheme C Thomas Jefferson 5-47
Scheme C George Mason/ Mary Ellen Henderson 5-49
Scheme D Mt Daniel 5-51
Scheme D Thomas Jefferson 5-53
Scheme D George Mason/ Mary Ellen Henderson 5-55
Scheme E Mt Daniel 5-57
Scheme E Thomas Jefferson 5-59
Scheme E George Mason/ Mary Ellen Henderson 5-61
Chapter 6 – Preferred Option

6-1 Preferred Option 6-1
6-2 Phase I (2011-2016) 6-7
6-3 Phase II (2017-2021) 6-17
6-4 Phase III (2022-2026) 6-17
6-5 Phase II (2027-2031) 6-17
6-6 Summary 6-18

Chapter 1

MASTER PLAN

1‐1 ‐ Introduction, 1‐2 – Overview

1‐1 ‐ Introduction

In July 2008 the Falls Church City Public Schools contracted with PSA‐Dewberry to conduct a facility
master plan. The goals of this plan include the following:

• Develop a 20‐year, phased strategy for maintaining and improving school facilities
• Ensure that future school facilities will keep pace with anticipated growth, educational goals,
and the priorities of the City of Falls Church.
• Identify opportunities for improvements in infrastructure, in organization, and in teaching by
examining the relationships between technology, academics, and school design.
• Innovate where possible to create facilities that are environmentally sensitive, technologically
capable, and that offer a cutting edge learning environment.
• Facilitate cooperation between the Falls Church City Public Schools and other community
groups, to provide infrastructure that can meet multiple needs, as appropriate.

1‐2 ‐ Overview

Steering Committee
The master plan was directed by a steering committee made up of key staff from FCCPS, general
government and community members. The committee met regularly throughout the project to direct
and guide the team in examining options. (See Appendix A for listing)

Design Committee
The plan was also guided by a larger design committee comprised of principals, educators, and key
members of the community at large. This design committee met once a month for four months
(October 2008, November 2008, December 2008, January 2009) to develop a vision for the future
academic approach in Falls Church, a view for the role of technology, and a concept for the relationships
between teachers and students, students and the community, and between all players and the school
facilities themselves. (See Appendix B for listing)

1‐1

1‐2 – Overview
Process
The overall process consisted of the following steps:
• Information Gathering
o Design Committee
o Facility Tours and Evaluations
o Staff Interviews
o Technology Audit
o Enrollment Forecast
• Summarizing Existing Conditions
o Facility Evaluation Report
o Catalog of Existing Space by Component
o Existing Sites and Buildable Areas
o Capacity Analysis
• Identifying Goals and Priorities
o Educational Goals
o Technology Infrastructure
o Class‐Grade Groupings
o Campus Reduction/Co‐Location of Facilities
• Developing Preliminary Options
o Two extremes – minimal physical change, maximum physical change
o Three midway options
• Option Evaluation
• Modifying and reducing the options to one
• Completing detail work on selected option
o Site work
o Images
o Phasing
o Costing

This report is a documentation of the process and conclusions drawn throughout this process.

The executive summary which follows gives a brief overview of each phase of the process, and its
outcomes.

1‐2

Information Gathering
The information gathered at the outset of the study set the foundation for the study, providing a base
upon which all study initiatives were based. This step included meetings with members of the school
board, school administration, and principals from each school. Reviews were made of previous
enrollment forecasts, analysis of the City of Falls Church population and forecasted growth, and all of
building floor plans for each school. An inventory of spaces and technology was completed to give the
team an idea of the physical resources currently available, and of the state of materials available at each
grade level.

Existing Conditions
As part of the information gathering phase, an evaluation was made of the existing infrastructure
comprising the Falls Church City Public Schools. This infrastructure includes five buildings:

• George Mason High School
• Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School
• Mount Daniel Elementary School
• Thomas Jefferson Elementary School
• Gage House (alternative education, high school)

Each facility was toured by professionals from various disciplines – mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
engineers, architects, civil engineers, and Hazardous Materials assessment and abatement specialists.
The goal of these evaluations was to determine in a broad sense the condition of each facility, its
compliance with current code, and its prospect for continued long term use. If any major issues were
detected during these evaluations, they were documented for further consideration and evaluation as
part of the master planning process.

Chapter 2 of this report discusses each facility in turn, with sub‐sections for the various disciplines’
evaluations.

Future Goals and Priorities
The goals and priorities of the School Board and the key players in the school system were established
during a series of evening working sessions conducted by Eperitus, a leader in educational planning.
These sessions led to the development of the “Education Specifications” included in Chapter 3 of this
report. The education specifications and the desired educational delivery in Falls Church guided the
entire master planning process from beginning to end.

Discussion during the development and refinement of the options revolved around the following key
questions:
1. Is there a “right” size or a “maximum” size for schools in Falls Church? How large is too large?
2. How many campuses should there be? Is there a cost to maintaining four separate school
facilities?
3. Should elementary grades be located in one school facility or two?
4. Should eighth grade be part of high school or middle school?
5. Should the master plan move toward one campus? If so, would that campus be one of the
existing locations, or a new site? What new sites might be available for consideration?

1‐3

1‐2 – Overview

Preliminary Options
Preliminary options explored during the study were framed by the “minimum” and “maximum”
bookends. These two extremes were defined by the option which included the least operational change
and minimal changes to the current system, and by the option which required the maximum shift in
thinking paired with dramatic change in the physical environment.

Three interim options were developed, each of which included permutations of the “minimum” and
“maximum. These options explored various grade level breakdowns, different uses of the three sites
currently occupied by the schools, and various orders in which the efforts could be implemented.

Final Option (Recommended)
The final recommended plan focuses on the elementary grades in Phase I. This option recommends an
approximately 25,000 square foot addition at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School to allow fifth grade
to be moved back into the elementary setting from Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School. This option
also includes improvements to some existing space within Thomas Jefferson Elementary School to
increase core areas for anticipated long term (20‐year) growth, to improve internal building circulation,
and to improve life‐safety systems. Minor improvements are required at Mary Ellen Henderson to
allow eighth grade to move back from George Mason High School, thereby freeing up space formerly
utilized by eighth grade at the high school.

With the elementary and middle school needs met through the planning period by the work completed
in Phase I, Phase II will focus on George Mason High School. This phase will include a major renovation
and possible partial replacement of George Mason High School, with a focus on

• improving internal building and external site circulation,
• enhancing community access to and use of the facility during non‐school hours, and
• replacement of outdated/failing mechanical systems with high‐efficiency systems utilizing solar
or other renewable energy.

As part of this renovation process, some of the multi‐level areas in George Mason will be modified to
give the facility a more consistent feel and flow, to improve way‐finding, and to help co‐locate related
functions in closer proximity to one another.

Phase III will return to the elementary schools, and two possible options. Phase II A could include a
buildout of Thomas Jefferson Elementary School to allow one elementary to accommodate children
from pre‐Kindergarten level through 5th grade. Some details related to this project include the
following:

• This addition is anticipated to occur on the front of the existing building, and will require
adjacent land acquisition.
• Some reconfiguration of vehicular circulation along Oak Street is recommended as part of this
project to provide a drop‐off/pick‐up zone away from the road.

1‐4

• The classroom “community” for the younger children will be separate from the “community” of
older children, to maintain the sense of scale Falls Church has had with two separate
elementary schools.

Phase III A will free the Mt. Daniel campus for sale or re‐use by the City.

Alternatively, should two campuses for elementary schools continue to be the preferred option, Phase
III B would focus on demolition of older, inefficient portions of Mt. Daniel and new construction of a
three story addition to the existing building. The current footprint would be maintenance to protect
play area and trailers would be removed.

If all other phases are executed successfully and growth continues as anticipated, Phase IV will see a
break from capital construction. During this phase CIP is expected to be required at Mary Ellen
Henderson to update and replace any damaged or outdated components to what will be a 20+ year old
facility. An updated master plan is also recommended during this phase to adjust and re‐direct efforts in
the subsequent years. It is recommended that the master plan be completed prior to any re‐use or
disposal decisions on Mt. Daniel Elementary School.

Details of each phase of the recommended option are included in Chapter 6 of this report.

1‐5

1‐2 – Overview

This page intentionally left blank

1‐6

Chapter 2
MASTER PLAN

2‐1 ‐ Demographic Analysis and Enrollment Projections

2‐Existing Conditions

This chapter establishes the existing conditions in the Falls Church City Public Schools, so that there is a
clear understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and the priorities of the educational system at the
time of this study looking forward.

The first section discusses the historical demographics of the school division, historical enrollment, and
enrollment projections through the 20‐year planning period. The second section discusses capacity at
the division’s four largest schools, and explores the enrollment to capacity ratio under three (3) different
operational scenarios.

The third section explores the physical infrastructure at the five schools within the division. This section
includes a great deal of detail regarding the mechanical building systems, the operations, and the
challenges to continued use of each facility through the 20‐year planning period. The fourth and final
section is a review of the technological infrastructure in the school division.

Each of these sections summarizes a piece of the picture of the existing school division, and brings out
points that will be woven together in the master plan recommended option, as the strategies for the
future strive to remedy shortfalls and concerns with the current system while capitalizing on the
strengths inherent in the Falls Church City Public Schools.

2‐ 1 ‐ Demographic Analysis and Enrollment Projections

Projection models are an attempt to mathematically explain the factors that influence the future of a
real‐world situation. No model can perfectly predict the future in a changing system with an infinite
number of variables. As a planning tool, however, projections can combine a number of key factors to
estimate future space needs, to form a framework around which a capital plan can be developed.

The Eperitus enrollment projection methodology as described below has been used in more than 35
enrollment projection studies with an historical accuracy of within one‐half of one percent of actual
September 30 membership annually. Eperitus has also met with leading experts in the field, including
the Virginia Commonwealth University Center for Public Policy and the University of Virginia Weldon
Cooper Center for Public Service, to discuss projection methodology and verify that Eperitus’
methodology is consistent with “best practice” in the field. Several other Virginia jurisdictions in which
Eperitus recently worked have characteristics that are similar to those in Falls Church – namely Orange,
Isle of Wight, Hanover, Powhatan, and Chesterfield.

This enrollment forecasting methodology has been developed to focus on the key factors found to affect
future school enrollment, with minimal emphasis placed on supposition or non‐measurable factors. As
such, this methodology may not capture every possible fluctuation, but it is not susceptible to changes
that may not be permanent in the system in question.

All spreadsheets, databases, formulas, and summary tables used in the final analysis were provided for
future Falls Church City Public Schools use.

2‐1


Greater Context

The City of Falls Church is a landlocked area approximately occupying 2.2 square miles, nestled between
Fairfax County, Virginia and Arlington County, Virginia. Home to a large number of government
employees, this relatively small jurisdiction has increased in sophistication commensurate with its
location outside of the nation’s capital, all the while managing to maintain many of the small town
values its citizens enjoy.

The small size of this jurisdiction means that land resources are at a premium. Recent development
initiatives have promoted high‐rise projects including mixed‐use tenants, some of which combine
residential and commercial on the same footprint. The city’s Planning Division is working with
developers to channel much of the higher structures into a new “City Centre” area, which will combine a
festival stage and open pedestrian areas with new construction at the heart of the city.

One of the effects of mixed use construction is the creation of new housing units – a factor long thought
to be constrained in Falls Church by the limited land on which to build. The number of single family
homes in the city has been a constant for years, and is likely to remain fairly steady, due to limited land
on which to build. The creation of apartments and condominiums, however, has opened a new
opportunity for increased residents, raising the ceiling for school enrollment to levels that were
previously unanticipated.

Eperitus studied multiple sets of data related to student enrollment and demographic trends in Falls
Church. Historical enrollment data used in the analysis is based upon the annual September 30
Membership report to the Virginia Department of Education. All projections are based upon
Kindergarten through 12th grade data. PreK data is not factored into the projection, however it is
included in the analysis of space needs that follows. Birth data was takenfrom the Virginia Department
of Health data base as reported by hospitals in the locality. This data is based upon the mother's place
of residence and is address specific. Where there are questions about residence the Department of
Health verifys with the locality.

In addition to this data, residential development, both historical patterns and future potential, as well as
other housing trends, land use issues, and economic development factors were reviewed with Falls
Church City planning officials. To the extent possible, these complex and dynamic variables were taken
into account in the final school enrollment projections.

2‐2

Figure 2‐1a summarizes the projected enrollment for 2013 and 2018 as compared to actual enrollment
in the fall of 2008.
Figure 2-1a
Enrollment Projections
Actual Projected
2008 2013 2018
Projected Total 1941 2047 2151
Projected Grades
K ‐ 1 258 273 312
2 ‐ 4 427 419 454
5 ‐ 7 455 477 485
8 ‐ 12 801 878 900

Eperitus was also asked to provide an estimate for what the maximum enrollment might be in the Falls
Church City Public Schools over a twenty‐year planning window to the year 2028. To arrive at that
estimate the assumption was made that the projected trends from 2008 to 2018 would continue for the
subsequent ten years. The maximum enrollment was then established using those trends and is
summarized by level in Figure 2‐1b below.
Figure 2-1b
20‐Year Planning Window
Projected Maximum Enrollment
Year 2028
Projected
2028
Projected Total 2600
Projected Grades
K ‐ 1 400
2 ‐ 4 600
5 ‐ 7 600
8 ‐ 12 1000

2‐3

Enrollment Data

The following tables present several of the key data sets Eperitus developed that served as the
foundation for the enrollment projections. A variety of analyses are needed to formulate the overriding
trend. Figure 2‐2 shows a 16% increase in total enrollment for Falls Church over the past ten years.
Figure 2-2
Enrollment History
Year Enrollment
1999 1675
2000 1721
2001 1749
2002 1817
2003 1857
2004 1878
2005 1848
2006 1867
2007 1907
2008 1941

Kindergarten enrollment, as displayed in Figure 2‐3, has shown a 14% increase in the last ten years.

Figure 2-3
Kindergarten Enrollment
Year Enrollment
1999 121
2000 106
2001 121
2002 114
2003 133
2004 110
2005 117
2006 123
2007 117
2008 138

2‐4

Figure 2‐4 displays the current compliment of 1,940 students in broken into grade level subtotals.
Figure 2-4
Enrollment by Grade Level
Grade Enrollment
K 138
1 120
2 137
3 154
4 136
5 147
6 150
7 158
8 165
9 172
10 143
11 160
12 161

Figure 2‐5 summarizes the cohort growth from birth to kindergarten. The annual cohort growth rate
has fluctuated significantly since 2000, but has declined since 2006.
Figure 2-5
Birth to Kindergarten
Fall of Births Fall of K Enroll Ratio
1995 96 2000 106 1.10
1996 78 2001 121 1.55
1997 110 2002 114 1.04
1998 86 2003 133 1.55
1999 109 2004 110 1.01
2000 126 2005 117 0.93
2001 88 2006 123 1.40
2002 92 2007 117 1.27
2003 124 2008 138 1.11
2004 102
2005 120
2006 105
2007 124

2‐5

Figure 2‐6 summarizes the number of students who start in kindergarten and move onto the 4th grade.
The trend in 2008 is the highest it has been in the past five years.

Figure 2-6
Kindergarten to 4th Grade

Fall of K Enroll Fall of 4 Enroll Ratio
1999 121 2003 136 1.12
2000 106 2004 128 1.21
2001 121 2005 142 1.17
2002 114 2006 130 1.14
2003 133 2007 139 1.05
2004 110 2008 136 1.24
2005 117
2006 123
2007 117
2008 138

As seen in Figure 2‐7 the survival ratio for those students moving from the 5th grade on to the 7th grade
has been a more stable indicator, with the exception of 2006.

Figure 2-7
5 Grade to 7th Grade
th

Fall of 5 Enroll Fall of 7 Enroll Ratio
2001 126 2003 146 1.16
2002 128 2004 145 1.13
2003 128 2005 136 1.06
2004 157 2006 142 0.90
2005 136 2007 154 1.13
2006 141 2008 158 1.12
2007 143
2008 147

2‐6


Figure 2‐8 shows the ratio of 8th grade students who move on to the 12th grade. In 2008 the survival
ratio was at 1.14. Over the past six years the rate has stayed between 1.07‐1.18.

Figure 2‐8 ‐ 8th Grade to 12th Grade Enrollments and Ratios

Fall of 8 Enroll Fall of 12 Enroll Ratio
1999 130 2003 142 1.09
2000 136 2004 159 1.17
2001 133 2005 157 1.18
2002 155 2006 171 1.10
2003 168 2007 179 1.07
2004 141 2008 161 1.14
2005 145
2006 136
2007 158
2008 165

Two other key demographic trends summarized from the Virginia Department of Education Data and
Reports website are changes over the past 10‐years in:

• The percent of students qualifying for free/reduced price lunch and
• The ethnic makeup of the student body in the Falls Church schools.

Over the past 10‐years the percent of students qualifying for free/reduced price lunch has declined from
10.5% in 1997‐98 to 6.38% in 2007‐08. During that same period of time the ethnic makeup of the
student population changed as the percent of Caucasian students declined by 6%, the percent of
Hispanic students declined by 2%, and the percent of African‐American students remained at 4% even
though the actual number of students in each of these ethnic groups went up. The biggest percentage
change over this 10‐year period was in the Asian student population which increased from 6% to 13%.
Figure 2‐9 summarizes the changes in the ethnic makeup of the student population.

Figure 2‐9
Fall Church City Public Schools Student Population
Changes in Ethnic Makeup

African
Asian Hispanic Causasian
Amerian
% of % of % of % of
Year Actual Actual Actual Actual
Total Total Total Total
07‐08 13% 235 4% 86 8% 159 74% 1402
97‐98 6% 93 4% 58 10% 142 80% 1154

2‐7


Key Factors and Assumptions
Despite the apparent complexities associated with school enrollment, the factors which can affect the
number of school aged children in a landlocked and fairly built‐out jurisdiction like the City of Falls
Church are somewhat limited. A list of the two possible factors is given below:

• In‐migration or out‐migration of families with school‐aged children.
• Increasing or decreasing birth rates (if the birth rate increases, there will be more school aged
children in the future).

The planning team met with the Falls Church Planning Division to collect key data and to determine how
these two factors may affect the enrollment forecast.

In and Out‐Migration
In‐migration has historically exceeded out‐migration in Falls Church, resulting in positive population and
enrollment growth. For the number of school aged children to continue increasing, the implication is
that there will be a steady rate of conversion of non‐school aged family housing to school‐aged family
housing, or that the families moving in have steadily increasing numbers of children per family unit. The
resulting planning/forecasting assumption is stated below:

• In‐migration of families with school‐aged children can only be limited by a ceiling on the number
of housing units. With no ceiling on in‐migration apparent at this time, this forecast assumes
that in‐migration can continue at historical rates into the foreseeable future.

With no ceiling, the key issue in question is how high the in‐migration might go. The unknown future
rate of in‐migration resulted in several different projections, which are summarized below.

- Steady In‐Migration ‐ The initial projection was based upon recent cohort growth trends in Falls
Church, showed 1,986 students by the year 2018, and was not weighted for the most recent
years of higher residential growth.
- Faster In‐Migration ‐ The accelerated growth rate projection, which produced a projection of
2,365 students, did assume that the pace of residential development would continue at pre‐
recession levels.
- Slower In‐Migration ‐ Given the state of the economy at the time that these projections were
developed (Fall 2008), and the housing market in particular, the final projection of 2,151 was
based on the assumption that there would indeed continue to be new residential development
in Falls Church but that it would not be at the same pace as that experienced pre‐recession.
- Variance ‐ The difference of +165 students (2,151 in the slower in‐migration projection versus
1,986 in the steady in‐migration growth projection) reflects the student yield that could be with
the new residential units that might come on line during the planning period.

Birth Rate
The birth rate was found to be a factor with quantifiable and possibly significant impact on the
enrollment in Falls Church schools; therefore a birth rate model was developed to forecast future
enrollment. That model is described in the following section.

2‐8


Mathematical Approach to Birth‐Rate Based Enrollment Projection
The steps in the enrollment projection study created by Eperitus for the Falls Church City Public Schools
are as follows:

1. Compile historical trend data
Data was collected for live births in the city and for the division and individual schools by grade level.

2. Project live birth data
a. Projected birth is generated by first calculating a five year average.
b. This is derived from calculating the change is birth totals from one year to the next and then
dividing the change by the previous years total.
c. In the below example the change from the 2002 total of 92 to the 2003 total of 124 was an
increase of 32 births, the increase of 32 divided by the 2002 total of 92 shows and increase of
35%.
d. This process is repeated for the following years. The five year average is derived, in this case
equaling 8.06 %, as shown in the table below for the period 2002‐2007.

Fall of 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Births 92 124 102 120 105 124
Annual Change 32 -22 18 -15 19 Average
Percent Change 35% -18% 18% -13% 18% 8.06%

e. The average is then used to project out the birth data by taking the last year of data multiplying
by the average and then adding back to the last years total.

Example ‐ In 2007 the live birth total was 124.

124 * 8.06% (.0806) = 9.99 or 10 new births expected between 2007 and 2008.

Previous year’s births (124 in 2007) plus projected new births (10) gives the 2008 total of 134
total anticipated births. The process is repeated rolling forward, using the new 2008 projection
of 134 as the new base.
2003 124
2004 102
Actuals
134 * 8.06% (.0806) = 10.8 or 11 new births expected between
2005 120
2008 and 2009.
2006 105

2007 124
Previous year’s births (134 in 2008) plus projected new births 2008 134
Projected
(11) gives the 2009 total of 145 anticipated births, and so on, as 2009 145

illustrated in the table to the right. 2010 156
2011 169

2‐9


3. Calculate annual birth to kindergarten survival ratios.

a. This process is done by taking the live birth total for a year and dividing it by the number
of children who enter Kindergarten five years later.
b. In the example below the number of live births in 1995 was 96, five years later in 2000
106 children entered into Kindergarten.
c. Taking the 96 live births and dividing it by the 106 kindergarteners results in a ratio of
1.10.

Fall of Births Fall of K Enroll Ratio
1995 96 2000 106 1.10

4. Calculate three and five year averages, and establish minimum and maximum values.

a. This process is done by taking (for a five year average) five years of ratios and averaging
them.
b. In the example below the five years of birth to Kindergarten ratios are 1.01 in 2004, 0.93
in 2005, 1.40 in 2006, 1.27 in 2007, and 1.11 in 2008.
c. The average of the five years is 1.14 with the minimum being 0.93 and the maximum
equaling 1.40.

Fall of 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average
Ratio 1.01 0.93 1.40 1.27 1.11 1.14

5. Apply five year average ratio to known births and to projected births to produce projected
Kindergarten values by year

a. The five year average ratio we calculated in the previous example (1.14) is used to
project out the kindergarten enrollment.
b. The birth year data is multiplied by the ratio to generate the Kindergarten enrollment.
c. In the example below the 2004 total of 102 is multiplied by the 1.14 equaling 117
(rounding up to the nearest whole number).
d. This process is repeated to create the needed years of k enrollment for the enrollment
analysis.

Fall of Births Fall of K Enroll
2003 124 2008 138
2004 102 2009 117
2005 120 2010 137
2006 105 2011 120
2007 124 2012 142
2008 134 2013 153

2‐10

6. Calculate five year survival constants by grade level for grades one through twelve.

a. In the below example we calculate the survival constant by year for the first grade,
taking the previous years kindergarten and subtracting that from the 1st grade
enrollment.
b. In 2003 there were 133 kindergarteners. In 2004 there were 133 1st graders.
Subtracting the 2003 class size of 133 kindergarteners from the 2004 class size of 133
first graders gives zero change in the cohort size from 2003 (when those students were
in kindergarten) to 2004 (when those students were in first grade). This process is
repeated for the following years to determine the cohort survival for each year.
c. This process is repeated for all grades.

School Grade Cohort
Year K 1 Survival
2003 133 128
2004 110 133 0
2005 117 109 -1
2006 123 129 12
2007 117 136 13
2008 138 120 3

7. Calculate five year mean, median, minimum, and maximum yearly constants by grade level for
grades one through twelve.

a. Using the above table we can state that the Average or Mean for the 1st grade is 5, the
Median is 3, the minimum is 0 and the maximum is 12
b. This process is repeated for all grades

8. Calculate annual growth rates by grade level from 2004 through 2008.

a. In the below example we calculate the percent change each year for kindergarten by
taking the current year subtracting the previous and then taking the change and dividing
it by the previous year
b. Take the 2004 total of 110 and subtract the 2003 total of 133 equaling 23 divide that by
the 2003 total of 133 and get the percent change of 17.3%
c. This is done for each year and the values are averaged to get a 5 year mean of 1.5% as
seen in the following table

Actual Grade Percent
Enrollment K Change
2003 133
2004 110 -17.3%
2005 117 6.4%
2006 123 5.1%
2007 117 -4.9%
2008 138 17.9%
5 yr Mean Growth R ate 1.5%

2‐11


9. “Age” the various grade level cohorts through 2018 by applying mean, median, minimum, and
maximum constants and average growth rate to produce multiple projection scenarios and frame
the analysis with minimum and maximum growth predictions.

a. Using the aging of kindergarten to 1st grade as an example, we illustrate how for each
scenario the value of the Mean, Median, Low and High Cohort survival constant is added
to the previous years previous grade total to create the next years next grade total
b. In the example below to generate the 2010 1st grade class Mean scenario we add 5 to
the K 2009 total of 117 to generate a value of 122, for the Median scenario we would
add 3 to the 2009 K total of 117 to generate the value of 120 for the 2010 1st grade
cohort, for the Low scenario 0 is added to the 2009 K total of 117 to generate the value
of 117 for the 2010 1st grade cohort, and lastly to generate the High 2010 1st grade we
add 12 to the 2009 K total of 117 to reach a value of 129
c. This process is repeated for all grade cohorts based on the cohort survival constants
created for each grade

Mean Median Low High
=5 =3 =0 = 12
Year K Year 1st 1st 1st 1st
2009 117 2010 122 120 117 129
2010 137 2011 143 140 137 149

10. Make adjustments to individual cells by hand, factoring in results of discussions with city and
school planning officials relative to residential development, population trends, economic
conditions, and programs, as well as professional judgment to produce a most likely final projection
through 2018, based on birth rate data.

Note – no adjustments were necessary in the Falls Church enrollment forecast.

11. Calculate a maximum enrollment by 2028 by applying a percentage growth factor to the 2018
projection that accelerates enrollment growth over the decade of the 2020s at a rate that exceeds
any previous growth. Because birth data is not available beyond 2018, a percentage growth factor
was applied to extend the 2018 forecast out ten years further, to form a basis for long‐term capital
facility planning.

The final resulting enrollment forecast is shown on the following page.

2‐12

Falls Church Enrollment Projections

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 T
1999 121 113 118 119 132 128 124 132 130 147 126 149 136 1,675
2000 106 131 122 125 127 140 137 128 136 151 151 133 134 1,721
2001 121 124 119 129 129 126 156 149 133 150 148 149 116 1,749
2002 114 135 128 130 127 128 141 165 155 144 155 151 144 1,817
2003 133 128 138 122 136 128 141 146 168 166 149 160 142 1,857
2004 110 133 128 138 128 157 133 145 141 178 168 160 159 1,878
2005 117 109 128 128 142 136 144 136 145 161 179 166 157 1,848
2006 123 129 124 132 130 141 138 142 136 162 158 181 171 1,867
2007 117 136 138 137 139 143 146 154 158 145 161 154 179 1,907
2008 138 120 137 154 136 147 150 158 165 172 143 159 161 1,940
2009 117 143 124 144 158 146 148 157 162 179 171 144 160 1,953
2010 137 122 147 131 147 167 147 155 161 176 178 172 145 1,987
2011 120 143 126 154 134 157 169 154 159 175 176 179 174 2,019
2012 142 126 147 133 158 144 158 175 158 173 174 177 181 2,045
2013 126 147 130 153 136 167 145 165 180 172 173 175 178 2,047
2014 126 131 151 136 157 146 169 152 169 194 171 174 177 2,052
2015 136 131 135 158 140 167 147 175 156 183 193 172 175 2,069
2016 147 142 135 142 161 150 168 154 180 170 183 194 174 2,099
2017 159 152 146 142 145 171 151 174 158 194 170 184 195 2,141
2018 148 164 156 152 146 155 172 157 179 172 193 171 185 2,151

Fundamental Conclusions Emerging from the Analysis

In the course of reviewing the data, some trends emerged that are worthy of note, which describe
unique characteristics in Falls Church. These broad trends are likely to hold true, regardless of slight
yearly nuances. Planning implications of each trend are explained, to show how these numbers may
affect capital planning.

- Kindergarten enrollment will trend up over the next ten years but will continue the same
sporadic pattern of the past decade, with enrollment higher in some years and lower in other
years.
- Overall school enrollment will continue to grow over the next ten years, but at a slightly more
moderate rate than over the past decade.
- In the maximum growth scenario, enrollment is forecasted to increase by more than 20% from
2018 to 2028, describing a more accelerated rate than in either of the previous two decades.
For planning purposes, this growth rate was considered to be the “worst case” scenario.
- Several “bulges” are anticipated in the enrollment. One is expected to occur with the
graduating class of 2013 (now in 8th grade), and to a lesser degree with the years immediately
preceding and succeeding it. Another is expected to occur with the graduating class of 2017,

2‐13

and it appears that a third is likely with the graduating class of 2020. As these classes progress
through the schools, there are likely to be temporary shortages of space that are not expected
to continue, and which should be anticipated and dealt with using short‐term strategies.

Transition from Enrollment Forecast to Planning Numbers

While it is tempting to apply enrollment numbers directly to classroom size and move forward with a
plan, doing so ignores the yearly roll‐over of students from one grade to the next. The truth about most
school districts, including Falls Church, is that some class sizes (i.e. the Class of 2007, for example) are
larger or smaller than others. In the forecasting numbers given on the preceding page, for example, the
projected number of 12th graders varies from a low of 145 (2010) to a high of 195 (2017), with
fluctuation between those numbers for all other years. In long‐range planning, classroom size can’t be
planned for any one class or year, but must be averaged to the approximate need over the entire
planning period. For this reason, the typical school planning process estimates a fixed number of
students per year and creates the plan around that number.

If the solution is targeted to the maximum need, the capital solutions will be costly and ample,
nevertheless in some years there will likely be much more than the necessary infrastructure, or that
infrastructure will be available but not necessarily where it is needed. If, on the other hand, the solution
targets the minimum need, and develops a contingency plan to deal with the years with enrollment
spikes, the result may be trailers or years in which the student teacher ratio is very high for certain
grades. This may be a satisfactory solution from the perspective of expenditures, but should be entered
with full awareness of the possibility of rapidly outgrowing the facilities.

The most common approach to long‐term capital planning is to plan for the mid‐ to high‐range need,
with a phased strategy to increase infrastructure incrementally over a 20‐year period. If growth occurs
more rapidly than anticipated, the planning phases (typically five‐year periods) can be shortened and
even collapsed on one another. If growth occurs more slowly than anticipated, the planning phases can
stretch out beyond the 20‐year planning period. This is the approach recommended in this study.

Mid‐ and Long‐Term Planning Numbers
During the course of this study, a great deal of discussion was held around the proper number of
students per classroom, and a final decision was made to plan classroom spaces around an average of
175 students per grade level throughout the 20‐year planning period, with breakdowns given below for
refinements by grade levels. Core spaces (gymnasium, media center, and so forth) were planned
around the maximum number of 200 students per grade level. Using these average numbers as
planning targets creates a smoothed approach designed to offer flexibility from year to year, and over
time, to accommodate the occasional bulge in the system at one grade level or another.

For long‐term facility planning (20 years +), all projects should be based on the assumption of 200
students per grade level.

2‐14

Short‐Term Planning Numbers
Based on the enrollment analysis, it is recommended that the following average grade level enrollments
be used for determining the number of classrooms spaces needed per level on a short‐term basis, for
minor interim project phases and CIP‐funded projects:

Grades K‐2 160 students
Grades 3‐5 170 students

It is further recommended that beginning with the September 30, 2009 membership report the school
division should annually update the enrollment data as presented in this report. In particular the new
data should be added to the cohort totals in the forecasting tables, new ratios computed, and the
projections validated or revised based upon any changes in the trends.

The planning numbers described in this section will become the foundation for the sketches, options,
and site test fits, which will be explored later in this study.

Regardless of the number of students per classroom or per grade level, all classrooms should be planned
and designed to meet the Guidelines for School Facilities in Virginia’s Public Schools. .

2‐15

2‐2 ‐ Capacity Analysis
Section 2‐2 ‐ Current Capacity Analysis

An objective analysis of capacity for all school facilities is crucial to determining the ability of the current
structures to handle the school population, and their potential for handling increased population in the
future. This analysis also helps planners and educators to understand which components may be
limiting a school’s capacity from an operational perspective, so that the future plan can include what,
where, when and type of needs for capital improvement planning.

School capacity should be a component of annual data review. Enrollment as a percent of capacity can
provide a ‘trigger point’ for construction planning purposes (i.e. when elementary enrollment exceeds
85% program capacity, additional facility capacity should be initiated).

This capacity analysis includes:

• The definition of ‘capacity’ specific to Falls Church City Public Schools, and definitions for:
o Design capacity
o Functional capacity
o Program capacity
• A capacity analysis of Mt. Daniel and Thomas Jefferson elementary schools, based on
enrollments, programs and utilization.
• A capacity analysis of Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School based on enrollments, programs
and utilization.
• A capacity analysis of George Mason High School based on enrollments, programs and
utilization and master schedule.

This analysis, together with an analysis of the physical structures of each of the Falls Church City Public
Schools, provides an overall view of the infrastructure capabilities as they exist today, and an idea of
which appears to have the longevity to continue to serve the division into the future.

Definition of ‘Capacity’ Specific to Falls Church City Public Schools

Interviews and meetings with school staff at various levels revealed that in Falls Church, school capacity
is usually determined in response to several of the following factors:

• Educational program philosophy (grade level house vs. departmentalized, new offerings,
new requirements, specialty programs).
• Change of class size/student to teacher ratios (reductions).
• Expansion of educational services (increased special needs, ESL, etc.).
• Scheduling.
• Adequacy of space size for program delivery.

When a change occurs in one of these factors, the capacity of a school needs to be updated. Special
needs and implementation of programs for remedial efforts effect capacity more than any other factor
(e.g. 21.5:1 vs. 8:1 in classrooms).

2‐16

A critical component of analysis is how a space is actually used and managed. An analysis of how space
is managed in Falls Church was accomplished through analysis of the master schedule (at the high school
and middle school) and floor plans, identification of current space use and pupil teacher ratios by
building principals and confirmation of any questions regarding use by building principals.

Capacity can generally be defined in three basic ways:

• Design Capacity is the desired maximum capacity at the time of building design, and
assumes the maximum number of students per classroom. This formula generally follows
either state ‘standards’ or a modification of this standard by the locality.

• Functional Capacity is the capacity of a school as it functions from year to year based on
enrollment and programs. For example, in a high growth area, a school may actually have a
functional capacity above the design capacity, or if a school has a stagnant or declining
population or a large population of students with special needs, a school may have a
functional capacity significantly below design capacity.

• Program Capacity can be considered as a hybrid of design and functional capacity. In
calculating program capacity, the maximum number of students per classroom by policy
and/or by stated standards is used, but full‐sized classrooms that are used to deliver specific
programs consistently from year to year are also considered in the formula. This
methodology works well in school divisions such as Falls Church where there is little or no
consistent enrollment change from year to year. It also allows for a more consistently
defined capacity number from year to year unless substantial changes are made to a
school’s program such as the addition of curriculum, pre‐school, learning labs, community
use during day hours, and other aspects of the educational programming not mentioned
here.

2‐17

There are additional spaces in the Falls Church City Public Schools which were not considered in making
capacity calculations. These include:

• Modular classrooms.
• Special Education resource rooms, and other smaller instructional resource spaces.
• Pre‐K classrooms.
• Rooms designated for community or business use only (i.e. the television station in the
high school).

2‐18

Elementary Schools Capacity Analysis

The Program Capacity of Falls Church elementary schools, which includes PK‐1 and 2‐4 grade level
configurations, was computed by using the desired pupil to teacher ratio in the school division (22:1 for
grades K‐2 and 24:1 for grades 3 and 4) multiplied by the number of classrooms used for general
education. Full sized self‐contained special education rooms were considered as part of general
education and calculated for capacity at a pupil to teacher ratio of 8:1. Not included in capacity
calculations were pre‐school classrooms, trailers, resource classrooms (art, music, PE, computer labs,
reading resource, library) and special education resource rooms. Capacity is indicated in a rounded
number.

Figure 2‐10 ‐ Mt. Daniel Elementary Capacity Worksheet

Average
Number of Pupil/Teacher
Permanent Instruction Spaces Classrooms Ratio Capacity
Capacity Spaces
Academic Classrooms 1412 2322 322
264
Self Contained Exceptional Education (full-
sized classroom) 1 8 8
Non Capacity Spaces
Arts Education Classrooms
(visual arts, performing arts, drama) 1 shared
Music Classrooms 1 shared
Learning Labs
(computer lab, science, etc.) 1 computer TR
Exceptional Education Resource
(half-sized classroom)
Preschool 2
Early Childhood Special Education 1
Head Start
Gifted/Talented
Remedial Services 2
Title I
Other (specify)
Program Capacity 275

330

Source: Eperitus

2‐19

Limiting Factors ‐ Mt. Daniel Elementary

• Mt. Daniel currently operates on an average PTR at or above the desired 22:1 (and just at
capacity), mainly because there is no space for additional classrooms.
• The recent addition to Mt. Daniel is very well designed for Kindergarten needs, with
amenities including sound reinforcement, wireless technology, wet/dry areas, direct access
to the outdoors, ample student storage. This model should be used for any new
construction.
• This recent addition, however, left no room on the site for additional expansion.
• Mt. Daniel cannot expand further on its current site to allow for any significant enrollment
increases.
• The core facilities (gym/cafeteria, library, art, music, etc.) cannot handle any significant
enrollment increase and would also need expansion.
• The gymnasium and cafeteria are the same space, so gym cannot be taught and assemblies
cannot be held during lunch hours.
• The site and facility are not conducive to ADA accessibility. The library has a story pit that
cannot be accessed by handicapped students from the main floor. It is used as a storage
area more than intended use.
• Currently students cannot access all resource subjects without going out‐of‐doors.
• The family literacy program is in a trailer and not easily accessible to parking and entry,
particularly for night use.
• The before and after school component is critical to the community, but has no available
space for storage or program expansion.
• In addition to full time staff there are also part time staff and itinerants. There is little space
for teacher use – only one very small ‘lounge’ area – no place to conference or discuss
students and curriculum.
• Office space is extremely limited.

2‐20

Figure 2‐11 ‐ Thomas Jefferson Elementary Capacity Worksheet

Average
Capacity Spaces
Academic Classrooms grade 2 7 22 154
Academic Classrooms grades 3 & 4 14 24 336
Self Contained Exceptional Education (full-
sized classroom) 8 0
Non Capacity Spaces
(visual arts, performing arts, drama)
Music Classrooms
Learning Labs
(computer lab, science, etc.)
(half-sized classroom)
Preschool (not counted in capacity)
Head Start (not counted in capacity)
Gifted/Talented
Remedial Services
Title I
Other (specify)
Program Capacity 490

Source: Eperitus

Please note that additional spaces indicated on this sheet do exist at Thomas Jefferson, but these spaces
were not critical to the question of capacity. Only capacity‐affecting spaces were included here, along
with full‐sized specialty classrooms used in a manner which does not increase capacity.

2‐21

Limiting Factors ‐ Thomas Jefferson Elementary

• Jefferson Elementary currently operates on an average PTR at the desired 22:1 ratio in
second grade and 24:1 in grades 3 and 4, and thus just below capacity.
• The facility has had multiple additions over the years and, although each area has its
positives, the flow in the facility is made difficult by multiple levels.
• This facility receives very active community use, which is hard on the facility.
• TJ began PYP this year for IB – program requirements may determine the need for more
flexible space.
• A lot of programs and services are provided to students on this site (in trailers and in various
places throughout the building).
• Before and after care has been provided with good storage.
• A science lab is a nice amenity for an elementary school.
• There is little space for teacher use, and limited space to conference or discuss students and
curriculum.
• The main entry is not conducive to the parking area; the entry is not very friendly feeling.
• The lower level (first floor) is a maze – very little direct line of sight – which may be
considered a safety issue.
• Office space is extremely limited, although the main office addition/renovation is nicely laid
out.
• The site has wetlands constraints for future building, but is in a good location for the
community.
• The trailer complex outside has been there for over a decade – it is a maze with security
concerns.

2‐22

Middle School Capacity Analysis

Program capacity at Mary Ellen Henderson was computed using desired pupil to teacher ratio in the
school division of 24:1 for each core academic area multiplied by the number of classrooms used for
each program. In this scenario, elective areas were not considered capacity areas, as the facility is used
as a true middle school (i.e. when a grade level is not in a core area it is vacated and the elective area
used, therefore that ‘capacity’ is lost). An “efficiency” percentage of 85% applied to this number reflects
current utilization practice (Figure 2‐12). Full sized self‐contained special education rooms were
considered as part of general education. Not included in capacity calculations were program resource
classrooms (reading and math resource, etc.) and special education resource rooms.

Figure 2‐12 ‐ Mary Ellen Henderson Capacity Worksheet

Average
Capacity Spaces
Academic Classrooms
(English, Math, Soc Studies, Sci) 28 24 672
Self Contained Exceptional Education
(full-sized classroom) 5 8 40
Non Capacity Spaces
Elective Classrooms (specify)
Foreign Language 4
C&T Elective Classroom/Labs (specify)
Work & Family Studies, Tech Ed,
Broadcast 3
(visual arts, performing arts, drama) 1
Music Classrooms 1
Main Gym (count as
two teaching stations) 2
Auxilliary Gym (Matt Room) 1
Fitness Room 1
Computer Labs 2
Health Classrooms 2
(half-sized or 100% resource use) 3
Gifted/Talented
Remedial Services
Other (specify)
Program Capacity at 85% 600

Limiting Factors – Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School

2‐23

• Henderson Middle currently operates on an average PTR below the 24:1 target.
• The facility currently serves grades 5 through 7, operating using the middle school
philosophy.
• The school only recently opened so has no limiting factors for program. In fact, the
community areas (gymnasium, locker rooms, fitness center, library, cafeteria, athletic fields
and play areas) are well designed for full community use and can serve the middle school
and other school populations well.
• The only ‘limiting factor’ is the ability of the school to handle enrollment above the current 3
grade levels, but not a full 4th grade level.
• Heavy use by public may see early signs of wear‐and‐tear.

High School Capacity Analysis

Capacity of George Mason High School was computed using:
• Desired pupil to teacher ratio in the division of 24:1 for each core instructional program area
and for elective programs and 20:1 for vocational/technical programs multiplied by the
number of classrooms available for each program and
• An “efficiency” percentage to account for specialized/low enrollment course offerings and
the practice of block scheduling, which often leaves a core area classroom empty for one
period a day during which time the instructor is available for student remediation, make‐up
work, etc. Full sized self‐contained special education rooms were considered as part of
general education. Not included in capacity calculations were program resource classrooms
(reading and math resource, etc.), trailers used as classrooms, special education resource
rooms, health classrooms, and ISS.

2‐24

Figure 2‐13 ‐ George Mason High School Capacity Worksheet
Average
Capacity Spaces
Academic Classrooms
(English, Math, Social Studies, Language) 31 24 744
Science Classrooms
(classroom/lab only, not shared labs) 9 24 216
Self Contained Exceptional Education
(full-sized classroom) 6 8 48
Elective Classrooms (specify) 0 24 0
C&T Elective Classroom (specify -
do not count associated clsrm) Gourmet
Cooking, Robotics (Tech Ed), IB Design
Tech, Computer Graphics, Photo/Film
Study, Technical Drawing 5 20 100
(visual arts, performing arts, drama) 5 20 100
Music Classrooms 1 20 20
Main Gym (count as
two teaching stations) 2 30 60
Auxilliary Gym
(count as one teaching station) 1 30 30
Non Capacity Spaces
Computer Labs
(half-sized or 100% resource use)
Gifted/Talented
Remedial Services
Other (specify)
Program Capacity @ 80% 1055

Source‐ Eperitus

2‐25

Limiting Factors ‐ George Mason High

• George Mason High currently operates on average below the desired PTR of 24:1 in the core
academic curriculum.
• The elective and CTE courses tend to run well below the 20:1 PTR, with some courses
utilizing large areas of space for smaller groups of students not even 75% of the time.
• The facility’s physical layout, with several level changes, makes it difficult to group
classroom areas in various configurations – so interdisciplinary instruction would be difficult
as best. Therefore, trailers are being used for classroom instruction when there is available
space within the building.
• There are little or no resources areas for teachers to work together close to their classroom
area.
• There are little or no designated conference areas that could be used for a variety of staff
and student development uses.
• The administration office is remote from the staff and students.
• There is no sense of arrival or clear entry to the facility.
• Hallways are small, there are many dead‐end corridors, and the general layout is confusing.
This could present a safety issue.
• Huge demand for technology labs and technology in general that is not available.
• If all courses taught off campus were to be brought back ‘home’ there would need to be
consideration for their space.
• There is no space for the entire student body to gather at one time.
• A community television station uses a large amount of building space and there are several
district‐wide functions that have their home in the confines of the facility, so it is unavailable
for instructional purposes.
• General purpose areas (cafeteria, etc.) are well used for other than intended purpose.

Figure 2‐14 demonstrates the potential differences between program and functional capacity. The
functional capacity shown was reported by FCCPS in January, 2009 and used in the development of the
CIP budget. The master planning process uses the program capacity throughout for consistency in
analysis with the consultant process.

Figure 2‐14 – Program vs Functional Capacity

Functional Capacity Program Capacity
Building (FCCPS CIP Process 1/09) (Master Plan)
Mount Daniel 290 275
Thomas Jefferson 476 490
Mary Ellen Henderson 600 600
George Mason 900 1055
Source‐ Eperitus

2‐26

The resulting table indicates the program capacity as each school is currently used; that is, with the
grade configurations as they are currently divided and housed at each facility. As shown in this table, by
the year 2018 the two elementary schools are expected to exceed their capacities, while the middle and
high schools will be at 68% and 85% of capacity, respectively.

Figure 2‐15 ‐ Enrollment to Capacity Ratio Scenarios –Current Groupings

Enrollment to Capacity - Current (2008) Configuration
Prog Cap 2008 % Cap 2013 % Cap 2018 % Cap
ELEMENTARY
Mt. Daniel PK-1 275 258 94% 273 99% 312 113%
T. Jefferson 2-4 490 427 87% 419 86% 454 93%
TOTAL ELEM 765 685 90% 692 90% 766 100%
MIDDLE 5-7
M.E. Henderson 600 455 477 485
TOTAL MIDDLE 600 455 76% 477 80% 485 81%
HIGH 8-12
George Mason 1055 801 878 900
TOTAL HIGH 1055 801 76% 878 83% 900 85%

Source‐ Eperitus

If different configurations are implemented, the demands for space are different. The subsequent
figures indicate the percentage ratio of anticipated enrollment per capacity for each school or schools
and the grade level configurations indicated. Program capacity was computed using the recommended
average grade level enrollments on page 2‐8 of this report.

Figure 2‐16 indicates a slight shift in school utilization which will ensure that none of the schools goes
over 100% capacity by the year 2018. This shift involves making George Mason a traditional 9‐12 high
school (instead of the current 8‐12); making Mary Ellen Henderson a traditional 6‐8 Middle School
(instead of the current 5‐7), and shifting the 5th grade back to elementary school.

Figure 2‐17 indicates the capacity analysis if the same grouping is completed using one large elementary
school instead of two smaller schools.

2‐27


Figure 2‐16 ‐ Enrollment to Capacity Ratio Scenarios – Efficiency Shift

- Separated Configuration Scenario
Enrollment to Capacity
Prog Cap 2008 % Cap
2013 % Cap 2018 % Cap
ELEMENTARY

PK-2 600 395 66% 403 67% 468 78%
Grades 3-5 525 437 83% 456 87% 453 86%
TOTAL ELEM 1125 832 74% 859 76% 921 82%
MIDDLE
Grades 6-8 600 473 490 508
TOTAL MIDDLE 600 473 79% 490 82% 508 85%
HIGH
Grades 9-12 800 636 698 800
TOTAL HIGH 800 636 79% 698 87% 800 100%
Source‐ Eperitus
Figure 2‐17‐ Enrollment to Capacity Ratio Scenarios –Traditional Groupings
Enrollment to Capacity - Grouped Configuration Scenario
ELEMENTARY
PK - 5 1200 832 859 921
TOTAL ELEM 1125 832 74% 859 76% 921 82%
MIDDLE

Grades 6-8 600 473 490 508
TOTAL MIDDLE 600 473 79% 490 82% 508 85%
HIGH
Grades 9-12 800 636 698 800
TOTAL HIGH 800 636 79% 698 87% 800 100%
Source‐ Eperitus

Figure 2‐18 shows the resulting analysis if the pre‐Kindergarten through 8th grades are grouped in one
facility, with a traditional 9‐12 high school.

Figure 2‐18 ‐ Enrollment to Capacity Ratio Scenarios –Two School Groupings
Enrollment to Capacity - Very Grouped Configuration Scenario
ELEMENTARY
PK - 8 1800 1305 1349 1429
TOTAL ELEM 1725 1305 76% 1349 78% 1429 83%
HIGH
Grades 9-12 800 636 698 800
TOTAL HIGH 800 636 79% 698 87% 800 100%
Source‐ Eperitus

2‐28

The results of this analysis show that a part of the future capacity of facilities in the Falls Church City
Public School division is determined by grade groupings, and that by simply shifting population slightly,
these buildings can be expected to accommodate enrollment through 2018.

Planning for the Future – Trigger Points

The overall goal of this master plan is to create a long‐range 20‐year plan for future school facility needs,
based on student population growth forecasts, and educational program needs. This plan must
determine recommended locations for future schools, the sequence and phasing, and the types of
schools to be constructed. Ideally, this master plan should be a road map that can guide schools
projects for the next 20 years.

To assist in keeping this master plan current, and to assist administrators in identifying crucial points at
which action will be required, the team recommends the following:

• Create a procedure (or policy) regarding the use of trailers to accommodate growth on
school sites – if they will be used and for how long – to ensure that these temporary
classroom structures do not become a long‐term solution.

• Determine a preferred grade level configuration and a target school program capacity model
for Falls Church at each grade level. As part of the master plan Falls Church City Public
Schools will assess pros and cons of various configurations, as they will affect future
infrastructure needs.

• Create a procedure (or policy) that outlines the percentage of enrollment to capacity at each
level that will ‘trigger’ the process of revising attendance boundaries and/or planning and
design of a new facility or additions to an existing facility, based on the target capacity
models set above, keeping in mind that the process of planning, design and construction can
take 3‐4 years. For example, if the trigger point is 85% of capacity:

Elementary schools of 500 ‘trigger’ at 425 students
Middle schools of 600 ‘trigger’ at 510 students
High schools of 1000 ‘trigger’ at 850 students

This trigger point can help administrators to identify if the growth is occurring along the
projected path, faster than, or slower than has been anticipated, so that any planned
construction can be adjusted accordingly.
• Plan facilities for near‐term anticipated enrollment with expansion capabilities to
accommodate long term needs. This can be accomplished by considering program capacity
with expandable design capacity as shown in Figure 2‐19.

2‐29


Figure 2‐149 ‐ Enrollment to Capacity Ratio Scenario – Efficiency Shift

Prog Cap 2008 % Cap
2013 % Cap 2018 % Cap
ELEMENTARY

PK-2 600 395 66% 403 67% 468 78%
Grades 3-5 525 437 83% 456 87% 453 86%
TOTAL ELEM 1125 832 74% 859 76% 921 82%
MIDDLE
Grades 6-8 600 473 490 508
TOTAL MIDDLE 600 473 79% 490 82% 508 85%
HIGH
Grades 9-12 800 636 698 800
TOTAL HIGH 800 636 79% 698 87% 800 100%
Source‐ Eperitus
Impact of Expandable Design Capacity

Design Cap 2008 % Cap 2013 % Cap 2018 % Cap

ELEMENTARY

PK-2 680 395 58% 403 59% 468 69%
Grades 3-5 650 437 67% 456 70% 453 70%
TOTAL ELEM 1330 832 63% 859 65% 921 69%
MIDDLE
Grades 6-8 800 473 490 508
TOTAL MIDDLE 800 473 59% 490 61% 508 64%
HIGH
Grades 9-12 1000 636 698 800
TOTAL HIGH 1000 636 64% 698 70% 800 80%
Source‐ Eperitus

2‐30

2‐3 ‐ Facility Evaluations ‐ Overview

Section 2‐3 ‐ Facility Evaluations

At the outset of this study, an evaluation was made of the existing infrastructure comprising the Falls
Church City Public School Division. This infrastructure includes four buildings:

• George Mason High School
• Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School

Each facility was toured by professionals from various disciplines – mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
engineers, architects, civil engineers, and Hazardous Materials assessment and abatement specialists.
The goal of these evaluations was to determine in a broad sense the condition of each facility, its
compliance with current code, and its prospect for continued long term use. If any major issues were
detected during these evaluations, they were documented for further consideration and evaluation as
part of the master planning process.

The subsequent sections discuss each facility in turn, with sub‐sections for the various disciplines’
evaluations.

Site Assessment – Notes on Approach

Site assessments were completed for the three sites that house the schools. These sites are the
following:

• George Mason High School and Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School

The site evaluation includes a review of the site, a discussion of zoning requirements for the site in
question, a discussion of the site’s role within the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, a discussion of
site utilities, and a review of environmental features that affect the usable area of the site.

Site maps and graphics are included in Appendix B.

2‐31

2‐3 ‐ Facility Evaluations ‐ Overview
Hazardous Materials Assessment – Notes on Approach

F&R conducted the field portion of the hazardous materials survey at facilities from July 28 through
August 8, 2008. The scope of work included inspection and sampling for ACM, LBP and visual
identification of suspect PCB/mercury containing equipment. The inspection was completed by Alan
Lederman and Stefan Buck of F&R. As the building was occupied and in accordance with the project
scope of work, the survey was limited to utilizing non‐destructive sampling techniques. Enclosed
columns and piping/ventilation chases within enclosures or behind walls were not surveyed or assessed.

Two abatement cost estimates were prepared, one for “minor renovations” and one for “major
renovations”. F&R defined minor renovations as renovations that impact only building finish materials
and do not impact mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems. Major renovations were defined as
renovations that impact both building finish materials and mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems.
An assumption was made that all identified building finish materials under the scope of the survey
would be removed during minor renovation activities and that all identified hazardous materials,
including finish materials and mechanical, electrical and plumbing components would be removed
during major renovation activities. Additionally, the cost estimates assume that the building will not be
occupied during abatement activities and that all abatement activities will occur under one mobilization.

2‐32

2‐3 ‐ Site Evaluation – George Mason High School and Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School
Site Evaluation ‐ George Mason High School and Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School

George Mason
Mary Ellen Henderson High School
Middle School

Description

George Mason High School and Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School are located adjacent to each other
in Fairfax County on Tax Map Parcels 40‐3 ((1)) 91, 93 and 94. Lots 91 and 94 are zoned R‐1; Lot 93 is
split‐zoned R‐1 and C‐8. The total site acreage is 34.46 acres. The schools are bounded by Leesburg Pike
(Route 7) to the south, Custis Memorial Parkway (I‐66) to the west, the West Falls Church Metro Station
to the north and Haycock Road (Route 703) to the east. Site access is from Leesburg Pike and Haycock
Road (Route 703).

The site is approximately 34.46 acres in size.

According to the County tax records, the total gross floor area of the two schools is 292,686 SF. A total
of 434 surface parking spaces are provided, of which 12 spaces are accessible and designated for
handicap parking. The site includes a 60 foot softball diamond, a 90 foot baseball diamond, 8 tennis
courts, 2 outdoor basketball courts, and a football stadium with turf field.

Zoning Requirements

Maximum FAR
According to the Fairfax County Department of Tax Administration records, Lot 91 contains 560,739
square feet in area, Lot 94 contains 1,078,851 square feet in area, and Lot 93 contains 71,566 square
feet in area. According to a boundary survey completed by PHR&A dated January 10, 1999, Lot 91
contains 362,202 square feet in area, Lot 94 contains 1,069,514 square feet in area, and Lot 93 contains
69,542 square feet in area. Lots 91 and 94 are zoned R‐1 and may be developed with a public use to a

2‐33

2‐3 ‐ Facility Evaluations – George Mason High School
maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.20. Lot 93 is split zoned R‐1 and C‐8. The portion of Lot 93 that is
zoned R‐1 contains 56,510 square feet; the portion of Lot 93 that is zoned C‐8 is 12,932 square feet. FAR
is a bulk regulation and pursuant to Par. 1 of Section 2‐307 of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure or part
thereof may be built or moved on a lot which does not meet all the maximum bulk regulations of the
zoning district in which the structure is located. Therefore, if a structure is located in the R‐1 portion of
the lot then only that square footage zoned R‐1 may be used to calculate the maximum permitted GFA
on the property.

Based on the boundary survey, the entire site area would include 1,501,258 square feet. Of this,
approximately 1,488,326 is zoned R‐1, and approximately 297,665 square feet of GFA would be
permitted on this portion of the site. Based upon the approved site plans for the site, 292,686 square
feet of GFA exists on the site. Therefore it appears that only additional 4,979 square feet of GFA could
be constructed on the property under the existing zoning.

The FAR limitation may trigger the need to rezone the property to permit expansion of the existing
school facilities. It should be noted that Fairfax County rezoned other properties across the County to
allow a more dense public use to meet an increasing school population. While a rezoning would require
a separate process, it is anticipated that pursuing a higher density with a rezoning on the property would
be achievable. The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies that the school property and the properties
immediately surrounding it, is favorable toward higher densities. As a result, it is anticipated that the
language of the Comprehensive Plan would be supportive of a rezoning of the school property.

Yard Requirements/Setbacks
In the R‐1 zoning district the maximum building height for public uses is 60’. The minimum yard
requirements include:

Front yard: Controlled by a 50° angle of bulk plane, but not less than 40’
Side yard: Controlled by a 45° angle of bulk plane, but not less than 20’
Rear yard: Controlled by a 45° angle of bulk plane, but not less than 25’

Landscaping/Screening Requirement
Any development program on the subject property must comply with the applicable provisions set forth
in Article 13 of the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance. The requirements include:

Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: 5%

Peripheral Parking Lot Landscaping: Abuts Property – 4 feet
Abuts Street – 10 feet

Tree Cover: 20%
Open Space: 30%

Transitional Screening/Barrier:

North Property Line TSY 2 (35’), Barrier D, E, or F
East Property Line No Requirement

2‐34

South Property Line TSY 2 (35’), Barrier D, E, or F
West Property Line: TSY 2 (35’), Barrier D, E, or F

According to the last site plan permitted for the property, the following summarizes the landscape
coverage required to address parking lot and peripheral landscaping requirements:

Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Required (5%) 14,733 SF
Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Provided 16,781 SF

Tree Cover in the R‐1 District:
Required 124,923 SF
Provided 130,125 SF

Tree Cover in the C‐8 District:
Required 1,123 SF
Provided 1,156 SF

It is likely that future additions to the existing schools would require additional landscaping, since the
County requirements for tree cover and parking lot landscaping are currently being met with little
additional coverage.

Countywide Trail Requirement
Any improvements on the property that require a site permit must comply with the Fairfax County
Countywide Trail Plan. This Plan requires an 8’ asphalt or concrete trail along Leesburg Pike (Route 7)
and Haycock Road (Route 703). There is an existing 5’ sidewalk along portions of Leesburg Pike (Route
7) and a 4’‐5’ sidewalk along Haycock Road (Route 703) that ties into an 8’ trail at the northeast property
line. The existing sidewalks will need to be reconstructed to meet the current trail requirement or a trail
waiver will be required to reaffirm the existing configuration.

Parking Requirements
The requirement as set forth in Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance reads as follows for “Other Uses ‐
High School”: As determined by the Director, based on a review of each proposal to include such factors
as the occupancy load of all classroom facilities, auditoriums and stadiums, proposed special education
programs, and student‐teacher ratios, and the availability of areas on site that can be used for auxiliary
parking in times of peak demand; but in no instance less than three‐tenths (0.3) space per student,
based on the maximum number of students attending classes at any one time. Based on this
requirement, the minimum number of parking spaces will be determined by the maximum number of
students attending classes at any one time.

The parking totals reflected on the most recently approved site plan for the middle and high school
reflects the following:

High School: 650 Students
Required Parking 0.3 Spaces / Student
Required Parking 195 Spaces

2‐35

Middle School: 80 staff/600 Students
Required Parking 1 Space/Staff+ 4 Spaces for Visitors

Total Required Parking 279 Spaces
Total Provided Parking 434 Spaces

Total H/C Parking Required 9 Spaces
Total HC Parking Provided 12 Spaces

Total H/C Van Parking Required 2 Spaces
Total H/C Van Parking Provided 8 Spaces

Total Loading Spaces Required 3 Spaces
Total Loading Spaces Provided 5 Spaces

Existing parking areas are asphalt paved and constructed in accordance with VDOT/Fairfax County
specifications. The following standard pavement section was utilized for recently paved asphalt parking
areas:

Top Course: 2” Asphalt Surface Course SM‐9.5A
Intermediate: 3” Asphalt Base Course BM‐25.0
Base: 6” Aggregate Material Type 21B

Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan

George Mason High School and Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School are located with the Dranesville
Planning District of the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan. The schools are within a specialized
planning area around the West Falls Church Transit Station, particularly land unit “A”. The intention of
the Transit Area designation is to capitalize on the opportunity to provide transit focused housing
employment locations, while still maintaining the existing, nearby land uses.

A copy of the County’s Comprehensive Plan language for the area around the West Falls Church Transit
Station is included in the appendix of this report.

Site Utilities

Water
Service is provided by The City of Falls Church Department of Public Utilities. An existing 8” and 20”
water main is located across the site frontage within the west bound lane of Leesburg Pike (Route 7).
Both mains turn northeast at the intersection of Haycock Road (Route 703) and Leesburg Pike (Route 7).
At this point, the water mains enter the southeast corner of the site within the existing eastern parking
lots that parallel Haycock Road (Route 703) and continue north. A 8”X 20” tap of the 20” main in
Leesburg Pike (Route7) brings water into the site within an existing access road that runs north between

2‐36

the Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School and George Mason High School and turns east along the
northern access road to connect into the existing 20” water main located along the eastern property
line. Two 6” lines tap off this 8” line to feed the Falls Church City Park to the northwest and an existing
offsite building to the northwest. Two fire hydrants are located on the 8” line; one on the east side and
one on the north side of the high school. An 8”X 8” tap and 8”X 20” tap of the 8” and 20” water mains
located in Leesburg Pike (route 7) feed two separate onsite fire hydrants located to the south of the
Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School and in the southern parking lot of the George Mason High School,
respectively. Additionally, an existing fire hydrant is located along Haycock Road (Route 7) at the
southeast corner of the site.

A 3” domestic connection and 4” fire line for the high school is located on the southeastern side of the
existing building that taps off the 8” water main in Leesburg Pike (Route 7). An additional 8” fire line
tees off the onsite 8” line that connects at the western side of the high school. It is anticipated that
these connections can be maintained with construction of any expansion of the existing facilities.

A 4” domestic connection and 6” fire line for the middle school is located on the south side of the
existing building that taps off the 8” water line in the access road. It is anticipated that these
connections can be maintained with construction of any expansion of the existing facilities.

Sanitary Sewer
Existing service is provided by the City of Falls Church Department of Environmental Services. An
existing sanitary sewer is located in Leesburg Pike (Route 7) at the south west corner of the site and
continues west. Dual 4” sanitary sewer laterals located on the south side of the middle school tie into a
3” force main that is located along the site frontage of Leesburg Pike (Route 7). An existing sanitary
sewer lateral for the high school ties to the terminal end of the sanitary sewer main. There are no
known inadequacies of the existing sewer line. It is anticipated that the existing sanitary sewer lateral
can be maintained with construction of any expansion of the existing facilities.

Storm Drainage
Three existing storm sewer systems provide the outfall for the school site. Two of the existing storm
sewer outfalls are located at the Route 7 right‐of‐way at the southwest corner of the site and at Haycock
Road (Route 703) right‐of‐way at the south east corner of the site. The third storm sewer system
outfalls at the northwest corner of the site to an existing concrete ditch that runs east along Custis
Memorial Parkway (I‐ 66). Adequacy of these storm sewer systems will need to be verified upon any
future site development. Offsite improvements to these storm sewer systems are not presently
anticipated.

The existing storm drainage system on the northern side of the existing building will need to be
reworked to adequately drain the site if the building is expanded to the north. Where possible, the
existing stormwater management facilities should be maintained to address a portion of the overall
storm water management requirements.

Stormwater Management
With relocation of the onsite athletic fields to ready the site for construction of the Middle School and
construction of additional onsite parking, stormwater management facilities were constructed to meet
the minimum County requirements for stormwater management. Stormwater detention was provided

2‐37

using underground detention in the form of a two 96” diameter corrugated metal pipes. Best
Management Practices (BMP’s) were addressed with the use of a DC Sandfilter, Stormfilters, and
Filterras (water quality inlets). Both SWM detention and BMP’s were located in the transfer site. The
water quality requirement with the site improvements required a 19.1% phosphorous removal and the
stormwater management facilities met this requirement with no surplus capacity for future expansion.

Stormwater detention for the site as summarized in the most recent site plan for the site reflects the
following:

Allowable Runoff:

Q (2‐year) = 20.05 CFS
Q (10‐year) = 26.08 CFS

Calculated Peak Discharge:

Q (2‐year) = 8.17 CFS
Q (10‐year) = 19.61 CFS

As a result, it appears that some over‐detention is occurring within the constructed stormwater
detention facilities which may allow a minor amount of additional impervious area to be constructed
without upgrading the stormwater detention facilities.

Any future site development/expansion would be subject to the storm water management
requirements as identified within the Fairfax County Public Facilities Manual (PFM). These requirements
include both storm water detention (peak flow reduction) and water quality enhancement.

Where possible, the existing stormwater management facilities located beneath the existing parking lots
on the north and east side of the school will be maintained to help address the stormwater detention
requirement. With any future site development, the 2‐year and 10‐year peak flow from the site will
need to be reduced to at or below the existing peak flow for these recurrence interval storms.
Additional onsite measures will be required to address peak flow detention, beyond that which can be
accommodated in the stormwater management conduits that will be maintained.

If the proposed development has a net increase of impervious area less than 20% then the
redevelopment formula can be utilized for computing the BMP requirement of any future site
enhancements:

[1 ‐ 0.9(Ipre/Ipost)] X 100% = % P Removal

If the proposed development has a net increase of impervious area less than 20% then the above
formula can be utilized for computing the BMP requirement.

In order to address the BMP requirement for the site, the following measures may be incorporated:

2‐38

• Utilization of percolation trenches within proposed parking areas to promote
infiltration.
• Utilization of a bioretention filter to promote infiltration.
• Dedication of natural open space (Water Quality Management Area).
• Consideration of green roof elements to promote infiltration.

Verification of the infiltration capacity of the onsite soils is required to analyze the design requirements.

Site Access
There are two main access points to the site. One is located on Leesburg Pike (Route 7) and the other is
at the northeast corner along Haycock Road (Route 703). Additionally, access to the parking lots is
provided off of Leesburg Pike (Route 7) and Haycock Road (Route 703). It is anticipated that the four
entrances will be maintained. Sight distance for the existing entrances will be confirmed with the final
site plan.

The following standard pavement section is assumed for new asphalt access roads and travel aisles
within the parking areas:

Top Course: 1.5” Asphalt Surface Course SM‐9.5A

Environmental

Floodplains
Based on the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Map there are no identified 100‐year
floodplains in the vicinity of the lots that comprise the High School and Middle School Site.

Resource Protection Areas
Resource Protection Area (RPA) is the component of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area comprised
of lands adjacent to water bodies with perennial flow that have an intrinsic water quality value due to
the ecological and biological processes they perform or are sensitive to impacts which may result in
significant degradation of the quality of state waters. In their natural condition, these lands provide for
the removal, reduction, or assimilation of sediments, nutrients, and potentially harmful or toxic
substances from runoff entering the Bay and its tributaries, and minimize the adverse effects of human
activities on state waters and aquatic resources. RPA’s shall include any land characterized by the
following features:

• A tidal wetland.
• A tidal shore.
• A water body with perennial flow.
• A nontidal wetland connected by surface flow and contiguous to a tidal wetland or a
water body with perennial flow.

2‐39

• A buffer area as follows:
Any land with a major floodplain.
Any land within 100 feet within an RPA feature.

RPAs cannot be cleared without special permitting.

Based on the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Map, there are no identified RPAs within the
lots that comprise the High School and Middle School.

Wetlands
There were no identified wetland areas on the site plan for the Middle School. The site should be field
inspected to confirm that the area that will be impacted with construction of any proposed expansion is
void of jurisdictional wetlands. If wetlands are identified, they will be field confirmed by the USACE and
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), surveyed and reflected on a Jurisdictional
Determination (JD) that is approved by the USACE. Disturbance of any wetlands, if identified, will be
avoided to the extent possible with site construction.

2‐40

2‐3 ‐ Facility Evaluation – George Mason High School

George Mason High School

Architectural Assessment

Construction of George Mason High School
was completed in 1954 with several minor
additions over the years and one major
addition in 1994.

Upper Floor: 159,798 SF
Lower Floor: 40,227 SF
Total: 200,025 SF

The current facility is a one‐story building with three sections that have a lower level as the site begins
to slope away from the main level elevation. The current school plan layout is a series of additions to the
original school facility, placed as site availability allowed. As a result, clear circulation for students and
faculty is no longer convenient or comprehensible.

Layout
A total of 5 major ADA‐compliant entrances provide access to the school: two on the south side, two on
the north side, one each on the east and west sides. Other entrances are less convenient for easy entry
and exiting. The building is organized along two major corridors running north‐south and east‐west with
several secondary corridors. Using this corridor framework, the school is divided into 6 major sections
according to educational functions or class programs. The extensive length of the corridor system do to
the fact that it is on one level creates long travel times for students and faculty alike to traverse from
one end of the facility to the other. Minimal signage and like materials also add to the confusion of
wayfinding in the corridor system. Many of the spaces designated as available for public use are
unfortunately positions with little adjacent parking or traffic access to be effectively utilized. An example
of this is the current Auditorium. Public entries from the exterior are ineffective, and interior access for
the public use is limited to one inaccessible vestibule. Floor plates vary in elevation, requiring stairs and
ramp systems to access. As a result, there are areas that are more difficult to utilize.

The corridors are long and relatively low, averaging 7’‐6” from floor to ceiling. Classroom ceilings are
can vary in height, with some current ceilings lower than the adjacent exterior glazing, requiring a step
up bulkhead at areas to transition from the low ceiling to the higher window/ door assembly head. The
school does not have enough storage space. Any under‐utilized room may become a storage space,
which leads to confusion and storage away from the location where items are likely to be utilized.

Classrooms
George Mason has more than 54 classrooms. Room sizes vary from 600 SF to 1,000 SF. There are also 6
classroom trailers on the south side of the school, adjacent to Leesburg Pike (Route 7).

2‐41

Materials
The palette of finishes on the exterior consist of a brick veneer façade with plaster or metal soffit/ fascia
elements at points along the façade. Aluminum windows are comprised of bands of glass from a sill/
counter height to ceiling height, with operable windows in certain locations in each classroom space.
Entry Doors are typically aluminum with glass, or hollow metal doors in more utilitarian areas.
Certain additions consist of a pre‐manufactured building system with white metal panel façade.

Interior finishes include vinyl tiled floors installed over existing terrazzo flooring in many areas. Painted
Concrete Masonry Units (CMU) and glazed CMU wall partitions line the corridors, and there are accents
of face brick and some poured concrete walls, depending on the location. Extensive 2’ x 4’ acoustical
ceilings in a 15/16 inch grid are in the corridor as well. These ceiling tiles are beginning to bow
downward after years of installation and humidity changes. Ceiling systems should at some point be
rehabilitated.

Classroom materials vary from painted Concrete Masonry Units to gypsum board wall partitions.
Generally the material is standing up to daily abuse, but the aesthetic appeal of some of these materials
is less than desirable.

Typical Door systems include a majority of wood veneer doors, some with view glass and some solid, in
painted hollow metal frames, still in good condition for the most part. Hollow metal doors and frames
are also there in special locations.

Codes and Accessibility
• Lighting
The existing general lighting in the school from a design standpoint is not a preferable
solution by today’s standards. The existing lighting acrylic lens fixtures are inefficient from a
light quality standpoint, producing excessive glare for the users both at desktop heights and
at computer screens.
See Electrical Systems below for additional information.

• Acoustics
Overall, the building acoustics are at a minimum. Public spaces such as the food services
areas have acoustical materials that are overtaxed when at full capacity. Corridors have
acoustical ceiling material, but all other hard services serve to increase noise levels at peak
usage. A reevaluation of the theatrical venues should be undertaken to adopt more
contemporary acoustical practices.

• General/Accessibility
In general the building is compliant with the building codes, except a few instances of door
opening clearance or excessive accessible ramp lengths. The auditorium lobby is not
directly ADA‐accessible due to the steps from the school lobby. A person in a wheel chair
needs to either go to the outside and come back in thru the auditorium exterior doors or
move around the other side of the auditorium, passing by a more than 30 ft long ramp and 3
more set of corridor doors. The stage area is not directly accessible to the audience seating
area.

2‐42


Type of Construction
Steel frame and face brick on concrete masonry unit back‐up. Window systems are typically… Except for
a few small areas of flat roof with roofing membrane, the school’s roof is covered with low slope metal
roofing panels. All exterior materials are in an acceptable condition.

User Group and Construction Type
The building is mixed‐use of Groups E (Educational), A‐3 (Gymnasium, Library) and B (Office). The
construction type is 2B.

Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and Life Safety Assessment

Mechanical (HVAC)
The building HVAC system consists of 126 air‐cooled split systems with hot water heat and 46 thru‐the‐
wall incremental A/C units with hot water heat. The system also includes 6 self‐contained roof‐top A/C
units with gas heat and one (1) self‐contained VAV type A/C unit with hot water heat which serves the
POD area. Hot water for heating is provided from two (2) boiler plants.

The split system fan coil units are horizontal type ceiling mounted with a DX cooling coil, a hot water
heating coil and remote air cooled condensing unit (ACCU). The ACCU’s are located on the roof and on
grade outside the building. Approximately 110 of the units serve classrooms, offices and corridors and
range from ½ to 5 tons in capacity. Twelve (12) of the split systems are 100% outside air units which
provide ventilation air to the 110 smaller systems. The six roof top units serve the admin and auditorium
ceilings. The thru‐the‐wall units serve classrooms in wings A and B.

All of the split systems, thru‐the‐wall A/C units and roof top units were installed as part of the 1994
renovations and additions project. They appear to be well maintained and in good condition. The only
issue of concern is related to humidity control problems with the 100% outside air units.

The HVAC systems were upgraded in the laboratory classroom wing A in 2005. The thru‐the‐wall units
were replaced with spit system fan coil units and remote condensing units. The unit provided additional
outside air for the new fume hoods. The HVAC units in wing A (POD area) were replaced in 1998 with a
new self‐contained VAV type A/C unit located on grade.

Boiler Plants
Boiler Plant 1 is located at the west end of the building and consists of two (2) 6275 CFH gas‐fired water
tube boilers. Boiler No. 1 was installed in 1952 and boiler 1A was installed in 1972. One boiler is a
stand‐by. The boilers were re‐tubed during the 1994 renovation project and all of the hot water piping
was replaced. The pumps are original and should be replaced. The plant has two (2) 530 GPM capacity
circulating pumps (one stand‐by).

Boiler Plant 2 is located at the east end of the building and consists of two (2) 3350 CFH gas‐fired York
Shipley steam boilers with a shell and tube hot water heat exchanger. Boiler 2 was installed in mid 80’s
and boiler 2A was installed in 1994. One boiler is a stand‐by.

2‐43


The plant has two (2) 270 GPM capacity end‐section centrifuged circulating pumps (one stand‐by). The
boilers, pumps, exhaust fans and RTU’s are controlled by an Andover/ESI DDC control system. Boiler 2A
and the control system were part of the 1994 renovation; however, the rest of the equipment is part of
the original construction. The plant appears to be in good operating condition.

Miscellaneous
The kitchen hood exhaust air system has a gas‐fired make‐up air system, which were installed as part of
the 1994 addition and alterations project.

Plumbing Systems
The building has a 3” domestic water service which enters the building at boiler plant No. 1. There is no
meter or backflow preventer inside the building.

Domestic hot water is generated by two (2) gas‐fired water heaters. Heater 1 is a 400 gallon, 1000 CFH
gas‐fired unit located in boiler plant No. 1 and serves the kitchen, locker room, toilet facilities and
classrooms on the west 2/3’s of the building. Heater 2 is a 200 gallon, 600 CFH gas‐fired unit located in
boiler plant No. 2 on the east end.

The water piping for both hot and cold water is insulated copper with soldered joint. The hot water
piping has a temperature maintenance system utilizing self‐regulating electric heat tape. All of the
piping was replaced in 1994.

The below grade sanitary and storm water piping is cast iron with hub and spigot joints and is original to
the buildings and additions. Most of the branch piping is new dating from the 1994 renovations. The
kitchen sanitary system has a grease trap located outside below grade.

The building has two (2) low pressure natural gas services. Service no. 1 is 15,619 CFH in capacity and
enters boiler room 1 (west end). The service supplies boilers 1 and 1A, RTU 1 and 2, the domestic water
heater and kitchen equipment. Gas service No. 2 is 8874 CFH in capacity and enters the building at
boiler room 2 (east end). The service supplies boilers 2 and 2A, water heater 2 and RTU’s 3 thru 6.

Fire Protection
The building has a 6” fire service main which enters the building in a sprinkler room located adjacent to
boiler room 1. The fire main supplies water to sprinkler zone control valves located throughout the
building. The building is fully sprinklered by a wet‐pipe system.

The building does not have a fire pump.

Electrical Systems

2‐44

Electrical Service
The existing power company is Dominion Virginia Power. The main building of this school has two (2)
electrical services with a third service for the remote trailers. Service one is provided through a power
company step down pad mounted transformer. This service enters the building at a dedicated electrical
room adjacent to Gymnasium B101. This electrical service was upgraded in 1994. The power company
electric meter is installed outside on the wall of the main electrical room. The existing power company
pad mounted transformer is feeding 277/480 volt, 3000 amp. The existing switchboard is Square‐D,
model QED. There are three sections to this switchgear which include a CT and pull section, 3000A main
service disconnect section and a distribution section. The switchboard has a Square‐D Powerlogic
electronic meter which is not operable. This switchboard has little space left for expansion.

Service two is provided through a power company step down pad mounted transformer. This service
enters the building at a dedicated electrical room E203. This electrical service was added in 1994 as part
of a renovation and addition project. The power company electric meter is installed inside on the wall of
the main electrical room. The existing power company pad mounted transformer is feeding 277/480
volt, 1600 amp. The existing switchboard is Square‐D, model QED. There are three sections to this
switchgear which include a CT and pull section, 1600A main service disconnect section and a distribution
section. The switchboard has a Square‐D Powerlogic electronic meter which is not operable. This
switchboard has space for expansion, however, the service size is small and there may be ampacity
issues.

The existing switchboards do not contain any ground fault protection as per current code requirements.
The existing switchboards do not contain any transient voltage surge suppression. The two (2) main
electrical services are located on remote sides of the building. There is no signage on the switchboards
that indicate that multiple services enter the building or that there are multiple main disconnects as per
code requirements.

Power Distribution System
The existing switchboards serve the entire building through a number of branch circuit panelboards.
Most of the panelboards have been replaced in the 1994 renovation project. There are a few remaining
panelboards from the 1950/1960 era. These areas include in part, boiler rooms and the auditorium.
These panels will be difficult to find parts for any future renovations. If any of the wiring for these panels
is original wiring, then the circuits fed from these panels have reached the end of their useful life. The
kitchen panelboard was never installed properly in the wall. Because of this a panel cover/door cannot
be installed. A make‐shift wood frame with hinges was built over the panel to serve as the panel door.
Typically all of the panels are filled to capacity.

Electrical closets are scattered throughout the school. All of the existing electrical rooms are filled to
capacity. No additional equipment can be added and still meet the working clearance requirements.

Emergency Power Distribution System
The building has a Kohler generator. The generator is rated at 100kW/100kVA, 480/277 volt, 3‐Phase
and has a 150A in‐line circuit breaker. The generator has a sub‐base mounted fuel tank and operates on
diesel gas. The existing generator was installed during 1994 renovation. The existing generator is located
outside of the electrical room adjacent to the Gymnasium. The emergency system is operational;
however, it is not adequate to handle additional loads with the current connected load.

2‐45


The emergency generator feeds a Kohler automatic transfer switch "ATS" which further feeds to panel
EP which contains a 175A main circuit breaker. This equipment is located in the main electrical room
adjacent to the gymnasium. The existing automatic transfer switch and emergency panel were also
installed in 1994, and are in fair condition. The emergency system serves emergency lights, exit lights,
fire alarm system, CATV system, sound system and telephone/communication. In addition, the
generator feeds all the kitchen walk‐in refrigerator/freezers and coolers.

Lighting System
Most of the lighting fixtures were replaced in 1994. Existing lighting fixtures in classroom, media center,
offices and corridors are 2’ X 4’ recessed fluorescent. The fluorescent lights utilize T12 technology which
is old and not energy efficient. The corridors also contain downlights with twin tube fluorescent lamps.
The existing lighting fixtures in the gymnasium are high intensity discharge (HID) fixtures. The lighting
level in classrooms, corridors, and gymnasium is poor. The light fixtures in the cafeteria are a
combination of 2’ X 4’ recessed fluorescent and incandescent downlights. The downlights cannot be
converted to accept fluorescent lamps due to having an odd size lamp socket. Exit lights utilize
fluorescent lamps. Their appearance is old and discolored.

Switching control is through single toggle switches throughout the building with a few motion sensor
switches. This does not meet the current energy efficiency code requirements.

The auditorium has a lighting control system them dates back to 1950/1960’s. This system utilizes old
technology and does not have the flexibility of control as do current systems.

On the exterior, there was an old tennis court that was transformed into a parking lot. The light fixtures
for this area are the original 1950/1960’s fixtures that served the tennis court. The poles are rusted and
the light fixtures are a flood light style that create a substantial amount of light pollution over the
property line and do not provide acceptable lighting levels for parking lots. There are some exit
discharge locations that do not have sufficient emergency egress lighting. The building lacks proper
security lighting around the perimeter of the building. Some of the exterior lights have clearly been
replaced as the existing fixtures that have not been replaced are old, discolored and some are damaged.

Power Outlets
The power outlets located in the classrooms and offices were provided in 1994 addition/renovations.
The original section of the building from the 1950’s had few recessed receptacles. Current power
requirements require more receptacles and circuits. Because of increased requirements surface
mounted conduit and receptacles have been added in offices and classrooms. The auditorium and boiler
rooms have a combination of original receptacles and wiring from the 1950’s and new receptacles that
were added over the years.

In several of the science or technology type classrooms, there are extension cords draped across
ceilings. This should create the need for ceiling mount receptacles or power reels.

2‐46

Fire Alarm System
The existing fire alarm system is an Edwards EST system. The control panel is less than 10 years old. The
devices were upgraded in 1994. The existing fire alarm control panel is located in the main office. The
building is sprinklered and flow and tamper switches are tied to the fire alarm system. There are pull
stations at all of the exits. The entire school has audio/visual notification devices throughout.
Notification is delivered through horns and strobes. There are fire alarm bells from pre‐1994 work that
are connected to the fire alarm system.

Sound System
The existing sound system console manufactured by Dukane is located in the main office. Booster panels
are installed throughout the facility. The existing sound system main equipment was installed in 1994.
The classrooms have surface mounted speakers and call back switches. Corridors and cafeteria have
surface mount bull horns.

There is an auxiliary sound reinforcement system in the gymnasium.

Telephone/ CATV and Intercommunications Systems
The existing main CATV HUB is located in the existing communication room. All the existing
telephone/data outlets are surface mounted. Most of the classrooms have one telephone and one data
outlet, but some classrooms have one telephone and two data outlets. Data wiring is CAT 5 type. There
are computer data repeaters installed throughout the facility in corridors surface mounted on walls.
These do not provide for a clean and neat installation and are prone to damage based on their location.

There are telephone data closets throughout the facility. These rooms share CATV, telephone punch
blocks and backboard and data racks. The rooms are filled to capacity.

Master Clock and Program Bell System
The master clock system is integral with the Dukane sound system located in the main office.

Building Security System
The school is equipped with an access control and closed caption television (CCTV) security system. The
system is web based with control panels in various locations. There are card readers at each entrance
and security cameras located in corridors and at exterior exits. There is a video monitoring station in the
school.

Hazardous Materials Assessment

F&R surveyed George Mason High School to identify ACM, LBP and suspect PCB and mercury containing
equipment utilizing non‐destructive sampling. The following paragraphs summarize the findings:

• F&R identified asbestos‐containing mirror mastic in Rooms B104 and E149.
• F&R identified asbestos‐containing 12”x12” black vinyl floor tile and associated mastic in the
auditorium loft.
• F&R identified asbestos‐containing saddle block insulation in Boiler Room E007.
• F&R identified asbestos‐containing window caulk throughout the exterior of the school.

2‐47

• F&R observed suspect asbestos‐containing mudded pipe fittings in the hallway outside
Room F001.
• F&R observed suspect asbestos‐containing metal fire doors throughout the building.
• F&R identified boilers with presumed asbestos‐containing interior components in the B‐
Wing Boiler Room.
• F&R identified three elevators throughout the school presumed to contain asbestos‐
containing interior and shaft components.
• F&R identified water fountains throughout the building that are presumed to contain
asbestos‐containing pipe wrap.
• F&R assumed the gymnasium floor felt paper and mastic to be asbestos‐containing.
• F&R identified areas of lead based paint throughout the school.
• F&R observed mercury‐containing thermostats in the B‐Wing Boiler Room and Maintenance
Office.
• F&R visually inspected the light ballasts throughout the school. Based on our inspection,
there does not appear to be any regulated hazardous materials within these ballasts.

Asbestos‐Containing Material
During F&R’s non‐destructive survey for ACM the following materials were sampled: vinyl floor tiles and
associated mastics, ceiling tile, vinyl covebase mastic, white duct seam sealant, grey duct seam sealant,
wall plaster, slate window sills, drywall and associated joint compound, carpet mastic, saddle block
insulation, window caulk, blackboard mastic, siding material, mirror mastic, ceiling tile mastic and
flooring material. The following materials were determined to be asbestos‐containing: 12”x12” black
vinyl floor tile and associated black mastic, saddle block insulation, window caulk and black mirror
mastic. F&R presumed the following materials to be asbestos‐containing: mudded pipe fittings, metal
fire doors, interior boiler components (B‐Wing Boiler Room only), fume hood panels, interior
elevator/elevator shaft components, water fountain pipe wrap, hardwood floor felt paper and mastic
and the main stage curtain.

F&R identified approximately 400 square feet of asbestos‐containing mirror mastic in Rooms B104 and
E149. This material was observed in good condition at the time of the survey. F&R identified
approximately 150 square feet of 12”x12” black vinyl floor tile and associated black mastic in the
auditorium loft. This material was observed in good condition at the time of the survey. F&R identified
approximately 10 square feet of asbestos‐containing saddle block insulation on the hot water tank in
Boiler Room E007. This material was observed in poor condition at the time of the survey. F&R
identified approximately 500 linear feet of remnant window caulking throughout the exterior of the
school. This material was observed in fair condition at the time of the survey.

F&R observed approximately 10 mudded pipe fittings outside Room F001 that are presumed to be
asbestos‐containing. These fittings were observed in good condition at the time of the survey. For the
purposes of this study, F&R assumes that there are approximately 500 mudded pipe fittings located
behind solid walls and ceilings and within pipe chases throughout the building. F&R observed 22 metal
fire doors throughout the school that are presumed to be asbestos‐containing. The doors were observed
in good condition at the time of the survey. F&R observed two boilers located in the B‐Wing Boiler
Room that are presumed to contain asbestos‐containing interior components. These interior
components were inaccessible at the time of the survey. F&R observed approximately 200 square feet

2‐48

of presumed asbestos‐containing fume hood panels in Rooms A121, A124, A126 and A127. The fume
hood panels were observed in good condition at the time of the survey. F&R identified three elevators
located throughout the school that are presumed to contain asbestos‐containing interior and shaft
components. These materials include elevator brakes, elevator cab insulation, elevator shaft walls and
spray‐on fireproofing located in the elevator shaft. The interior elevator components and elevator shaft
were inaccessible at the time of our inspection. F&R observed approximately 20 water fountains
located throughout the building. These water fountains are assumed to contain asbestos‐containing
pipe wrap. The water fountain pipe wrap was inaccessible at the time of our inspection. F&R assumed
the approximately 5,000 square foot gymnasium floor to have asbestos‐containing felt paper and mastic
associated with it. The felt paper and mastic was inaccessible at the time of our inspection. F&R
assumed that the approximately 2,500 square foot stage curtain in the auditorium is asbestos‐
containing. This material was observed in good condition at the time of the survey.

As part of this study, F&R reviewed an Asbestos Management Plan for the school, prepared by
Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) and dated May 13, 2003. The PSI report identified the
following asbestos‐containing materials within the school, all of which were presumed asbestos‐
containing: metal fire doors and mudded pipe fittings. F&R observed these materials within the school
during our survey.

F&R recommends that all of the identified ACM be removed by a Commonwealth of Virginia licensed
asbestos abatement contractor prior to impact by renovation or demolition activities. Furthermore, all
suspect ACM that has not been previously sampled should be analyzed for asbestos prior to impact by
renovation or demolition activities. Additionally, F&R recommends that the 2003 Asbestos
Management Plan be updated as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) requires that
these plans be updated every three years.

Lead Based Paint
F&R conducted a LBP screening of the painted surfaces located throughout the interior of George
Mason High School. LBP was identified on the following building components: grey cinderblock walls in
the auditorium, grey wood baseboards in the auditorium, white metal I‐beams and ducts in the
gymnasium and white metal window lintels in the gymnasium. Since this was a limited LBP survey
additional LBP surfaces may be present that were not tested. All painted surfaces should be assumed to
contain LBP or lead‐containing paint.

In general, if structures are to be removed or demolished, typical demolition techniques can be used
without LBP becoming an issue of concern. However, if building components containing LBP are to be
stripped and repainted, precautions would need to be taken. Specifically, if these building components
are to be sanded, abraded or heated to remove the LBP, workers trained in LBP removal should be
contracted for the work. At this time, F&R believes that the presence of LBP will have only minimal
impact to the project, primarily with contractor compliance with current OSHA regulations.

Mercury‐Containing Equipment
F&R identified 7 thermostats that contained mercury‐containing switches. These thermostats were
observed in the B‐Wing Boiler Room and in the Maintenance Office. Fluorescent light tubes were also
inspected for the presence of mercury. All of the fluorescent light tubes observed by F&R contained the
low‐mercury symbol. Under Virginia regulations, light tubes with the low mercury symbol can be
disposed of as general waste provided that proper documentation can be provided by the manufacturer

2‐49

that these tubes do not contain regulated levels of mercury. Therefore, the fluorescent light tubes are
not likely a concern at this property; however some fluorescent light tubes with regulated levels of
mercury may still remain within the school.

PCB‐Containing Equipment
F&R visually surveyed a representative number of light ballasts throughout George Mason High School.
All of the light ballasts observed contained the “No PCB” label and therefore PCB‐containing ballasts are
not likely a concern at this property; however some PCB‐containing ballasts may still remain within the
school. No other potential PCB‐containing equipment was observed by F&R.

Cost Estimates
F&R has developed conceptual cost estimates for the abatement of hazardous materials associated with
major and minor renovations at George Mason High School. F&R is assuming that no work is to be
conducted on the roof.

“Minor Renovation” Cost Estimate:
• Mirror Mastic – Approximately 400 square feet of asbestos‐containing mirror mastic was
observed in Rooms B104 and E149. F&R assumes a cost of $3.00 per square foot for
abatement of the mirror mastic for a total cost of $1,200.
• 12”x12” Black Vinyl Floor Tile and Associated Mastic – Approximately 150 square feet of
asbestos‐containing 12”x12” black vinyl floor tile and associated mastic was observed in the
auditorium loft. F&R assumes a total cost of $1,500.00 for abatement of the 12”x12” black
vinyl floor tile and associated mastic.
• Window Caulk – Approximately 500 linear feet of asbestos‐containing window caulk was
observed throughout the exterior of the school. F&R assumes a cost of $10.00 a linear foot
for abatement of the window caulk for a total cost of $5,000.
• Metal Fire Doors – F&R observed 22 metal fire doors throughout the building that are
assumed to be asbestos‐containing. F&R assumes an abatement cost of $100.00 per door
for a total abatement cost of $2,200.00.
• Fume Hood Panels – F&R observed approximately 200 square feet of fume hood panels in
Rooms A121, A124, A126 and A127 assumed to be asbestos‐containing. F&R assumes a cost
of $10.00 per square foot for abatement of the fume hood panels for a total cost of $2,000.
• Gymnasium Floor Felt Paper and Mastic – F&R assumed the approximately 5,000 square
foot gymnasium floor to contain asbestos containing felt paper and mastic. F&R assumes a
cost of $5.00 a square foot for abatement of this material for a total cost of $25,000.
• Lead Based Paint – F&R assumes that structures containing LBP can be renovated or
demolished utilizing typical demolition techniques without LBP becoming an issue of
concern.

The total estimated cost for the removal of identified and suspected hazardous materials associated
with a minor renovation at George Mason High School is $34,900. F&R typically adds an additional 25%
contingency to estimates such as these. Other costs typically associated with the abatement of these
materials would include abatement design, project management, and oversight/monitoring of the work
which are generally estimated to be 15 to 25% of the abatement costs. The total estimated costs to
remove the identified and suspected hazardous materials associated with a minor renovation at George
Mason High School, including the 25% contingency fee and design, project management and

2‐50

oversight/monitoring fees ranges up to $54,531.

“Major Renovation” Cost Estimate (Estimate also includes abatement of the hazardous materials
referenced in the “minor renovation” cost estimate section):
• Saddle Block Insulation – Approximately 10 square feet of asbestos‐containing saddle block
insulation was observed in Boiler Room E007. F&R assumes a total of $1,500.00 for
abatement of the saddle block insulation.
• Mudded Pipe Fittings – F&R observed approximately 10 mudded pipe fittings adjacent to
Room F001 that are assumed to be asbestos‐containing. For the purposes of this study, F&R
assumes that approximately 500 mudded pipe fittings are located throughout the school
behind solid ceilings and walls and within pipe chases. An abatement cost of $50.00 per
fitting is assumed for a total cost of $25,000 for abatement of the fittings.
• Interior Boiler Components – F&R observed two boilers in the B‐Wing Boiler Room assumed
to contain asbestos‐containing interior components. F&R assumes a cost of $2,500 per
boiler for abatement of these components for a total cost of $5,000.
• Interior Elevator and Elevator Shaft Components – There are three elevators located
throughout the school. F&R assumed that interior components within the elevators and
shafts are asbestos‐containing. These materials include elevator brakes, elevator cab
insulation, elevator shaft walls and spray‐on fireproofing located in the elevator shaft. F&R
assumes a cost of approximately $10,000 per elevator for abatement for a total cost of
$30,000.
• Water Fountain Pipe Wrap – F&R observed approximately 20 water fountains located
throughout the building assumed to contain asbestos‐containing pipe wrap. F&R assumes a
cost of $250.00 per water fountain for abatement of this material for a total cost of $5,000.
• Mercury‐Containing Thermostats – F&R observed 7 mercury‐containing thermostats
throughout the school. F&R assumes that removal of the thermostats will be approximately
$1,500.00.

with a major renovation at George Mason High School is $102,900. F&R typically adds an additional 25%
contingency to estimates such as these. Other costs typically associated with the abatement of these
materials would include abatement design, project management, and oversight/monitoring of the work
which are generally estimated to be 15 to 25% of the abatement costs. The total estimated costs to
remove the identified and suspected hazardous materials associated with a major renovation at George
Mason High School, including the 25% contingency fee and design, project management and
oversight/monitoring fees ranges up to $160,781.

Technology Assessment

Eperitus surveyed George Mason High School to determine instructional technology capabilities and
network resources. The school is clearly taking advantage of using as many technology related resources
as possible and is in a constant state of upgrades. These upgrades include additional network cabling,
LCD projectors, and speakers for computer presentations. Wireless and wired networking was evident
throughout the building. While the network and other resources are available and being used, there are
definite concerns for their future viability. The key concerns are as follows:

2‐51


• Most installations appeared to have been done in‐house rather than through outside
vendors or contractors. This in itself is not an issue; however, the installation standards and
potential code infractions are numerous.
• Networking cabling types should not be mixed and present reliability problems for network
communications. There is a mix of older category 5 cabling with newer category 5e data
cabling and components. Neither of these are considered state of the art for today’s school
installations. This cable plant may have five more years at most of serviceable time and will
prove to deliver inadequate and unreliable bandwidth for instructional needs.
• There is absolutely no spare capacity in the building for additional cabling. As it is, when the
time comes to upgrade the cabling in the school, all abandoned cabling will need to be
removed per code requirements. This has two major implications:
• The upgrade will require that the existing network be completely removed prior to
being able to install a new network with new cabling. In all likelihood, this means a
major summer project.
• There will be significant additional expense to remove all of the old cabling and
components.
• Old and abandoned cabling and raceways exist in many locations, notably science labs.
These need to be removed.
• LCD projectors are being retrofitted into classrooms and the cabling for these units is simply
being “fished” through holes in the ceiling tiles and left exposed down walls. Aside from the
hazards of inadvertently catching these cables and pulling down tiles and other overhead
devices and structures, the cabling is questionable as far as its plenum rating.
• The 4:3 ratio format of the LCD projectors and screens being used to retrofit classrooms is
being discontinued by manufacturers and broadcasters. The new 16:9 ratio is replacing that
format. This can be seen by the screen on new laptops. At the least, future screens should
be wider to accommodate these longer/wider images.
• Wireless access points are placed in a number of locations and are deployed through various
means. In some cases they have AC power adapters that are connected somewhere above
ceiling, potentially with extension cords. Other installations include wireless access points
with power injectors being used in the data closets. Neither situation is ideal by today’s
standards, although the latter is not a violation of code requirements.
• Management and reliability of these older wireless access points appears to be an issue
given the number of them that are missing or where locations have “extras” being plugged
in and left sitting on shelves or other locations rather than being permanently mounted.
Current wireless deployments should include centrally managed “dumb” access points being
connected to wireless switches with power over Ethernet (PoE) network ports. This would
eliminate the less than desirable installations mentioned in #6 while providing a very
reliable wireless network.
• The continuous addition of data and AV wiring has created hazards for people and
equipment within the classrooms and labs due to unprotected cables hanging from walls
and counters. These cables are also on floors without protection such as “speed bump”
enclosures. Numerous other cables were observed spilling over into lab sinks. While the
electrical current in these cables is considered relatively harmless to humans, the cable does
present an electrical pathway that could harm the entire network if exposed to water and
high voltages.

2‐52

• The data and telecommunications closets and spaces were not designed with their current
uses in mind. Temperature and dust/debris control is severely lacking, which is shortening
the life span of the network and systems in these spaces. The spaces are getting excessively
hot and the situation is being made worse by clogged vent openings on the equipment due
to dust and lint that are preventing ventilation of the equipment itself. Some closets are
retrofitted with disposable air filters on the doors, which is helping on the dust control but it
is not adequately helping the temperature control required.
• Documentation of the school’s network at a building level is needed. There are numerous
instances of cables and connections throughout the building that would be extremely
difficult to trace without a network map. When these connections stop functioning due to
being unplugged or equipment failure, they can bring the entire school network down.
These points of potential failure need to be documented in order to help minimize
instructional and network downtime.
• Newer remodeled science labs have new lab tables/furniture that are situated with access
pedestals for data, electrical, and propane/natural gas. Surge protector strips are being
plugged into these pedestals via hinged metal doors that are not designed to accommodate
these cords. This is presenting a potentially hazardous situation with electrical cords getting
“pinched” and exposing the electrical wires to humans or metal, which could produce a
lethal electrical shock.

Findings and Recommendations – George Mason High School

Site
The combined high/middle school site has some buildable area, but is limited by Fairfax County FAR and
current athletic uses.

Capacity and Operational
• Maximum Capacity – 1055 (as‐is). Forecasted 8‐12 will be 900 (2018) to 1,000 (2028)
students. Classrooms and core areas more conducive to programmatic and community use
functions are needed.
• George Mason High currently operates on about a PTR of 20:1 in the core academic
curriculum, with some classes more in line with the state average PTR of 24:1.
• The elective and CTE courses tend to run well below the 20:1 PTR, with some courses
utilizing large areas of space for smaller groups of students not even 75% of the time.
• The facility’s physical layout, with several level changes, makes it difficult to group
classroom areas in various configurations – so interdisciplinary instruction would be difficult
as best. Therefore, trailers are being used for classroom instruction when there is available
space within the building.
• There are little or no resources areas for teachers to work together close to their classroom
area. There are little or no designated conference areas that could be used for a variety of
staff and student uses. The administration office is remote from staff and students.
• There is no sense of arrival or clear entry to the facility. Hallways are small, there are many
dead‐end corridors, and the general layout is confusing. This could present a safety issue.
• Huge demand for technology labs and technology in general that is not available.
• If all courses taught off campus were to be brought back ‘home’ there would need to be
consideration for their space.

2‐53

• There is no space for the entire student body to gather at one time. General purpose areas
(cafeteria, etc.) are well used for other‐than‐intended purpose.
• A community television station uses a large amount of building space and there are several
district‐wide functions that have their home in the confines of the facility, so it is unavailable
for instructional purposes.

Architectural
• Constructed in several phases, the facility has issues with adjacencies, way‐finding,
accessibility, and site circulation.
• Single story footprint takes up valuable site area ‐ excessive travel distances and times
• Current conglomeration of additions creates unappealing aesthetics. Ceiling heights and
configurations in corridors have odd proportions. Modular structures are utilized away
from the main facility.
• Auditorium space inadequate for large student attendance.
• Public access to facility is unclear at some points and inconvenient at other points.
Multiple entry access points create confusion and security issues.
• Out of date sports spaces
• Lighting quality needs upgrading‐ general and task oriented

Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, and Life Safety
• All of the split systems and roof top units utilize R22 refrigerant, which is being phased out.
The use of this refrigerant will no longer be allowed by 2010 and will be difficult to obtain.
• All of the split systems, incremental units and roof top units have reached their reasonable
life expectancy of 15 to 20 years.
• Boilers 1 and 1A, originally installed in 1952 and mid 70’s respectively, have been rebuilt and
prepared, but have far surpassed their reasonable life expectancy of 25 to 30 years. They
should be replaced with more energy efficient units.
• The pumps in boiler room 1 are original to the 1952 construction, are in poor condition and
should be replaced.
• The equipment in boiler room 2, except for boiler 2A installed in 1994, has reached or
surpassed their reasonable life expectancy of 25 to 30 years.
• The twelve (12) 100% outdoor air units providing ventilation air to the classrooms do not
provide proper de‐humidification control. These units should be replaced with energy
recovery type units to provide ‘neutral’ air to the heat pump units in each classroom.
• The existing switchboards are functioning. Switchboard 1 does not have space for future
expansion and also does not have space for future expansion. Switchboard 2 does not have
space for future expansion and is not sized to accommodate future expansions. In the event
of a renovation it is recommended that one or both of the switchboards be replaced.
• The existing distribution system is functioning, however the original base building panel
manufacturer is no longer in business and replacement parts are not available. The
panelboards also do not have many spare circuit breakers. In the event of a complete
renovation it is recommended that the power distribution equipment be replaced.
• The building emergency generator is in working condition. The generator is not adequate to
handle additional loads with the current connected load. In the event of a complete

2‐54

renovation, it is recommended that a new properly sized generator and distribution
equipment be installed for the entire building.
• The existing lighting system is old and does not meet current code requirements and lighting
guidelines. It is recommended to provide new energy efficient fixtures with T8 lamps and
electronic ballasts. It is also recommended that exterior lighting be replaced to meet school
security lighting requirements and exit egress requirements. The auditorium lighting and
lighting control system need to be replaced.

Hazardous Materials
Although there were areas that were not able to be inspected for hazardous materials, the age and type
of structure led the hazardous materials specialists to conclude that elevator shafts, water fountains,
and some pipe insulation is likely to contain asbestos.
• HazMat – “Minor Renovation” Abatement Cost: $54,531.
• “Major Renovation” Abatement Cost: $160,781.

Technology
The George Mason High School employs a significant amount of instructional technologies throughout
the building. Many of the resources used are standalone units, such as LCD projectors; however, the
data network that is providing connectivity for all students and faculty is in need of a complete
replacement soon. Due to code requirements, all old cabling would have to be removed as a part of the
process. The initial cost estimate to provide a replacement cabling infrastructure would be in excess of
$750,000, potentially reaching a million dollars. Instructional technology resources are not consistent
throughout the building. Classrooms have varying levels of resources be they electronic boards, LCD
projectors, or sound systems. It does appear that efforts are being made to provide parity between
classrooms and departments, but there is a long way to go. At the same time, advancing technologies
and the declining service life of existing technology devices are outpacing the efforts to provide parity.
Some trip and snag hazards exist that need to be rectified to prevent human or equipment damage
through accidents.

Summary
This facility has numerous issues, both operational and in the infrastructure, that would be costly, or
logistically impossible to repair. While satisfactory for current operations, this facility will require
considerable investment to infrastructure which will do nothing to expand capacity.

2‐55


This page intentionally left blank.

2‐56

2‐3 ‐ Facility Evaluations – Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School
Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School


Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School
was built in 2004/2005 and opened
for the 2005/2006 school year to
accommodate middle school
students relocating from spaces in
the adjacent George Mason High
School. The building consists of the
following floor plates:

Cellar floor: 27,612 SF
1st floor: 37,281 SF
2nd floor: 31,726 SF
3rd floor: 32,169 SF
Total: 128,788 SF

Layout
Two major entrances are located on the north and south side of the building. They serve as main access
to the school for students and teachers. These entrances are accessible. The main controlled entrance is
on the south side and serves as the public entrance for the school, and for athletic events in the
gymnasium on the cellar level below. A museum display area is incorporated into the lobby space. Mary
Ellen Henderson is organized along a main north‐south corridor. Central stairs connect all three above‐
ground floors. Immediate access to outdoor play areas is convenient for students and staff. Classrooms
designated for each grade area are grouped around an administrative area and a central gathering space
for group events. Floor plates are flat and have no level changes that require transition ramps and stairs
to access.

Classrooms
The school has 46 classrooms. Room sizes vary from 600 SF to 1,000 SF.

Materials
The palette of exterior finishes includes face brick of varying colors and split face concrete masonry
units. Clear aluminum colored metal accents accentuates the horizontality of the window configurations
and roof lines. Individual window units consisting of aluminum frames and insulated glazing are situated
in a regular rhythm in the façade. There is typically an operable window spaced out along the façade.
Certain areas of the façade have painted metal panels as accents.

Interior finishes include resilient flooring and base, painted concrete masonry unit corridors and 2’x4’
acoustical ceiling tiles in 15/16 metal grid. Half height metal lockers are positioned in the gathering areas
for each grade. Administrative areas and some public areas such as the Media Center include painted

2‐57

gypsum board wall partitions, all with 2’x4’ ceiling tile. These areas are carpeted and contribute to noise
reduction.

Classrooms
Typical class spaces incorporate resilient flooring and base, painted concrete masonry unit partitions
and 2’x4’ acoustical ceiling tile. Each class space has access to exterior windows and an operable
window.

Typical Doors
Exterior doors are either aluminum doors or frames with glass inserts or painted hollow metal doors and
frames, some with glass inserts. Typical interior doors consist of wood veneer doors with glass inserts

Lighting
The typical lighting for the Middle School is acrylic lens fixtures, which produces excessive glare for tasks
and computer use in many areas. The main north south corridor incorporates cove lighting and display
accent lighting. See Electrical Systems below for additional information

Acoustics
Many of the surfaces in the facility are hard for durability over time. The remaining acoustical materials
must compensate for the majority of hard surfaces reflecting sound when fully occupied. Carpet in some
areas assists in noise reduction.

Steel frame and face brick or split face brick on concrete masonry unit back‐up. Window systems are
typically aluminum framing and insulated glazing. Roof construction consists of single ply roofing. All
exterior materials are still in good shape due to the newness of the facility.

The building is mixed‐use of Groups E (Educational), A‐3 (Gymnasium) and B (Office). The construction
type is 2A protected.


Mechanical (HVAC)
The HVAC system consisting of twelve (12) self‐contained, air cooled roof‐top A/C units with gas heat
and one (1) modular indoor air handling unit with DC cooling and remote air cooled condenser. The
indoor air handling unit has a gas furnace for heating.

Nine (9) of the roof‐top units are variable air volume (VAV) type units which serve classrooms and
administration space on floors 1, 2 and 3. The units supply air to powered type VAV terminals (with
electric heat) which control the temperature in their respective room or zone. The other four (4) roof‐
top units are constant volume type units and serve the gymnasium and cafeteria. The split system
serves all spaced on the cellar level.

The controls are electronic / DDC type with a Tracer 1000 energy management system.

2‐58


Plumbing
The building has a 3” domestic water service with meter and back flow preventer in cellar mechanical
room.

Domestic hot water is generated by two (2) 250 gallon 570 MBH gas fired PVI water heaters.

The building has a sewage ejector to pump the effluent to the gravity sewer on site.

Fire Protection
The building has a 6” fire service main and fire pump located on the cellar level. The building is fully
sprinklered by a wet‐pipe system.

Electrical Systems

Electrical Service
The existing power company is Dominion Virginia Power. The electrical service is provided through a
power company step down pad mounted transformer. This service enters the building at the main
electrical room. This electrical service was added in 2004. The power company electric meter is installed
inside on the wall of the main electrical room. The existing power company pad mounted transformer is
feeding 277/480 volt, 4000 amp. There are five (5) sections to this switchgear which include a CT and
pull section, 1600A main service disconnect section, 2500A main service disconnect section and two (2)
distribution sections. The switchboard has an electronic meter which is currently reading 213kW
demand load. This switchboard has space for expansion.

The existing switchboard serves the entire building through a number of branch circuit panelboards. The
panelboards have approximately 25% spare capacity for future upgrades.

The building has a Cummins/ONAN generator. The generator is rated at 39kW, 480/277 volt, 3‐Phase
and has a 50A in‐line circuit breaker. The generator operates on natural gas. The existing generator was
installed during 2004. The existing generator is located outside of the electrical room. The emergency
system is operational. The emergency generator feeds a Cummins automatic transfer switch "ATS"
which further feeds to panel EMH. This equipment is located in the main electric room. The existing
automatic transfer switch and emergency panel were also installed in 2004, and are in good condition.
The emergency system serves emergency lights, exit lights, fire alarm system, CATV system, sound
system and telephone/communication.
Lighting System
All of the lighting fixtures were installed in 2005. Existing lighting fixtures in classroom, media center,
offices and corridors are recessed fluorescent. The fluorescent lights utilize T8 technology and are
energy efficient. The existing lighting fixtures in the gymnasium are (8) lamp 42W compact fluorescent

2‐59

fixtures. The lighting fixtures are clean and in good condition. The lighting levels throughout the school
are good. Exit lights utilize LED lamps.

Switching control is through motion sensor switches and meets the current energy efficiency code
requirements.

The exterior lighting fixtures are in good condition and provide acceptable lighting levels.

Fire Alarm System
The existing fire alarm system is an Edwards system installed in 2005. The existing fire alarm control
panel is located in the security control room. The building is sprinklered and flow and tamper switches
are tied to the fire alarm system. There are pull stations at all of the exits. The entire school has
audio/visual notification devices throughout. Notification is delivered through horns and strobes.

Sound System
The existing sound system console manufactured by Bogen is located in the main office. Booster panels
The classrooms have recessed mounted speakers and call back switches. Corridors and cafeteria have
recessed speakers. The system is in good condition.

There is an auxiliary sound reinforcement system in the gymnasium.

The existing main CATV HUB is located in the existing communication room. Most of the classrooms
have one (1) telephone and two (2) data outlets. The system is in good condition.

The master clock system is integral with the Bogen sound system located in the main office.

school. The system is in good condition.

Summary
• The HVAC system was installed in 2005 and is in excellent condition.
• The plumbing systems were installed in 2005 and are in excellent condition.
• The sprinkler system was installed in 2005 and is in excellent condition.
• The school was built in 2005. All of the systems have spare capacity or can easily be
upgraded to accommodate future renovations and additions barring any new technology
that would make any systems obsolete. Estimating, using Means Watts/square foot tables,
the electrical service can handle an addition of up to 15,000 SF.

2‐60


F&R surveyed Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School to identify ACM, LBP and suspect PCB and mercury
containing equipment utilizing non‐destructive sampling. The following paragraphs summarize their
findings:

• F&R did not identify any ACM within the school.
• F&R did not identify any LBP within the school.
• F&R did not identify any suspect PCB or mercury‐containing equipment within the
school.

During F&R’s limited non‐destructive survey for ACM the following materials were sampled: ceiling tile,
spray‐on fireproofing, white duct seam sealant, grey duct seam sealant, vinyl covebase mastic and
drywall and associated joint compound. None of the materials sampled were determined to be
asbestos‐containing.

As part of this study, F&R reviewed a letter from the architect of record, Beery Rio Architecture +
Interiors. The letter stated that to the best of Beery Rio’s knowledge, no asbestos‐containing materials
or lead based paints were specified for use in the school and that none of these materials were used in
the construction of the building. Based upon F&R’s survey findings, the 2005 construction date of the
building and the letter issued by Beery Rio; F&R does not consider ACM to be a concern at Mary Ellen
Henderson Middle School.

Lead Based Paint
F&R conducted a limited LBP screening of the painted surfaces within Mary Ellen Henderson Middle
School. None of the surfaces analyzed during the screening were identified as containing LBP. This
analysis confirms the use of non‐off‐gassing paint throughout this school, as documented in the
previously referenced letter from Beery Rio. F&R does not consider LBP to be a concern at Mary Ellen
Henderson Middle School.

F&R did not identify any equipment likely to contain regulated amounts of mercury at Mary Ellen
Henderson Middle School. All of the thermostats observed within the school were electronic, indicating
that they do not contain regulated levels of mercury. Fluorescent light tubes were also inspected for the
presence of mercury. All of the fluorescent light tubes observed by F&R contained the low‐mercury
symbol. Under Virginia regulations, light tubes with the low mercury symbol can be disposed of as
general waste provided that proper documentation can be provided by the manufacturer that these
tubes do not contain regulated levels of mercury. Therefore, the fluorescent light tubes are not likely a
concern at this property.

F&R visually surveyed the fluorescent light ballasts within Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School for the
presence of the “No PCB” label. All of the ballasts observed by F&R contained the “No PCB” label and
based on the 2005 construction date of the building, F&R does not believe PCB‐containing ballasts are a
concern at this school. No other potential PCB‐containing equipment was observed by F&R.

2‐61


Cost Estimates
Based upon our survey findings, F&R does not consider the presence of ACM, LBP or PCB and mercury
containing equipment to have a cost impact of renovation activities at Mary Ellen Henderson Middle
School.


Eperitus surveyed Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School to determine instructional technology
capabilities and network resources. The school’s relatively new construction suggested that the
infrastructure was in the best shape of the school division. This was found to be the case. The following
observations were made:

• The school makes use of video cameras and DVRs as part of its security system. The main
office has good visibility of the main entrance via large flat panel monitors.
• Category 5e cabling was consistently used throughout the school. While this is not the state
of the art for today’s school construction projects, this is an appropriate solution for a
middle school of its age. The infrastructure should suffice for the anticipated cabling needs
of the students, faculty, and staff over the next ten (10) years, after which wireless
networking will most likely provide the bulk of everyone’s data communications needs.
• The originally installed data and technology infrastructure is neatly bundled, secured, and
labeled. Infrastructure maintained in this way is more reliable, lasts longer, and is subject to
less damage. The network electronics installers/vendors were not as meticulous in their
installation procedures. The provided cable management devices were not used and cabling
is haphazardly strung between equipment and patch panels.
• The server room location includes data cabling terminations that are missing faceplates,
which is further exposing the network to potential downtime due to broken connections.
• Post construction data cabling installation is evident with wires being pulled through ceiling
tiles and ceiling grid openings. This is suggesting that the network documentation for the
school is not up‐to‐date, which is going to lead to network repair and maintenance
problems in the future.
• The school uses numerous wireless laptops distributed via rolling carts. These units depend
upon the fixed wireless access points in the school, which highlights the need for a reliable
wireless data network.
• Wireless access points were clearly planned for in this school prior to construction and many
are evident. In many cases these units are neatly connected and mounted to walls;
however, additional units have been connected. These add‐on units are not being secured in
a similar fashion as the original. This provides additional problems for network uptime and
performance for the users. This also indicates that decentralized wireless access points are
being used rather than the current technology that uses centrally managed access points.
Centrally managed access points perform better for the users and provide significantly
higher security.
• The school has high‐end video and audio recording rooms and capability.

2‐62

• Currently classrooms are outfitted with traditional television monitors on ceiling mounted
brackets. The televisions are fed by an internal coaxial cable system that is supported by
individual classroom VCRs. Many of the television connections for coax and electrical were
not placed appropriately near the television mounting locations. A better solution is a
challenge at this point; however, there are numerous cables subject to damage between the
wall and television, as well as cables hanging below the VDR shelves.
• Audio support for projectors and classrooms (teacher voices and presentations) were not
planned for in the new construction. This may become an important issue as the classroom
televisions begin to be replaced with either LCD projectors or flat panel displays.
• The research lab classroom has a mobile Hitachi Starboard (interactive whiteboard) that has
a ceiling mounted projector feeding its image. There was a coordination issue with the
projector placement relative to the electrical outlet. The electrical cord is “fished up”
through a metal knockout in the mounting plate into the ceiling voice, and then poked out
through the ceiling tile to be plugged into the outlet. (There are other locations in the school
division with similar installations.) There are several potential hazards associated with this:
a) the electrical cord is not rated for plenum spaces, b) the cord is not protected from wear
on the metal plate and is subject to shorting out if the cable jacket is compromised. The
solution is to have the electrical outlet relocated into the mounting plate as originally
intended.
• Also in the research lab classroom, the AV connections originally installed for the teacher’s
computer hookup are not being used. Other non‐plenum AV cables are pulled up through
the ceiling tile/grid to establish the needed connections.
• Mixed brands of network switch gear are being used in this new school. This prevents the
network from being as fully managed as it could be.
• The main electrical room on the basement level contains the primary data entrance facilities
for the school network. It is never advisable to locate these services in an electrical room as
the electrical noise interferes with data communications.
• Surge protectors for the data network in the main electrical room have been wire tied to
bundles of the telephone cables. This may be done to keep them off the floor in case of
flooding or other cleaning, but this practice poses damage potential for the telephone
cabling in a short period of time – the weight will break the copper cabling inside of the
cable jacket.
• The learning space adjacent to the media center offices includes a ceiling mounted projector
and motorized screen. The projector appears to have been installed after the main
construction of the building due to the looped electrical cord (pokes up through the ceiling
tile and back out at another ceiling tile location where an outlet is installed). The projector
has a noticeable vibration when the mechanical system is running. This would indicate a lack
of vibration isolators at either or both of the projector mount and air handler locations.
Given the number of retro installations of projectors throughout the school division, it is
expected that this issues occurs in more than one location.

Findings and Recommendations

Site

2‐63

This facility is located on the same parcel as George Mason High School. The actual site of the middle
school is land‐locked – it is bounded by Leesburg Pike (Route 7) and the high school. There is no plan to
connect this structure to the existing high school, nor is there an expansion plan.

• Ideal Capacity – 600 (as‐is). Forecasted 5‐7 will be 485 (2018) to 600 (2028) students.
Forecasted 6‐8 will be 508 (2018) to 600 (2028) students. While no shortfall is foreseen, this
will bring the facility up to full capacity.
• Mary Ellen Henderson Middle currently operates on an average PTR very close to (or even
below) 20:1.
• The facility was designed to serve grades 6 through 8, but currently operates using the
middle school philosophy with grades 5 through 7.
• The school only recently opened so has no limiting factors for program. In fact, the
community areas (gymnasium, locker rooms, fitness center, library, cafeteria, athletic fields
and play areas) are well designed for community use and can serve the middle and high
school populations well.
• The only ‘limiting factor’ is the ability of the school to handle enrollment above the current 3
grade levels, but not a full 4th grade level.
• Heavy use by public may see early signs of wear‐and‐tear.

Architectural
• Relatively new construction and design –in good shape and appears to operate well.
• Two main entries do not present clear public vs. student entries.
• Interior finishes do not provide adequate acoustical attenuation.
• Multipurpose space not optimal for performance or other stage oriented events.

• The HVAC system, plumbing systems, and sprinkler system were installed in 2005 and are in
excellent condition.
• The school was built in 2004/2005. All of the systems have spare capacity or can easily be
upgraded to accommodate future renovations and additions barring any new technology
that would make any systems obsolete. Estimating, using Means Watts/square foot tables,
the electrical service can handle an addition of up to 15,000 SF.

Hazardous Materials
No significant costs.

Technology
The Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School provides consistent instructional technology resources
throughout the school. The original installation of devices could have been done with a higher degree of
coordination so that appropriate outlets/connections are installed, as well as placing them in the correct
locations. The additions of new technologies and their required connections to the network are not
being installed in a manner that is consistent with the original installation – this situation needs to be
rectified before the infrastructure becomes piecemeal and undocumented. Some trip and snag hazards
exist that need to be rectified to prevent human or equipment damage through accidents.

2‐64


Summary
This school is relatively new and was constructed in a thoughtful and contemporary manner. The facility
serves the current purpose well and can be expected to continue to do so throughout the 20‐year
planning period. At the same time, the facility is subject to heavy wear and tear and should be carefully
maintained to prevent premature aging. Construction and size make this facility a possibility for an
altered mission, either temporarily or permanently, as the master plan options are developed.

2‐65



2‐66

2‐3 ‐ Facility Evaluations – Mount Daniel Elementary School
Mount Daniel Elementary School

Site Description

Mount Daniel Elementary School is
located adjacent in Fairfax County on
County Tax Map Parcel 40‐4 ((1)) 22,
Parcel 40‐4 ((15)) A, and Parcel 40‐4
((19)) 41. All three lots are zoned R‐4.
The total site acreage is 7.31 acres.
The school is bounded by Woodland
Drive (Route 2768) to the northwest,
Custis Memorial Parkway (I‐66) to the
northeast and Oak Street (Route 1746)
to the south. Access to the existing
school is from Oak Street (Route
1746).

This site is approximately 5.88 acres in size.

2‐67

According to the County tax records, the total gross floor area of the schools is 44,068 square feet. A
total of 63 surface parking spaces are provided, of which 3 spaces are accessible and designated for
handicap parking. Two (2) loading spaces are provided.

Zoning Requirements

Maximum FAR
The R‐4 zoned property and may be developed with a public use to a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of
0.35. The Gross Floor Area of existing school is 44,068 square feet which equates to a FAR of 0.138.

In the R‐4 zoning district the maximum building height for public uses is 60’. The minimum yard

Front yard: Controlled by a 35° angle of bulk plane, but not less than 25’
Side yard: Controlled by a 30° angle of bulk plane, but not less than 10’
Rear yard: Controlled by a 30° angle of bulk plane, but not less than 25’

Any development program on the subject property must comply with the applicable provisions set forth
in Article 13 of the Fairfax County Zoning Ordinance. The requirements include:

Interior Parking Lot Landscaping: 5%

Peripheral Parking Lot Landscaping: Abuts Property – 4 feet
Abuts Street – 10 feet

Tree Cover: 20%
Open Space: NA


North Property Line TSY 2 (35’), Barrier D, E, or F
East Property Line TSY 2 (35’), Barrier D, E, or F
South Property Line TSY 2 (35’), Barrier D, E, or F
West Property Line TSY 2 (35’), Barrier D, E, or F

According to the last site plan permitted for the property, the following summarizes the landscape
coverages required to address parking lot and peripheral landscaping requirements:

Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Required (5%) 1,035 SF
Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Provided 1,200 SF

Tree Cover in the R‐4 District:
Required 55,789 SF
Provided 122,870 SF

2‐68

Parking
The requirement as set forth in Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance reads as follows for “Other Uses ‐
Elementary School”: As determined by the Director, based on a review of each proposal to include such
factors as the occupancy load of all classroom facilities, auditoriums and stadiums, proposed special
education programs, and student‐teacher ratios, and the availability of areas on site that can be used for
auxiliary parking in times of peak demand; but in no instance less than one (1) space per faculty and
staff and other full time employee plus four (4) spaces for visitors. Based on this requirement, the
minimum number of parking spaces will be determined by the maximum number of students attending
classes at any one time.

The required number of loading spaces is based on the amount of GFA. An increase of GFA may require
an additional loading space.

The parking totals reflected on the most recently approved site plan for elementary school reflects the
following:

Elementary School 50 Staff
Required Parking 1 Space/Staff+ 4 Spaces for Visitors


Total H/C Parking Provided 3 Spaces

Total H/C Van Parking Required 1 Space

Total Loading Spaces Required 2 Spaces
Total Loading Spaces Provided 2 Spaces

areas:


2‐69

Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan

Mount Daniel Elementary School is located within the Dranesville Planning District of the Fairfax County
Comprehensive Plan. It is within a specialized planning area around the West Falls Church Transit
Station, particularly land unit “E”. The intention of the Transit Area designation is to capitalize on the
opportunity to provide transit focused housing employment locations, while still maintaining the
existing, nearby land uses.

Land Unit “E” is characterized as a stable, residential community that is planned at a density of R‐4,
which is the existing zoning of the parcel. Since less than half of the allowable FAR of 0.35 is utilized
(the existing FAR is 0.18), expansion of the existing facilities in the future is not likely restricted due to
FAR limitations. The Comprehensive Plan does encourage special efforts to provide pedestrian
amenities which would allow access to Metro.

A copy of the County’s Comprehensive Plan language for the area around the West Falls Church Transit
Station is included as an attachment to this report.

Site Utilities

Water
Service is provided by the City of Falls Church Department of Public Utilities. An existing 6” water main
enters the site at the southwest corner from Oak Street (Route 1746) and wraps around the western
portion of the existing building and exits the site at the northwest corner. An existing fire hydrant
offsite along Oak Street (Route 1746) provides fire coverage for the existing building. An additional fire
hydrant located to the northeast of the site taps off the 6” water main in Woodland Drive (Route 2768).

A 4” domestic connection is located on the side south of the existing building and taps off the existing 6”
water main that enters the site at the southwest corner. The 4” line continues east and reduces to a 2”
line that connects to the southwest side of the building. A 4” fire line tees off the onsite 6” line that
wraps around the west side of the existing building. It is anticipated that these connections can be
maintained with construction of any expansion of the current facilities.

Sanitary Sewer
Existing service is provided by the City of Falls Church Department of Environmental Services. An
existing 8” terracotta sanitary sewer located in Oak Street (Route 1746) enters the south west corner of
the site and connects to the south of the building. Additionally, a 4” sanitary sewer lateral connection
on the southwest side of the building ties into the 8” terracotta sewer line. An existing 8” DIP sanitary
sewer enters the site from Oak Street (Route 1746). This line provides service for two 4” DIP
connections at the southeast side of the existing building. There are no known inadequacies of the
existing sewer line. It is anticipated that the existing sanitary sewer lateral can be maintained with any
expansion of the current facilities.

2‐70

Storm Drainage
Two existing storm sewer systems provide outfall for the project site. An existing 18” storm sewer
outfall is located in Woodland Drive (Route 2768) right‐of‐way at the northeast corner of the site. An
existing 15” storm sewer outfall is located at the Highland Avenue right‐of‐way to the west of the site.
Adequacy of these storm sewer systems will be verified upon any expansion of the current facilities.
Offsite improvements to these storm sewer systems are not presently anticipated.

The existing storm drainage system on the northwest side of the existing building will need to be
reworked if the northwest corner of the building is to be expanded. Where possible, the existing
stormwater management box culverts shall be maintained to address a portion of the overall storm
water management requirements.

Storm Water Management
The site improvements (addition to the existing school building and parking expansion) addressed the
minimum stormwater management requirements as mandated by the Fairfax County Public Facilities
Manual. Stormwater management peak flow reduction requirements (detention) mandate that the 2‐
year and 10‐year peak flow from the site be reduced at or below the existing peak flow for these
recurrence interval storms. Water quality requirements or Best Management Practices (BMP’s) require
a 40% phosphorous removal rate (unless the site development qualifies for re‐development with an
increase of impervious area less than 20% of the existing impervious area of the site).

The site currently addresses Best Management Practices (BMP’s) by reducing the phosphorus loads by
two different methods:

• Utilization of two Filterra units.

The Filterra units and dedicated open space meet the 40% requirement with no excess capacity.
Stormwater detention requirements were met with the use of two underground, privately maintained
detention structures. These structures consist of standard box culverts, a minimum of six feet in height
with a weirwall at the lower end to regulate the release of storm flows.

Any proposed addition to the site that requires a site permit and generates additional impervious area
on site will be subject to the storm water management requirements as identified within the Fairfax
County Public Facilities Manual (PFM). Where possible, the existing stormwater management box
culverts located to the northwest and east of the school should be maintained to address the
stormwater detention requirement. Additional onsite measures will be required to address peak flow
detention, beyond that which can be accommodated in the stormwater management box culverts.
Any addition to the site that requires a site permit with a net increase of impervious area will also
require BMP’s. If the net increase of impervious area less is less than 20%, then the redevelopment
formula can be utilized for computing the BMP requirement which may afford a reduction of
phosphorous load of less than 40%:

[1 ‐ 0.9(Ipre/Ipost)] X 100% = % P Removal

In order to address the BMP requirement for the site, the following measures may be incorporated:

2‐71


• Utilization of percolation trenches within proposed parking areas to promote
infiltration.
• Utilization of a bioretention filter to promote infiltration.
• Consideration of green roof elements to promote infiltration.

Verification of the infiltration capacity of the onsite soils is required to analyze the design requirements.
The Water Quality Management Area (Conservation Areas) recorded with the most recent site
improvements must be preserved with future development of the site, unless the express written
permission of the Director of the Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental
Services is obtained.

Environmental Assessment

Floodplains
Based on the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Map there are no identified 100‐year
floodplains in the vicinity of the lots that comprise the Mount Daniel Elementary site.

following features:

• A tidal shore.
Any land with a major floodplain.
Any land within 100 feet within an RPA feature


Based on the Fairfax County Chesapeake Bay Preservation Map, there are no identified RPAs within the
lots that comprise the Mount Daniel Elementary School.

Wetlands

2‐72

There were no identified wetland areas on the site plan for the Mount Daniel Elementary School. The
site should be field inspected to confirm that the area that will be impacted with construction of any
proposed expansion is void of jurisdictional wetlands. If wetlands are identified, they will be field
confirmed by the USACE and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), surveyed and
reflected on a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) that is approved by the USACE. Disturbance of any
wetlands, if identified, will be avoided to the extent possible with site construction.


Mount Daniel Elementary School was built in the time period of 1955 with an addition started in 2006
and completed in 2007. The building consists of the following:

Upper Floor: 39,701 SF
Lower Floor: 2,960 SF
Total: 42,661 SF

Layout
The main entrance to the school is on the south side of the site, at an elevation of 10’ above sidewalk
grade and is not accessible by wheel chair. A disabled person must enter the school at grade level at
another entrance next to the multi‐purpose room and can only gain access to the classrooms by using a
corridor ramp of more than 50’ long without intermediate landings.

The school is arranged along a central main corridor that transitions in elevation between levels. The
newer addition circulation ties into this main corridor. The main corridor ramp length was configured
before current standards were developed, and is longer than the 30’ limit set by ADA standards. The
steepness of the ramp is also in question. The handrails of the east side entrance stair leading to the
playground are also not compatible with ADA code for continuity. Doors to the existing classrooms
don’t have enough clearance width and landing space for the disabled. A few drinking fountains are
currently at a mounting height for adults, not for kindergarten children.

Classrooms
There are 15 classrooms. Room sizes average 860 SF. Also there are two (2) classroom trailers on the
north side or back of the school.

2‐73

Materials
The palette of exterior finishes includes face brick and painted plaster soffits and accents. Dark
aluminum frames and glazing in banded configurations appear throughout the façade. Darker metal
trims are also apparent at roof transitions and façade treatments.

Interior finishes
Typical corridor finishes include carpeted flooring and resilient base, a combination of painted concrete
masonry units and glazed masonry units, and a 2’x4’ acoustical panel ceiling in a 15/16 inch grid.
Modifications and renovations throughout the years have created a “patchwork” visual of the various
wall materials throughout the building. The multipurpose room utilizes a 2’x2’ ceiling and resilient
flooring.

Classrooms
Classroom finishes continue the carpeted flooring and 2’x4’ acoustical panel ceilings. Various walls have
various finishes do the renovations that have occurred over time. The new addition classrooms have
partial carpet flooring and resilient flooring for craft project development. Child sized cabinetry is
incorporated into these class spaces. These classrooms also incorporate accessible toilet facilities.

Typical Doors
All exterior doors on the front of the building were replaced as part of the 2006 addition. Entry doors to
the building are typically aluminum with glass inserts. Additionally some exterior doors are hollow metal
with glass inserts. The interior doors vary from contemporary wood veneer doors hollow metal frames
and hardware to some of the original doors and frames from the original building still in use. This
creates a visual disparity between areas of the facility. The wall openings that house the original doors
and frames do not allow enough clearance for accessibility clearances.

Lighting
The typical lighting throughout the facility is acrylic lens fixtures, that tend to produces excess glare for
tasks and computer use.
See Electrical Systems below for additional information.

Acoustics
The carpet flooring in combination with the acoustical panel ceiling system provides good acoustical
attenuation, offsetting the hard wall surfaces in the facility.

This building consists of steel frame and face brick on concrete masonry unit back‐up. The exterior walls
are currently in fair shape. Window systems consist of aluminum framing systems and glazing. The roof
consists of membrane roofing over rigid insulation on low slope roofs.

The building is mixed‐use of Groups E (Educational), A‐3 (Gymnasium) and B (Office).
The construction type is 2B.

2‐74


Mechanical (HVAC)
The original building HVAC system consists of approximately 17 vertical type, floor mounted water
source heat pump units and 4 roof mounted outdoor roof top type water source heat pump units. The
units serve the classrooms, offices and corridors and range from ½ to 5 tons in capacity. The roof top
heat pump unit serving the multipurpose room, gymnasium/auditorium space is a 20 ton capacity unit.
All of the equipment was installed as part of a 1988 addition and alterations project.

The heat pump units are served by a closed loop, un‐insulated piping system with a water to water,
plate and frame type heat exchanger and a 255 GPM capacity, end‐suction circulating pump located in
the Central Plant on the lower level of the East Wing. Hot water for heating the closed loop is provided
by a 240 KW electric boiler totaling 810 MBH in capacity. The boiler appears to be in poor condition.

Heat rejection for the closed loop system is provided by a 95 ton capacity forced draft, BAC Model VXT
95 cooling tower located on grade. The original tower was replaced in 2007. Condenser water within the
open loop piping system connecting the cooling tower to the heat exchanger is circulated by a 255 GPM
capacity, end‐suction, circulating pump. The plant has a third circulating pump which serves as a stand‐
by for both the closed loop system and the condenser water system.

The heat pump units are controlled by a space thermostat and started and stopped form a Central
Timed Control Center. The boilers, cooling tower and pumps are controlled by a Central Temperature
Control and Alarm Panel in the Central Plant.

The vertical heat pump units serving the class room are located in the mechanical rooms, which are
located on the perimeter of the building or water closets. Ventilation air is provided thru louvered wall
opening with motorized damper and is non‐ducted. The room/closet is treated as a return air plenum.

The heat pump units and all equipment in the central plant appear to be well maintained and in good
shape. The control system is adequate; however, there is no remote monitoring to alert staff of
equipment failure or monitor temperature conditions in various areas of the building.

Addition
The new 2005 building addition HVAC system consists of self‐contained roof top A/C units with gas heat.
The addition has electric unit heaters for supplemental heating. All of the equipment is in excellent
condition.

Plumbing Systems
The original building has a 3” domestic water service which enters the building in a dry storage room off
the kitchen. The main shut off valve is in a storage room on the first floor. There is no meter or back‐
flow prevention device inside the building.

Domestic hot water is generated by two (2) 85 gallon, 12 KW electric storage type water heaters located
in the Kitchen. The water heaters were installed in 1988 as part of a kitchen renovation.

2‐75

The water piping for both hot and cold water is copper with soldered joints and is insulated. The
sanitary sewer and storm water piping is cast iron with bell and spigot hubs on original systems and no‐
hub type fitting on renovated areas and the 2005 addition. The toilet fixtures and associated faucets,
flush valves, etc. appear to be original. Minimal ADA upgrades have been made but tempered water is
not currently provided for all lavatories and hand sinks.

Roof drainage is provided via roof drains with internal storm water piping and by exterior gutters with
down spouts. The down spouts are connected to cast iron boots which are piped to the site storm
water system.

The kitchen sanitary system has a grease trap located outside below grade.

Addition
The 2006/2007 addition has a separate 2” domestic water service to handle the new plumbing fixtures
and toilets in the addition. Sanitary and vent piping and cast iron no‐hub and PVC were allowed by
code. Roof drainage is by exposed gutters with downspouts connected to underground storm water
system. Systems are new and in excellent condition.

Natural gas is provided to the 2006/2007 addition at 0.5 psi pressure and serves the roof top units. The
gas service is located outside. The original building is currently ‘total electric’ after the gas service was
removed during the 1988 renovation.

Fire Protection Systems
The original building does not have a sprinkler system. A “limited‐area” type sprinkler system is
provided for storage rooms on the first floor and storage in the kitchen area. The “limited‐area” system
is connected to the domestic water system and is monitored.

The 2006/2007 addition has a wet‐pipe sprinkler system and is served by a 4” fire service. The fire
service is equipped with an in‐line fire pump.

Electrical Systems

Electrical Service
The existing power company is Dominion Virginia Power. The electric service is provided through a
power company step down pad mounted transformer. This service enters the building at a dedicated
electrical room. This electrical service was last upgraded in 1989. The power company electric meter is
installed inside on the wall of the main electrical room. The existing power company pad mounted
transformer is feeding 120/208 volt, 1600 amp. The existing switchboard is a General Electric (GE). The
switchboard utilizes fused switches instead of circuit breakers. There are five sections to this switchgear
which include a CT/pull section, 1600A main service disconnect and a three distribution sections. This
switchboard has no space left for expansion. The service size of 1600A, 120/208 volt is too small for a
school needing to meet current electrical demands.

The existing switchboard does not contain any ground fault protection as per current code
requirements. The existing switchboard does not contain any transient voltage surge suppression. The

2‐76

facilities supervisor noted that any brownout or power outage will require facilities personnel to reset
the mains. This is typically not an acceptable situation for a school.

There is a separate electrical service for remote trailers.

A fire pump was added in 2006/2007 and a separate electrical service was installed for this equipment.
This meets national electrical code requirements.

The base building was renovated in 1989 and a new addition was added in 2006/2007. The base building
has GE panels that are filled to capacity. The electric closets are scattered throughout the base school.
All of the existing electrical rooms are filled to capacity. No additional equipment can be added and still
meet the working clearance requirements.

The new addition has two (2) new panelboards that are fed from the GE main switchboard. These are
surface mounted panels and were placed in staff room #44.

This school does not have an emergency generator. Emergency lighting is by battery packs in individual
fixtures.

Lighting System
All of the lighting fixtures in the new addition are recessed fluorescent. The fluorescent lights utilize T8
technology and are energy efficient. The lighting fixtures are clean and in good condition. The lighting
levels throughout the school are good. Exit lights utilize LED lamps.

In the base building most of the lighting fixtures were replaced in 1989. Existing lighting fixtures in
classroom, classrooms, offices and corridors are 2’ X 4’ recessed fluorescent. The fluorescent lights
utilize T12 technology which is old and not energy efficient. The lighting level in classrooms is poor. The
corridor has recently been upgraded with the addition of surface wall mount light fixtures in addition to
the recessed fixtures noted above. Exit lights utilize fluorescent lamps. There appearance is old and
discolored.

In the new addition, switching control is through motion sensor switches and meets the current energy
efficiency code requirements. In the base building switching control is through single toggle switches
throughout the building with a few motion sensor switches. This does not meet the current energy
efficiency code requirements.

The exterior lighting at the new addition is adequate. At the base building, there are some exit discharge
locations that do not have sufficient emergency egress lighting. Some of the exterior lights have clearly
been replaced as the existing fixtures that have not been replaced are old, discolored and some are
damaged.

Power Outlets

2‐77

In the base building, current power requirements require more receptacles and circuits. Because of
increased requirements surface mounted conduit and receptacles have been added in offices and
classrooms.

Fire Alarm System
The base building has a fire alarm system which was installed in 1989. It is an Edwards system. The
existing fire alarm control panel is located in the main office. Notification is delivered through bells and
flashing lights. These devices are not ADA compliant, nor do devices meet spacing requirements per
current code requirements. This is a non‐addressable system which means it works on a different and
older technology than the new panel.

Addition
The new addition has a new fire alarm system which is an Edwards EST‐2 system. The control panel is
located in staff room #44. The fire alarm devices in the new addition are new. There is a new graphic
annunciator in the new addition which is a graphic depiction of the new addition only. It does not
include the base building. Notification is delivered through horns and strobes.

Sound System
The existing sound system console manufactured by Dukane is located in the main office. Booster panels
The classrooms have recessed mounted speakers and call back switches. Corridors and cafeteria have
recessed mounted speakers.

Some of the individual classrooms have sound reinforcing systems.

The existing main CATV HUB is located in the existing communication room. The existing
telecommunication main HUB is located in the existing communications room. There are no dedicated
rooms for telephone and data equipment. This equipment is installed in various workrooms throughout
the school. There is no capacity for expansion unless more work space is taken. All the existing
telephone/data outlets are surface mounted in the base building. Most of the classrooms have one
telephone and one data outlet, but some classrooms have one telephone and two data outlets in the
base building. There are computer data repeaters installed throughout the facility in corridors surface
mounted on walls. These do not provide for a clean and neat installation and are prone to damage
based on their location.

The master clock system is integral with the Dukane sound system located in the main office.

The school is equipped with a partial access control and closed caption television (CCTV) security
system. The system is web based with control panels in various locations. There are card readers at
some entrances and security cameras located in corridors and at exterior exits. There is a video
monitoring station in the school.

Summary

2‐78

• The electric boiler has surpassed its reasonable life expectancy of 10 to 15 years. Also the
cost of electricity as a fuel source for heating is much more than gas.
• The heat pump units have reached or surpassed life expectancy of 15 to 20 years.
• The ventilation for the classroom heat pump units should be “ducted” to assure adequate
ventilation to the classrooms.
• Remote monitoring of setup and alarm functions on the central control systems should be
provided.
• The electric domestic water heaters have surpassed their normal life expectancy of 10 to 15
years. Recommend they be replaced with more energy efficient gas fired type units.
• Tempering valves should be installed on all handicapped accessible lavatories and hand
sinks to provide “temperature” water per ADA recommendations.
• Recommend providing a sprinkler system to the original building to improve level of ‘life
safety’.
• The existing switchboard is functioning; however, the switchboard does not have space for
future expansion. The switchboard also is not sized to accommodate future expansions. In
the event of a renovation it is recommended that the switchboard be replaced.
• The existing distribution system is functioning. The panelboards do not have many spare
circuit breakers. The electrical rooms have no space for the addition of new equipment. In
the event of a complete renovation it is recommended that the power distribution
equipment be replaced.
• In the event of a complete renovation, it is recommended that a new generator and
distribution equipment be installed for the entire building.
• The existing lighting system in the original base building is old and does not meet current
code requirements and lighting guidelines. It is recommended to provide new energy
efficient fixtures with T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. It is also recommended that exterior
lighting be replaced to meet school security lighting requirements and egress requirements.
• We recommend that classrooms in the base building have receptacles added. The existing
walls are masonry block so new conduit and devices would have to be surface mount. In the
event of a complete renovation the classrooms would need to have all electrical systems
removed and replaced with new.
• The fire alarm system in the base building needs to be replaced with a new system that
meets current code requirements.
• The sound system in the base building has reached the end of its useful life. The sound
system needs to be replaced with a new system.
• In the event of a complete renovation it is recommended that the telephone/CATV
equipment be replaced. Dedicated communications rooms will need to be placed at several
locations.

2‐79


F&R surveyed Mt. Daniel Elementary School to identify ACM, LBP and suspect PCB and mercury
containing equipment utilizing non‐destructive sampling. The following paragraphs summarize their
findings:

• F&R identified asbestos‐containing pipe insulation in Classrooms 2 and 7 and the adjoining
hallway.
• F&R identified asbestos‐containing cementatious panels on portions of the roof soffit.
• F&R observed suspect asbestos‐containing metal fire doors located throughout the school.
• F&R observed water fountains with suspect asbestos‐containing pipe wrap throughout the
school.
• F&R identified lead based paint on exterior building components.
• F&R observed mercury‐containing thermostats throughout the school.
• F&R visually inspected fluorescent light fixtures throughout the school. Based on our
inspection, there does not appear to be any regulated hazardous materials within these light
fixtures.

During F&R’s non‐destructive survey for ACM the following materials were sampled: pipe insulation,
vinyl floor tile and associated mastic, vinyl covebase mastic, carpet mastic, blackboard mastic,
cementatious panels, expansion joint caulk, ceiling tile, drywall and associated joint compound, wall
plaster and duct seam sealant. The following materials were determined to be asbestos‐containing:
pipe insulation and cementatious panels. The following materials were assumed to be asbestos‐
containing: metal fire doors, and water fountain pipe wrap.

F&R identified approximately 75 linear feet of asbestos‐containing pipe insulation above the drop ceiling
in Classrooms 2 and 7 and the adjoining hallway. This material was observed in a fair condition at the
time of the survey. For the purposes of this study, F&R assumes that approximately 500 linear feet of
asbestos‐containing pipe insulation is located above solid walls and ceilings and within pipe chases
throughout the school. Approximately 1,000 square feet of asbestos‐containing cementatious panels
were observed on the school’s roof soffit. The material was observed in a fair condition at the time of
the survey. 38 metal fire doors, presumed to be asbestos‐containing were observed throughout the
school during F&R’s survey. The metal fire doors were observed in good condition. Approximately 6
water fountains were identified by F&R that are presumed to contain asbestos‐containing pipe wrap.
The water fountain pipe wrap was inaccessible at the time of the survey.

Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) and dated May 30, 1992. The PSI report did not identify any
ACM within the school.

renovation or demolition activities. Additionally, F&R recommends that the 1992 Asbestos Management

2‐80

Plan be updated as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) requires that these plans be
updated every three years.

Lead Based Paint
F&R conducted a LBP screening of the painted surfaces located throughout the interior and exterior of
Mount Daniel Elementary School. LBP was identified on the following exterior building components:
white cementatious panels (also identified as ACM) on the roof soffit and brown wood window panels
located in the rear exterior of the building. No lead based paint was identified on the interior of the
building. Since this was a limited LBP survey, additional LBP surfaces may be present that were not
tested. All painted surfaces should be assumed to contain LBP or lead‐containing paint.

without lead based paint becoming an issue of concern. However, if building components containing
lead based paint are to be stripped and repainted, precautions would need to be taken. Specifically, if
these building components are to be sanded, abraded or heated to remove the lead based paint,
workers trained in lead based paint removal should be contracted for the work.

The “Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting Program” rule, which will take effect in April 2010 will
require that contractors involved in renovation, repair or painting activities in buildings constructed
prior to 1978 in which children under the age of 6 are present take special precautions to avoid creating
a lead hazard. These precautions include posting warning signs; restricting occupants from work areas;
containing work areas to prevent dust and debris from spreading; conducting a thorough cleanup and
verification that cleanup was effective. Should renovations that disturb LBP take place once this
regulation takes effect, there will be a cost associated with renovating these building components. At
this time F&R believes that the presence of LBP will have only minimal impact to the project, primarily
with contractor compliance with current OSHA regulations.

observed throughout the building. Fluorescent light tubes were also inspected for the presence of
mercury. All of the fluorescent light tubes observed by F&R contained the low‐mercury symbol. Under
Virginia regulations, light tubes with the low mercury symbol can be disposed of as general waste
provided that proper documentation can be provided by the manufacturer that these tubes do not
contain regulated levels of mercury. Therefore, the fluorescent light tubes are not likely a concern at
this property; however some fluorescent light tubes with regulated levels of mercury may still remain
within the school.

F&R visually surveyed a representative number of light ballasts throughout Mount Daniel Elementary
School. All of the light ballasts observed contained the “No PCB” label and therefore PCB‐containing
ballasts are not likely a concern at this property; however, some PCB‐containing ballasts may still remain
within the school. No other potential PCB‐containing equipment was observed by F&R.

Cost Estimates

2‐81

major and minor renovations at Mount Daniel Elementary School. F&R is assuming that no work is to be
conducted on the roof.


• Cementatious Panels – Approximately 1,000 square feet of asbestos‐containing
cementatious panels were observed on the roof soffit. F&R assumes a cost of
approximately $3.00 per square foot for abatement of the cementatious panels for a total
cost of $3,000.
• Metal Fire Doors – 38 presumed asbestos‐containing metal fire doors were observed
throughout the school. F&R assumes a cost of approximately $100.00 per door for
abatement of the metal fire doors for a total cost of $3,800.
concern if renovation work impacting LBP occurs before April 2010, when the “Lead:
Renovation, Repair and Painting Program” takes effect. For renovation work that impacts
LBP which occurs after this date, F&R assumes a cost of approximately $5,000 for special
precautions that will need to be taken.

with a minor renovation at Mount Daniel Elementary School is $11,800. F&R typically adds an additional
25% contingency fee to estimates such as these. Other costs typically associated with the abatement of
these materials would include abatement design, project management, and oversight/monitoring of the
work which are generally estimated to be 15 to 25% of the abatement costs. The total estimated costs
to remove the identified and suspected hazardous materials associated with a minor renovation at
Mount Daniel Elementary School, including the 25% contingency fee and design, project management
and oversight/monitoring fees ranges up to $18,438.


• Pipe Insulation – F&R assumes that approximately 500 linear feet of pipe insulation exists
within pipe chases and behind solid walls and ceilings. F&R assumes a cost of approximately
$25.00 per linear foot for abatement of the pipe insulation for a total cost of $12,500.
• Water Fountain Pipe Wrap – Approximately 6 water fountains presumed to contain
asbestos‐containing pipe wrap were observed throughout the school. F&R assumes an
abatement cost of $250.00 per water fountain for a total cost of $1,500.
throughout the school. F&R assumes that removal of the thermostats will cost
approximately $3,000.

with a major renovation at Mount Daniel Elementary School is $28,800. F&R typically adds an additional
25% contingency fee to estimates such as these. Other costs typically associated with the abatement of
these materials would include abatement design, project management, and oversight/monitoring of the
work which are generally estimated to be 15 to 25% of the abatement costs. The total estimated costs

2‐82

to remove the identified and suspected hazardous materials associated with a major renovation at
Mount Daniel Elementary School, including the 25% contingency fee and design, project management
and oversight/monitoring fees ranges up to $45,000.


Eperitus surveyed Mount Daniel Elementary School to determine instructional technology capabilities
and network resources. The following observations were made:

• The main entrance to the school made use of an IP video camera and intercom as part of its
security system.
• The school uses a networked copier/printer in the main office. This is a good practice and
would be advisable at other school locations within the division for servicing, energy savings,
and control of consumables reasons.
• Classrooms have been outfitted with voice enhancement systems (manufacturer: FrontRow
Digital). These are highly recommended systems for classroom. These systems are also
capable of providing the sound from the teacher’s computer when it is being used for
electronic presentations such as MS PowerPoint and streaming video. The teacher
computers are not hooked up to these systems at this time, but instead are using small
desktop speakers that are inadequate for all students in a classroom.
• The data network is in serviceable shape. It uses category 5e cabling and Cisco switches.
Most closets and data cabinets use good cable management practices; however, there is
evidence of additional devices and cables being added that are not receiving the same care
of organizing and security. As with other school division locations, one of the persistent
issues is that the patch cables being used in the racks are significantly longer than needed.
Many cables only need to be 1’ or 3’, yet 10’ cables are being used.
• Wireless access points have been professionally installed throughout the school. These units
are using high gain antennas.
• In general, installations of newer or additional technologies in this school are more
organized than in other schools. This suggests that outside contractors or vendors have
been used in many of these instances since the cabling is generally better organized and
protected.


Site
The site is in Fairfax County, and this school has issues with surrounding neighborhood. The site is
limited and would be difficult to expand. As situated on the parcel, Mount Daniel is particularly close to
its neighbors to the west and cannot expand further on its current site to allow for any significant
enrollment increases.


2‐83

• Maximum Capacity – 275 (as‐is). Forecasted K‐1 will be 312 (2019) to 400 (2028) students.
Shortfall = 125 or approximately 6 classrooms (22:1), plus the associated supporting core
areas
• Mt. Daniel currently operates on an average PTR at or above the desired 22:1 (and just at
capacity), mainly because there is no space for additional classrooms.
• The recent addition to Mt. Daniel is very well designed for Kindergarten needs, with
amenities including sound reinforcement, wireless technology, wet/dry areas, direct access
to the outdoors, ample student storage. This recent addition, however, left no room on the
site for additional expansion.
• The core facilities (gym/cafeteria, library, art, music, etc.) cannot handle any significant
enrollment increase and would also need expansion.
• The gymnasium and cafeteria are the same space, so gym cannot be taught and assemblies
cannot be held during lunch hours.
• The site and facility are not conducive to ADA accessibility. The library has a story pit that
cannot be accessed by handicapped students from the main floor. It is used as a storage
area more than intended use.
• Currently students cannot access all resource subjects without going out‐of‐doors.
• The family literacy program is in a trailer and not easily accessible to parking and entry,
particularly for night use.
• The before and after school component is critical to the community, but has no available
space for storage or program expansion.
• In addition to full time staff there are also part time staff and itinerants. There is little space
for teacher use – only one very small ‘lounge’ and no place to conference.
• Office space is extremely limited.

Architectural
• Access issues ‐ Main Public Entry not Accessible; Central circulation corridor has ramp that
has slope distance and adjacent room connectivity issues.
• Modular structures are being utilized away from the main structure.
• Interior issues ‐ Main office could have more transparency; Interior finishes need
upgrading.
• Lighting quality needs upgrading‐ general and task oriented.

• The electric boiler has surpassed its reasonable life expectancy of 10 to 15 years. Also the
cost of electricity as a fuel source for heating is much more than gas.
• The heat pump units have reached or surpassed life expectancy of 15 to 20 years. The
ventilation for the classroom heat pump units should be “ducted” to assure adequate
ventilation.
• Remote monitoring of setup and alarm functions on the central control systems should be
provided.
• The electric domestic water heaters have surpassed their normal life expectancy of 10 to 15
years. Recommend they be replaced with more energy efficient gas fired type units.

2‐84

sinks.
• Add a sprinkler system to the original building to improve level of ‘life safety’.
• The existing switchboard is functioning; however, the switchboard does not have space for
future expansion. The switchboard also is not sized to accommodate future expansions. In
the event of a renovation it is recommended that the switchboard be replaced.
• The existing distribution system is functioning. The panel boards do not have many spare
circuit breakers. The electrical rooms have no space for the addition of new equipment. In
the event of a complete renovation it is recommended that the power distribution
equipment be replaced.
• In the event of a complete renovation, it is recommended that a new generator and
distribution equipment be installed for the entire building.
• The existing lighting system in the original base building is old and does not meet current
code requirements and lighting guidelines. It is recommended to provide new energy
efficient fixtures with T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. It is also recommended that exterior
lighting be replaced to meet school security lighting requirements and egress requirements.
• Classrooms in the base building should have receptacles added. The existing walls are
masonry block so new conduit and devices would have to be surface mount. In the event of
a complete renovation the classrooms would need to have all electrical systems removed
and replaced.
• The fire alarm system in the base building needs to be replaced with a new system that
meets current code requirements.
• The sound system in the base building has reached the end of its useful life. The sound
system needs to be replaced with a new system.
• In the event of a complete renovation it is recommended that the telephone/CATV
equipment be replaced. Dedicated communications rooms will need to be placed at several
locations.

Hazardous Materials
The majority of the construction at Mount Daniel appears to be hazardous‐materials free. There are a
few minimal features – some exterior block work, thermostats, and water fountain pipe‐wrap – which
should be removed if renovations are to occur.

• “Minor Renovation” Abatement Cost: $18,438
• “Major Renovation” Abatement Cost: $45,000

Technology
The Mount Daniel Elementary School provides consistent instructional technology resources at different
grade levels. Providing the same resources for all grades would be of benefit to the students as they
progress through school. (The same could be said for K‐12 continuum in the division.). Despite the age of
the facilities and the obvious upgrades it has received, the additional installations of cabling and systems
was the best of the four schools. More use of raceways and organization of installation was evident
throughout the school, which provides protection to the infrastructure and the people in the building.

Summary

2‐85

This school is in good condition and is well‐designed for its intended purpose. It is, however, currently
over utilized, resulting in taxed building systems and increased wear and tear. Use could be continued
through the 20‐year planning period if capacity were limited to a more appropriate level and if a high
degree of maintenance were continued.

2‐86

2‐3 ‐ Facility Evaluations – Thomas Jefferson Elementary School
Thomas Jefferson Elementary School

Site Description

The Thomas Jefferson Elementary
School is located in the City of Falls
Church on City Tax Map Parcels 50‐
2. The parcel is zoned R‐1A low
density residential. The total site
acreage is 5.83 acres. The school is
bounded by Seaton Lane to the
south and South Oak Street to the
northwest. Site access is from
Seaton Lane.

Based on an approximate
measurement, the building area occupied by the existing school is 37,000 SF. A total of 38 surface
parking spaces are provided, of which 2 spaces are accessible and designated for handicap parking.

Zoning Requirements

Maximum Building Coverage
The R‐1A zoned property may be developed with a public use to a maximum building coverage of 30%.
Therefore, the maximum allowable building footprint area is 76,199 square feet.

In the R‐1A zoning district the maximum building height for public uses is 45’ with no more than 3
stories. The minimum yard requirements include:

Front yard: Not less than 30’
Side yard: Not less than 25’
Rear yard: Not less than 40’

The proposed expansion of the development program on the subject property must comply with the
applicable provisions set forth in Article IV of the City of Falls Church Zoning Ordinance. The

Interior Parking Lot Landscaping : No Requirement
Peripheral Parking Lot Landscaping: No Requirement
Tree Cover: 20%
Open Space: No Requirement


2‐87

North Property Line No Requirement
East Property Line No Requirement
South Property Line No Requirement
West Property Line No Requirement

Parking Requirements
The requirement as set forth in Article IV of the City of Falls Church Zoning Ordinance reads as follows
for “Public Elementary School”: One parking space for each teacher, employee or administrator whether
full or part‐time, plus one for every ten students of maximum enrollment or capacity. Based on this
requirement, the minimum number of parking spaces will be determined by the number of employees
and the maximum number of students attending classes at any one time.

The parking totals reflected on the most recently approved site plan for the elementary school reflects
the following:

Elementary School: 25 Staff/400Students
Required Parking 1 Space/Staff + 1 Space/10 Students


Total H/C Parking Provided 2 Spaces

Total H/C Van Parking Required 2 Spaces

areas:


2‐88

Site Utilities

Water
Service is provided by the City of Falls Church Department of Public Utilities. An existing 6” water main
is located in Seaton Lane, south of the project site. An existing 16” water main runs along South Oak
Street and enters the parcel on the north side of the site. The 16” line continues along South Oak Street
and exits the site at the northeast corner. Two (2) fire hydrants are located on the 16” line; one on the
north side of South Oak Street at the northwest corner of the site and the other at the northeast corner
of the site. An additional fire hydrant may need to be installed if the two existing fire hydrant locations
do not provide adequate fire coverage for the expanded facility.

Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewer is provided by the City of Falls Church Department of Public Utilities. There are no
known capacity issues.

Site Access

The main access to the site is located at the intersection of Seaton Lane and West Greenway Boulevard.
Additionally, access to the parking lot south of the building is provided off of Seaton Lane. It is
anticipated that the entrances will be maintained. Sight distance for the existing entrances will be
confirmed with the final site plan.

The following standard pavement section is assumed for new asphalt access roads and travel aisles
within the parking areas:

Top Course: 1.5” Asphalt Surface Course SM‐9.5A

Environmental

Floodplains
Based on the City of Falls Church Mapping System, the project site encompasses an existing stream,
Tripps Run, which flows north to south on the eastern portion of the site. The 100‐year floodplain for
Tripps Run take up nearly half of the parcel area and the limits are located approximately 15’ away from
the existing buildings.

2‐89


following features:

• A tidal shore.
Any land with a major floodplain
Any land within 100 feet within an RPA feature


Based on the City of Falls Church Mapping System, the project site encompasses an existing stream,
Tripp Run, which flows north to south on the eastern portion of the site. Limits of the RPA for Tripps
Run are located approximately 100’ from the stream and are within the 100‐year floodplain limits.

Wetlands
There were no identified wetland areas on the site plan for the elementary school. The site should be
field inspected to confirm that the area that will be impacted with construction of any proposed
expansion is void of jurisdictional wetlands. If wetlands are identified, they will be field confirmed by
the USACE and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), surveyed and reflected on a
Jurisdictional Determination (JD) that is approved by the USACE. Disturbance of any wetlands, if
identified, will be avoided to the extent possible with site construction.


Thomas Jefferson Elementary School was built in the 1940’s with a major addition completed in 1990.
The school has 3 levels of varying footprint configurations, totaling 60,919 SF.

Layout
The public entry into the facility is achieved by steps leading to the main entrance on the second level,
located on the west side (or front) of the school, and are not ADA‐compliant. A disabled person or a
person in a wheel chair must enter the school on the first floor at the drop‐off area on the east side (or
back) of the building and use the elevator to the upper floors. The main office and classrooms are on the
second floor. 8 additional classrooms are on the third floor. All special classes and services are located

2‐90

on the first floor (or lower level). The addition is located on the south edge of the property and has an
on‐grade entrance facing west. A makeshift wood ramp allows wheeled access to this area.

In general the building is compliant with building codes, except a few instances where changes are
needed to meet accessibility requirements. These changes include a ramp to the main entrance, stair
handrails, and other modifications to bring building accessibility into current standards.

Classrooms
There are 21 classrooms in the facility and 7 trailers grouped together adjacent the main entry sidewalk.
Current enrollment is 420 students.

Materials
The palette of exterior finishes include face brick and metal panel fascia accent elements. Dark
aluminum frames with glazing are inserted along the façade as individual window units.

Interior finishes in a majority of the building is a combination of glazed masonry units configured as a
high wainscot and door surrounds, and painted plaster walls above. A portion of east west classroom
corridor also contains a movable wall system implemented during one of the building renovations.

Classrooms
Classrooms have a combination of solid partitions and movable partition systems installed as part of an
earlier renovation. Carpeting over original flooring is the typical floor covering.

Typical Doors
Exterior doors are a combination of aluminum doors and glazed inserts, and hollow metal doors, both
with glazed inserts and solid faces.
Interior doors include new wood veneer doors with glass inserts in painted steel frames, and original
painted doors from the original construction.

Codes and Accessibility
• Lighting
Typical lighting consists of 2’x’4 acrylic lens fluorescent fixtures, which produce excess glare
for tasks and computer use. The addition also has accent lighting along the sky lit spine.

• Acoustics
The use of acoustical panel ceilings and the addition of carpet floor covering contributes to
the attenuation of noise throughout the building.

2‐91

Construction consists of steel frame and face brick on concrete with masonry unit back‐up. Window
systems consist of dark aluminum frames and glazing. The roof system is comprised of single ply flat
roofs with some sloped skylight accents in gathering spaces. All the exterior materials are in good
shape.

The building is mixed‐use of Groups E (Educational), A‐3 (Gymnasium) and B (Office). The construction
type is 2B Protected.


Mechanical (HVAC)
The building HVAC systems consist of approximately 53 horizontal type ceiling‐mounted water source
heat pump units and six (6) floor mounted console type water source heat pump units. These units
serve the classrooms, offices and corridors and range from ½ to 5 tons in capacity. Thirteen (13) of the
units were installed as part of the 1990 addition and the rest were installed as part of a 1995 HVAC
replacement project.

In addition the Administration Area, Library and Gymnasium are served by self‐contained roof top A/C
units with gas heat, which were installed in 1995. The kitchen has a heating and ventilating unit with
electric heat, installed as part of a 1979 renovation project.

The heat pump units are served by a closed loop, un‐insulated piping system with a water to water,
plate and frame type heat exchanger and 475 GPM capacity, end‐suction circulating pump located in the
Central Plant on the first floor. Hot water for heating the closed loop is provided by four (4) gas‐fired
high‐efficiency condensing type boilers totaling 2100 MBH in capacity. Two (2) 300 MBH boilers were
installed in 1990 and two (2) 750 MBH boilers were installed in 1995 when the plant was completely
replaced. There are two (2) 156 GPM capacity circulating pumps (one stand‐by) with hot water piping
connections to the closed loop.

Heat rejection for the closed loop system is provided by a 160 ton capacity forced draft, low profile BAC
cooling tower located on grade. Condenser water within the open loop piping system connecting the
cooling tower to the heat exchanger is circulated by a 475 GPM capacity, end‐suction, circulating pump.
The plant has a third circulating pump which serves as a stand‐by for both the closed loop system and
the condenser water system.

The heat pump units are controlled by a space thermostat and started and stopped form a Central
Timed Control Center. The boilers, cooling tower and pumps are controlled by a Central Temperature
Control and Alarm Panel in the Central Plant.

Ventilation air for the ceiling mounted heat pump units is ducted from wall louvers and/or roof mounted
intake air units. The ventilation air is untempered and the heat pump units must heat and cool the
ventilation air. The console type heat pump units have a wall louver used to obtain ventilation air.

2‐92

The heat pump units, roof top units and all equipment in the control plant appear to be well maintained
and in good shape. The control system is adequate; however, there is no remote monitoring to alert
staff of equipment failure or monitor temperature conditions in various areas of the building.

Plumbing Systems
The building has a 2½” domestic water service which enters the building on the right side of the main
entrance. The main shut off valve is in a storage room on the first floor. There is no meter or back‐flow
prevention device inside the building. Our investigation could not locate a utility vault outside.

Domestic hot water is generated by a 500 gallon, 63 KW electric storage type water heater located in
the Maintenance Office adjacent to the Main Electric Room and Kitchen. The water heater was installed
in 1979 as part of a Kitchen Renovation when the building was an all electric facility and is in poor
condition.

The water piping for both hot and cold water is copper with soldered joints and is insulated. The
sanitary sewer and storm water piping is cast iron with bell and spigot hubs on original systems and no‐
hub type fitting on renovated areas and the 1990 addition. The kitchen sanitary system has a grease
trap located outside below grade.

The toilet fixtures and associated faucets, flush valves, etc. appear to be original. Minimal ADA upgrades
have been made but tempered water is not currently provided for all lavatories and hand sinks.

Roof drainage is provided via roof drains with internal storm water piping and by exterior gutters with
down spouts. The down spouts are connected to cast iron boots which are piped to the site storm
water system.

Natural gas is provided to the building at 2 psi pressure and serves the boilers, roof top units and the
kitchen cooking equipment. The gas service enters the Central Plant with meter and regulator located
outside.

Fire Protection Systems
The building does not have a sprinkler system. A “limited‐area” type sprinkler system is provided for
storage rooms on the first floor and storage in the kitchen area. The “limited‐area” system is connected
to the domestic water system and is monitored.

Electrical Systems

Electrical Service
The existing power company is Dominion Virginia Power. The electric service is provided through a
power company step down pad mounted transformer. This service enters the building at a dedicated
electrical room. This electrical service was last upgraded in 1979. The power company electric meter is
installed inside on the wall of the main electrical room. The existing power company pad mounted
transformer is feeding 277/480 volt, 1600 amp. The existing switchboard is Federal Pacific Electric Co.
(FPE). FPE has been out of business for over 25 years and parts will be difficult to find for any future
renovations. There are two sections to this switchgear which include a 1600A main service disconnect

2‐93

and a combination distribution section with a separate distribution section. This switchboard has no
space left for expansion. The service size of 1600A, 480/277 volt is too small for a school needing to
meet current electrical demands.

The existing switchboard does not contain any ground fault protection as per current code
requirements. The existing switchboard does not contain any transient voltage surge suppression.

There is a separate electrical service for remote trailers.

The existing switchboard serves the entire building through a number of branch circuit panelboards.
Approximately half of the panels are FPE. These panels will be difficult to find parts for any future
renovations. The other half of the panels are a combination of GE and Square‐D. These panels were
added for later renovations and do have a few spare breakers that could be utilized for small future
changes.

Electric closets are scattered throughout the school. All of the existing electrical rooms are filled to
capacity. No additional equipment can be added and still meet the working clearance requirements.

The building has an ONAN generator. The generator is rated at 60kW, 480/277 volt, 3‐Phase and has a
90A in‐line circuit breaker. The generator has a remote double fuel tank located adjacent to the
generator location and sits on a concrete pad. The generator operates on diesel gas. The existing
generator was installed during 1979 renovation. The existing generator is located outside of the
electrical room. The emergency system is operational but reaching the end of its useful life.

The emergency generator feeds an ONAN automatic transfer switch "ATS" which further feeds to panel
EE which contains a 100A main circuit breaker. This equipment is located in the main electric room. The
existing automatic transfer switch and emergency panel were also installed in 1979. The panel is FPE
and the transfer switch is approaching the end of its useful life. The emergency system serves
emergency lights, exit lights, fire alarm system, CATV system, sound system and
telephone/communication. In addition, the generator feeds the elevator sump.

Lighting System
Most of the lighting fixtures were replaced in 1979 with some upgrades over the years. Existing lighting
fixtures in classroom, classrooms, offices and corridors are 2’ X 4’ recessed fluorescent. The fluorescent
lights utilize T12 technology which is old and not energy efficient. The existing lighting fixtures in the
bathrooms are incandescent. The lighting level in classrooms, corridors, and gymnasium is poor. The
light fixtures in the cafeteria are surface mounted. Storage room lights are surface mounted and several
are damaged.

Switching control is through single toggle switches throughout the building with a few motion sensor
switches. This does not meet the current energy efficiency code requirements.

There are some exit discharge locations that do not have sufficient emergency egress lighting. The
building lacks proper security lighting around the perimeter of the building. Some of the exterior lights

2‐94

have clearly been replaced as the existing fixtures that have not been replaced are old, discolored and
some are damaged. Some exterior flood lights were added on the roof to shine down on walkways for
security lighting.

Power Outlets
The power outlets located in the classrooms and offices were provided in 1979. Current power
requirements require more receptacles and circuits. Because of increased requirements surface
mounted conduit and receptacles have been added in offices and classrooms.

Fire Alarm System
The existing fire alarm system is a Simplex 4010 system. The control panel and devices were installed in
2001. The existing fire alarm control panel is located in the main office. The building is not fully
sprinklered. There are a few limited area sprinkler systems with flow switches that tie back to the fire
alarm system. There are pull stations at all of the exits. The entire school has audio/visual notification
devices throughout. Notification is delivered through horns and strobes. The annunciator at the main
entrance is a LCD type annunciator.

Sound System
The existing sound system console is manufactured by Rauland and is located in the main office. Booster
panels are installed throughout the facility. The existing sound system main equipment was installed in
1979. The classrooms and offices have combination of surface and recessed mounted speakers and call
back switches. Corridors have recessed speakers. The system is operable but near the end of its useful
life.

The existing main telephone and CATV HUB is located in the main electrical room. The existing
telecommunication main HUB is located in the existing communications room. All the existing
telephone/data outlets are surface mounted. Most of the classrooms have one telephone and one data
outlet, but some classrooms have one telephone and two data outlets. There are computer data
repeaters installed throughout the facility in corridors surface mounted on walls. At some of these
locations there are surface mounted data and power outlets and there is an excess of wiring dangling
from this equipment. This is a messy installation and is prone to damage based on their location.

There are telephone data closets throughout the facility. These rooms share CATV, telephone
punchblocks and backboard and data racks. The rooms are filled to capacity.

There is no master clock system in this facility.

2‐95

school.

Summary
• All of the major HVAC equipment was replaced in 1992 and 1995.
• The boilers, pumps and central plant equipment have a normal life expectancy of 20 to 25
years.
• The water‐cooled heat pumps, roof top A/C units and the cooling tower have a normal life
expectancy of 15 to 20 years and are at the end of their normal life expectancy.
• All of the heat pumps and RTU’s utilize R‐22 refrigerant which has been phased out. The use
of this refrigerant will no longer be allowed by 2010 and will be difficult to obtain for
maintenance purposes.
• The make‐up air unit for the kitchen has electric heat which is very expensive to operate.
The unit is 30 years old and has outlived its normal life expectancy. The unit should be
replaced and either gas or hot water heat should be used to reduce operation cost.
• The central temperature control and alarm panel should be modified to provide remote
status and alarm capability at the main facility office.
• The existing domestic water heater has surpassed its reasonable life expectancy of 10 to 15
years and should be replaced with a more energy efficient gas fired type unit.
sinks to provide ‘tempered’ water per ADA requirements.
• Recommend providing a wet type sprinkler system to the building to improve the level of
‘life safety’.
• The existing switchboard is functioning, however the manufacturer is no longer in business
and replacement parts are not available. The switchboard also does not have space for
future expansion. In the event of a complete renovation it is recommended that the
switchboard and electrical service equipment be replaced.
• The existing distribution system is functioning, however the original base building panel
manufacturer is no longer in business and replacement parts are not available. Through the
years, other manufacturer’s circuit breakers have been fitted into existing panels. The panel
boards also do not have many spare circuit breakers. In the event of a complete renovation
it is recommended that the power distribution equipment be replaced.
• The building emergency generator is in working condition but is reaching the end of its
useful life. The automatic transfer switch is also reaching the end of its useful life. The
emergency panel is manufactured by Federal Pacific which is no longer in business, so
replacement parts are not available. In the event of a complete renovation, it is
recommended that a new properly sized generator and distribution equipment be installed
for the entire building.
security lighting requirements.

2‐96



F&R surveyed Thomas Jefferson Elementary School to identify ACM, LBP and suspect PCB and mercury
containing equipment utilizing non‐destructive sampling. The following paragraphs summarize the
findings:

• F&R observed suspect asbestos‐containing metal fire doors located throughout the school.
• F&R observed one elevator suspected to contain asbestos‐containing interior and shaft
components.
• F&R observed water fountains throughout the school assumed to contain asbestos‐
containing pipe wrap.
• F&R assumes that asbestos‐containing pipe insulation exists behind solid walls and ceilings
and within pipe chases throughout the school.
• F&R identified lead based paint throughout the interior and exterior.
• F&R observed mercury‐containing thermostats throughout the school.
• F&R visually inspected fluorescent light fixtures throughout the school. Based on our
fixtures.

During F&R’s non‐destructive survey for ACM the following materials were sampled: spray‐on
fireproofing, ceiling tile, carpet mastic, vinyl covebase mastic, drywall and associated joint compound,
floor tile and associated mastic, carpet mastic, wall plaster, window caulk, duct seam sealant, ceiling tile
mastic and white pipe seam sealant. All of the materials sampled by F&R were determined to be non
asbestos‐containing. However, F&R assumed the following materials to be asbestos‐containing: metal
fire doors, interior elevator/elevator shaft components, water fountain pipe wrap, and pipe insulation
behind solid walls and ceilings and behind pipe chases.

F&R observed 23 metal fire doors throughout the school that are presumed to be asbestos‐containing.
The doors were observed in good condition at the time of the survey. Additionally, F&R assumed that
the one elevator located within the school contains interior and shaft components that are asbestos‐
containing. These materials include elevator brakes, elevator cab insulation, elevator shaft walls, and
spray‐on fireproofing located in the elevator shaft. The interior elevator and shaft components were
inaccessible at the time of the survey. F&R observed approximately 10 water fountains throughout the
school that are assumed to contain asbestos‐containing pipe wrap. The pipe wrap was inaccessible at
the time of our inspection. For the purposes of this study, F&R assumes that there is approximately
1,000 linear feet of asbestos‐containing pipe insulation within pipe chases and behind solid walls and
ceilings, although no asbestos‐containing pipe insulation was observed by F&R during our investigation.

Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) and dated May 30, 1992. The PSI report did not identify any
ACM within the school.

2‐97

asbestos abatement contractor prior to impact by renovation or demolition activities; furthermore, all
renovation or demolition activities. Additionally, F&R recommends that the 1992 Asbestos
Management Plan be updated as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) requires that
these plans be updated every three years.

Lead Based Paint
F&R conducted a LBP screening of the painted surfaces located throughout the interior and exterior of
Thomas Jefferson Elementary School. LBP was identified on the following interior building components:
white metal pillars located in the kitchen and blue metal door frames located throughout the school.
The following exterior building components were identified as containing lead based paint: brown metal
pillars throughout the exterior and a black metal overhang located at a rear building entrance adjacent
to the playground. Since this was a limited LBP survey additional LBP surfaces may be present that were
not tested. All painted surfaces should be assumed to contain LBP or lead‐containing paint.

without LBP becoming an issue of concern. However, if building components containing LBP are to be
stripped and repainted, precautions would need to be taken. Specifically, if these building components
are to be sanded, abraded or heated to remove the LBP, workers trained in LBP removal should be
contracted for the work.

require that contractors involved in renovation, repair or painting activities in buildings constructed
prior to 1978 in which children under the age of 6 are present take special precautions to avoid creating
a lead hazard. These precautions include posting warning signs; restricting occupants from work areas;
containing work areas to prevent dust and debris from spreading; conducting a thorough cleanup and
verification that cleanup was effective. Should renovations that disturb LBP take place once this
regulation takes effect, there will be a cost associated with renovating these building components. At
this time F&R believes that the presence of LBP will have only minimal impact to the project, primarily
with contractor compliance with current OSHA regulations.

observed throughout the building. Fluorescent light tubes were also inspected for the presence of
mercury. All of the fluorescent light tubes observed by F&R contained the low‐mercury symbol. Under
Virginia regulations, light tubes with the low mercury symbol can be disposed of as general waste
within the school.

F&R visually surveyed a representative number of light ballasts throughout Thomas Jefferson
Elementary School. All of the light ballasts observed contained the “No PCB” label and therefore PCB‐
containing ballasts are likely not a concern at this property, however some PCB‐containing ballasts may

2‐98

still remain within the school. No other potential PCB‐containing equipment was observed by F&R.

Cost Estimates
major and minor renovations at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School. F&R is assuming that no work is
to be conducted on the roof.


• Metal Fire Doors – F&R observed 23 metal fire doors throughout the school that are
assumed to be asbestos‐containing. F&R assumes an abatement cost of approximately
$100.00 per door for a total abatement cost of $2,300.
concern if renovation work impacting LBP occurs before April 2010, when the “Lead:
Renovation, Repair and Painting Program” takes effect. For renovation work that impacts
LBP which occurs after this date, F&R assumes a cost of approximately $10,000 for special
precautions that will need to be taken.

The total estimated cost for the removal of the identified and suspected hazardous materials associated
with a minor renovation at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School is $12,300. F&R typically adds an
additional 25% contingency fee for estimates such as these. Other costs typically associated with the
abatement of these materials would include abatement design, project management, and
oversight/monitoring of the work which are generally estimated to be 15 to 25% of the abatement
costs. The total estimated costs to remove the identified and suspected hazardous materials associated
with a minor renovation at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School, including the 25% contingency fee and
design, project management and oversight/monitoring fees ranges up to $19,219.


• Interior Elevator and Elevator Shaft Components – There is one elevator located within the
school. F&R assumed that interior components within the elevator and shaft are asbestos‐
containing. These materials include elevator brakes, elevator cab insulation, elevator shaft
walls, and spray‐on fireproofing located in the elevator shaft. F&R assumes a cost of
approximately $10,000 for abatement of these materials.
• Water Fountain Pipe Wrap – F&R observed approximately 10 water fountains located
throughout the school assumed to contain asbestos‐containing pipe wrap. F&R assumes an
abatement cost of approximately $250.00 per water fountain for a total abatement cost of
$2,500.
• Pipe Insulation – F&R assumes that approximately 1,000 linear feet of pipe insulation exists
within pipe chases and behind solid walls and ceilings. F&R assumes an abatement cost of
approximately $25.00 per linear foot for a total abatement cost of $25,000.
throughout the school. F&R assumes that removal of the thermostats will cost $100.00
each for a total removal cost of $4,600.

2‐99


The total estimated cost for the removal of the identified and suspected hazardous materials associated
with a major renovation at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School is $54,400. F&R typically adds an
additional 25% contingency fee for estimates such as these. Other costs typically associated with the
abatement of these materials would include abatement design, project management, and
oversight/monitoring of the work which are generally estimated to be 15 to 25% of the abatement
costs. The total estimated costs to remove the identified and suspected hazardous materials associated
with a major renovation at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School, including the 25% contingency fee and
design, project management and oversight/monitoring fees ranges up to $85,000.


Eperitus surveyed Thomas Jefferson Elementary School to determine instructional technology
capabilities and network resources. The following observations were made:

• The school has developed a broadcast studio at the TLC.
• The technology support office/area is located in a mobile classroom unit.
• Classrooms use voice enhancement systems (manufacturer: FrontRow Digital), as does the
other elementary school. Similar to that school, the sound systems are not connected to
teacher computers.
• Some classrooms do not have the FrontRow sound systems. In those areas, self‐contained
powered single‐speaker units are used.
• This appears to be the only school using Macintosh computers in addition to PC‐based
machines. (All of the other schools use PC computers running Microsoft Windows.) These
Macintosh computers are being phased out, but are being used to the end of their service
life.
• Laptops and carts are being used in this school.
• Apple brand wireless access points continue to be used in this school to support the student
laptops. These access points are not capable of being centrally managed as are current state
of the technology installations used in other school divisions. The service life of these units is
coming to an end due to their age and that new laptops are capable of communicating at
much higher speeds and bandwidths than these devices can support.
• There is a mix of access point types and brands being used in the school. Some Cisco access
points were observed in addition to the Apple “mushrooms”. The Cisco access points are not
being fed electricity via the network (PoE – power over Ethernet), which means
transformers are being connected to electrical outlets above ceiling tiles. This is not an
acceptable practice. Also, these units are intended to mount against a wall so that the
antennae are positioned properly to reach the users in the room.
• The mix of wireless access point types and inconsistent mounting practices do not produce a
solid or manageable wireless network environment. As has been mentioned, a centrally
managed wireless network environment is considered a standard for current school
construction projects.
• Some of the servers are Apple machines running a non‐Microsoft Windows operating
system.

2‐100

• The network cabling is a mixture of category 5 and 5e and it has been augmented over an
undetermined period of time. Overall, this school has network cabling infrastructure that is
very much at risk due to disorganization and non‐standard installation practices.
• An LCD projector retrofit program was underway for the classrooms. Generally, better
practices installation practices, mounting hardware, and connections are being used in these
installations compared to elsewhere in the school division. There is still a risk of vibrating
projectors and images given these retro installations.
• In general, two computers are available for student use in each classroom.
• As with a number of other data locations in the school division, there are issues with
data/network spaces relative to temperature and dust/lint control. In some situations box
fans were seen in these areas. These might help the comfort of the technician, but they only
make the dust situation worse and do not provide any cooling or heat exhaust unless there
is an opening for the air to circulate through.


Site
Much of the unbuilt site is in a flood plain and is not usable, but the parcel is in a good location within
the City. This is the only school located within the City boundaries, and as such its location is valuable to
the residents of Falls Church.

• Maximum Capacity – 490 (as‐is). Forecasted 2‐4 will be 454 (2018) to 600 (2028) students.
Shortfall = 110 or approximately 6 classrooms (24:1), plus the associated supporting core
areas.
• Jefferson Elementary currently operates on an average PTR at the desired 22:1 ratio if
second grade and 24:1 in grades 3 and 4, and thus just below capacity.
• The facility has had multiple additions over the years and, although each area has its
positives, the flow in the facility is made difficult by multiple levels. Lower level (first floor)
is a maze – very little direct line of site – may be considered a safety issue. Main entry not
conducive to parking area; entry not very friendly feeling.
• Very active community use, hard on the facility.
• Began PYP this year for IB – program requirements may determine the need for more
flexible space.
• A lot of programs and services are provided to students on this site (in trailers and in various
places throughout the building). Extras ‐ Before and after care has been provided with good
storage. A science lab is a nice amenity for an elementary school.
• There is little space for teacher use, and limited space to conference or discuss students and
curriculum. Office space is extremely limited, although main office addition/renovation is
nicely laid out.
• The trailer complex outside has been there for over a decade – it is a maze with security
concerns.

Architectural

2‐101

• Accessibility issues ‐ main public entry not accessible, interior accessibility not convenient
• Existing Building is a conglomeration of various aesthetic elements do to assorted additions
• Too many modular structures are being utilized on site
• Existing facility has many differing levels to access efficiently
• No onsite parking for visitors visiting the public entry
• Lighting quality needs upgrading‐ general and task oriented

• All of the major HVAC equipment was replaced in 1992 and 1995. The boilers, pumps and
central plant equipment have a normal life expectancy of 20 to 25 years.
• The water‐cooled heat pumps, roof top A/C units and the cooling tower have a normal life
expectancy of 15 to 20 years and are at the end of their normal life expectancy.
• All of the heat pumps and RTU’s utilize R‐22 refrigerant which has been phased out. The use
of this refrigerant will no longer be allowed by 2010 and will be difficult to obtain for
maintenance purposes.
• The make‐up air unit for the kitchen has electric heat which is very expensive to operate.
The unit is 30 years old and has outlived its normal life expectancy. The unit should be
replaced and either gas or hot water heat should be used to reduce operation cost.
• The central temperature control and alarm panel should be modified to provide remote
status and alarm capability at the main facility office.
• The existing domestic water heater has surpassed its reasonable life expectancy of 10 to 15
years and should be replaced with a more energy efficient gas fired type unit.
sinks to provide ‘tempered’ water per ADA requirements.
• Recommend providing a wet type sprinkler system to the building to improve the level of
‘life safety’.
• The existing switchboard is functioning, however the manufacturer is no longer in business
and replacement parts are not available. The switchboard also does not have space for
future expansion. In the event of a complete renovation it is recommended that the
switchboard and electrical service equipment be replaced.
• The existing distribution system is functioning; however, the original base building panels
manufacturer is no longer in business and replacement parts are not available. Through the
years, other manufacturer’s circuit breakers have been fitted into existing panels. The panel
boards also do not have many spare circuit breakers. In the event of a complete renovation
it is recommended that the power distribution equipment be replaced.
• The building emergency generator is in working condition but is reaching the end of its
useful life. The automatic transfer switch is also reaching the end of its useful life. The
emergency panel is manufactured by Federal Pacific which is no longer in business, so
replacement parts are not available. In the event of a complete renovation, it is
recommended that a new properly sized generator and distribution equipment be installed
for the entire building.
security lighting requirements.

2‐102


Hazardous Materials


Technology
The Thomas Jefferson Elementary School provides consistent instructional technology resources at
different grade levels. The additions of new technologies and their required connections to the network
are not being installed in a manner that is consistent with the original installation – this situation needs
to be rectified before the infrastructure becomes even more piecemealed and undocumented. Some
trip and snag hazards exist that need to be rectified to prevent human or equipment damage through
accidents.

Summary
This school is located on a parcel that is centrally located within the city, and which offers valuable green
space due to a part of the site being wetlands, but which does not lend itself to expansion. The facility is
currently being over utilized for both school and community purposes, and is experiencing significant
wear as a result. While this facility is solid, renovations and updates are necessary to ensure that it can
continue to serve through the 20‐year planning period. The capacity of the program at this school is
smaller than any of the desired components of the master plan, making its long‐term school usefulness
questionable.

2‐103

2‐3 ‐ Facility Evaluations – Gage House
Gage House

Site Description
This facility is located inside Cherry Hill Park, near the site of City Hall. The structure is located inside the
park and is City‐owned, and has historical significance. Vehicular access is via the park, with limited
visitor parking adjacent to the Gage House.

Zoning Requirements
The subject parcel is zoned ”O‐D Official Design”.

Site Utilities
The subject site is serviced by public and private utilities.

Environmental Assessment
The subject site is not within a City designated floodplain or Resource Protection Area (RPA). The site is
located within Cherry Hill Park, and is subject to the associated restrictions on site development.

Gage House is a wood structure two stories in height above ground with a stone wall basement area
below with pitched green standing seam metal roofs. Individual residential windows and doorways are
the typical opening elements. A covered porch with monumental stairs faces Great Falls Street to the
northeast, and an additional entry is on the opposite side of the building and incorporates an accessible
ramp system from the adjacent parking spaces continuing up to the door.

An outdoor egress escape system is mounted adjacent the door from the upper balcony on this level as
(facing southwest) a means of egress for upstairs occupants.

The current façade treatment is vinyl siding with painted wood trim. The current paint coating is still in
good shape in most areas

Site Access
The accessible entry faces the small adjacent parking area. There is an opportunity for one to come up
the meandering walkway from the street side, at which point you arrive at the front porch and
monumental stairs. An accessible sign directs you to the other entry, but there are no paths around the
building that would allow you to access the ramp and door.

Layout
The rooms are arranged around a central fireplace area on the first level, and a small connecting
corridor from front to back on the second level. The interior is arranged around a continuous corridor
from front to back with an adjacent stair that leads to the basement and second level.
A small kitchen area and pantry are off this corridor, as well as existing unisex toilet rooms that have
been modified for accessibility reasons.

2‐104

2‐3 ‐ Facility Evaluations –Gage House
Lighting
The existing lighting is of a residential nature and as such does not provide what would be considered
good light quality for educational tasks.

Acoustics
Because of the size of the rooms in the facility, larger groups tend to have a higher sound level in the
facility. Acoustical attenuation is recommended to offset this increased sound level.

Finishes
The typical interior finishes consist of hardwood flooring and carpet, solid plaster walls with wood lath
and similar ceilings all painted in neutral tones. Some acoustical tile ceilings have been installed in areas
where HVAC systems have had modifications made to them. Dark woodwork door and frame accents
are apparent in all rooms.

As a structure on the historic register, enhancements to the facility would need to be coordinated from
a historically correct standpoint.

Upgrades to the Utility and Life Safety Systems will need to be made in the future as the systems age.

F&R surveyed the property to identify ACM, LBP and suspect PCB and mercury containing equipment
utilizing non‐destructive sampling. The following paragraphs summarize their findings:

• F&R identified asbestos‐containing vibration dampers in the basement and attic.
• F&R identified asbestos‐containing pipe insulation debris in the basement.
• F&R identified an asbestos‐containing membrane on the 2nd floor balcony.
• F&R identified lead based paint on various wooden building components throughout the
interior and exterior of the structure.
• F&R observed mercury‐containing thermostats in the 1st and 2nd floor hallways.
• F&R visually inspected the fluorescent light fixtures in the basement. Based on our
fixtures.

During F&R’s non‐destructive survey for ACM the following materials were sampled: linoleum flooring,
ceiling tiles, attic insulation, siding and roofing felt, drywall and associated joint compound, window
glazing, wall plaster, vibration dampers, pipe insulation and a balcony membrane. The following
materials were determined to be asbestos‐containing: vibration dampers, pipe insulation and balcony
membrane.

F&R identified three asbestos‐containing vibration dampers in the basement and attic. This material
was observed in fair condition at the time of the survey. Asbestos‐containing pipe insulation debris was
identified in the basement. The entirety of the material observed by F&R was submitted to the

2‐105

laboratory for analysis. Although F&R did not observe additional pipe insulation at the property, for the
purposes of this feasibility study it should be assumed that approximately 250 linear feet of this material
exists behind solid walls and ceilings and within pipe chases. Approximately 150 square feet of an
asbestos‐containing balcony membrane was observed on the 2nd floor balcony. This material was
observed in poor condition at the time of the survey.

renovation or demolition activities. Additionally, the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)
requires that all schools built prior to 1989 have an Asbestos Management Plan prepared and updated
every three years to manage any ACM/ACBM located within the facility. F&R is not aware of an existing
Asbestos Management Plan for the Gage House, and therefore recommends that one be prepared and
implemented for the facility.

Lead Based Paint
F&R conducted a lead based paint screening of the painted surfaces within the Gage House. Lead based
paint was identified on the following building components: white wood ceilings and walls located on the
2nd floor, white wood porch columns and roof on the rear porch, green wood lattice‐work located on the
exterior, white wood door frame located on the 2nd floor balcony, grey wood door and door frame
located at the attic entrance and grey wood stair stringers and risers located in the stairwell. Since this
was a limited LBP survey additional LBP surfaces may be present that were not tested. All painted
surfaces should be assumed to contain LBP or lead‐containing paint.

In general, if structures are to be renovated or demolished, typical demolition techniques can be used
without lead based paint becoming an issue of concern. However, if building components containing
lead‐based paint are to be stripped and repainted, precautions would need to be taken. Specifically, if
these building components are to be sanded, abraded or heated to remove the lead‐based paint,
workers trained in lead‐based paint removal should be contracted for the work.

require that contractors involved in renovation, repair or painting activities in which children under the
age of 6 are present take special precautions to avoid creating a lead hazard. These precautions include
posting warning signs; restricting occupants from work areas; containing work areas to prevent dust and
debris from spreading; conducting a thorough cleanup and verification that cleanup was effective.
Should renovations activities that disturb LBP take place once this regulation takes effect, there will be a
cost associated with renovating building components that contain LBP. At this time F&R believes that
the presence of LBP will have only a minimal impact to the project, primarily with contractor compliance
with current OSHA regulations.

F&R identified two thermostats that contained mercury‐containing switches. These thermostats were
observed on the 1st and 2nd floor hallways. Fluorescent light tubes were also inspected for the presence
of mercury. All of the fluorescent light tubes observed by F&R contained the low‐mercury symbol.
Under Virginia regulations, light tubes with the low mercury symbol can be disposed of as general waste

2‐106

within the facility.

F&R visually surveyed the fluorescent light ballasts within the Gage House for the presence of the “No
PCB” label. All of the ballasts observed by F&R contained the “No PCB” label and therefore PCB‐
containing ballasts are not a concern at this property. No other potential PCB‐containing equipment
was observed by F&R.

Cost Estimates
major and minor renovations at the Gage House. F&R is assuming that no work is to be conducted on
the roof.

“Minor Renovation” Cost Estimate

• Balcony Membrane – Approximately 150 square feet of an asbestos‐containing membrane
was observed on the 2nd floor balcony. F&R assumes a cost of $15.00 per square foot for
abatement of the membrane for a total abatement cost of $2,250.
• Lead Based Paint – F&R assumes that structures containing lead‐based paint can be
renovated or demolished utilizing typical demolition techniques without lead based paint
becoming an issue of concern if renovation work impacting LBP occurs before April 2010,
when the “Lead. Renovation, Repair and Painting Program” takes effect. For renovation
work that impacts LBP which occurs after this date, F&R assumes a cost of approximately
$5,000 for special precautions that will need to be taken.

The total estimated cost for the removal of the identified hazardous materials associated with a minor
renovation at the Gage House is $7,250. F&R typically adds an additional 25% contingency fee for
estimates such as these. Other costs typically associated with the abatement of these materials would
include abatement design, project management, and oversight/monitoring of the work which are
generally estimated at 15 to 25% of the abatement costs. The total estimated costs to remove the
identified hazardous materials associated with a minor renovation at the Gage House, including the 25%
contingency fee and design, project management and oversight/monitoring fees ranges up to $11,328.

referenced in the “minor renovation” cost estimate section)

• Vibration Dampers – Three asbestos‐containing vibration dampers were observed in the
basement and attic. F&R assumes an abatement cost of approximately $250.00 per
vibration damper for a total abatement cost of $750.
• Pipe Insulation – For the purposes of this feasibility study, F&R assumes that approximately
250 linear feet of asbestos‐containing pipe insulation is located behind solid walls and
ceilings and within pipe chases. F&R assumes an abatement cost of $25.00 per linear foot
for a total abatement cost of $6,250.
• Mercury‐Containing Thermostats – F&R observed two mercury‐containing thermostats
which were located on the 1st and 2nd floor hallways. F&R assumes that removal of the
thermostats will cost a total of $1,000.

2‐107


The total estimated cost for the removal of the identified hazardous materials associated with a major
renovation at the Gage House is $15,250. F&R typically adds an additional 25% contingency fee for
estimates such as these. Other costs typically associated with the abatement of these materials would
include abatement design, project management, and oversight/monitoring of the work which are
generally estimated at 15 to 25% of the abatement costs. The total estimated costs to remove the
identified hazardous materials associated with a major renovation at the Gage House, including the 25%
contingency fee and design, project management and oversight/monitoring fees ranges up to $23,828.


Site
This house is a City‐owned facility on city site within the Cherry Hill Park.
• Limited parking on site.

• Program Capacity is limited by facility size and fire code.
• There is greater demand than capacity permits.

Architectural
• City historical structure. Any changes require review by Historical Advisory Review Board.

• Systems are old and constrained by inability to renovate without review.

Hazardous Materials

Technology
Technology upgrades are necessary for high speed network/ internet access, as well as AV presentation.

Summary
This facility has worked well as the home of the alternative program for at‐risk youth; however, the
demand for this program has exceeded the capacity at this facility. Summer use for camp and other
competing demands for this facility limit its use year‐round as a school. Since this is a historical
structure located within the boundaries of a park, with multiple recreational uses, the practicality of
renovating to custom‐tailor this house to serve as a full‐time alternative school is debatable. Long‐term
master plan options will explore moving this program to a larger program space on another site.

2‐108


2‐109

Chapter 3
MASTER PLAN
3-1 – Educational Specifications
3-1 Purpose of a Division-Wide Educational Specification
The National School Boards Association defines the purpose of educational specifications as “to define
the programmatic, functional, spatial, and environmental requirements of the educational facility,
whether new or remodeled, in written and graphic form for review, clarification, and agreement as to
scope of work and design requirements for the architect, engineer, and other professionals working on
the building design.”
An educational specification should not be confused with a design specification, which is the document
developed by an architect to communicate to the contractor regarding building materials, major
systems and design details.
The purpose of this document is to provide a framework for site-specific educational facility
specifications and design for Falls Church City Public Schools (FCCPS).
The goal of establishing a division-wide specification is to maintain equity and parity among educational
facilities. As each facility is developed, it will be important to work with faculty, staff and community at
each site to allow for site-specific needs.
This division-wide specification takes into consideration current programs and services and guidelines
based on Falls Church City Public Schools policy and practices and current Virginia Department of
Education program space guidelines. It should be used as a guide for planning, designing and evaluating
school facilities. It should also be used in helping understand future renovations, additions, and new
construction as needed.
It should be noted, however, that unlike other states, Virginia does not currently have state-wide
educational facility specifications. The state’s guidelines are used only as recommended minimum
standards. Therefore facility size “averages” vary greatly from year to year based on the number of
projects that went under construction and the particular needs of each locality. For example, in many
years there are only two or three new high schools put under construction. One may be for 800
students and may provide many community amenities, while another is a repeat prototype for 2,400
students in a fast-growing district, with few community resources. The process used to create district-
wide specifications in other states often has a basis in state-wide standards, thus it is easy to determine
what a “community-based standard” actually is.
3-2 The Division-Wide Educational Specification Development Process
An educational specification is an important communication tool. It conveys the values of the school
division as they relate to the places where children learn within the community. It is through the
process of developing educational specifications that the range of issues, alternatives, and all
implications of decisions (economic and otherwise) are thoroughly explored and value decisions are
3-1
3-2 - Educational Specifications – Development Process
made. The written document rarely conveys the magnitude of the importance of these discussions
throughout the specification work sessions.
Defining the Programmatic Requirements

The most important component of this analysis is the review of all existing instructional PK-12 programs,
including preschool, special education, career and technical education, and alternative education, then
looking at future programs and initiatives desired.
The programmatic review used in compiling the information and preparing this document included:
Review of existing documents and school division web site information

Interviews with administrative and lead instructional staff
Tours of all Falls Church facilities
Data from the Virginia Department of Education
Four work sessions with a community-based “Design Committee”
Educational specification development with various Virginia school divisions
Review and revision of programs with school principals, Steering Committee, Superintendent
and Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum & Instruction.
Defining the Spatial Requirements

The projected enrollment of the entire building and the maximum capacity needed for each space are
important in defining spatial requirements. Program area specifications define how many and what
kinds of spaces are needed to deliver the educational program. This is very different in elementary than
in middle and high school. For the purpose of creating an order of magnitude of size for master
planning purposes, each functional space is assigned an example square footage allocation, allowing the
total building square footage to be determined. These spatial examples are based on the draft version
of the 2007 Virginia Department of Education minimum space guidelines, and have been adjusted
based on the desired educational practices of Falls Church. Obviously, programmatic needs and value
decisions for each facility are required to insure both educationally and fiscally responsible decisions are
made regarding future facilities.
Initial site specific discussions with principals and high school Curriculum Instruction Resource Teachers
(CIRTS) regarding each space size and adjacencies related to classroom/instructional functions,
instructional support functions, building circulation, site activities/functions and site circulation were
held. Once the master plan is finalized, a specific capital improvement plan is prioritized, and projects
are initiated, further detail and refinement should take place. The many value judgments made that
reflect the specific needs of education should be documented and communicated at that time.
Defining the Environmental Requirements

Describing in detail the “environment for learning” is very important, as many special features have
specific cost implications. Special features that should be incorporated such as issues of safety, security,
sustainable design, acoustics, lighting, use of color should be identified. New and planned applications of
instructional technology should be described program by program and in terms of building-wide plans.
Many of these have initial cost implications that, again, are value decisions relating to the specific
location.
3-2
3-2 – Educational Specifications – Development Process
Defining the FCCPS Environment for Learning
Falls Church City Public Schools enjoys the reputation of being a “premier small school system” in the
nation. FCCPS serves a cosmopolitan student PK-12 population of about 1900 students including some
tuition students who live in communities outside the City of Falls Church. Beginning with early
education and continuing through adult education, FCCPS offers instructional programs that meet the
needs of all students.
The district currently operates one primary elementary school (PK-1), one upper elementary school
(grades 2-4), one middle school (grades 5-7), one comprehensive high school (grades 8-12), and one
alternative education program at the Gage House building.
Mission and Values (cited from the Falls Church City Public Schools website)
“The Falls Church City Public Schools, in partnership with our families and community, educates and
challenges every student to succeed and become a responsible and contributing member of the global
community.
We value our students and believe that:

decisions of the Falls Church City Public Schools must be based on the needs of students;
students learn best in a secure environment that includes a rigorous and challenging curriculum
and a climate of high expectations and academic excellence;
measurable and achievable student goals must guide teaching and learning; and
schools that value diversity and promote lifelong learning and responsible citizenship provide
students with the foundation for success in a global community.
We value our staff and believe that:

a highly skilled, experienced and dedicated staff is key to effective learning; and
collegiality, collaboration and teamwork are essential.
We value our independent public education system and believe that:

small classes and small schools are the foundation for academic excellence;
data must be used for continuous improvement in teaching and learning; and
the necessary resources must be provided to support student achievement.
We value our partnership with the community and believe that:

our schools must be responsive and accountable to the community; and
community involvement strengthens our schools. “
Specifications to Support the Goals of the Facility Master Plan

The overall goals of the 2008/2009 Facility Master Plan as stated in Chapter 1 are:
Develop a 20-year, phased strategy for maintaining and improving school facilities
3-3
Ensure that future school facilities will keep pace with anticipated growth, educational goals,
and the priorities of the City of Falls Church.
Identify opportunities for improvements in infrastructure, in organization, and in teaching by
Innovate where possible to create facilities that are environmentally sensitive, technologically
Facilitate cooperation between the Falls Church City Public Schools and other community
groups, to provide infrastructure that can meet multiple needs, as appropriate.
The following section defines student, staff, division, community, and division-wide goals and objectives
which support and clarify crucial steps to achieving those goals.
Student Goals
Goal 1: The Falls Church City Public Schools will educate, challenge and support every student to
succeed and become a responsible and contributing member of the global community.
Objective 1.1: To develop strategies that will prepare FCCPS students to be citizens of the global
society.
Goal 2: The Falls Church City Public Schools will sustain a culture that values diversity
and promotes positive and constructive student behavior.
Goal 3: The Falls Church City Public Schools will provide a well rounded education that includes extra
and co-curricular activities and sports.
Objective 3.1: To offer a variety of developmentally appropriate extra and co-curricular

activities.
Objective 3.2: To provide an athletic program that offers diverse, high quality experiences in
athletic skill building, healthy behaviors, competition, sportsmanship and citizenship.
Staff Goals
Goal 1: The Falls Church City Public Schools will attract, retain and develop a highly skilled, experienced
and dedicated teaching, administrative and support staff in a culture of continuous growth.
Goal 2: The Falls Church City Public Schools will create and sustain a culture characterized by teamwork,
collegiality and collaborative decision making.
Objective 2.1: To define and communicate expectations for teamwork, collegiality and
collaborative decision making.
Objective 2.2: To develop an action plan that includes training and other resources to address
these expectations.
3-4
3-2 – Educational Specifications – Development Process
Goal 3: The Falls Church City Public Schools expects administrators to provide effective leadership and
management.
Objective 3.1: To manage carefully the resources provided.
Objective 3.2: To provide protected time for teachers to collaborate, plan and deliver
instruction.
Environmental Goals
Goal 1: The Falls Church City Public School buildings will be safe, healthy and comfortable environments
for students, staff and the community.
Objective 1.1: To ensure that FCCPS facilities and grounds are well maintained.
Objective 1.2: To ensure that FCCPS facilities and grounds are kept up to date through the
systems replacement, renewal and modernization schedule.
Objective 1.3: To pursue future planning that addresses ongoing building use, community use
and future construction.
Objective 1.4: To provide a comprehensive environmental assessment in all FCCPS buildings on

an annual basis.
Goal 2: The Falls Church City Public Schools will be prepared to respond to emergency
situations.
Objective 2.1: To ensure that all FCCPS facilities are secure.
Objective 2.2: To develop and practice plans that address emergency and crisis situations
3-5
Community Goals
Goal 1: The Falls Church City Public Schools will actively involve families as partners in their child(ren)’s
education.
Goal 2: The Falls Church City Public Schools will actively involve the Falls Church community as a partner
in the education of the city’s children.
Objective 2.1: To develop and cultivate relationships and partnerships to benefit the schools and
community.
Division-Wide Goals
Goal 1: The Falls Church City Public Schools will design and deliver programs that address wellness and
foster resiliency.
Goal 2: The Falls Church City School Board will be a responsible steward of the community’s resources
and an advocate for the FCCPS mission.
Goal 3: The Falls Church City Public Schools will ensure that the division operates efficiently and
effectively.
Objective 3.1: To use technology as an integral tool in data management, instruction and
communication.
The Design Committee was created to provide input for the Division-Wide Education Specification,
outlining the characteristics of teaching and learning in Falls Church City as they relate to the overall
mission and goals of the school division, and creating a vision for future educational facilities from the
perspective of the community as a whole. The purpose of the document is to clearly articulate the
assumptions and beliefs of the educational process and how they affect the design of any new or
renovated facility. The committee also makes recommendations to the Steering Committee regarding
educational and architectural programming of spaces.
The Design Committee met four times during the planning process, with each session focusing on a
specific area of creating the environment for learning: Instruction & Issues of 21st Century Learning;
Technology’s Role in Teaching and Learning; School & Community Connection; and Organization &
Relationship of Space to the Teaching & Learning Process in Falls Church, which culminated in the
creation of the Educational Principles and Design Implications at the elementary, middle and high
school levels during the fourth meeting. Meeting Work Summaries and the culminating Planning
Documents can be found in Appendix D and E.
3-6
3-3 - Educational Specifications – Outcomes of Design Committee
3-3 Major Outcomes of Design Committee Process

(Planning Documents – Appendix E)
The Planning Document is divided into sections for elementary, middle and high school concerns.
Within each section are four areas (based on division goals and level needs) with examples of design
implications based on the needs at that level. An overall summary of these areas includes:
Educating, challenging and supporting student success

o Flexibility in layout without interference
o Places for project work and student display
o Variety of size in learning spaces
o Independent learning areas as well as small and whole group
o Technology integration
Attracting, retaining and developing highly skilled staff
o Professional space for all adults
o Technology integration
o Teachers in center of students
o Variety of meeting spaces
o Areas for collaboration
Creating and maintaining safe, healthy and comfortable environments
o Bright, positive, beautiful, inspiring spaces – lots of natural light
o Expansion possibilities
o LEED initiatives
o Appropriate scale
o Accessibility to all locations – removal of any barriers
Actively involving the community as partners in education
o Inviting to community, welcoming upon entry
o Meets needs and interests of variety of groups that use facility
o Safe and secure – good signage
o Child friendly
o Parent work areas
Transitioning From Division-Wide to Site-Specific Programming
The goal of establishing this division-wide specification is to maintain equity and parity among
educational facilities and to outline the Falls Church vision for educational delivery through appropriate
facilities for the 21st Century. The division-wide educational specification is a comprehensive description
of the educational programs offered in the Falls Church City Schools at the elementary, middle, and high
school levels. It also describes the educational philosophy and assumptions within which these program
are offered. Examples of the type, number, size, and functionality of the space required to support
these programs are provided in the division-wide educational specification as a framework for site-
specific educational facility specifications and design for FCCPS. The size of spaces in the space
delineation examples are based on State Guidelines (as of March, 2007) and/or on recommendations
from FCCPS staff.
3-7
3-3 - Educational Specifications – Outcomes of Design Committee
The educational specification for any individual new school or school renovation project will be based
upon the division-wide educational specification, but will be “customized” to that particular project at
the time construction is ready to begin. Once these decisions are made then the project specific
educational specification will be developed to inform the architectural design of the school.
Project-specific decisions (to include, but not limited to):

1. The grade level configuration and the student capacity
2. The programs that are or will be offered in the school and the size and space implications of each,
particularly programs for special needs students
3. Specialty programs and space needs
4. Other “community based” services/programs and/or space requirements unique to that particular
school
5. Site requirements – playfields, parking, etc.
The worksheets included in the Appendix C provide a focus to the site-specific programming process.
These worksheets can be used along with the Space Delineation Examples in the Division-Wide
Educational Specification to determine the base site-specific educational program & space needs
requirements prior to the development of architectural specifications. An area for notes and
explanation of rationale for space or space size is included.
3-8

Chapter 4
MASTER PLAN
4-1 – Overview of Space Programming
4-1 Overview of Space Programming
The goal of a master plan is to provide a phased long-range plan to address the facility needs required to
properly support the school division for the future. The master planning process looks at a variety of
inter-related data at a snapshot in time, and attempts to project how that data will influence future
needs. This data includes student enrollment, facility utilization, educational priorities and goals, and
state space ‘guidelines’ compared to local need for instructional and support delivery.
The ultimate goal of space programming for a master plan is to determine the approximate size building
that will accommodate the student population and instructional delivery methodology of the future.
The program can be used as a baseline whether building new or developing an addition/renovation, and
is intended to be adjusted for either purpose.
It is important to note that the resulting space program is not intended to be the final architectural
program that is used when a building program begins, but as a starting point for further discussion
and refinement by community of user groups. It is at that point that the details will be influenced by
the committee and the designer.
Space Requirements for Use in the Master Planning Process
The following space requirements for current programs and practices were developed as the result of:
Tours of the Existing Facilities
Enrollment Projection Analysis – Resulting in a Master Plan for 200 Students/Grade Level
Existing Utilization Practices and Program Capacity Analysis
Design Committee Meetings (previous sections)
Steering Committee Input
Principal Review and Input at Each Level
CIRT Input at the High School Level
Division Superintendent/Asst. Superintendent of Curriculum & Instruction review
The space programs are based on Virginia DOE DRAFT 3/2007 and BICSI 2003 recommendations, and
modified as necessary to comply with the Educational Principles and Design Implications (Appendix E) as
well as anticipated needs based on current practices. These programs serve as the basis for developing
master plan options.
4-1
4-2 – Space Requirements - Elementary
4-2 Space Requirements - Elementary
Suggested Square Foot Guidelines for Elementary Schools

(based on Virginia DOE DRAFT 3/2007 & BICSI 2003 Recommendations)
Classroom Areas: Pre K and Kindergarten 975 SF + 50 SF Toilet (1,025 SF)
First 975 SF + 50 SF Toilet (1,025 SF)
Second through Fifth 800 SF
Core Areas: Student Resource (ESL, Other) 500 SF
Media Center Reading Room 750 + 2x capacity + 570-600 SF office, etc.
Dining Room 1/3 pupils x 12 + 400 SF table storage/1700 SF
storage
Kitchen 1000 + 1 x capacity + 80 SF office
Unique Areas: Computer Lab 800 SF
Level 1 Special Ed Services 400 SF
Level 2 Special Ed Services 750 SF + 50 SF Toilet 800 SF
Music 1000 SF
Art 1200 SF
Gym (Multi-purpose) 3150 SF – min floor + 2000 – 3000 SF (office
w/toilet, storage)
Technology 500 SF MDF / Tech Office
80 SF IDF per every 20,000 SF
Other: Team Planning 300 SF for schools under 600 / 400 SF
For schools over 600: Grade Level Planning 1800 SF
Parent/PTA Resource 2100 SF
Park & Recreation Office 250 SF w/toilet
Remedial Resource Room 400 SF
4-2
Elementary Level Space Needs – Based on Current Grade Level Configuration of PK-1 and 2-4
Desired Grade Configuration: TBD

Desired School Size: TBD
Desired Student/Teacher Ratio: PK - 15:1; K-2 - 22:1; 3-4 – 24:1
A baseline architectural program was developed for the master plan using the current grade level
configuration divisions (PK-1) and (2-4). This base program can be found in Appendix F. As master plan
options were reviewed, this base program can be adjusted for grade level groupings accordingly.
Elementary Space Program Highlights – based on FCCPS instructional delivery

Classrooms for 160 students/grade level at K-2 (PTR 22:1); 170 students/grade level at
3-5 (PTR 24:1) with future expansion capabilities to 200 students/grade level
Core areas (gym, dining, media center) sized for 200 students/grade level
All classrooms include additional SF for in-class storage and small group learning
Pre-K through Grade 2 classrooms include toilets
Science classroom for upper elementary
OT/PT classrooms
Self contained SE classrooms are sized as regular classrooms
Music includes addition SF for instrument storage for upper elementary
Learning labs (technology) provided at regular classroom size if needed in the future for
content area lab such as science
A number of additional small classrooms for flexibility with small group or pull out
scenarios
Family literacy classroom for students and a parent resource/learning center
Conference/team spaces for professional needs
Ample office spaces for administrative needs, including guidance
Performance space in cafeteria
Teacher dining with kitchenette
Separate daycare classroom(s) with storage
4-3
Figure 4-1
FCCPS Comparison of Space Program to State DOE Guidelines
Space DOE Guidelines FCCPS MP Program

GENERAL CLASSROOMS
Pre-K (PTR 15:1) – Grade 1 (PTR 22:1) 975 + 50 (toilet) 975 + 50 + 30 (2,8)
Grade 2 (PTR 22:1) 800 800 + 50 + 30 (2,8)
Grades 3-4 (PTR 24:1) 800 800 + 30 (2,8)
Science n/a 950 (9,12)
Special Needs Self Contained 750 + 50 (toilet) 750 + 50
Special Needs Resource 400 400 – 500 (2,11)
CORE AREAS (1,6,10) - 200/g.l.
Media Center 750 + 2x capacity +570 750 + 2x capacity +570
Dining 1/3 x capacity x 12 ½ x capacity x 12
Gymnasium 3150 + 2000 storage 6000
Auditorium n/a Performance space
OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL (9)
Learning (computer) Lab 800 Classroom sized (1,9,13)
Music/Choral 1000 1000
Band n/a Addt’l storage (9)
Art 1200 1200
FCCPS SPECIFIC
Family Literacy Program n/a classroom + parent resource rm
OT/PT n/a 500
Extended Day Care n/a classroom + storage
IB-PYP n/a learning lab/resource
Professional collaboration n/a Tchr dining & workrooms
Program Areas Related to Increase in Facility Size

Noted in Figure 4-1 in ( )
1. Anticipated increase in student populations 9. Appropriate sized classrooms for art, music,
– core areas sized larger PE/performance, PYP IB curriculum – not in
2. Right-sizing classrooms for current current designs
guidelines and practices and storage needs 10. Appropriate sized dining facility for future
3. Extended Day Care Program (see below) capacity
4. Teacher resource and student resource 11. Increase in students with ESOL and other
needs special needs
5. Additional administration functions 12. Elementary science lab
6. Additional community use/needs 13. Increased space for technology
7. Family Literacy program 14. Increased mechanical/electrical space
8. Flexibility for student grouping needed
4-4
Extended Day Care Program – School Year

The Falls Church City Public Schools day care program includes the Extended Day Care Program at Mt.
Daniel and Thomas Jefferson elementary schools and the After School Activities Program (ASAP) at Mary
Ellen Henderson Middle and is available to provide parents an alternate, safe, supervised, enriching
environment for school-age children during hours when parents are unable to provide such an
environment for a variety of reasons. Families enroll for after school full time day care, after school part
time day care and/or before school full time day care.
FCCPS School Board Policy 5.36 (adopted 7/1/08) states “Under the auspices of the Office of the
Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations, the School Board approves the use of school
buildings for an Extended Day Care Program outside of regular school hours during the public school
year. The program is available to all school age students (grades K-7) who reside in the City of Falls
Church or who are enrolled in a public or private school in the City of Falls Church. The Superintendent,
in consultation with the Extended Day Care Advisory Board, will issue a regulation which defines
eligibility priorities and adopts administrative procedures for the program.”
It further states: “The School Board will provide facilities to house the Extended Day Care Program,
custodial services, and such equipment as may be shared without affecting adversely the educational
programs in the schools. Use of all facilities and equipment is subject to approval of the Superintendent
or designee.”
Current Capacity and Space Comparison to Master Plan Space Program

Elementary School
Figure 4-2 Current Model
Program Capacity (Student Seats) Facility Size (SF)

Facility Grades Current Projected Shortfall Current MP Shortfall
Program
Mount Daniel PK - 1 275 430 155 (56%) 44,100 81,400 37,300
T Jefferson 2-4 490 525 35 (7%) 60,900 80,800 19,900
Figure 4-3 Efficiency Shift

Program
Mount Daniel PK - 2 275 600 325(118%) 44,100 95,100 51,000
T Jefferson 3-5 490 525 35 (7%) 60,900 80,600 19,700
4-5
4-3 – Space Requirements – Middle School
4-3 Space Requirements – Middle School
Suggested Square Foot Guidelines for Middle Schools

Classroom Areas: General Classroom 700 SF
Resource Classroom 500 SF
Science 1200 SF lab/classroom
Core Areas: Media Center Reading Room 1000 SF + 3x capacity - 2800 SF +
office/storage 800 SF
Dining Room 1/3 pupils x 12 – 2400 SF
Kitchen 1000 SF + 1 x capacity – 1600 SF + table/chair
storage 400 SF
Unique Areas: Business/Computer Lab 800 SF
Exploratory Lab 1600 SF
Life Management Lab 1600 SF
Level 2 Special Ed Services 750 SF + 50 SF Toilet - 800
Band/Orchestra 1200 SF
Choral 1000 SF
Art 1200 SF + kiln and storage
Other: Gym 10,000 SF (+ stage 1200 SF)
Lockers 3000 SF each, Offices 200 SF each,
storage 850 SF in/out
For schools over 600: Auxiliary Gym 5000 SF
Health 800 SF
ISS 600 SF
4-6
4-3 – Space Requirements – Middle School
Middle School Level Space Needs – Based on Current Grade Level Configuration of Grades 5-7
Desired Grade Configuration: 5-7 or 6-8 (TBD)

Desired School Size: 600
School-within-a-school groups of no more than 200 students
Desired Student/Teacher Ratio: 24:1
Mary Ellen Henderson was designed as a middle grades facility and opened in 2005. As most modern
middle school faculties, Mary Ellen Henderson is organized into interdisciplinary teams for the core
subject areas, which include math, science, social studies and English. The middle school organizational
structure lends itself to a “house” concept. This organization provides a sense of smallness, or “school-
within-a-school” and identity for faculty and students in a building. If the school continues to serve 3
grade levels, it does not appear it will need any near-term programmatic changes. Therefore, a new
space program was not deemed necessary for the purpose of this master plan.
Modifications for program needs such as the band/performance/cafeteria area have been suggested as
part of the interview process. At the time of routine maintenance to the facility, these adjustments can
be considered.
The largest consideration for Mary Ellen Henderson in the master planning process is how the facility
and students will relate to other needs on the existing site.
Current Capacity and Space Comparison to Master Plan Space Program

Middle School
Figure 4-4 Current Model

Program
ME Henderson 5-7 or 6- 600 600 0 128,800 N/A N/A
8
4-7
4-4 – Space Requirements – High School
4-4 Space Requirements – High School
Suggested Square Foot Guidelines for High Schools

General Classroom 700 SF
Science 1400 SF if lab/classroom
Resource Classrooms 700 SF
Reading/ESL Lab 600 SF
Media Center Reading Room 1000 SF + 3x capacity - 4000 SF
+ library office / rooms 1000
Dining Room 1/3 pupils x 12 – 4000 SF
Kitchen 1000 SF + 1 x capacity – 2000 SF
Kitchen Serving 2300 SF
Computer Lab 800 SF
Business Lab 900 + office / storage 250 SF
World Language Lab 700 SF
Testing/Itinerant 100 SF
Specialized Learning Labs 900 – 3000 SF, depending on program &
equipment
Level 2 Special Ed Services 750 SF + 50 SF Toilet - 800 SF
Band/Orchestra 1600 SF + 450 SF storage
Choral 1000 SF +storage
Art 1400 SF lab + 400 SF kiln and storage
700 SF classroom / 750 SF darkroom
Gym 10,000 SF
Auxiliary Gym 5000 SF
5000 SF each lockers, 100 SF each offices,
1000 SF each storage
Health 800 SF
Auditorium #/grade x 8 SF/pupil + 4000 SF stage
and support areas
Career Center 200 SF
Drama 1000 SF
Teacher Planning 275 SF each
Distributive Ed 750 SF
ISS 600 SF
Student Commons 2000 SF
4-8
High School Level Space Needs – Based on Current Grade Level Configuration of Grades 8-12
Desired Grade Configuration: 8 – 12 or 9 – 12 (TBD)

Desired School Size: 800 – 1000
(depending on 4 or 5 grade level configuration)
Desired Student/Teacher Ratio: 24:1 in core classes; 20:1 in CTE
A baseline architectural program was developed for the master plan using the current grade level
configuration of grades 8-12 with a comparison program for grades 9-12. This base program can be
found in Appendix F.
High School Space Program Highlights – based on FCCPS instructional delivery

Classrooms for 185 students/grade level (PTR 24:1) with future expansion capabilities to
200 students/grade level
Core areas (gym, dining, media center) sized for 200 students/grade level
Five ‘discipline’ departments – English, Math, Science, Social Studies, World Language
Each department area contains variety of classroom, computer resource, learning labs –
depending on content area needs and teacher resource area, ESOL and special needs
content, student toilets, technology
Key relationships to each discipline have been identified (i.e. World Language and film
study to English)
An interdisciplinary commons that includes the media center and resources such as a
presentation (black box) area, small group and individual assessment, and
computer/media resources to connect to core disciplines
Separate visual and performing arts departments with associated learning labs
Auditorium w/seating for 1000 anticipating community use
Changing Career and Technical needs anticipated, several large labs with teacher
resource area
Athletic facilities sized for student body and community use, including fitness center for
students and faculty
Variety of Special Education classrooms for specific needs (OT/PT, life skills, sensory
room, etc.)
Special Education Transition Center
Ample office spaces for administrative needs, including guidance
Technology support services with testing lab/student resource area
Separate guidance/career center/parent support area
Dining sized for ½ student body to allow flexibility of space use for community
Community use maintained – TLC and community TV station
4-9
Figure 4-5
FCCPS Comparison of Space Program to State DOE Guidelines
Space DOE Guidelines FCCPS MP Program

GENERAL CLASSROOMS
Classrooms (PTR 24:1) 700 800 (2,6)
Science 1400+prep/storage 1800 (2)
Special Needs Self Contained 750 + 50 (toilet) 750 + 50
Special Needs Resource 400 500 (2,10)
CORE AREAS (1,5,8) - 200/g.l.
Media Center 1000 + 3x capacity + 1000 + 3x capacity ++ (6, 11)
Dining 1/3 x 12 ½ x 12 (5,8)
Gymnasium 10,000 + storage 12,000 + storage
Auditorium 8 x GL + 4000 8 x 1000 + 4000 (5)
OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL (6,7)
Learning (computer) Lab 800 900 (2)
Music/Choral 1000 + storage 1000 + storage
Band 1600 + storage 1600 + storage
Art 1400 + storage 1400 + storage
Health 800 800
Career & Tech Classroom (PTR 20:1) 900 – 1200 900 - 1200
Career & Tech Lab/Classroom 900 – 3000 1500 (7)
FCCPS SPECIFIC
5 Departmental Areas n/a classrooms/labs/storage/teacher
work/toilets/ESOL/SE in each
Interdisciplinary Commons n/a Includes MC, student work/display
Independent Study n/a dispersed throughout
Integrated ESOL n/a based in WL & dispersed
Changing C&T n/a flexible lab space
SE Transitional Center n/a own entry/integrated
TLC/HE n/a A TLC –type space per agreement
Community TV n/a similar to present space
Alternative Ed n/a potential to move on campus
Professional collaboration n/a teacher workrooms, guidance,
administration
4-10
Program Areas Related to Increase in Facility Size

Noted in Figure 4-5 in ( )
1. Right-sizing for student populations 7. Appropriate sized classrooms for art, music,
2. Right-sizing classrooms for current PE, Performance, IB curriculum, Career and
guidelines and practices, project-based and Technical – not in current2 design
inquiry-based learning and storage needs 8. Appropriate sized dining facility for capacity
3. Teacher resource and student resource 9. Increase in ESOL needs
needs 10. Increase in students with special needs
4. Additional administration functions 11. Increased space for technology
5. Additional community use/needs 12. Increased mechanical/electrical space
6. Flexibility for modern programming needed
Figure 4-6
High School Level Space Program Summary – Comparison for 800 and 1000 Students
HS 800 HS 1000
Area 9-12 8-12 Difference
English 13,110 14,710 2 classrooms
Math 10,910 12,510 2 classrooms
Science 17,310 20,910 2 classrooms
Social Studies 11,510 12,310 1 classroom
World Language 10,660 13,310 3 classrooms, 2 breakouts
Library/Media Services 6,450 7,350 1 conference
Interdisciplinary Resources 3,000 3,000 1 small group
Fine & Performing Arts 28,100 28,100
Career & Techical 8,300 8,300
Health/Physical Education 35,100 36,900 health classrooms
Special Education 6,900 6,900
Technology Support Services 3,370 3,450 data closets
Guidance 3,800 4,400 counselors, itinerants, conference
Health Services 1,000 1,000
Food Services 11,050 12,450 dining area
Administration 3,170 3,170
Safety/Security 410 410
Mechanical and Maintenance 11,030 11,783 mechanical equipment
Subtotal 185,180 200,963
35% circulation and walls 64,813 70,337
Total Area 250,000 271,300
4-11
Key Relationships Identified in High School Programming
English World Languages, Film Study, Interdisciplinary Commons, Outdoor

Amphitheater
Mathematics Science, Cafeteria (math lab during lunch), Interdisciplinary Commons
Science Mathematics & Technology (STEM), IB Design Tech/Robotics,

Technical/Engineering/Architectural Drawing, Photo/Art (chemical
storage), Interdisciplinary Commons, Outdoor Amphitheater / Demo
Social Studies English, Interdisciplinary Commons
World Language English, Theatre Arts/Black Box, Counseling (for ESOL), Gourmet Cooking,
Film Study, Interdisciplinary Commons
Interdisciplinary Core Disciplines (especially English and Social Studies), IB Project Display,
Commons Teaching and Student Services Department, Outdoor Amphitheater
Fine and Performing World Languages, English, Career Ed, Outdoor Access
Arts
Career & Technical Core Disciplines (mostly science), Visual and Performing Arts
Education
Health/PE/Athletics Outdoor access, Community
Teaching & Student Counseling, Administration, Library, Interdisciplinary Commons

Support Services
Administration/Safety Community, Students

and Building Services
Current Capacity and Space Comparison to Master Plan Space Program - High School
Figure 4-7 – Current Model

Program
George Mason 8-12 1055 1000 0 200,025 272,000 71,975
Figure 4-8 – Traditional Grade Level Model

Program
4-12
George Mason 9-12 1055 800 0 200,025 250,000 49,975
4-5 Other FCCPS Educational Programs/Centers
High School Alternative Education – Currently Housed at the Gage House
The Falls Church City Public Schools endeavors to provide alternative educational programming to meet
the needs of identified students and to better ensure their future success. The high school alternative
education program, designed for students who are not successful due to academic, social or behavioral
difficulties in the traditional high school setting, operates on the following mission, philosophy and
goals:
Mission
To provide small, individualized educational programs that promote the development of academic and
behavioral competencies for students whose needs are not met in the traditional high school setting.
Philosophy/Beliefs
Responsibility and ownership for programs must be shared.

Programs are flexible and transparent.
Programs that provide unique and authentic experiences in caring and enriching environments.
Staff collaboration is essential.
Community respect and recognition is imperative.
Alternative education programs are inclusive and provide opportunities for all identified general
and special education students.
Positive student-teacher relationships promote learning.
Goals
All academic programs and services will be responsive to students’ needs.

Programs will foster shared conversations among counseling staff, school administrators, and
teachers.
Critical achievement data will be shared about each student.
The master planning process includes the assessment of the Gage House facility and discussions about
the implications of moving the program from off campus to an on campus facility (per recommendation
of the 2007-2008 Alternative Education Program Evaluation).
The program currently operates in a single classroom accommodating no more than 8 students. It has
been suggested that if considering a move, the facility program should include:
private, yet not isolated, self-contained classrooms
4-13
4-5 – Other FCCPS Educational Programs/Centers
the ability to use all high school resources (library, PE, Science, labs, cafeteria)
storage for all course books and other materials, more than a regular classroom
duplication of the domestic characteristics (food, refrigerator, microwave, stove, etc.) of Gage
House
separate meeting room for 2-3 people, visitors, social workers, probation officers,
counselors, etc.
separate small parking area (students, visitors)
A facility of approximately 5,000 SF would provide the above program and allow for expandability of
services to include:
2 classrooms
2 break out rooms for testing/1:1 work
administrative office
conference room
teacher work room
student break room
toilets
related mechanical/technology spaces
Non-Program Facilities
Other facilities to consider in the final master plan include:
School Board Offices 7,500 SF
Central Operations (currently housed in George Mason):

Security, Facilities, Maintenance,
Transportation 10,000 SF
4-14
4-6 – Conclusion – Programming that Meets Master Plan Goals
4-6 Conclusion – Programming That Meets Master Plan Goals
The development of educational specifications and resulting space programs meet the master plan
goals:
Ensure that future school facilities will keep pace with anticipated growth, educational goals, and the
priorities of the City of Falls Church.
Enrollment projections were considered on a low to high scale to develop near and long term
capacities.
Space programs for the master plan consider short term needs with expandability for future
enrollments at the elementary level, and at highest anticipated enrollment (200/g.l.) at the high
school level.
Considerations for enrollment increases from kindergarten to high school were included.
Identify opportunities for improvements in infrastructure, in organization, and in teaching by

Innovate where possible to create facilities that are environmentally sensitive, technologically
Steering and Design Committee included members from staff at all levels, administration,
governing bodies, government, and community.
Design Committee was tasked with exploring the relationship between teaching and learning
and space needs.
State guidelines were considered for space programs, but Falls Church program delivery was
higher priority.
Facilitate cooperation between the Falls Church City Public Schools and other community groups, to
provide infrastructure that can meet multiple needs, as appropriate.
All master plan programs include core facilities sized to serve community use needs (dining
rooms, auditorium, gymnasiums, meeting rooms, daycare)
4-15
4-7 – Summary of Long-Term Space Needs
4-7 - Summary of Long-Term Space Needs
Using the baseline master plan architectural program (Appendix F), and adjusting for potential option
scenarios, long term space needs were developed. Options for consideration should include
demonstration of the space implications of various grade level configurations. Because Mary Ellen
Henderson was opened in 2005 (128,800SF), a new space program was not deemed necessary at the
middle grades level for the purpose of this master plan. It will serve grades 5-7 or grades 6-8 well into
the future.
Figure 4-9 – Master Plan Options - Elementary Level
Grade Level Facility Size Expandable Capacity

Configuration Design Capacity MP Program
PK – 1 430 81,400 490
2-4 525 80,800 630
PK-2 600 95,100 680
3-5 525 80,600 650
PK-K 250 62,000 290
1-4 700 98,400 830
PK-5 1125 152,300 1330
PK-4 950 139,000 1120
Figure 4-10 - Current Elementary Facilities
Grade Level
Configuration Program Capacity Facility Size
PK – 1 275 44,100
2-4 490 60,900
Figure 4-11 – Master Plan Options - High School Level
Grade Level Facility Size

Configuration Design Capacity MP Program
8-12 1000 272,000
9-12 800 250,000
Figure 4-12 – Current High School Facility
Grade Level
Configuration Program Capacity Facility Size
8-12 1055 200,025
4-16

Chapter 5
MASTER PLAN

5‐ –1 Option Development

5‐1 – Option Development

Options for meeting the future facility need were developed based on the parameters established in
previous stages of work. These parameters included the following:

• Existing Infrastructure (Chapter 2)
• Enrollment Forecast (Chapter 2)
• Planning Numbers (Chapter 2)
• Educational Specification (Chapter 3)
• Space Standards (Chapter 4)
• Estimate of Space Needs (Space Program) (Chapter 4)

Combining these items creates a summary of the square footages that are needed to meet the future
educational needs of the Falls Church City Public Schools through the year 2028.

The two “bookend” options – Minimum (minimum physical change) and Maximum (maximum physical
change) establish the endpoints for the range of options available. The Scheme A (minimum) option
defines a manner in which a series of minimum renovations and grade level adjustments can be made to
accommodate the anticipated future growth in school population. The Scheme E (maximum) option
explores the possible result of making maximum operational and physical changes, in order to
accomplish the ideal vision of the future Falls Church City Public Schools in twenty years. This vision
disregards the existing infrastructure and anticipates a fresh start, with the goal of achieving the ideal
grade level configuration and all desired services for both the schools and the community.

The interim schemes, Schemes B, C, and D show various approaches to meeting the future needs using
variations of the following:

• Grade Level Configurations
• Utilization of Sites
• Maximization of Existing Infrastructure
• Approximation of the Ideal Future Vision

The images on the following pages are massing diagrams, showing the relative volume of space
renovated, used as‐is, or constructed under each scheme. The use of sites is depicted in columns, to
illustrate the difference between options in which one existing site is used to those in which all existing
sites are used.

Detailed sketches, phasing, and costing information are included for the final recommended option in
Chapter 6 – Recommended Option.

5‐1

5‐2 Scheme A
5‐2 – Scheme A (Minimum)
PRE K AND K 62,000SF/ 1THROUGH 4 98,700SF /5 THROUGH 7 128,788SF / 8 THROUGH 12 272,000SF

The Scheme A Minimum option maintains the schools as closely to the current location and utilization as
possible, while still meeting future needs. Under this option, there are some grade level re‐alignments
to accommodate increasing numbers of students on sites capable of handling that increase. The result
is the following, by school site:

Mount Daniel ‐ Pre‐K to K
This option leaves Mount Daniel largely as an existing building, with the western portion receiving
renovation, while the eastern portion would be demolished , reconfigured, and expanded for better
efficiency and accessibility This multilevel addition creates a compact and efficient footprint to minimize
land use.
a. Land Issues‐existing zoning allowable square footage‐ height restrictions acceptable‐
additional parking‐reconfigured play area‐stormwater configurations‐utility capacity
confirmation
b. Site Issues ‐ existing vehicular circulation to remain
c. Architectural Issues‐ eastern portion of building reconfigured to meet accessibility
requirements and growth projections
d. MEP Issues‐ existing systems for renovation and new system for new construction
e. Phasing Issues‐ demolition, new construction, and renovation of existing extends
construction schedule into school year and leans towards closure of school and needed
swing space

Thomas Jefferson – Grades 1‐4
Thomas Jefferson is renovated in the eastern portions of the facility, and demolition, reconfiguration,
and expansion takes place along the western portion of the building to accommodate the projected
growth. This multilevel addition creates a compact and efficient footprint to minimize land use. Limited
land square footage will require compromises in elements such as parking and play space unless
additional land is acquired to allow full expansion of these elements.
a. Land Issues‐ rezoning required for square footage‐ height restrictions acceptable‐
additional parking‐ reconfigured play area ‐stormwater configurations‐ utility capacity
confirmation‐ land acquisition is recommended
b. Site Circulation Issues‐ vehicle drop off areas created
c. Architectural Issues‐ western portion of the building reconfigured to provide efficient
class space and drop off/ pick up capabilities
construction schedule into school year and leans towards closure of school until
completion and needed temporary swing space

Mary Ellen Henderson ‐ Grades 5‐7
This option involves minor renovation to maintain Mary Ellen Henderson in good condition and
reconfigure some group space elements.
a. Land Issues‐ existing zoning allowable square footage‐ height restrictions acceptable‐
existing parking‐existing play area‐existing stormwater‐ utility capacity confirmation
5‐2

5‐2 Scheme A
b. Circulation Issues‐ existing vehicle configurations
c. Architectural Issues‐ existing large group gathering spaces reconfigured for enhanced
acoustics and sightlines
d. MEP Issues‐ existing systems modified for the food service/ performance area of the
school
e. Phasing Issues‐ renovation of gathering space over summer months

George Mason ‐ Grades 8‐12
This option creates a new more efficient academic wing on the existing building by means of an east end
demolition /reconstruction/new addition. The multilevel addition includes more appropriate space for
academic teaching, theater and other arts classes, athletics, as well as for spaces community use. A new
welcoming entrance establishes the building’s identity and simplifies way‐finding. A possible joint use
library would be developed in the area currently occupied by the practice gym on the northern side.
additional parking‐reconfigured outdoor area‐stormwater configurations ‐ utility
capacity confirmation – playing fields remain in position
b. Site Circulation Issues‐ vehicular access reconfigured for ring road configuration‐
relocated parking areas
c. Architectural Issues‐ reconfiguring eastern portion of school for efficiency and public
use‐ existing building renovations still inefficient
d. MEP Issues‐area demolished houses major MEP for existing building‐staged
reconstruction to support existing building and new construction during off school
portion of year
e. Phasing Issues‐ demolition, new construction, of spaces that house major MEP elements
requires a summer construct for this area‐ renovations could then take place the
next summer

PROS ‐Mt Daniel receives needed reconfigurations ‐Thomas Jefferson expands to meet needs with new
images ‐Mary Ellen Henderson gets needed corrections ‐ Portions of George Mason are reoriented and
made more efficient and public friendly
CONS ‐ no real redesign of existing outdated buildings ‐continued maintenance of existing older
facilities‐ temporary academic swing space needed during construction

5‐3

5‐3 Scheme B
5‐3 – Scheme B
PRE K AND K 62,000SF/ 1THROUGH 4 98,700SF /5 THROUGH 7 128,788SF / 8 THROUGH 12 272,000SF

Mt Daniel Grades Pre K‐ K
Mt Daniel receives a combination of renovation on the western portion of the existing building and
demolition, reconfiguration, and multilevel expansion on the eastern end of the building to
accommodate the projected student growth
confirmation
b. Site Circulation Issues‐ existing vehicular circulation to remain
c. Architectural Issues‐ eastern portion of building reconfigured to meet accessibility
requirements and growth projections
swing space

Thomas Jefferson ‐ Grades 1‐4
Thomas Jefferson is renovated in the eastern portions of the facility, and demolition, reconfiguration
and expansion takes place along the western portion of the building to accommodate the projected
growth. This multilevel addition creates a compact and efficient footprint to minimize land use. Limited
land square footage will require compromises in elements such as parking and play space unless
additional land is acquired to allow full expansion of these elements.
a. Land Issues‐ land acquisition recommended‐ rezoning required for square footage‐
height restrictions acceptable‐additional parking‐ reconfigured play area‐ stormwater
configurations‐ utility capacity confirmation
b. Site Circulation Issues‐ vehicle drop off areas created
c. Architectural Issues‐ western portion of the building reconfigured to provide efficient
class space and drop off/ pick up capabilities
construction schedule into school year and leans towards closure of school until
completion and needed temporary academic swing space

b. Site Circulation Issues‐ existing vehicle configurations
school
5‐4

5‐3 Scheme B

The Existing George Mason Facility and related site elements would be demolished to make way for an
new multilevel School Building, associated site elements, and expanded parking, all reoriented for
enhanced community access and use.
a. Land Issues‐ rezoning required for needed square footage‐ height restrictions
acceptable‐additional parking‐reconfigured outdoor area‐stormwater configurations ‐
utility capacity confirmation – playing fields reconfiguration for construction phasing
c. Architectural Issues‐ new construction coordinated with existing demolition
d. MEP Issues‐ new building systems with solar add on capabilities
e. Phasing Issues‐ minimized disruption of High School involves construction of new facility
on existing playing fields, demolition of existing, and redevelopment of playing fields in
the old building location. Alternatively, if the physical position of the high school is to
remain at the corner with no relocation of playing fields, then temporary academic
swing space (trailers, vacant buildings, etc) would be utilized during the demolition and
reconstruction in the same position.

PROS ‐Mt Daniel receives needed reconfigurations ‐Thomas Jefferson expands to meet needs with new
images ‐Mary Ellen Henderson gets needed corrections ‐ George Mason is reconstructed and made
more efficient and public friendly
CONS – construction disturbs each site ‐continued maintenance of existing older facilities‐ temporary
academic swing space needed during construction

5‐5

5‐4 Scheme C
5‐4 – Scheme C
PRE K ‐1 82,000SF/2 THROUGH 5 98,700 /6 THROUGH 8 128,788SF / 9 THROUGH 12 250,000SF

Mt Daniel ‐ Grades Pre K –1
This option leaves Mount Daniel largely as an existing building, with the western portion receiving
renovation, while the eastern portion would be demolished , reconfigured, and expanded for better
efficiency and accessibility This multilevel addition creates a compact and efficient footprint to minimize
land use.
confirmation
b. Site Circulation Issues‐ existing vehicular circulation to remain
c. MEP Issues‐ existing systems for renovation and new system for new construction
d. Phasing Issues‐ demolition, new construction, and renovation of existing extends
swing space

Thomas Jefferson ‐ Grades 2‐5
This option involves the demolition of the existing facility and site elements, and creates a 2‐5
elementary school on this site. This multilevel addition creates a compact and efficient footprint to
minimize land use.
height restrictions acceptable‐additional parking‐ reconfigured play area stormwater
b. Site Circulation Issues‐ community and site vehicle and pedestrian circulation
reconfiguration possible
c. Architectural Issues‐ new construction
e. Phasing Issues‐ demolition, new construction requires relocation of students to
alternative temporary academic swing space until completion‐ no cross construction
allowed in flood plane

school

5‐6

5‐4 Scheme C
swing space ( trailers, vacant buildings, etc) would be utilized during the demolition and

PROS ‐Mt Daniel receives needed reconfigurations ‐Thomas Jefferson new construction to meet needs
with new aesthetics ‐Mary Ellen Henderson gets needed corrections ‐ George Mason new construction
made more efficient and public friendly
CONS – construction disturbs each site ‐continued maintenance of existing older facilities‐ temporary
academic swing space needed during construction
5‐7

5‐5 Scheme D
5‐5 – Scheme D
Option 1
PRE K THROUGH 1 82,000SF / 2 THROUGH 5 98,700SF /6 THROUGH 8 128,788SF / 9 THROUGH
12 250,000SF
Option 2
PRE K THROUGH 2 95,456SF / 3 THROUGH 5 80,595SF /6 THROUGH 8 128,788SF / 9 THROUGH
12 250,000SF

Mt Daniel –Site existing building expanded and reconfigured to accommodated additional sf

Thomas Jefferson ‐ Grades 2‐5 OR 3‐5
The existing Thomas Jefferson Building and Site elements are demolished to make way for the
construction of a new multilevel Pre K through 2 facility and related support functions on site .
b. Site Circulation Issues‐ community and site circulation reconfiguration
c. Architectural Issues ‐new construction

reconfigure some group space elements
school

5‐8

5‐5 Scheme D
swing space ( trailers, vacant buildings, etc) would be utilized during the demolition and

PROS ‐ Thomas Jefferson recreated to meet needs with new aesthetics ‐Mary Ellen Henderson gets
needed corrections ‐ a new elementary facility is created George Mason is reconstructed and made
more efficient and public friendly
CONS – construction disturbs each site ‐ temporary academic swing space needed during construction
5‐9

5‐6 Scheme E
5‐6 – Scheme E
Maximum Scheme E
PRE K THROUGH 2 95,456SF / 3 THROUGH 5 128,788SF / 6 THROUGH 12 378000SF

Mt Daniel –Site used for alternative community use

Thomas Jefferson ‐ Grades PRE K –2
The existing Thomas Jefferson Building and Site elements are demolished to make way for the
construction of a new multilevel Pre K through 2 facility and related support functions on site.
b. Site Circulation Issues‐ community and site circulation reconfiguration
c. Architectural Issues ‐new construction
This option involves minor renovation to accommodate the switch to a 3‐5 grade occupation and
maintain Mary Ellen Henderson in good condition and reconfigure some group space elements.
existing parking‐existing play area‐existing stormwater configuration ‐ utility capacity
confirmation
school

New George Mason ‐ Grades 6‐12
enhanced community access and use. A possible joint use library would be included.
5‐10

5‐6 Scheme E
swing space (trailers, vacant buildings, etc) would be utilized during the demolition and

PROS ‐all existing dated buildings are removed from the system ‐ new construction oriented for school
system and community joint uses
CONS ‐high construction costs and multiyear phasing scenarios‐ temporary academic swing space
needed during construction

5‐11

5‐6 Scheme E

5‐12

Massing Diagrams Schemes A‐E

5‐13


5‐14


5‐15


5‐16


5‐17



5‐18

Areas of Construction/Expansion – Existing Sites

5‐19

5‐20


5‐21


5‐22

5‐23



5‐24

Scheme A
5‐25

Scheme A
5‐26

Scheme A
5‐27

Scheme A
5‐28

Scheme A
5‐29

Scheme A
5‐30

Scheme B
5‐31

Scheme B
5‐32

Scheme B
5‐33

Scheme B
5‐34

Scheme B
5‐35

Scheme B
5‐36

Scheme C
5‐37

Scheme C
5‐38

Scheme C
5‐39

Scheme C
5‐40

Scheme C
5‐41

Scheme C
5‐42

Scheme D
5‐43

Scheme D
5‐44

Scheme D
5‐45

Scheme D
5‐46

Scheme D
5‐47

Scheme D
5‐48

Scheme D
5‐49

Scheme D
5‐50

Scheme D
5‐51

Scheme D
5‐52

Scheme E
5‐53

Scheme E
5‐54

Scheme E
Scheme E Thomas Jefferson
5‐55

Scheme E
5‐56

Scheme E

5‐57

Scheme E

5‐58

Chapter 6
MASTER PLAN
Preferred Option

6–1 Preferred Option

6‐1 – Preferred Option

The range of schemes described in Chapter 5 were discussed and reviewed by the administration and
the school board for the Falls Church City Public Schools, and a preferred strategy was developed for
moving forward.

One of the driving factors contributing to the decision to focus the bulk of construction and expansion at
Thomas Jefferson Elementary School is the pressure of increasing enrollment at the elementary level.
Throughout the planning study, the elementary grades (1‐5) have required approximately seven
classrooms per grade level, with numbers of students varying between 20 and 25 students per class.
Moving into the future, the enrollment numbers already bear out the forecasted increases in
elementary students, and administration is beginning to plan for eight classrooms per grade level. This
increase is expected to ripple through the school system over time, eventually affecting all grade levels.

A second key factor applied to the decision‐making between options was the desire to address as many
issues as possible with the minimum construction required. While the capacity issue appears most
critical at the elementary level, George Mason High School is also reaching a breaking point in terms of
ability to handle increased capacity, and has problems that will need to be addressed during the next 20
years.

This preferred option recommended for implementation was identified as a combination of the schemes
defined in the previous chapter, with minor modifications as follows:

• Mt. Daniel (PreK‐1)– Primarily follows Scheme A, with adjustment for grade level utilization to
retain Grade 1.
• Thomas Jefferson (2‐5) – Primarily follows Scheme C, with adjustment for minimal
renovation/addition in lieu of major reconstruction
• Mary Ellen Henderson (6‐8) – Follows Scheme D
• George Mason (9‐12) – Primarily follows Scheme A, with adjustment for grade level 8 to move to
Mary Ellen Henderson, and for minimal renovations to occur over the 20 year planning period in
lieu of complete facility replacement.

This blended option offers the unique ability to address a series of facility and curriculum problems in
the system through one initial step – moving fifth grade from Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School to
Thomas Jefferson Elementary School. This shift will create the following improvements throughout the
Falls Church City Public Schools:

• Grade levels will be better aligned with curriculum and contemporary pedagogical approach,
with fifth grade in the elementary school, sixth to eighth grades in the middle school, and a high
school consisting of ninth to twelfth grades.
• Eighth grade will still be adjacent to George Mason, allowing the current blending of coursework
to continue across grade levels.
• George Mason will have expansion capacity at the high school grade levels.
6‐1

• Thomas Jefferson will have an opportunity to improve undersized spaces, remedy poor lighting
in the building interior, bring outdated life safety systems up to current standards, remove
trailers in front of the building, and add sufficient classrooms for 20‐year growth.

This chapter describes details of the final option recommended for implementation. The 20‐year
planning window is divided into five‐year intervals of activity. This chapter places heavy emphasis on
Phase I, with brief, general descriptions of subsequent phases. Those phases will require further
definition closer to the time of implementation to determine, within that context, the details of what
will be required to complete the goals identified in this study for each phase.

Graphics on the following pages represent the final preferred option in the manner in which options A
through E were depicted in Chapter 5. The first image shows an order‐of‐magnitude graphic for the
amount of effort to occur (both new and renovated space) at each school facility. The subsequent
images show the final anticipated site build‐out at each location at the end of the fully executed Master
Plan.

6‐2
Preferred Option

6‐3

6‐4
Preferred Option

6‐5



6‐6
Preferred Option

6‐ –2 Phase I (2011‐2016) – Overview

6‐2 ‐ Phase I (2011‐2016)

Phase I of the Preferred Option includes a major renovation/addition effort at Thomas Jefferson
Elementary School to allow the fifth grade to re‐join the older elementary school children. This addition
will also size up the cafeteria and other core spaces to meet the anticipated 20‐year needs, will add the
necessary expansion classrooms for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grades, and will allow capacity inside the school so
that all the trailers can be removed from the front of the school.

Thomas Jefferson – Grades 2‐5
This option focuses all construction and renovation efforts at Thomas Jefferson.
b. Site Circulation Issues‐ community and site vehicle and pedestrian circulation
reconfiguration possible. Loading zone and employee parking modifications required,
which may involve re‐zoning or at a minimum careful phasing.
c. Architectural Issues‐ new construction, renovation. Staging on limited site area may be
a concern.
d. MEP Issues‐ new building systems with solar add on capabilities, life‐safety upgrades to
add sprinklers throughout facility.

This phase involves minor renovation to maintain Mary Ellen Henderson to accommodate the specific
requirements of eighth grade science laboratories. The facility is generally in good condition and has
sufficient expansion capabilities to allow all other work to be completed under the CIP budget.
a. Land Issues‐ n/a
b. Site Circulation Issues‐ n/a
acoustics and sightlines, laboratory upgrades required.
d. MEP Issues‐ n/a
e. Phasing Issues‐ renovation completed over summer months

Activity at Mt. Daniel and George Mason will be minimal during this phase

6‐7

6‐2 – Phase I (2011‐2016) – Space Requirements

Space Requirements

A detailed program of space needs was developed in order to complete massing and preliminary costing
on the Thomas Jefferson Elementary School site, recommended for Phase I. This program, included
below, incorporates the appropriate codes and standards government elementary school design in the
Commonwealth of Virginia and in the City of Falls Church, and gives the closest possible pre‐design
estimate of square footages of new and renovated space required in order to meet the goals of moving
5th grade into this facility and right‐sizing other existing spaces.

The program included here uses estimates of current room sizes taken from building floor plans to assist
in creating an inventory of rooms which exist and rooms which are needed as part of the expansion.
Rooms for which there was no specific use identified are labeled “??”. Spaces are organized by function,
rather than by current locations or adjacencies within the building, and include existing room numbers
to assist with matching spaces listed here to actual rooms.

The right side of the table summarizes the new and renovated space that is estimated to be required to
complete Phase I at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School. These columns total where new rooms are
needed, indicate any relevant space standard (including interior wall thicknesses), and then calculate the
total square footage of new or renovated space. The total departmental gross square feet per function
(minus public corridors) are included in the TOTAL SF/FUNCTION column at the far right of the table.

The building grossing factor was estimated based on the existing net‐to‐gross efficiency and was applied
to the total new and renovated square footages. This grossing factor should account for public corridor
spaces and exterior wall thicknesses.

The recommended renovations/additions will bring the existing school structure’s approximately 64,000
building gross square feet up to a total of approximately 89,000 building gross square feet, adding
roughly 25,000 building gross square feet of new space and renovating approximately 2,600 square feet
of existing building space.
1.000 Administration
1.000 Administration PHASE I
Room Floor NSF No. of TOTAL SF / No. of Space SF TOTAL SF /
No. Room Name (current) (current) Rooms FUNCTION New Standard Shortfall SF New Renovation FUNCTION
Building Entrance 1 425 1 425 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 425
RR Main Restrooms 1 125 2 250 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 250
210 Main Office 1 820 1 820 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 820
212 Principal's Office 1 200 1 200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 200
216 Teacher's Lunch Room 1 300 1 300 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 300
214 School Nurse 1 195 1 195 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 195
Counselor's Office 1 110 1 110 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 110
220 ?? 1 100 1 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 100
218 ?? 1 64 1 64 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 64
2,339 2,464 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,464
6‐8
Preferred Option

2.000 Physical Education
2.000 Physical Education PHASE I
No. Room Name (current) (current) Rooms FUNCTION Rooms Standard Shortfall SF New Renovation FUNCTION
100 Gymnasium G 5,100 1 5,100 ‐ 6,010 910 ‐ 910 6,010
Entry Gym Building Entry/Exit G 348 1 348 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 348
104 Gym Storage G 630 1 630 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 630
RR Gym Restrooms G 306 2 612 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 612
CL Janitor's Closet G 30 1 30 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 30
Gymnasium Office G 150 1 150 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 150
6,564 6,870 ‐ 910 ‐ 910 7,780
3.000 Specialty Classrooms
3.000 Specialty Classrooms PHASE I
No. of
Room Floor NSF No. of TOTAL SF / New Space SF TOTAL SF /
101 Math G 115 1 115 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 115
104 Storage G 1,550 1 1,550 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,550
105 OT/PT G 560 1 560 ‐ 560 ‐ ‐ ‐ 560
106 Music G 760 1 760 ‐ 1000 240 1,000 ‐ 1,000
106 S Music Storage G 150 1 150 ‐ 300 150 300 ‐ 300
109 ?? G 300 1 300 ‐ 300 ‐ ‐ ‐ 300
127 ESOL G 450 1 450 1 500 50 500 ‐ 500
125 Art G 920 1 920 1 1200 280 ‐ 446 1,366
125 K Kiln G 125 1 125 1 125 ‐ ‐ 125 125
128 Science Lab G 490 1 490 1 900 410 410 ‐ 900
129 Tech G 490 1 490 1 500 10 500 ‐ 500
133 Special Education G 260 1 260 ‐ 400 140 140 ‐ 400
137 Special Education G 325 1 325 ‐ 400 75 75 ‐ 400
140 TAAP Teacher's office (trailer) G 744 1 744 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
141 Tech. Resource Teacher (trailer) G 744 1 744 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
142 Spanish (trailer) T 960 1 960 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
143 Spanish/Health (trailer) T 960 1 960 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
209 Spanish (second grade hall) 1 300 1 300 1 450 150 150 ‐ 450
144 ESOL (trailer) T 836 1 836 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
145 Daycare (trailer) T 836 1 836 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
108 Daycare Storage T 125 1 125 1 150 150 150 ‐ 150
Science Lab 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
Total ‐ Specialty Classrooms 12,000 12,000 7,955 9,525 571 14,916
4.000 Second Grade Wing
4.000 Second Grade Wing PHASE I
201 Second Grade Classroom 1 828 1 828 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 828
204 A Reading 1 300 1 300 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 300
204 B Reading 1 240 1 240 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 240
207 Special Education 1 688 1 688 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 688
Total ‐ Second Grade Wing 7,390 7,390 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,390
6‐9

5.000 Third Grade Wing
5.000 Third Grade Wing PHASE I
206 Third Grade Classroom 1 1,028 1 1,028 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,028
208 Third Grade Classroom 1 880 1 880 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 880
228 Third Grade Classrm (Math Lab) 1 812 1 812 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 812
231 A Special Education 1 560 1 560 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 560
231 B Speech 1 195 1 195 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 195
225 ?? 1 235 1 235 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 235
RR Restrooms 1 316 2 632 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 235
Total ‐ Third Grade Wing 7,570 13 7,886 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7,489
6.000 Fourth Grade Wing
6.000 Fourth Grade Wing PHASE I
300 Fourth Grade Classroom 2 586 1 586 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 586
303 A Special Education 2 370 1 370 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 751
303 B Special Education 2 370 1 370 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 370
RR Restrooms 2 330 2 660 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 370
Total ‐ Fourth Grade Wing 6,334 11 6,664 ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,755
7.000 Fifth Grade Wing
7.000 Fifth Grade Wing PHASE I
NEW Fifth Grade Classroom ‐ 8 900 7,200 7,200 ‐ 7,200
NEW Special Education ‐ 2 450 900 900 ‐ 900
NEW Restrooms ‐ 2 400 800 800 ‐ 800
Total ‐ Fifth Grade Wing ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,900 8,900 ‐ 8,900
8.000 Kitchen/Cafeteria
8.000 Kitchen/Cafeteria PHASE I
Entry Cafeteria Exterior Entrance G 363 1 363 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 363
110 Cafeteria G 2,665 1 2,665 1 3,600 935 935 ‐ 3,600
ST Cafeteria Storage G 200 1 200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 200
113 Serving Line G 360 1 360 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 360
115 Kitchen G 1,353 1 1,353 1 1,353 ‐ ‐ 197 1,550
ST Cold Storage G 197 1 197 1 300 103 300 ‐ 300
Annex G 601 1 601 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 601
RR Restroom G 282 2 564 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 564
Total ‐ Kitchen/Cafeteria 6,021 9 6,303 1,038 1,235 197 7,538
6‐10
Preferred Option

9.000 Library/Media Center
9.000 Library/Media Center PHASE I
217 Library 1 1,845 1 1,845 1 2,950 1,105 200 905 2,950
233 ?? 1 129 1 129 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 129
213 ?? 1 129 1 129 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 129
2,103 2,103 1,105 200 905 3,208
10.000 Mechanical/Building Support
10.000 Mechanical/Building Support (also included in building grossing) PHASE I
135 Boiler/Mechanical G 644 1 644 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 644
135 S Boiler/Mechanical Storage G 83 1 83 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 83
M1 Mechanical (kitchen) G 87 1 87 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 87
M2 Mechanical (kitchen) G 168 1 168 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 168
M3 Mechanical (tower) G 545 1 545 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 545
Mnew New Mechanical 1 250 250 250 ‐ 250
1,527 1,527 250 ‐ 1,777
Totals
SF TOTAL SF /
SF New Renovation FUNCTION
School Total DGSF 53,207 DGSF 20,110
2,583
School Total BGSF 64,158 BGSF 25,138 89,296
Grossing Factor Current 1.21 Addition 1.25
The following pages indicate possible stacking and phasing options for implementation of Phase I at
Thomas Jefferson Elementary School. Graphics on the subsequent pages illustrate the final
recommended activity on each site during Phase I, and the ultimate anticipated build out.
6‐11


Stacking and Phasing

The scope of the project defined as Phase I for Thomas Jefferson has two different goals and areas of
focus within the building, which enable the Phase I work to easily be divided into a two‐stage project.

The first stage is the fifth grade addition. This portion of the Phase I work will add the classrooms
required to bring the fifth grade back into Thomas Jefferson, to remove two of the trailers, and to
expand the kitchen and cafeteria for the full master planned build‐out of the school. This first stage of
Phase I would add approximately 14,000 new building gross square feet to the existing structure and
would renovate approximately 1,000 SF of existing space. The table below indicates the program
elements that would be included in the first stage, which would be vertically stacked in one single three‐
story addition to the existing facility.

5th Grade Addition:
Room Floor NSF No. of Users Avg SF TOTAL SF / No. of Space SF TOTAL SF /
No. Room Name (current) (current) Rooms (current) per User FUNCTION Rooms Standard Shortfall SF New Renovation FUNCTION
0 Total ‐ Fifth Grade Wing ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,900 8,900 ‐ 8,900
110 Cafeteria G 2,665 1 ‐ ‐ 2,665 1 3,600 935 935 ‐ 3,600
115 Kitchen G 1,353 1 ‐ ‐ 1,353 1 1,353 ‐ ‐ 197 1,550
Mnew New Mechanical ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 250 250 250 ‐ 250
100 Gymnasium G 5,100 1 ‐ ‐ 5,100 ‐ 6,010 910 ‐ 910 6,010
145 Daycare (trailer) T 836 1 ‐ ‐ 836 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
108 Daycare Storage T 125 1 ‐ ‐ 125 1 150 150 150 ‐ 150
10,079 10,079 11,135 1,107 21,360

BGSF 13,919 1,107 15,026

The second stage of Phase I consists of renovating internal circulation of the building, adding specialty
classrooms, and adding the regular classrooms needed for the final master‐planned build‐out of second,
third, and fourth grades. It would also allow the last remaining trailers to be removed from the site.
This second stage of Phase I would add approximately 10,600 building gross square feet in a two‐story
addition and would renovate at least 1,500 SF of existing space. Additional renovations beyond those
indicated in the program table below are possible, due to disruption along existing corridors.
2nd Grade Wing Addition:
Room Floor NSF No. of Users Avg SF TOTAL SF / No. of Space SF TOTAL SF /
No. Room Name (current) (current) Rooms (current) per User FUNCTION Rooms Standard Shortfall SF New Renovation FUNCTION
ST Cold Storage G 197 1 ‐ ‐ 197 1 300 103 300 ‐ 300
217 Library 1 1,845 1 ‐ ‐ 1,845 1 2,950 1,105 200 905 2,950
106 Music G 760 1 ‐ ‐ 760 ‐ 1,000 240 1,000 ‐ 1,000
106 S Music Storage G 150 1 ‐ ‐ 150 ‐ 300 150 300 ‐ 300
127 ESOL G 450 1 ‐ ‐ 450 1 500 50 500 ‐ 500
125 Art G 920 1 ‐ ‐ 920 1 1,200 280 ‐ 446 1,366
125 K Kiln G 125 1 ‐ ‐ 125 1 125 ‐ ‐ 125 125
128 Science Lab G 490 1 ‐ ‐ 490 1 900 410 410 ‐ 900
129 Tech G 490 1 ‐ ‐ 490 1 500 10 500 ‐ 500
133 Special Education G 260 1 ‐ ‐ 260 ‐ 400 140 140 ‐ 400
137 Special Education G 325 1 ‐ ‐ 325 ‐ 400 75 75 ‐ 400
140 TAAP Teacher's office (trail G 744 1 ‐ ‐ 744 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
141 Tech. Resource Teacher (traG 744 1 ‐ ‐ 744 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
142 Spanish (trailer) T 960 1 ‐ ‐ 960 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
143 Spanish/Health (trailer) T 960 1 ‐ ‐ 960 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
209 Spanish (second grade hall) 1 300 1 ‐ ‐ 300 1 450 150 150 ‐ 450
144 ESOL (trailer) T 836 1 ‐ ‐ 836 1 900 900 450 ‐ 900
0 Science Lab 1 900 900 900 ‐ 900
10,556 10,556 8,525 1,476 14,591

BGSF 10,656 1,476 12,132
TOTALS BGSF 24,575 2,583 27,158
6‐12
Preferred Option

6‐2 – Phase I (2011‐2016) – Conceptual Images
6‐13

6‐2 – Phase I (2011‐2016) ‐ Conceptual Images
6‐14
Preferred Option

6‐2 – Phase I (2011‐2016) – Conceptual Images
6‐15

6‐2 – Phase I (2011‐2016) ‐ Conceptual Images
6‐16
Preferred Option

6‐3 – Phase II
6‐3 ‐ Phase II (2017‐2021)
With the elementary and middle school needs met through the planning period by the work completed
in Phase I, Phase II will focus on George Mason High School. This phase will include a major renovation
and possible partial replacement of George Mason High School, with a focus on

• improving internal building and external site circulation,
• enhancing community access to and use of the facility during non‐school hours, and
• replacement of outdated/failing mechanical systems with high‐efficiency systems utilizing solar
or other renewable energy.

As part of this renovation process, some of the multi‐level areas in George Mason will be modified to
give the facility a more consistent feel and flow, to improve way‐finding, and to help co‐locate related
functions in closer proximity to one another.

6‐4 ‐ Phase III (2022‐2026)
Phase III will return to the elementary schools, and two possible options.

Phase III A could include a buildout of Thomas Jefferson Elementary School to allow one elementary to
accommodate children from pre‐Kindergarten level through 5th grade. Some details related to this
project include the following:

• This addition is anticipated to occur on the front of the existing building, and will require
adjacent land acquisition.
• Some reconfiguration of vehicular circulation along Oak Street is recommended as part of this
project to provide a drop‐off/pick‐up zone away from the road.
• The classroom “community” for the younger children will be separate from the “community” of
older children, to maintain the sense of scale Falls Church has had with two separate elementary
schools.

This project will free the Mt. Daniel campus for sale or re‐use by the City.

Alternatively, should two campuses for elementary schools continue to be the preferred option, Phase
III B would focus on demolition of older, inefficient portions of Mt. Daniel and new construction of a
three story addition to the existing building. The current footprint would be maintenance to protect
play area and trailers would be removed. This option will maintain the current four schools and three
campuses familiar to the City, while providing all necessary expansion at the elementary levels.

6‐5 ‐ Phase IV (2027‐2031)
If all other phases are executed successfully and growth continues as anticipated, Phase IV will see a
break from capital construction. During this phase CIP is expected to be required at Mary Ellen
Henderson to update and replace any damaged or outdated components to what will be a 20+ year old
facility. An updated master plan is also recommended during this phase to adjust and re‐direct efforts in
the subsequent years. It is recommended that the master plan be completed prior to any re‐use or
disposal decisions on Mt. Daniel Elementary School.
6‐17

Summary

6‐5 ‐ Summary
This Master Plan has given a general direction overall for the Falls Church City Public Schools to follow in
maintaining stable, safe, and appropriate school facilities to meet the needs of all students at all grade
levels over the coming 20 years. This plan, as all plans, is more specific in the near future, becoming less
specific moving into the further and less defined future years at the outside of the planning window.

As with any planning document, any initiatives derived from this document should be thoroughly
reviewed within the context in which they are being implemented to determine any deviations from the
original recommendations, and to provide the necessary detail for complete execution of the plan.
6‐18

Appendix A
MASTER PLAN
Appendix A - FCCPS Facility Master Plan Committee Members
FCCPS Facility Master Plan Steering Committee

Lois Berlin, Superintendent Cindy Mester, Assistant City Manager
Bob Burnett, Citizen/Parent Bob Nissen, FCCPS Maintenance
Gloria Guba, Assistant Superintendent Supervisor
of Instruction Seve Padilla, Security and Facility Use
Susan Kearney, School Board Member Coordinator
(Ron Pepe, alternate) Melissa Teates, FC Planning
Hunter Kimble, Assistant Committee/Parent
Superintendent of Finance & Ex Officio: Warren Walker,
Operations CDG/Arcadis
FCCPS Facility Master Plan Design Committee

Debbie Baird, Visual and Performing Mary McDowell, Interim Principal,
Arts K-12 George Mason High School
Vincent Baxter, Principal, Thomas Carol Monsess, Language Arts K-1
Jefferson Elementary Briana Platt, Special Education K-4
Lisa Blandford, Science 5-7 Louisa Porzel, Social Studies 8-12
Barry Buschow, Village Preservation & Bill Royce, President, Mary Ellen
Improvement Society Henderson Middle School PTA
Sally Cole, Exec. Director, Falls Church Debbie Schantz-Hiscott, President,
Chamber of Commerce Elementary PTA
Rory Dippold, Social Studies 5-7 Danny Schlitt, Recreation & Parks
Donna Englander, Exec. Director, Falls Jeanne Seabridge, Career & Technical
Church Education Foundation Education 5-12
Vicki Galliher, Health/PE K-10 Rachelle Sharrer, Elementary PTA
Kathy Halayko, Principal, Mt. Daniel Sarah Shaw, English 5-7
Elementary School Sydney Snyder, ESOL K-12
Tom Horn, Athletic Director, George Janet Weber, Math K-12
Mason High School Nick Werkman, Special Education 5-7
Jane Johansen, George Mason PTSA Paige Whitlock, English 8-12
Linda Johnsen, Foreign Language K-12 Maggie Wiseman, Science 8-12
Mary Klink, Language Arts 2-4 Mike Wolfe, Athletic Boosters
Steve Knight, Technology K-12 TBA, Band Boosters
Pam Mahony, Special Education 8-12
Ann McCarty, Principal, Mary Ellen Ex-Officio, All Members of the
Henderson Middle School Steering Committee
Appendix A - 1
Appendix A - FCCPS Facility Master Plan Committee Members
Appendix A - 2

Appendix B
MASTER PLAN

Appendix C
MASTER PLAN

Appendix C ‐ Site‐Specific Educational Specification Worksheets

Site‐Specific Educational Specification Worksheet – Elementary School

Date:
Project Name and Location:
Total Student Capacity Planned for this Project: _____ 600 _____ 700
_____ other (specify)
School‐Within‐a‐School Model:
Student/Teacher Ratio Upon Which to Determine Number of Core Academic Classrooms Needed:
Pre‐K: ________ K: ________ 1: ________ 2: ________ 3: ________
4: ________ 5: ________

Elementary Amenities per School‐Within‐a‐School Unit:
SF per MP Space
Amenity Yes Delineation Example No Possibly Notes / Rationale
Same Adjusted
PK Classroom
K‐2 Classrooms
3‐5 Classrooms
Teacher Mtg/Wkrm
Student Toilets
Storage
Special Needs SC
Special Needs Res
OT/PT
ESOL
Other (Specify)

Appendix C ‐ 1

Elementary Resource Areas to be offered:
SF per MP Space
Resource Area Yes Delineation Example No Possibly Notes / Rationale
Same Adjusted
Art
Music
Science
Physical Education
Media Center
Computer Lab
Dining
Site‐based Program(s)
Other (specify)
Extended Daycare

Elementary Administration & Related Areas:
SF per MP Space
Service/Support Area Yes Delineation Example No Possibly Notes / Rationale
Same Adjusted
Administration
Records/Work Area
Guidance
Clinic
Student Support
Services
Family Literacy
ITRT
Data Closets
Parent Resource
Toilets
Resource Officer (SRO)
Mech/Maintenance
Other (Specify)

Grossing Factor to Be Used When Calculating Total Building Size:
Target Building Size: ________ SF Estimated Building Size: ________ SF

Appendix C ‐ 2


Site‐Specific Educational Specification Worksheet – Middle School

Date:
School‐Within‐a‐School Model:
Student/Teacher Ratio Upon Which to Determine Number of Core Academic Classrooms Needed:
5th/6th grade: ________ 6th/7th grade: ________ 7th/8th grade: ________

Middle School Amenities per School‐Within‐a‐School Unit:
SF per MP Space
Same Adjusted
Teacher Workroom
Student Toilets
Administration Office
Itinerant Office
Storage
Computer Lab
SE Services
ESOL Services
Other (Specify)

Appendix C ‐ 3

Middle School Expanded Core Areas to be Offered:
SF per MP Space
Expanded Core Area Yes Delineation Example No Possibly Notes / Rationale
Same Adjusted
Art
Band
Orchestra
Chorus
P.E.
Health
World Language
Exploratory (specify)
CTE (specify)
Teacher Workroom
Other (specify)

Middle School Administration & Other Services/Support Areas:
SF per MP Space
Admin/Service Area Yes Delineation Example No Possibly Notes / Rationale
Same Adjusted
Media Center
Dining
Forum
Administration
Guidance
ISS
Clinic
Student Services
SE Services
Title I
Conference
ITRT
Data Closets
Parent Resource
Toilets
Resource Officer (SRO)
Mech/Maintenance
Other (Specify)


Appendix C ‐ 4


Site‐Specific Educational Specification Worksheet – High School
Date:
Student/Teacher Ratio Upon Which to Determine Number of Core Academic (Eng/Math/Sci/SS/WL)
Classrooms Needed:
dep 1: ________ dep 2: ________ dep 3: ________
dep 4: ________
dep 5: ________ dep 6: ________ dep 7: ________
dep 8: ________

High School Amenities per Department Unit:
SF per MP Space
Same Adjusted
English Classrooms
Math Classrooms
Social Studies
Classrooms
World Lang Classrooms
Science Classrooms
Labs
Interdisciplinary Lab
Teacher Resource
Academic Storage
Data Closet
Student Toilets
SE Services
ESOL Services
Other (Specify)

Appendix C ‐ 5

High School Expanded Core/Electives/CTE Areas to be Offered:
SF per MP Space
Expanded Core Area Yes Delineation Example No Possibly Notes / Rationale
Same Adjusted
Art
Graphics Lab
Band
Orchestra
Chorus
Drama/Black Box/TV
P.E./Athletics
Fitness
Health
Distance Learning
Electives (specify)
CTE (specify)
Teacher Workroom
Other:

High School Community, Administration & Related Areas:
SF per MP Space
Admin/Service Area Yes Delineation Example No Possibly Notes / Rationale
Same Adjusted
Library Media Center
Dining
Auditorium
Administration
Guidance & Career
Compliance Specialist
ISS
Clinic/Health Services
Student Services
SE Services
Transition Center
ESOL
ITRT / Tech Support
Data Closets
Community Use (TLC)
Toilets
Resource Officer
Mech/Maintenance
Other (Specify)

Appendix C ‐ 6


Appendix C ‐ 7



Appendix C ‐ 8

Appendix D
MASTER PLAN

Appendix D ‐ Design Committee Work Summaries – Meeting 1
Design Committee Meeting 1 Summary ‐ Instruction & Issues of 21st Century Learning

The objective for Meeting 1 was to begin discussion around the Master Plan goal of ‘identifying
opportunities for improvements in infrastructure, in organization, and in teaching by examining the
relationships between technology, academics, and school design.’ This was done by breaking the
committee into six break‐out groups to review and react to an instructional theory. During discussion,
the groups answered a series of questions, and then shared their findings with the entire committee for
further discussion.

Dede – 21st Century Skills

Summary of Theory:
THE PARTNERSHIP FOR 21ST CENTURY SKILLS
CHRIS DEDE / HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

Emphasize core subjects
Knowledge and skills for the 21st century must be built on core subjects. No Child Left Behind
identifies these as English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages,
civics, government, economics, arts, history and geography. Further, the focus on core subjects
must expand beyond basic competency to the understanding of core academic content at much
higher levels.

Emphasize Learning Skills
As much as students need to know core subjects, they also need to know how to keep learning
continuously throughout their lives.
Learning skills comprise three broad categories of skills:
Information and communication skills
Thinking and problem‐solving skills
Interpersonal and self‐directional skills
Incorporate learning skills into classrooms deliberately, strategically and broadly

st
Use 21 Century Tools to Develop Learning Skills
Students need to learn to use the tools that are essential to everyday life and workplace
productivity
ICT Literacy: the interest, attitude and ability of individuals to appropriately use digital
technology and communication tools to access, manage, integrate and evaluate information,
construct new knowledge, and communicate with others in order to participate effectively in
society

Appendix D ‐ 1

Appendix D – Design Committee Work Summaries – Meeting 1
Teach and Learn in a 21st Century Context
Learn academic content through real‐world examples, applications, and experiences
Schools must reach out to their communities, employers, community members and, of course,
parents to reduce the boundaries that divide schools from the real world

Teach and Learn 21st Century Content
Education and business leaders identified three significant, emerging content areas that are
critical to success in communities and workplaces:
global awareness
financial, economic and business literacy
civic literacy

Use 21st Century Assessments that Measure 21st Century Skills
High quality standardized tests measure student’s performance of the elements of a 21st century
education
A balance of assessments – high‐quality standardized testing for accountability purposes and
classroom assessments for improved teaching and learning in the classroom – offers students a
powerful way to master the content and skills central to success in the 21st century.
To be effective, sustainable and affordable, sophisticated assessment at all levels must use new
information technologies to increase efficiency and timeliness

Learning Skills + 21st Century Tools = ICT Literacy

THINKING AND Problem‐solving tools (such Using ICT to manage,
PROBLEM‐SOLVING as spreadsheets, decision complexity, solve
SKILLS support, design tools) problems and think
critically, creatively,
and systematically

INFORMATION Communication, information Using ICT to access,
AND processing and research tools manage, integrate,
COMMUNICATION (such as word processing, evaluate, create and
SKILLS e‐mail, groupware, presentation, communicate
Web development, Internet information
search tools

INTERPERSONAL Personal development and Using ICT to enhance
AND productivity tools (such as productivity and
SELF‐DIRECTION e‐learning, time management/ personal development
SKILLS calendar, collaboration tools)

Appendix D ‐ 2

What did you find surprising/interesting about your topic?
• Taking core knowledge and applying it to real‐life situations
• Breaking down boundaries between school and real world
• Global awareness
• Business/financial literacy
• Innovative thinking (out‐of‐the‐box)

What are the implications for student learning?
• Are prepared for the adult world at graduation
• Some concepts aren’t taught
• More challenging for special populations
• Students take ownership of their learning
• Technology focus
• Different options for learning environments

What are the implications for teaching?
• Teachers don’t have to be the “expert”
• Comfort level with technology
• Differentiation
• Teachers have to lead the students understanding of curriculum
• Integration

Is / how is the topic applied today in Falls Church?
• PYP and MYP are being introduced
• Arlington Career Center
• UBD Performance Assessments
• Technology

How can the findings be applied in the future?
• Internships
• E‐learning
• Dual enrollment
• Guest speakers from the business world
• Career study/plan when choosing courses
• Flexible use of time/space/grouping
• More student‐driven projects (research)

Appendix D ‐ 3

Breaking Ranks – Strategies for Improved Performance

Summary of Theory:
BREAKING RANKS II – SEVEN CORNERSTONE STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVED STUDENT PERFORMANCE,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

Establish the essential learnings a student is required to master in order to graduate, and adjust the
curriculum and teaching strategies to realize that goal
Focus on mastery, not coverage
Raise the level of academic rigor
Initiate interdisciplinary instruction, teaming and an appropriate emphasis on real‐world
applications
Reorganize traditional departmental structures

Increase the quantity and improve the quality of interactions between students, teachers, and other
school personnel by reducing the number of students for which any adult of adults is responsible
Reduce a large school into smaller units
Reduce the number of students for which an individual teacher is responsible
Create interdisciplinary teams of both teachers and students
Loop teachers

Implement a comprehensive advisory program that ensures that each student has frequent and
meaningful opportunities to plan and assess his or her academic and social progress with a faculty
member
Personal Adult Advocates for every student
Personal Plan for Progress
Specific products or portfolio items demonstrating accomplishment and progress in academic
areas, school activities, sports and school or community leadership

Ensure that teachers use a variety of instructional strategies and assessments to accommodate
individual learning styles
Provide development and teaching opportunities regarding incorporation of seminars, inquiry‐
based learning, cooperative learning, debates, field experience, etc.

Implement schedules flexible enough to accommodate teaching strategies consistent with the ways
students learn most effectively and that allow for effective teaming and lesson planning
Adjust the length of the class periods
Adjust the length of the school day
Adjust the length of the school year

Appendix D ‐ 4

Institute structural leadership changes that allow for meaningful involvement in decision making by
students, teachers, family members, and the community that support effective communication with
these groups

Align the school wide comprehensive, ongoing professional development program and the individual
Personal Learning Plan of staff members with the content knowledge and instructional strategies
required to prepare students for graduation
Collaborative Leadership/
Professional Learning
Communities
Principal: Vision, Redefine teacher role

Direction & Focus Personal Learning Plans
Site Council for Principal & Teachers
Staff Collaboration Political/Financial
Alliances
Five-Year Review
Small Units Higher Education

Flexible Scheduling Partnerships
Democratic Values Celebrate Diversity
90-Student Coaching Students
Maximum
Improved
Student
Performance Essential Learnings
Alternatives to Tracking
Integrated Curriculum
Personal Plans for Real-World Applications
Progress Caring Teachers Knowledgeable Teachers
Personal Adult Advocate Activities/Service Tied to Integrated Assessment
Families as Partners Learning K-16 Continuity
Community Learning Integrated Technology
Critical Thinking
Learning Styles
Youth Services
Personalizing Your Curriculum, Instruction, and

School Environment Assessment

• “Focus on mastery, not coverage” yet we have SOL tests

• How do students deal with longer classes/school day/school year when they are currently already
having issues with stress?
• Can we have students assess their learning style/needs and essentially “choose” the class that meets
their learning needs?
• Develop a “personal action plan for progress” at beginning of students’ careers – allow to see
purpose/plan for their education

Appendix D ‐ 5

• How do you find/provide time to staff to create meaningful, real‐life learning? (planning lessons,
collaboration)
• Do the teachers have the resources to keep the students’ attention? (projectors, easy access to
Internet, etc.)

• We currently try to keep student to teacher ratio low
• Students are given choices in product (especially in technology) Is there a way to expand this?
• Teachers currently work on a Professional Growth Plan (PGP)
• Efforts to increase interdisciplinary/cross‐curricular connections

• Find ways for students to have even more relationships with adults in the school setting who don’t
grade them

Appendix D ‐ 6

International Baccalaureate
Summary of Theory:
INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE PROGRAM
INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE ORGANIZATION

Founded in 1968, to date the IBO has authorized 1,123 Diploma Programme schools, 259 Middle Years
Programme schools and 138 Primary Years Programme schools in 115 countries. The IBO examines
nearly 60,000 students per year in the Diploma Programme and trains thousands of teachers each year
in workshops and at conferences. The organization has grown consistently at the rate of about 15% per
annum for the past 10 years.

The International Baccalaureate Program promotes intercultural understanding and respect, not as an
alternative to a sense of cultural and national identity, but as an essential part of life in the 21st century.
All of this is captured in their mission statement:

The International Baccalaureate Organization aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable
and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through
intercultural understanding and respect.

To this end the IBO works with schools, governments and international organizations to
develop challenging programmes of international education and rigorous assessment.
These programmes encourage students across the world to become active,
compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their
differences, can also be right.

The International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Programme is a challenging two‐year curriculum, primarily
aimed at students aged 16 to 19. It leads to a qualification that is widely recognized by the world’s
leading universities. Students learn more than a collection of facts. The Diploma Programme prepares
students for university and encourages them to:
• ask challenging questions
• learn how to learn
• develop a strong sense of their own identity and culture
• develop the ability to communicate with and understand people from other countries and
cultures.

Appendix D ‐ 7

The three core requirements of the IB Diploma Programme are: extended essay, theory of knowledge,
creativity, action, service. All Diploma Programme students must engage in these three activities.

Extended essay
The extended essay has a prescribed limit of 4,000 words. It offers the opportunity to investigate a topic
of individual interest, and acquaints students with the independent research and writing skills expected
at university.

Theory of knowledge (TOK)
The interdisciplinary TOK course is designed to provide coherence by exploring the nature of knowledge
across disciplines, encouraging an appreciation of other cultural perspectives.

Creativity, action, service (CAS)
Participation in the school’s CAS programme encourages students to be involved in artistic pursuits,
sports and community service work, thus fostering students’ awareness and appreciation of life outside
the academic arena.

This is illustrated by a hexagon with the three parts
of the core at its centre.
Students study six subjects selected from the subject
groups. Normally three subjects are studied at higher
level (courses representing 240 teaching hours), and
the remaining three subjects are studied at standard
level (courses representing 150 teaching hours).

At the end of the two‐year programme, students are
assessed both internally and externally in ways that measure individual performance against stated
objectives for each subject.

Internal assessment
In nearly all subjects at least some of the assessment is carried out internally by teachers, who mark
individual pieces of work produced as part of a course of study. Examples include oral exercises in
language subjects, projects, student portfolios, class presentations, practical laboratory work,
mathematical investigations and artistic performances.

Appendix D ‐ 8

External assessment
Some assessment tasks are conducted and overseen by teachers without the restrictions of examination
conditions, but are then marked externally by examiners. Examples include world literature assignments
for language A1, written assignments for language A2, essays for theory of knowledge and extended
essays.

Because of the greater degree of objectivity and reliability provided by the standard examination
environment, externally marked examinations form the greatest share of the assessment for each
subject.

The grading system is criterion based (results are determined by performance against set standards, not
by each student’s position in the overall rank order); validity, reliability and fairness are the watchwords
of the Diploma Programme’s assessment strategy.

The IBO works closely with universities in all regions of the world to gain recognition for the IB diploma.
To aid this process, university admissions officers and government officials have direct online access to
all syllabuses and recent examinations.

• Only 138 PYP
• 1000 + schools (DP)
• Must build literacy for successful DP completion
• Nothing new / minimal PYP description

• The design (our implementation) is perhaps backwards (beginning in HS)
• Holistic learning approach – multi‐component
• Is it OK that PYP is for all and DP is exclusive (increase of IP involvement)
• How does remediation/SPED work/fit?

• How does planning work?
• Collaboration
• Professional development
• Technology can help

• Differentiation
• Inclusion
• Note ‐ facilities at TJ make this difficult/challenging

• Collaborative spaces for learning/planning
• Technology tools

Appendix D ‐ 9

Jukes – Future of Learning

Summary of Theory:
WINDOWS ON THE FUTURE – EDUCATION IN THE FUTURE
TED MCCAIN AND IAN JUKES

Education will not be confined to a single place
Learning will not need to be confined to a single place or a single source – learning will happen
at home, on the job, or in the community

Education will not be confined to a specific time
The school day and school year will no longer be predicated on a 5.5 hour day, 180 days a year
that is a remnant of a time when children were needed in the fields
There will be much less emphasis on the amount of material memorized and much more
emphasis on making connections, thinking through issues, and solving problems
The past – just in case learning, The future – just in time or need to know learning

Education will not be confined to a single person
By removing the constraints of a physical location and time of day, the new technologies will
allow people other than teachers to enhance the instruction of students

Education will not be confined to human teachers
Students will be able to use a personal learning system that knows how they learn
Teachers will be able to spend more time on the higher‐level thinking skills associated with
evaluating the information retrieved by the smart agents
The future will not see teachers replaced, rather technology will create the long desired and
needed shift in the instructional role that the teacher plays

Education will not be confined to paper‐based information
As strategic alliances between communications and media companies continue to develop new
products and services, digital information and learning technologies will become the norm in
schools
When students go to school, it is difficult to get them interested in the 2‐dimensional world of
paper. That is because they live in a digital, 3‐dimensional, interactive video world outside the
classroom.

Educational will not be confined to memorization
As the amount of information continues to double, academic success will depend less and less
on rote learning and more and more on a student’s ability to process information and use it in a
discerning manner

Appendix D ‐ 10

Education will not be confined to linear learning
Linear learning is compatible with the assembly line model – as technology creates an
interconnected world, people can construct their own learning webs and personal pathways

Education will not be confined to the intellectual elite
Until recently the real power in our country was in the hands of the literati – the people of
paper. Increasingly that power has been transferred to the clickerati, mouserati, digerati

Education will not be confined to childhood
Given the rapidly changing nature of our world, people of all ages much constantly learn and
relearn what they need to know

Education will not be confined to controlling learners
The traditional educational mind set used a predetermined, predefined, generic cookie cutter
curriculum that led to a one‐size‐fits all approach the learning
Learning needs to become a lifelong empowerment process, and technology can help create the
customized learning experiences that have personal relevance for students

Windows on the Future
New Skills for Students
Reading, Writing,
Arithmetic
+
9 Process Skills
• Problem solving and critical thinking
• Communication skills
• Technical reading and writing
• Applied technical reasoning skills

• Scheduling

Appendix D ‐ 11

• So VERY different from current structure
• No real need for big building???

• Bridge gap between generation/parents having common “language” with kids
• Assessment tools – SO varied
• Pre‐assessments of “starting points” of knowledge of students
• Grades?

• More responsibility on students/less on teachers/classroom
• Other adults tasked with teaching beyond teachers (i.e. parents)
• TIME (lack thereof)
• Training (lack thereof)
• Grades?

• Angel communication system
• “UBD”
• Process skills vs. facts/memorization
• New TJ report card
• Differentiated instruction

• More Angel/less paper
• Less class time
• Authentic assessment

Appendix D ‐ 12

Stager – Constructionist Learning

Summary of Theory:
THE CONSTRUCTIONIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (PROJECT‐BASED LEARNING)
GARY STAGER / SEYMOUR PAPERT / JOHN DEWEY
It takes time to learn: learning is not instantaneous. For significant learning we need to revisit ideas,
ponder them try them out, play with them and use them. If you reflect on anything you have learned,
you soon realize that it is the product of repeated exposure and thought. Even, or especially, moments
of profound insight, can be traced back to longer periods of preparation.
Motivation is a key component in learning. Not only is it the case that motivation helps learning, it is
essential for learning. This idea of motivation as described here is broadly conceived to include an
understanding of ways in which the knowledge can be used. Unless we know "the reasons why", we
may not be very involved in using the knowledge that may be instilled in us ‐‐ even by the most severe
and direct teaching.
Stager’s Work in Applying Constructionist Theory Using Technology
From 1999 to 2002 Stager was the principal investigator and one of three architects of an alternative
learning environment operated inside The Maine Youth Center, the state’s troubled juvenile detention
facility. Guided by the learning theory of constructionism, a multi‐age, interdisciplinary technology‐rich
learning environment was created to support the development of personally meaningful projects based
on student interest, talent and experience.

Students often classified as learning disabled engaged in
rigorous learning adventures and developed positive personal
behaviors. Personal and collaborative long‐range student
projects incorporated powerful ideas from mathematics,
science, computer science, engineering and the arts.
Sophisticated projects resulted from a more expansive view of
technology that included programming, robotics,
woodworking and communications via a variety of media.

Appendix D ‐ 13

The ubiquitous access to computers and computationally rich building materials made a significant
contribution to both the learning process and the learning environment. The routine use of computer
and related technologies allowed students to engage in serious intellectual work, perhaps for the first
time in their lives. Technology allowed them to experience the feeling associated with being a
mathematician, a scientist, an engineer or a filmmaker. This ‘feeling of wonderful ideas’ is profound and
absent from even the most successful school reform efforts. Image a school system in which every child
felt that he had the personal power, potential and intellect required to meet any challenge.

Since the theory of constructionism suggests that the best way to learning is through the construction of
something shareable, projects were not a means to an end, but the goal itself. Projects possess a
narrative comprised of debugging, experimentation, serendipity, research, collaboration, perspective,
creativity and ingenuity. Projects also exhibit habits of mind. A student’s ability to complete a project
and explain its creation or how it works represents sophisticated understanding.

• Tie of technology to constructivism
• Hands‐on projects
• Active learning
• Scaffolding
• Movement

• Movement
• Space, variety of environments
• Technology, collaboration

• Pacing, assessment
• Time‐reflection, multi‐disciplinary
• Collaboration

• IB – diploma, PYP
• Outdoor classrooms

• Variation of teacher certification
• Differentiation
• Project‐based learning
• More focus on process

Appendix D ‐ 14

Millennials Rising

Summary of Theory:
MILLENNIALS RISING – THE NEXT GREAT GENERATION
NEIL HOWE / WILLIAM STRAUSS

If most Americans aren’t very hopeful about today’s rising generation, it’s because so many of them
figure that history generally moves in straight lines. They assume the next batch of youths will follow
blindly along all the life‐cycle trends initiated (thirty and forty years ago) by Boomers and confirmed (ten
and twenty years ago) by Gen Xers. These trends point to more selfishness in personal manner, more
splintering in public purpose, more profanity in culture and daily discourse, more risk‐taking with sex
and drugs, more apathy about politics, and more crime, violence, and social decay.

How utterly depressing. And how utterly wrong.
Yes, there’s a revolution under way among today’s kids—a good news revolution. This generation is
going to rebel by behaving not worse, but better. Their life mission will not be to tear down old
institutions that don’t work, but to build up new ones that do. Look closely at youth indicators, and
you’ll see that Millennial attitudes and behaviors represent a sharp break from Generation X, and are
running exactly counter to trends launched by the Boomers.

Across the board, Millennial kids are challenging a long list of common assumptions about what
"postmodern" young people must become. The name ‘Millennial’ hints at what this rising generation
could grow up to become—not a lame variation on old Boomer/Xer themes, but a new force of history,
a generational colossus far more consequential than most of today’s parents and teachers (and, indeed
most kids) dare imagine.

Today’s kids are on track to become a powerhouse generation, full of technology planners, community
shapers, institution builders, and world leaders, perhaps destined to dominate the twenty‐first century
like today’s fading and ennobled G.I.Generation dominated the twentieth.

In today’s America, one hears much praise for what the G.I. Generation built, but no one ever asks,
“Who built the G. I. Generation?” The answer is the generations of Roosevelt and Truman – elders who
provided young people with principled leadership, challenges to character, ambitious national goals, and
solid foundations for long‐term achievement.

SO ASK YOURSELF. . . . What are the implications of CHILDREN of the Millennials
entering our schools in the next six years?

Appendix D ‐ 15

Characteristics of Millenials
Forging a new youth ethic of teamwork and civic purpose – becoming a regular kid counterpoint to the
worst ego‐excesses of older generations.

Biggest youth spenders in history – not BY them, but ON them – often in co‐purchases with parents.
The generations can’t help but be influenced by the events and conditions that have shaped who they
are and how they see the world.

Fascination and mastery of new technologies. The left brained indicators of achievement – for math,
science, and technology – are where this generation is making its strongest strides – will apply
technology not to empower individuals, but to empower the community.

To Millennials diversity doesn’t mean black or white, it means Korean, Malaysian, Latvian, Guatemalan,
Peruvian, Nigerian, Trinidadian, and skins in more hues from more places than seen on any generation in
any society in the history of humanity. 1 in 5 has at least one immigrant parent;
1 in 10 has at least 1 non‐citizen parent.

Most watched‐over generation in history. 7 out of 10 parents of elementary school students now say
it’s extremely important for them to get their kids to do their homework; 4 out of 10 spoken to teacher
more than 5 times during the year

Columbine most influential event until 9‐11. Those in college – first time there was an emergency and
parents weren’t there – other millennials were.

Far more permissive attitude towards government intrusion on civil liberties than 20‐year norms
would suggest – far more positive attitudes toward America in general.

Biggest problem of millennial teens – pressure: on time, on achievement, living up to high expectations
of adults and friends.

Feedback whenever I want it at the push of a button. Continuous learning is a way of life. Media blurs
reality and fantasy.

First millennials were barely a year old when education hit its modern ground zero – the 90’s were
decade of back to basics, teaching values, setting standards, holding schools and students accountable –
they’ve always known standardized testing

Freedom of school choice – competition for public schools – religious, charter, home‐schooling rises
(enrollment from 1990‐99 rose 48% in non‐traditional public schools)

Appendix D ‐ 16

A generation is composed of people whose common location in history lends them a collective
persona. The span of one generation is roughly the length of a phase of life.

Traditionalists Baby Boomers Generation X‐ers Millennials
1900 to 1945 1946 to 1964 1965 to 1980 1981 to 2002
‘The Greatest Reflected evolving Media explosion – The ‘next great
Generation’ identity & explosion of mystique stripped generation’
products in away, including
Things were scarce, marketplace personal computer Highly techno‐savvy
learned to do without
TV – events revealed Moms working – Appreciation for
God‐fearing, hard‐ resourceful diversity
working, patriotic Focus on self, challenge
character authority Hovering parents –
always part of day‐to‐
day
Loyal – put aside own Optimistic – anything is
needs and work toward possible Skeptical ‐ more faith in Realistic – a
common goals self than institution combination of loyal,
optimistic and skeptical

• Vocabulary – what a millennial is
• Group definitions of generations
• Categorical descriptions of ages
• Helicopter parents – affect
• Student schedules in and out of school

• Technology
• More space
• Content delivery
• Feedback
• State influence and its impact on testing, curriculum

• Training
• “Tech” knowledge
• Role changes to facilitator
• Multi‐purpose teaching

Appendix D ‐ 17

• Implementation of programs and tools

• Flexible technology
• Facilities that support technology, different learning spaces and teaching styles

Whole group discussion: common themes/planning considerations from the Topic Area that apply to
the future of Falls Church Public Schools
• Flexibility
• Time
• Collaboration
• Individual‐based instruction for students
• Training – teacher / parent
• Generation gap
• Technology –virtual learning (on‐line)
• Middle/High School working together
• Inquiry‐based
• Goals of SOLs – integration with new thoughts on instruction
• Connection to real world
• Space in general – away from the traditional ‐ outdoor classrooms
• Critical thinking/problem solving/interdisciplinary instruction
• Real‐life skills
• Evolving nature of education

Appendix D ‐ 18

Appendix D – Design Committee Work Summaires – Meeting 2
Design Committee Meeting 2 Summary ‐ Technology’s Role in Teaching and Learning

Categorizing Teaching and Learning by Location
Teaching and learning takes place in different locations throughout a student’s career. Taking all of the
learning a student accomplishes in a year, one could sort these activities into two categories: place‐
based and non‐place‐based. Generally speaking in K‐12 learning, these activities were dependent upon a
student being in a classroom, school facility, or specific field trip – or they were not. Prior to the
technological advances of audio and video recording, televisions and VCRs, and the Internet, place‐
based simply meant that a student was in school, while non‐place‐based generally consisted of
homework and other assignments. The Internet and other on‐demand resources have dramatically
changed these generalizations, particularly when considering that a school’s library collection is now
extremely limited compared to worldwide collections that are available electronically.

Place‐based Learning
Students in this learning situation are constrained by the environment of the space. Typically these
situations require that a student be in a particular location in order for learning to occur such as a
classroom, gymnasium, lab, or a specific field trip location. The key is that the desired instruction and
learning process are both tied directly to the environment. “Real time” teacher led instruction and
demonstrations, interacting with a museum interpreter, participating in team activities or sports, are all
examples of activities dependent upon a specific learning location.

Non‐Place‐based Learning
In this situation the instruction and learning process is not dependent upon the specific location.
Homework, papers, projects, reading, watching video programming, listening to audio materials, and
research are activities that are not dependent upon being in any particular location. While these
activities may require a computer, television, MP3 player, or book they are not dependent on being in a
specific learning location. Activities done in a general computer lab situation could also be classified as
non‐place‐based if the activities can be just as easily accomplished on a student’s home computer and
are not dependent upon real time instruction.

Sub‐Categorizing Teaching and Learning by Time
Teaching and learning that is place‐based versus non‐place‐based can be further subdivided by when
and how they occur. In today’s place‐based classrooms, students learn in multiple ways and at multiple
times through group assignments, independent study, and shared class experiences, meaning that not
every student is studying or learning necessarily at the same time. Similarly, when students are not at
school they may still be learning through group projects that require real time collaboration, thus while
they may not be dependent upon the location for their learning they may still need to learn in concert
with their classmates through instant messaging, email, telephone conversations, off‐site meetings, or
social networking websites.

Synchronous Learning
Instruction and learning in this category requires students to learn with others at the same time as other
students. This is not to say that synchronous learning is the same as group learning. While repeatable, a
teacher’s classroom demonstration cannot necessarily be done on an individual basis – this is not group
work, but it is synchronous learning. Common instruction and learning activities are considered

Appendix D ‐ 19

synchronous if they must happen at the same instant for multiple students in order for the full effect of
learning to occur.

Asynchronous Learning
Student learning is independent of time, other students, or teachers in asynchronous learning. Group
assignments can be done asynchronously if the group does not have to be together at the same time to
complete a task (e.g., each member of the group writes a chapter of an assignment). Individual
homework and research assignments are typically asynchronous activities even though an entire class
may have the same requirements. Practicing basketball free throws is an example of an asynchronous
activity even though it ultimately contributes to a group “assignment”.

The Design Committee breakout groups created scenarios comparing their perception of today and ten
years from now in terms of technology practices in FCCPS. They considered these questions in their
work:
• What form(s) of technology do elementary students use today (in and out of the learning process)?
What form(s) do you think they will be using 10 years from now? (i.e. computers, cell phones, voice
enhancement, etc.)
• What is your observation about the perception of the learning continuum in the charts from
elementary to middle to high?
• Is there now or will there by a technology gap as students progress through Falls Church schools? If
so, what are they?

The following pie charts were created by Design Committee sub groups for each grade level grouping.

Appendix D ‐ 20

Appendix D – Design Committee Work Summaires – Meeting 2
Figure D‐1 ‐ Place‐based/Non place‐based and Synchronous/Asynchronous charts ‐ Elementary School

Figure D‐2 ‐ Place‐based/Non place‐based and Synchronous/Asynchronous charts ‐ Middle School

Appendix D ‐ 21

Figure D‐3 ‐ Place‐based/Non place‐based and Synchronous/Asynchronous charts ‐ High School

Appendix D ‐ 22

Design Committee Meeting 3 Summary ‐ School & Community Connection

What is the Implications Wheel?
• Designed by Dr. Joel Barker (Father of the Paradigm Shift) as a way to explore the future before
introducing an innovation or embarking on a new pathway
• Systematic way of thinking about and evaluating any change and determining its potential long
term, positive and negative implications
• A small group tool that uses teams made up of diverse individuals to “scout” the future using first,
second, third order implications.
• Strategic exploration is what you do before you do strategic planning – provides information and
insights that make strategic planning easier, faster and more effective

Exploration: What are the direct implications of achieving the goal of actively involving the Falls
Church community as a partner in the education of the city’s children?
Key: (+) the group determined this is a positive implication
(‐) the group determined this is a negative implication

Scoring: Desirability is show with a ‐5 to +5 range (+50 and ‐50 are special scores)
Likelihood is shown with a 9 (highly likely) to 1(highly unlikely) range
Indicated together with a / in between
MR – Minority Report shows a disagreement with group and statement why

nd
First Order Ring 2 Order Implications 3rd Order Implications
Student enrollment increases (+) Salary costs increase (‐) ‐4/9
More course offerings (diversity)
(+) +5/7
More staff need to be hired (+)
Increase in training and
professional development (+)
+2/6
Increased
Larger and more diverse student
understanding/acceptance of
population (+)
other cultures (+)
Instructional materials costs
increase (‐) ‐1/8
Maintenance costs increase due
to wear and tear (‐)
Higher demand of resources
Newer/up to date materials are
(students) (‐)
purchased (+) +3/7
Cost of technology
(infrastructure) increases (‐) ‐
3/9
Costs of building and/or
maintaining/renovating (‐) ‐5/9
Expanding instructional space (+)
Acquiring land cost and difficulty
+5/9
(‐) ‐1/2
Security monitoring costs

Appendix D ‐ 23

Appendix B ‐ FCCPS Facility Master Plan Design Committee
increase (‐) ‐1/8
Up to date facilities meet
student learning needs (+) +5/4
nd
There is increased demand for Increased financial demands Funding sources become
staff time spent on issues other from overall school budget (‐) increasingly unclear (‐)
than students (‐) Bringing together groups that
don’t see eye‐to‐eye (‐)
Increased use of facility for more
Can enhance existing facilities
diverse learning/community
with profits from rentals (+)
purposes (+)
Increased community pride in
facility (+)
Increased income for
staff/teachers (+)
Increased employee burnout (‐)
Increased opportunity for extra
Increased employee loyalty (they
pay extra duty (+)
are needed) (+)
Increased opportunity for
community (+)
Higher employee turnover (‐)
‐5/4.5
Lower learning outcomes (‐)
‐5/1
Lower productivity (‐) ‐5/4.5
Increased employee burnout (‐)
Administration improves
‐5/4.5
climate/culture for staff (+)
+5/8
Staff increases stress
management techniques (+) +
5/8
Increased awareness of how
community can support school
(+)
Increased awareness of how
Improved bond between staff school can best serve community
and community (+) +5/9 (+)
Higher overall school community
morale (+) +5/9
“Too much info” between staff
and community (‐) ‐1/3
First Order Ring 2nd Order Implications 3rd Order Implications
Rich and diverse resources are Share their skills with students Career education (+) +5/9
added to each school (+) (+) +3/7 Authentic real‐world learning (+)

Appendix D ‐ 24

+5/6
Loss of autonomy (‐) +1/4
Staff resource to monitor (‐) 0/9
Increased student achievement
(+) +50/5
(+) +50/
Internationally‐minded citizens
Promotes knowledge of diversity (+) +50/
and backgrounds (+) Potential conflicts between
groups (‐) ‐5/4
Decreased instruction time (‐) ‐
5/4
(+)
Post‐secondary opportunities Highly educated and prepared
increase (+) community (+)
Negative impact on existing
programs (i.e. IB) (‐)
Strings attached to resources (‐) Opportunity cost (+)
Brings supplemental Increase student achievement
contributions to schools (+) (+) +50/5
+3/8
There is an increase in available Enables risk taking (+)
human and financial resources New and better ways/methods
(+) are considered (+)
Innovative programs are added Compete with curriculum (‐)
(+) +50/6 Expectation created (+) (that
requires more money) (‐)
Schools become models for
others (+)
Oversight/controls become more
necessary (+) (takes time) (‐)
School personnel become Community backlash (‐)
wasteful (‐) ‐5/2 Expected rather than
appreciated (‐)
Take volunteers for granted (‐)
Culture changes (+) 0/7
Difficult for staff to prioritize (‐)
‐4/
Service learning opportunity
enhanced (+)
There are increased financial Focus on efficiencies and Better understanding by the

Appendix D ‐ 25

responsibilities for the school priorities with the school (+) school administration of how the

division (‐) 0/9 +3/4 numbers work (+)
Opportunity to diversify revenue Some new revenue sources may
sources (+) +5/2 be unreliable (‐)
Increase expectations of
Higher level of accountability to
community (‐)
community/citizens (+)
Increase workload on staff (‐)
Could increase multi‐purpose
General government vs. schools use and consolidation (+)
competition (‐) ‐4/8 Done incorrectly produces
“winners” and “losers” (‐)
Clear articulation and
justification of services (+)
Increased opportunity for role of
Intra‐school competition for
implementation (+)
resources (‐) ‐4/8
Potential for conflict among
administrators and student
groups (‐)

Appendix D ‐ 26

There is increased ownership, Increased expectations on school More use of facilities (+)
buy in and support by the system (‐) +4/9
community as a whole (+) +4/9 Shared decision making (‐) /6
Tax burden on citizens increases
Shared responsibility to (‐)
fund/supply (+) Encourage political participation
(+)
Business support of programs
increases (+)
Synergy (+)
City and school programs
paired/shared (+)
Open lines of communication (+)
New owners become vehicle for
Enhanced community awareness
positive change (+)
of how school system works (+)
More questions more time
explaining (‐)
nd
There are less disenfranchised More diverse family Exposure to different cultures
families (+) participation in school (+) +5/ for all (+)
Some may not value these
values (‐)
Increased adult education (+)
Unknown needs may arise (‐)
May require more staff (‐)
‐3/
Requires more financial
resources (‐)
Diversity training for staff (+)
Shrink achievement gap (+)
Improve graduation rate (+)
Improve college entry and
Improve student achievement completion rate (+)
(+) +50/ Increase CTE opportunities (+)
Increased enrollment (‐)
**MR – increased enrollment
could be positive
Value greater diverse family Improve job opportunities (+)
involvement in community (+)
+5/
Promotes inclusive community
(+)

First Order Implications that were not explored by a group:


Appendix D ‐ 27

Parents feel comfortable
enabling irresponsibility in
students
There is increased demand for
use of facilities
There is increased opportunity
for multi‐cultural events
There is an increase in students’
perception of the value of
education as they see more
relevancy
The decision making process
takes more time
The open door policy
compromises safety

Appendix D ‐ 28

What DOES the school and community connection look like?
• Major linkage is BIE (Business in Education)
Donations for supplies
Partnerships with businesses
All levels – elementary, middle, high
Shadowing opportunities / guest speakers
Provide some financial support
• High level of cooperation among all government components
Between schools and community
MOU between parks and recreation and schools
Synthetic turf field
Shared use of gymnasium
Student performances in community
• Student art
Displays at gallery (use to develop calendar)
“First Friday” shows
Sister City in Africa – send art
• Schools as community magnet
Schools seen as an integral factor in providing positive environment for children, attracts residents
that want to live her for the school and community
• Extended daycare program
• Shared classrooms for continuing education (parks & recreation and schools)
Partnership in lifelong learning
• Participate in decision making – extensive community process (The Falls Church Way)
• Expectation of participation – parents expect it of themselves
• Educational service requirements – positive for community
Blood drive
Recycling
Rain gardens, etc.
• Alliance For Youth
At‐risk youth, but supports all youth in a collaborative way
• The PTA 5:
Band Boosters
Athletic Boosters
Educational Foundation
• All night graduation party
• Positive relationship with Grad Center
Built‐in 40 year lease
Grew into strong relationship
• Shared facilities for revenue
Parks & Recreation
Other community groups
Cable access
• Special needs youth – transitioning into jobs within community
• CDC – sit on committees to ensure educational voice is heard
• Week‐long career fair at the Middle School
• Parent involvement strong at all levels

Appendix D ‐ 29

Daily involvement
Active parent volunteers (know can call on at a moment’s notice for help)
Highly participate in activities
Strong sense of ownership
• Combined City involvement and outreach beyond Falls Church
• Parents were substitute teachers for a “crisis” situation

What SHOULD the school and community connection look like?
• Less than 20% of the population sends their children to public school – work to engage the other
80%
• 20% of the group that sends students is not engaged due to various reasons
• Better meeting space to demonstrate connection/enhance relationship (both large and small
groups)
• Share community resources such as recreational, social services, library, fine arts facility
• Enhance alternative education – current space too small

Appendix D ‐ 30


Appendix D ‐ 31

Appendix E
MASTER PLAN

Appendix E – Planning Document ‐ Elementary School
Design Committee Meeting 4 Summary ‐ Educational Principles With Design Implications

Any new or renovated Falls Church City schools and the spaces within them should be designed on the
basis of the following educational principles that fall under four categories:
• Educating, Challenging and Supporting Student Success
• Attracting, Retaining and Developing Highly Skilled Staff
• Creating and Maintaining Safe, Healthy and Comfortable Environments
• Actively Involving the Community as Partners in Education

These principles are specific to grade levels, and should form the basis of determining site‐specific
design implications when combined with community need and program delivery. The principles have
been numbered for ease of reference for justification of space/size of space when creating site specific
educational programs.

Elementary School
The elementary instructional program is designed to help each student develop competence in the basic
learning skills, develop the intellectual skills of rational thought and creativity, acquire the knowledge
and process skills of science and technology and acquire the broad knowledge and understanding of the
humanities. Traditionally, the majority of the elementary instructional program has been provided in a
single classroom setting. However, in today’s instructional environment, several factors influence the
ability to effectively deliver this instructional program both within and beyond the classroom setting:
technology, multiplicity of student and teacher support services, resource instruction, and parent
support services.

Educating, Challenging and Supporting Student Success
1.1 Educational Principle
The culture of the school values diversity and promotes positive and constructive student behavior.
Design Implications
• First impression is welcoming
• Administrative office accessible and transparent
• Clinic is big enough and is near office
• Be mindful of the needs of all learners in allocating space
• Inclusivity

Students require a wide range of settings to learn, work and socialize in small and large groups as well as
individually.
Design Implications
• Room to display student work
• Look at current rooms to evaluate what is working
• More space for individual work/assessment

Appendix E ‐ 1

Chapter 3 ‐ Educational Specifications – Meeting 4 ‐ Elementary School
Technology is an essential tool for instruction and administration. Students will use digital technology
and communication tools to access, manage, integrate and evaluate information, construct new
knowledge, and communicate with others. Many knowledge systems and resources will no longer need
to be place‐based but can be accessed from anywhere by both teachers and students.
Design Implications
• Combination of portable laptops and computer labs
• Consider distance traveled in transition to special classes
• Interactive technology of all kinds
• Sound enhancement

Learning is interactive, group oriented, hands‐on, and based in the core subjects with a focus on thinking
through issues, solving problems and making connections. Students demonstrate authentic
understanding through work products, projects, and other activities.
Design Implications
• Classrooms that provide space to move around
• Small scale performance space
• To have private learning spaces
• More display cases to showcase student work
• Dedicated space for Daycare services

Curriculum, assessment, and instruction are focused on enhancing student understanding (at all
performance levels) while being responsive to differences in student readiness, learning profiles, and
interests (Understanding by Design ‐ UBD).
Design Implications
• Inclusive use of space
• Storage for reading and math materials (common)

Provide well‐rounded education that includes developmentally appropriate extra and co‐curricular
activities and sports.
Design Implications
• Space for Daycare that meets needs of participants
• Space for outdoor planning/storage for outdoor classroom activities

Appendix E ‐ 2

In IB PYP learning is authentic, engaging, relevant to “real” world, challenging and significant with a
commitment to a transdisciplinary model. Students are encouraged to be curious, inquisitive, explore
and interact with the environment physically, socially and intellectually.
Design Implications
• Meeting and office space for staff
• Easy access to outdoor space
• Opportunity for research – technology and library
• Space for sharing investigations
• Space for projects/construction that doesn’t have to be taken down

Attracting, Retaining and Developing Highly Skilled Staff
The changing role of the teacher brought on by the self‐directed student and the development of
technology will require change in teaching methods and styles, including self‐contained, multi‐
disciplinary, and team teaching. Teachers will use a variety of instructional strategies and assessments
and incorporate the use of technology as a teaching and administrative tool.
Design Implications
• Large spaces for common use and varied student learning experiences
• Smaller learning spaces attached to larger instructional areas (areas with glass doors/windows
looking into larger space)
• Built‐in spaces to store technology (laptop storage/charging stations)

The necessary resources and services must be provided to support student achievement.
Design Implications
• Classrooms feeding into larger commons spaces
• Adjoining classrooms (general education to specialists)
• Resources and materials and shared specialists should be in spaces accessible to staff and
students
• Movable furniture/storage

Data must be used for continuous improvement of teaching and learning.
Design Implications
• Classrooms with spaces to perform assessments (1‐1, small group) within room or adjoining

Appendix E ‐ 3

Collegiality, collaboration, and teamwork are essential. The school environment should support
continued professional development and mentoring by providing teachers with opportunities to
collaborate on a routine basis and to explore new teaching strategies, tools and other resources.
Design Implications
• Team planning and workroom with storage for resources/materials

Teachers develop individual professional growth plans to focus and monitor continual refinement of
their practice. A PGP should support reflective thinking ‐ a conscious and intentional process that
provides time for thinking about teaching practices and how to refine them.
Design Implications

Adults will help students develop learning goals and plan and assess progress.
Design Implications
• Small student rooms located off hallways, classrooms or large learning spaces

Administrators provide effective leadership and management.
Design Implications
• Offices or conference spaces throughout school for administrative staff (better monitoring,
more “presence,” connect more to school)

Creating and Maintaining Safe, Healthy and Comfortable Environments
School facilities should be inviting and inspiring. They must create a strong sense of belonging and be a
statement about how Falls Church feels about education and community. They should be welcoming
and non‐institutional.
Design Implications
• School facilities’ assumes bricks and mortar – non‐traditional “online” facilities will need the
same energy and intent to showcase learning and enlighten (podcasts, distance learning, etc.)
• Overall form of building open, original, bright lighting, natural light (windows/skylights)
• OPEN, design innovative – beyond the cinder blocks
• Community room – invites all members of the community to “belong”
• Trail system and playground accessible to community and students
• Use of technology is forward‐looking and accessible community‐wide

Appendix E ‐ 4

An educational facility should be designed to conserve resources; good stewards of the environment.
Design Implications
• Energy clocks (usage of/savings compared to …)
• Draining/cistern and water usage
• Solar panels, recycled, green building materials and landscaping
• Native landscaping, recycling focus, solar grid wide/renewable energy
• LEEDS certified (level?), wildlife certified, outdoor use of space
• Community role model, playground equipment of natural community

An engaging environment (facilities and grounds) is an active showcase of learning and discovery.
Design Implications
• Better use of outdoor space (all hardtop surfaces outside becoming giant blackboard)
• A showcase of learning should be active/initial intent of design – art, literature, technology,
connects to the community

An engaging learning environment must be easily managed and maintained.
Design Implications
• Native landscaping – outdoors
• Materials planning crucial to starting off facilities to be easily managed
• Technology makes much more easily managed – educational, facilities (HVAC, electricity)
• Efficient layout (cleaning, teaching, people management)

Small classes and small schools are the foundation of academic excellence.
Design Implications
• Flexible classrooms for ability to create small classes
• Small classes if able but can expand due to population or lesson/educational need

Appendix E ‐ 5

There must be safety from physical threat and a sense of emotional security for students and all who
use the building.
Design Implications
• Design for entrance/exits
• Security system/monitoring
• Lockdowns and emergency exits
• Comfortable scale for elementary sized people
• Emotional security – communication systems/video systems
• Internal/external lighting
• Bright, open space for emotional and physical security
• Appropriate landscaping

Actively Involving the Community as Partners in Education
Schools are the center of education that supports life‐long learning for all ages and interests within the
community while also preparing students for the workforce.
Design Implications
• Storage – school needs and community needs separate and lockable
• Security of equipment

Family involvement is welcome and encouraged
Design Implications
• Safety/security that is people friendly
• Community room(s) not dedicated to education

The Falls Church community will continue to face change and growth.
Design Implications
• Flexible rooms – non dedicated
• Properly prepare and research for additions or future changes

Partnerships with the community and advancing technologies will help create customized learning
experiences that have personal relevance for a variety of students’ needs.
Design Implications
• Flexible technology – all rooms multi‐use
• Wireless technology throughout the City

Appendix E ‐ 6

Community involvement strengthens our schools.
Design Implications
• Community use rooms allow students to remain on campus for community activities
• PARKING!
• Transportation

Schools are seen as an integral factor in providing a positive environment for children, and attracting
residents that want to live here for the school and community.
Design Implications
• Space for family functions (PTA)

Appendix E ‐ 7

Appendix E – Planning Document – Middle School
Middle School
Middle school education is centered on the development of the individual learner. During the middle
school years, students experience great changes physically, socially, emotionally, and academically. The
school building should be designed to accommodate individual needs as well as the changes students
experience as they move through these middle years. The middle school philosophy impacts the
instruction, curriculum, structure, organization, and environment of the school.

Design Implications
• Showcase 3D projects
• Exhibit/gallery space ‐ public
• Explanations
• Used for communication
• Clubs/classes can present info/artifacts

individually.
Design Implications
• Display work
• Non‐standard room shapes can present challenges
• Informal spaces
• Paint
• Less institutionalized materials

to be place‐based (lab) but can be accessed from anywhere by both teachers and students.
Design Implications
• Teacher does not have to GO to tech, tech can come to him/her
• Wireless infrastructure

Appendix E ‐ 8

Appendix E ‐ Planning Document – High School
Design Implications
• Flexible furniture – to support various group sizes for small group, pairs, etc.

Design Implications
• User friendly storage
• Multi‐use, compact furniture/spaces
• Flexible space

Design Implications
• Flexible spaces (multiple ones)
• Multiple indoor/outdoor spaces

Grade level identity and transitions are important to the learning and maturing process
Design Implications
• Common space with rooms off of it

Instructional teaming is essential to good educational delivery
Design Implications
• Common team space lends to camaraderie horizontally (each grade)
• Space for everyone to get together at times (whole grade)

Students will progress through less and less structured educational experiences as they move toward
becoming independent, mature, spontaneous learners who have the confidence to continually expand
and adapt their knowledge.
Design Implications
• Increasing flexibility and movement by grade and development

Appendix E ‐ 9

In IB Middle Years, teachers provide students with the tools to enable them to take responsibility for
their own learning, thereby developing an awareness of how they learn best, of thought processes and
of learning strategies. Students participate actively and responsibly in a changing and increasingly
interconnected world. Learning how to learn and how to evaluate information critically is as important
as learning facts.
Design Implications
• Student access to their work
• Increasingly independent learning

Design Implications
• Connectivity (wireless)
• Technology re‐fresh
• Whole room presentation capability

The necessary resources and services must be provided to support student achievement.
Design Implications
• Technology re‐fresh and support
• Web‐based access to curriculum and instructional support

Design Implications
• Master database access/analysis

Appendix E ‐ 10

Design Implications
• Dedicated teacher work space
• Lab or instructors (lab cells for small group work)
• Access doorways to adjacent classrooms for instructor and/or student collaboration and
assistance

Design Implications
• Dedicated instructor work/lab space (cell concept for collaboration)
• Schedule accommodation

Design Implications
• Adequate space to accommodate large and small group meetings (staff/administrators)

Design Implications
• Ample daylight
• Building as a learning tool
• Easily updateable
• Community represented
• Pictures of positive moments
• Pictures of teachers in grade
• Display case of teacher artifacts

Appendix E ‐ 11

Design Implications
• Timed lights
• Recycling
• ‘Green’ elements

Design Implications
• Lots of display
• Outdoor education
• Color

Design Implications
• Lots of storage
• Linoleum floor (easier to clean)

Design Implications
• Expansion possibilities
• Keep in mind vertical (5‐7) planning and grouping as a possibility

use the building.

Design Implications
• Counseling office that is relaxing
• Security locks
• Central entrance

Appendix E ‐ 12

Design Implications
• Accessibility to all/central location (remove barriers of opportunity for students/people to
access)
• Facilities and equipment that meet the needs and interests of different groups that may use the
school
• Limited access to areas available to community (safety concerns) – separate entrance?

Design Implications
• Parking
• Welcoming foyer/atrium/information desk
• Community athletic facilities (i.e. pool)

Design Implications
• Flexible design (moveable equipment)
• Building designed so it can be expanded
• Design is effective and efficient (especially energy efficient)

Design Implications
• State‐of‐the‐art technology
• Opportunities for students to apply and show their technology knowledge/skills

Schools facilitate use by multiple populations for multiple purposes at all hours and days of the week,
while protecting the core instructional program.
Design Implications
• Central location
• Security

Appendix E ‐ 13

Design Implications
• Opens up communication and builds trusting relationships (the “use it – believe it” cycle)
• Create a welcoming environment / easy access

Design Implications
• “WOW!” factor to design – the building inspires success
• Child friendly / not institutionalized
• Sense of ownership/pride/upkeep

Design Implications by Discipline
English
• Space that allows for flexible discussion without interference from other groups
• Comfortable reading spaces/nooks

Mathematics
• Common storage space for materials
• Dedicated computer lab facilities

Social Studies
• Comfortable and large pod space to provide student‐led meetings

Science
• Living lab/green house

World Languages
• Computer lab facilities that allow student interactive voice activities, preferably in the classrooms

Special Education
• Partitioned rooms with sunlight

Performing Arts
• Amphitheater (outdoors)

Dining/Food Services
• Refrigerator equipment on generator power

Auditorium
• Sound system, seating

Teacher and Professional Development Resources

Appendix E ‐ 14

• Skylights (or natural lighting) in team rooms

Appendix E ‐ 15

High School
The purpose of high schools is to prepare students adequately for their future, focusing on:
Engagement – reducing dropouts and increasing school completion at both the secondary and
postsecondary levels in a diverse, rapidly evolving and increasingly complex society.
Achievement – strengthening academic and technical knowledge and skills in a manner that
values and nurtures individuality.
Transition – increasing the movement of students from high school to postsecondary education
and from education into the workplace, properly equipping them as literate, well‐informed, and
responsible citizens.

Challenge Statement
At George Mason we are an exciting and collaborative community of learners who strive toward
excellence. We care for each other and take pride in and responsibility for our individual and mutual
growth and accomplishments. We celebrate our diversity and seek to foster respect for all in the
community through global awareness and appreciation of our individual and cultural differences.

George Mason prides itself on providing an environment that is welcoming to all students. We are
committed to appropriately challenging all students by providing a diversified curriculum, a strong
program of extracurricular activities, and opportunities for leadership and volunteer experiences. We
are a collaborative community of learners, encouraging active input from staff members, students, and
our families. We enjoy strong parental and community support in our efforts to provide the optimal
educational experience for all students.

Design Implications
• Seating changes/flexible layout
• Cafeteria – promotes interaction
• Gathering spaces for students – common area
• Place to display student work
• Club space for different activities (robotics, etc.)
• Storage for various groups

Appendix E ‐ 16

individually.

Design Implications
• Common area
• Flexible seating and furniture
• Auditorium seating for large events

to be place‐based but can be accessed from anywhere by both teachers and students.
Design Implications
• Mobile labs
• Wireless Internet access/printing
• Modems
• Easy monitoring of space to allow for freedom with responsibility

Design Implications
• Gallery space for student work
• Project work space for students
• Equipment safe use

Design Implications
• Work centers for different readiness levels
• Space that allows for active engagement
• Technology

Appendix E ‐ 17

Design Implications
• Auditorium to fit student body and community (think graduation)
• Black box theater
• Art
• Band/music/chorus
• Athletic complex
• Exercise room
• Swimming pool
• Indoor track
•
Exposure to curriculum customized to the individual and/or more learning choices will be commonplace.
Opportunities for choice in learning will allow students to be competitive for any endeavor beyond high
school – where academic content is learned through real‐world examples, applications, and experiences.
Design Implications
• Career education
• Emphasize technology
• Media center
• Teleconference capabilities
• Distance learning

The introduction of IB in the early years creates an increasing expectation for interdisciplinary and cross‐
curricular connections.
Design Implications
• Teacher meeting spaces
• Class space to accommodate combined groups (2 classes at once)

Students will progress through less and less structured educational experiences as they move toward
becoming independent, mature, spontaneous learners who have the confidence to continually expand
and adapt their knowledge.
Design Implications
• Rooms for project centered learning
• Easy communication with outside resources
• More computer labs strategically located
• Space in computer labs for projects

Appendix E ‐ 18

Off campus sites serve as an extension of the programs at the high school in the areas of occupation
exploration, career prep, enrichment, and to those seeking a hands‐on style of learning or alternative
learning experience.
Design Implications
• Community involvement
• Ease of communication
• Class space for combined groups

The core of the IB Diploma Programme curriculum model consists of investigating a topic of individual
interest using independent research and writing skills expected at tertiary level, exploring the nature of
knowledge across all disciplines, encouraging an appreciation of other cultural perspectives, and
involvement in artistic pursuits, sports and community service work, thus fostering an awareness and
appreciation of life outside the academic arena.
Design Implications
• Student project area
• Media access
• Accessibility outside school hours

Design Implications
• Mobile technology / lots of live ports and outlets (possibly in the floor)
• Be able to move about room without tripping over cords

The necessary resources and services must be provided to support student achievement. An
administrative tool used to assist the school in managing student concerns and issues is the House
Structure – designed to address the need for consistency in administrative‐student relations and to
facilitate the access of students and parents to administrative interventions. Each house supports
approximately 200 ‐ 250 students.
Design Implications
• Technology available to students at any point during the day
• Space for specialist within appropriate department
• Meeting space for a large meeting 15‐20 people/ 20‐30 people

Appendix E ‐ 19

Design Implications
• All data housed in a central secure location with seating to review paper data

Design Implications
• Collaboration space close to classrooms
• Make it difficult for teachers to remain isolated

Design Implications
• Private spaces for teachers
• Student work display areas
• Technology to video teaching ‐ space and technology to review it
• Bright/positive/beautiful/inspiring places – lots of natural light

Adults will help students develop learning goals and plan and assess progress.
Design Implications
• Storage for student work (particularly for large work)
• Conference space that still allows teachers to monitor the whole class

Design Implications
• Consider decentralized offices

Appendix E ‐ 20

Design Implications
• Campus feel – inviting
• Parking/signage
• Greenspace

Design Implications
• Follow LEEDS

Design Implications
• Display areas
• Active, stimulating objects/decor

Design Implications
• Choice of building materials

Design Implications
• Building has to allow for expansion/division within existing walls to allow more classes

use the building.
Design Implications
• Lighting
• Campus setting for emotional sense of security
• Defined entry/access points
• Hallway lines of sight

Appendix E ‐ 21

Design Implications
• Spaces flexible enough to accommodate wide range of ages/activities
• Ability to define boundaries/use of space limits/secure areas
• Large enough space for community events

Design Implications
• Clearly defined entry – logical layout with good signage
• Parking
• Meeting and conference spaces

Design Implications
• Site plan allows for expansion without interruption
• Interior layout allows for easy room changes

Design Implications
• Very specialized spaces

Schools facilitate use by multiple populations for multiple purposes at all hours and days of the week,
while protecting the core instructional program.
Design Implications
• Durability
• Security

Design Implications
• Welcoming design (entry, parking, signage, etc.)
• Parent work areas within the school

Design Implications

Appendix E ‐ 22

• “Campus” feel/setting
• Materials easily maintained

Design Implications by Discipline
Grade 12
• A senior lounge (in lieu of a hallway)

English
• We use computer labs frequently and there are often conflicts, particularly during exam times. We
need at least another lab.
• Journalism needs its own lab space for each class because the lap tops do not have all the software
necessary.
• We still have three English teachers in trailers and would like to have all of our teachers in one wing
in the building.
• Floor in A112 is peeling up and needs to be replaced.

Mathematics
• Dedicated Math Computer Lab (24 network stations)
• Department Office large enough to hold department meetings, work stations, and all supplies
• Department copy machine
• All math classrooms in close proximity to each other
• All classrooms with the same technology at present or better
• Computer science classroom should be large enough to use for a regular math class as well as a
computer science class. The computers in this room should not be networked.
• High ceilings
• Every classroom with windows
• Individual classroom thermostats controllable by teacher
• All full time teachers have their own classroom
• Reasonable storage space and bookshelves in classrooms
• At least 50% of the wall space should be white boards.
• Chairs that are detachable from desk
• File cabinets and desks that lock in each classroom with keys
• Minimally exposed wires
• No carpeting

Social Studies
• New classroom ceilings
• “Green” lights – more eco‐friendly lights
• Multiple windows in all classrooms
• Temperature control in all classrooms
• Wireless network
• Multiple wired drops
• Multiple computers in classroom
• All social studies classrooms clustered together in the building
• Social studies office/ bookroom located near social studies classrooms

Appendix E ‐ 23

• LCD projectors mounted in all classrooms
• Smartboards
• More computer labs/ more laptop carts
• Larger classrooms
• Teacher desks/ closets that can be locked
• Plenty of bookshelves
• Place clocks away from audiovisual screens/ boards
• Bulletin boards/ wall space for display
• Flexible work space for students outside of classrooms
• Larger bookroom, more flexible department storage options
• Copy facilities closer to classrooms
• Common color printer in office
• Classroom for each teacher, no sharing, especially during planning
• In‐house TV/ broadcast network
• Large lecture room for speakers, etc
• Green space
• Outdoor classroom space
• Telephones in computer labs
• Placement of phone jacks near computer drops

Science
• Larger lab space (current space does not allow for 24 different experiments to occur during a typical
IB lab period),
• Outdoor classroom (amphitheater, compost pile, garden, greenhouse, stage for demos),
• Separate lab and lecture space (because lab benches cannot be rearranged),
• More fume hoods per chemistry classroom,
• Way for darkening rooms for light experiments,
• Student project display areas (for 3‐D objects),
• Mounted televisions in classroom,
• Hallway computer screen for video announcements (student video project display, upcoming tests,
make‐up sessions, summer opportunities),
• Student work room with water, gas, fume hood, wireless technology (to make it more flexible and
reduce the hazard of loose wires),
• Plugs that aren’t too close to water supply,
• Plentiful outlets from ceiling or floor,
• Student storage areas (back packs),
• Open (but monitored) lab space so that as student’s learning becomes less structured they will have
the ability to conduct experiments outside of classroom time.
• Department conference room (for dept. meetings, parent conf., collaboration among teachers),
• More flexible classroom space so teachers can team‐teach two classes at the same time,
• Amphitheater for large group instruction, planetarium

World Languages + ESOL

Appendix E ‐ 24

• “Green” building with foreign language classrooms in proximity to each other, with no shared
classrooms, and with central FL workspace with ample space, desks, computers, storage for shared
materials and shelves for FL library
• 10 Internet‐connected computers in each classroom
• Wireless Internet access throughout school + laptops for each student
• Multimedia capacities in each classroom, with Smart Board
• Centralized media control panel/system for all media devices in the room
• Small enclosed spaces adjoining classrooms that can be used for oral interviews, small group work,
individual testing

International Baccalaureate Program
• An IB Center
o Two adjacent offices
o IB Diploma Program Coordinator
o IB MYP Program Coordinator
o Center Area – Large Conference Table
o Book Shelves
o Couches for Visitors
• This would be an area large enough to hold meetings and would allow teachers and students a quiet
place to reflect and get assistance from the IB program coordinators.
• Bathroom for visitors

Special Education
• Each staff member has their own classroom
• English classrooms have 6‐10 computers within the room
• Science room that is equipped with a lab
• Large resource room with test taking space and computers
• ILMS classrooms that have a minimum of 12 computers
• A Para office/secure space to lock materials
• Storage space for special education materials
• Conference room dedicated to special education meetings
• Testing room
• Counseling room
• OT/PT adaptive room
• Sensory room
• Mounted TV’s with cable access in each classroom
• Transition room that is not in basement next to boiler room
• Life skills room with kitchen, laundry, separate entrance, accessible bathroom and coffee machine
for school store

Physical Education
• Indoor swimming pool
• Workout room in which mats can be put down and left out
• Free weights weight room
• Practice field space
• Expand the weight room/update the equipment

Appendix E ‐ 25


Visual Arts, Performing Arts, Music/Chorus, Band
• Proximity between teachers and departments
• Auditorium
o Seating for the entire school population, today’s estimate is 900
o What does the demographic for the future suggest??
o Stage‐ 60 ft square
o Storage space for full set behind mid curtain
o Storage‐props/flats
o Fly system
o Men/Women dressing rooms for 15 plus people
o Small rehearsal rooms
o A facility that is shared w/the community
o Performing arts center with multiple theaters: a main stage and a smaller black box space
o Storage‐costume and tailoring/fitting area (washer, dryer)
• Music Department
o Band Room
• Flat, large rehearsal room for band
• Attached room for instrument storage (150 instruments, today)
• Storage for music library (attached to office is best)
• Storage for uniforms for band and chorus
• Percussion storage room
o Guitar Room
• Guitar Classroom
• Guitar Storage
• PA system with headphone ports for each chair in the room
• A separate sound proof recording / testing / practice room with large windows for
observation
• Smart board
• Work bench for guitar maintenance
o Chorus Room
• Chorus classroom with risers
• Chorus library area
• FOUR INDIVIDUAL PRACTICE ROOMS ‐ One large practice area to fit piano and group of 10 ‐
15 instrumentals. Three smaller practice rooms to accommodate 4 or 5 students.
• MUSIC LAB ‐ IB MUSIC/BAND/CHORUS/GUITAR students could use Sibelius and keyboards
that would stay hooked up.
• Adaptable/appropriate lighting
• Performance space must be dedicated to the performing arts (not shared with other
academic subjects). Currently we are sharing classrooms with study hall, art and theatre
and the computer lab with school which doesn't allow us to leave keyboards hooked up.
• Visual Arts
o Dedicated Art space
o Experiential (Studio) Space
o Good lighting
o Exterior Door

Appendix E ‐ 26

o Appropriate sinks (triple spigots per room)
o Big and open space to allow for storage of in‐process work
o Built in for flat storage and 3‐dimensional shelves
o Kiln/exhaust fan in studio space
o Appropriate display space in classrooms to hang/display student work and educational materials
o Clean, non‐studio, Portfolio preparation room (matting materials)
o Visual arts/ digital arts computer lab
o Appropriate flooring
o High ceilings
o Lecture space
o Good visual sightlines for supervision in multiple spaces simultaneously

Film Studies/Robotics/Technical Education
• Production oriented, small studio environment
• Computer editing facilities‐ to accommodate 20‐25 students
• Accommodations for Lighting instruments to accommodate student lighting exercises
• Central office area dedicated to media/equipment storage that opens to a large computer work
area and a larger wood and machine shop (ventilation, power requirements, safety margins)
• Proximity to the theater is helpful
• Presentation room for finished products
• Seated audience area for viewing films
• Sufficient Storage for long‐term projects
• White board for generating ideas/brainstorming
• Specialized space for electronics and for dealing with repair and maintenance of electronics

Career and Technical Education
• Family and Consumer Science (FACS) room needs gutted or placed in a new facility.
• Ideal floor plan would include 3 rooms.
• One room would house 4 regular kitchens and one commercial kitchen.
• The second room would be a classroom with a textiles area for sewing, ironing and cutting.
• In addition to this a separate area should be set up for 5 modular stations that kids can rotate into.
• The third area would be located between the two classrooms. Half of it would serve as a storage
room and laundry room with washer and dryer.
• The other half would be a dining room/restaurant area with buffet for serving faculty and other
groups. Can double as a conference room or possible future child care facility.
• Equipment: 4 regular kitchens with stoves, refrigerators, garbage disposals, dish washers,
microwaves and deep sinks.
• 1 commercial kitchen to meet the competencies for the culinary 1 course
• Washing machine and dryer
• Utility sink
• Modular computers and work tables

Alternative Education
If considering a move of Alternative Education from off campus to on campus, a facility that could be:
• Private, yet not isolated, self‐contained classrooms
• Able to utilize all GM resources (library, PE, Science, labs, cafeteria)

Appendix E ‐ 27

• Storage for all course books and other materials, more than a regular classroom
• Duplicate the domestic characteristics (food, refrigerator, microwave, stove, etc.) of Gage House
• Separate meeting room for 2‐3 people, visitors, social workers, probation officers, counselors, etc.
• Separate small parking area (students, visitors)

Counseling
• A suite for all counselors (guidance, student services, college/career, IB Coordinator) with a
conference room which would be equipped with a smart board and a permanent LCD projector.
• A file room in the suite that is large enough to accommodate for all the files and ample workspace
while reviewing files, copying, faxing, etc. place the older files closer to the counseling office
• A Career Center large enough to accommodate an entire class and equipped with a smart board.
• Up‐to‐date wiring for wireless laptop use for all counselors at all meetings.

Student Resources
• A designated study hall room with computer access.
• A courtyard area where students can go out during lunch in nice weather.
• School store/vending machine (school supplies)
• Computer lab available to students all the time
• Uniform‐sized lockers large enough to hold coats, book bags
• More hallway space
• Taller ceilings
• Skylights, more natural light

Dining/Food Services
• Cafeteria should have a more retail feel like Starbucks or LaMadeline’s than institutional
environment. Student food line should be more food station oriented like a food court with
warmers, Food bins etc. TV monitors in the café to stream important school or world
events/information.
• Food service should also have a food delivery truck for catering events.
• Foodservice Directors office that has heat.
• Upgraded electrical system that doesn’t trip the breakers
• Cameras that monitor the café seating area
• A second or a larger cafeteria to cut down on food lines and crowding.
• Café large enough to hold half of the student body
• Larger cafeteria so that lunch schedule doesn’t drive the schedule!
• Teacher dining room
• Outdoor dining area that can be used by all students
• A water cooler/expand the salad bar for more vegetables
• Larger cafeteria so fewer lunches, perhaps a food court
• Teacher dining room
• Rectangular tables

Gymnasium
• We should have a high school gym that is as nice as the one at MEH so that high school students can
play their games at the high school.
• Teacher dedicated locker room (Men and Women separate)

Appendix E ‐ 28

• Fitness/weight room for teachers
• Large enough to hold home sports events (no need to go to MEH)
• Faculty exercise room
• A workout room for faculty
• Bigger gym/more modern
• Indoor track
• Weight room
• Space available for students during free blocks
• Swimming pool
• Racquetball court
• More athletic fields
• Cross‐country course

Library Services
• The cable system throughout the building is antiquated and needs to be updated. Teachers need
the ability to access and record from their own rooms. The cable box system in the library AV room
needs to modernized.
• The library classroom needs to be brought up to date with new furniture as well as additional
computers to make it into a library teaching lab for the 21st century. This rearrangement would
require more computer drops and furniture that can be used for all types of research training. The
room should also have either some sort of smart board or advanced iPanel that really works.
• The library classroom lights need to have the switches set so that the front lights can go off when
projecting to the front screen. Currently all lights need to be turned off to fully see what is being
projected.
• The main floor of the library is in desperate need of new tables, chairs, and study carrels as well as a
new center table for computers and readers. All items requested except the center table were
purchased during the 1970’s renovation. The center table is at least 16 years old, probably older.
• New chairs are needed in the library lab. Chairs need to be of the correct height for the computer
counters.
• New table and chairs for the library magazine room.
• It would be good to have another library classroom or meeting room for students to do group work.
Satellite dish to get foreign TV programs
• Special section created in library with books of all genres written by authors from other nations;
books translated and in original language
• More computers

Teacher and Professional Development Resources
• Access to Fairfax County’s professional development speakers. (I don’t think this is a facility issue,
but it was a suggestion)
• A large classroom/lecture space that could accommodate two or three classes if we would like to
have a speaker.
• Exercise room with showers for teachers.
• Daycare facility (could be used for early childhood development classes)
• Larger meeting space
• Multimedia center + presentation space that can accommodate several classes at once for
interdisciplinary presentations

Appendix E ‐ 29


Extra and Co‐curricular Activities
• A room with supplies such as paper, markers, etc that students and teacher sponsors could use.
• Lockers for team sports with lockers large enough to hold equipment (tennis racquets, lacrosse
sticks, etc.)
• Club meeting rooms (large meeting spaces for at least 50 kids) with technology (projector,
computer)
• Club storage facilities by club/team
• Trophy case for extra‐curricular activities
• Publishing space for newspaper and yearbook
• Display space for student artwork
• Plan for student artwork/ murals on walls
• Space for student groups to meet and work

Clinic
• An area for private conversations or telephone calls.

Building in General
• Full spectrum lighting that mimics sunlight. Sound buffering material for hallways. Building is very
loud during change of lunches.
• More faculty bathrooms
• Multiple copy rooms/teacher workrooms
• Individual room thermostats for classrooms
• Limit number of exits and entrances
• Double sets of doors to limit cold and/or warm air
• Electronic sign in front of the school
• Enhance relationship w/ grad center for extra classroom space instead of using trailers
• We think that students should be surveyed as well to see what they would want in a new or
improved facility

Main Office Area
• Need an area to receive UPS/Federal Express & DHL deliveries
• Need a work area with several long tables to assemble packets for interims, report cards, end‐of‐
year mailout, August mailout and the beginning of year folders
• Keep principal and secretary offices together
• Keep at least 2 desk in outer office (opposite sides of office)—1 for attendance secretary and 1 for
assistant principle’s secretary
• Keep discipline secretary in office to herself—confidential records

Appendix E ‐ 30



Appendix E ‐ 31

Appendix F
MASTER PLAN
Appendix F – Baseline Architectural Program - High School
Elementary Program Analysis - Current PK-1 - 430 students exp

Number Pupil/Teacher Total Area each Total
Space Name Classrooms Ratio Students Room Area Remarks
Classrooms: includes addtl in class storage

Pre-K 5 15 75 1055 5,275 w/ toilet
Kindergarten 8 22 176 1055 8,440 w/ toilet
First Grade 8 22 176 1055 8,440 w/ toilet
Total Classrooms 21
Total Pupils 427
22,155
Special Education:
Self Contained 2 8 800 1,600
Resource 4 8 400 1,600 may want less, but larger
OT/PT 1 500 500 w/storage & bathroom
3,700
Art:
Art & Related Spaces 1 1200 1,200 w/storage & kiln, drying racks
1,200
Music:
Music & Related Spaces 1 1000 1,000
1,000
Physical Education:
Gym & related spaces 1 6000 6,000 2 teacher stations
6,000
Technology:
Learning Lab 2 1055 2,110 w/bathroom if needed for clsrm
Computer Tech 1 200 200
Distribution Center 1 500 500
Data closets 3 250 750
3,560
Support Services: speech, tutoring, ESL, etc.
Various resources 8 200 1,600 spread adj to students
Family Literacy clsrm 1 800 800 adult clsrm in admin area
Teacher meeting room 3 300 900 each g.l. work/lounge/books
3,300
Media Center:
Reading Room 1 1730 1,730 750 + 2X capacity @ 200/gl
Conference 1 200 200
Office / Workroom 1 350 350
2,280
Guidance:
Couselor's Office 1 500 500
700
continued next page
Appendix F - 1
Appendix F – Baseline Architectural Program – High School
Administration:
Reception 1 250 250
General Office 1 500 500
Principal 1 200 200
Asst Princ/Other Lead 1 150 150
Attendance Clerk 1 50 50
Bookkeeper 1 50 50
Workroom 1 300 300
Conference/Team 2 250 500
Parent Resource 1 1025 1,025 also used for fam lit adult prog
Clinic 1 500 500
Toilet 2 70 140
Misc/Storage 1 500 500
4,165
Dining:
Student Dining 1 2450 2,450 (10SF * capacity/2 @ 200)
Kitchen/Serving 1 1490 1,490 1000 + capacity
Performance space 1 800 800 stage + chair storage
Teacher Dining 1 350 350 with kitchenette/comm space
5,090
Daycare:
Classroom 1 1055 1,055 w/toilet
Storage 1 250 250
1,305
Toilet Rooms:
Classroom Toilets in classroom area
Staff Toilets 6 70 420
PublicToilets 3 250 750
1,170
Mechanical and Maintenance:
Cutodial Offices/Prep 500 500 may vary in size/location
Related Spaces 1 3000 3,000
General Storage 1 1000 1,000
Outdoor Storage 1 200 200
4,700
Subtotal 60,325
35% circulation and walls 21,114
Total Area 81,439
Appendix F - 2
Elementary Program Analysis - Current 2-4 - 525 students exp

Number Pupil/Teacher Total Area each Total
Space Name Classrooms Ratio Students Room Area Remarks
Classrooms: includes addtl in class storage

Second 8 22 176 880 7,040 w/toilet
Third 7 24 168 830 5,810
Fourth 7 24 168 830 5,810
Total Classrooms 22
Total Pupils 512
18,660
Science:
Science Related Spaces 1 950 950
950
Special Education:
Self Contained 3 8 800 2,400
Resource 6 8 400 2,400 may want less but larger
OT/PT 1 500 500 w/storage & bathroom
5,300
Art:
Art & Related Spaces 1 1200 1,200 w/storage & kiln, drying racks
1,200
Music:
Music & Related Spaces 1 1200 1,200 w/band storage
1,200
Physical Education:
Gym & related spaces 1 6000 6,000 2 teacher stations
6,000
Technology:
Learning Lab 2 900 1,800 can convert to classroom
Computer Tech 1 200 200
Distribution Center 1 500 500
Data closets 3 250 750
3,250
Support Services: speech, tutoring, ESL, etc.
Various resources 8 200 1,600 spread adj to students
Teacher meeting room 3 300 900 each g.l. work/lounge/books
2,500
Media Center:
Reading Room 1 1950 1,950 750 + 2X capacity @ 200/g.l.
Office / Workroom 1 350 350
2,500
Guidance:
Couselor's Office 1 500 500
700
continued next page
Appendix F - 3
Administration:
Reception 1 250 250
General Office 1 500 500
Principal 1 200 200
Asst Princ/Other Lead 1 150 150
Attendance Clerk 1 50 50
Bookkeeper 1 50 50
Workroom 1 300 300
Conference/Team 2 250 500
Parent Resource 1 1025 1,025 also used for fam lit adult prog
Clinic 1 500 500
Toilet 2 70 140
Misc/Storage 1 500 500
4,165
Dining:
Student Dining 1 3000 3,000 (10SF * capacity/2 @ 200)
Kitchen/Serving 1 1600 1,600 1000 + capacity ( 2 serving)
Performance space 1 800 800 stage + chair storage
Teacher Dining 1 350 350 with kitchenette/comm space
5,750
Daycare:
Classroom 1 1055 1,055 w/toilet
Storage 1 250 250
1,305
Toilet Rooms:
Student Toilets 2 250 500 gr 2 in clsrm
Staff Toilets 6 70 420
PublicToilets 3 250 750
1,670
Mechanical and Maintenance:
Cutodial Offices/Prep 500 500 may vary in size/location
Related Spaces 1 3000 3,000
General Storage 1 1000 1,000
Outdoor Storage 1 200 200
4,700
Subtotal 59,850
35% circulation and walls 20,948
Total Area 80,798
Appendix F - 4
Area- SF 800 1000

THE ENGLISH DISCIPLINE DEPARTMENT
Classrooms 800 8 6400 10 8000 24:1 student to teacher ratio
Computer Resource Center 900 1 900 1 900
Media Publications/Broadcast Lab 1600 1 1600 1 1600
Extra Curricular Storage 150 1 150 1 150 student clubs, etc.
Academic Storage 150 1 150 1 150
Teacher Resource Room 800 1 800 1 800 personal and group areas w/toilet/kitchenette
ESOL 800 1 800 1 800
Special Needs Content Classroom 800 2 1600 2 1600
Toilet 250 2 500 2 500
Data Closet 80 1 80 1 80
Electrical Closet 80 1 80 1 80
Janitorial 50 1 50 1 50
0 0
0 0
Subtotal 21 13110 23 14710
Key Relationships
World Languages
Film Study
Interdisciplinary Commons
Outdoor Amplitheater
THE MATHEMATICS DISCIPLINE DEPARTMENT

Computer Science 900 1 900 1 900
Math Resources Lab 900 1 900 1 900
Academic Storage 250 1 250 1 250 large amt of manipulatives
ESOL 800 1 800 1 800
Toilet 250 2 500 2 500
0 0
0 0
Subtotal 19 10910 21 12510
Key Relationships
Science
Cafeteria - Math Lab During Lunch
Appendix F - 5
THE SCIENCE DISCIPLINE DEPARTMENT

Universal Lab/Classrooms 1800 7 12600 9 16200 24:1 student to teacher ratio
Student Project/Resource Area 900 1 900 1 900
ESOL 800 1 800 1 800
Special Needs Content Lab 1200 1 1200 1 1200
Toilet 250 2 500 2 500
0 0
0 0
Subtotal 18 17310 20 20910
Key Relationships
Mathematics & Technology (STEM)
IB Design Tech/Robotics
Technical/Engineering/Arch Drawing
Photo/Art (chemical storage)
Outdoor Amplitheater / Demo
THE SOCIAL STUDIES DISCIPLINE DEPARTMENT

Student Project/Resource Area 900 1 900 1 900
ESOL 800 1 800 1 800
Toilet 250 2 500 2 500
0 0
0 0
Subtotal 20 11510 21 12310
Key Relationships
English
Appendix F - 6
THE WORLD LANGUAGE DISCIPLINE DEPARTMENT

Large Group Classrooms 900 5 4500 7 6300 24:1 student to teacher ratio/lab environment
Breakout 200 5 1000 7 1400
Small Group Classrooms 450 1 450 2 900
ESOL Large Group 800 1 800 1 800
ESOL Small Group 400 1 400 1 400
ESOL Computer Lab 900 1 900 1 900
Toilet 250 2 500 2 500
0 0
0 0
Subtotal 24 10660 29 13310
Key Relationships
English
Theatre Arts/Black Box
Counseling (for ESOL)
Gourmet Cooking
Film Study
THE INTER-DISCIPLINARY COMMONS

Library/Media Services
Reading Room/Stacks 1 3400 1 4000 3 x enrollment + 1000 (new state guidelines)
Office 150 3 450 3 450
Workroom & Toilet 400 1 400 1 400
Professional Library 200 1 200 1 200
Enclosed Classroom 800 1 800 1 800
Electronic Classroom 900 1 900 1 900
Small Group/Conference 300 1 300 2 600
AV Storage 500 1 500 1 500
Subtotal 10 6450 11 7350
Interdisciplinary Resources
Presentation Arena (Black Box) 1000 1 1000 1 1000 75-100 seats
Small Group / Ind Assessment 200 5 1000 5 1000
Computer/Media Resource 500 2 1000 2 1000 for student use on projects
0 0
Subtotal 8 3000 8 3000
Subtotal IDC 18 9450 19 10350
Key Relationships
Core Disciplines (especially English and Social Studies)
IB Project Display
Teaching and Student Services Department
Outdoor Amplitheater
Appendix F - 7
THE FINE AND PERFORMING ARTS DEPARTMENT

Visual Arts
Art Lab 1400 2 2800 2 2800
Teacher Resource Room 800 1 800 1 800 shared with all art teachers
Art Storage 300 3 900 3 900
Graphic Arts Lab 1200 1 1200 1 1200
Darkroom 750 1 750 1 750
Kiln 200 1 200 1 200
Subtotal 9 6650 9 6650
Auditorium/Performance
Main Auditorium/Stage 12000 1 12000 1 12000 Seating for 1000
Stage and support areas 4000 1 4000 1 4000
Control Room / Storage 200 1 200 1 200
Ticket booth 50 1 50 1 50
Dressing room/toilet 300 2 600 2 600
Scene Shop & Workroom 500 1 500 1 500
Theatre Arts/Drama 1000 1 1000 1 1000
Subtotal 8 17350 8 17350
Performing Arts
Band/Orchestra 1600 1 1600 1 1600
Choral 1000 1 1000 1 1000
Instrument Storage 200 2 400 2 400
Uniform Storage 200 2 400 2 400
Practice Rooms 100 4 400 4 400
Music Library 150 2 300 2 300
Subtotal 12 4100 12 4100
Subtotal FPA 29 28100 29 28100
Key Relationships
World Languages
English
Career Ed
Outdoor Access
THE CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

TBD 1500 1 1500 1 1500 Current program includes gourmet foods,
TBD 1500 1 1500 1 1500 design tech/drawing, film studies - future
TBD 1500 1 1500 1 1500 programs to be determined - to align with
TBD 1500 1 1500 1 1500 middle school curriculum and potentially
TBD 1500 1 1500 1 1500 bridge to Arlington Career Center.
Toilet 125 2 250 2 250
Teacher Resource Room 800 1 800 1 800
Storage 150 2 300 2 300
Subtotal 10 8850 10 8850

Key Relationships
Core Disciplines (mostly Science)
Visual and Performing Arts
Appendix F - 8
HEALTH/P.E./ATHLETICS DEPARTMENT
Gymnasium
Main Gym 12000 1 12000 1 12000 2 court
Auxiliary Gym 5000 1 5000 1 5000 or 3 court one gym
Fitness Center 2400 1 2400 1 2400
Indoor Storage 800 1 800 1 800
Outdoor Storage 250 1 250 1 250
Subtotal 5 20450 5 20450
Lockers
P.E. Lckrs/Shwrs - Boys 2500 1 2500 1 2500
P.E. Lckrs/Shwrs - Girls 2500 1 2500 1 2500
Team Lckrs/Shwrs - Boys 1800 1 1800 1 1800
Team Lckrs/Shwrs - Girls 1800 1 1800 1 1800
Subtotal 4 8600 4 8600
Offices
AD Office 150 1 150 1 150
Faculty/Coaches Offices 100 8 800 10 1000
Subtotal 9 950 11 1150
Support Spaces
Laundry Room 200 1 200 1 200
Training Room 200 2 400 2 400
Storage/Equipment 200 6 1200 6 1200
Ticket booth/concessions 300 1 300 1 300
Public Restrooms 1400 1 1400 1 1400 mens 600 sf / womens 800 sf
Subtotal 10 3500 10 3500
Health
Health CR 800 2 1600 4 3200 1000 students assumes 8th grade
Subtotal 2 1600 4 3200
Subtotal HPE 30 35100 34 36900
Key Relationships
Outdoor Access
Appendix F - 9
TEACHING AND STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Special Education
Special Needs Content Classrooms dispersed in departments
Resource Lab 500 2 1000 2 1000
Severe/profound / Sensory Room 1000 1 1000 1 1000
Life Skills Lab 1000 1 1000 1 1000
OT/PT Lab 800 1 800 1 800
Transition Center (Post Grad) 1200 1 1200 1 1200 Sep entry / kitchen/washer/dryer
School Store / Coffee Bar 500 1 500 1 500
Teacher Resource Room/Collab 800 1 800 1 800
Conference/Testing Room 300 2 600 2 600
Subtotal 8 6900 8 6900
Key Relationships
Counseling
Administration
Library
Technology Support Services

IT Administration Office 650 1 650 1 650 Main distribution frame and office
IT Workshop/Resource 300 1 300 1 300 For students and teachers
Testing Lab / Student Resource 900 1 900 1 900
AV Storage 200 6 1200 6 1200 for laptop on cart storage - dispersed
Data Closets 80 4 320 5 400 others in departments
Subtotal 13 3370 14 3450
Guidance/Career Center/Parent Support
Guidance Reception 100 1 100 1 100 suite format
Registrar/Secretary 75 1 75 1 75
College / Career Center 500 1 500 1 500
Main Counselor's Office 175 1 175 1 175
Counselor's Office 150 4 600 6 900
IB Coordinator 250 1 250 1 250
G&T Coordinator 250 1 250 1 250
Testing/Data Coordinator 250 1 250 1 250
Student Support 150 1 150 1 150
School Psychologist 150 1 150 1 150
Itinerants 50 3 150 5 250
Small Group/Conference 200 1 200 2 400
Workroom 200 1 200 1 200
Records Storage 200 1 200 1 200
Parent Resource Center 400 1 400 1 400 w/computer access
Restroom 75 2 150 2 150
Subtotal 22 3800 27 4400
Health Services
Clinic Waiting/Reception 100 1 100 1 100
Nurse's Office 100 2 200 2 200
Exam Room 150 2 300 2 300
Resting Area 100 2 200 2 200
Storage 50 1 50 1 50
Toilets 75 2 150 2 150
Subtotal 10 1000 10 1000
Food Services/Dining
Dining 1 4800 1 6000 1/2 students x 12
Food Prep 1 1800 1 2000 1000 + enrollment
Serving 2300 1 2300 1 2300
Chair/Table Storage 600 1 600 1 600
Senior Lounge 350 1 350 1 350
Faculty Dining / Lounge 1200 1 1200 1 1200 Also leadership training area
Subtotal 6 11050 6 12450
Subtotal TSSS 59 26120 65 28200
Appendix F - 10
ADMINISTRATION/SAFETY AND BUILDING SERVICES

Administration
Reception/Clerical 500 1 500 1 500
Principal 300 1 300 1 300
Asst. Principal 120 3 360 3 360
Staff Offices 120 3 360 3 360
Workroom/Mail 300 1 300 1 300
Conference Room 250 1 250 1 250
Storage/Supplies 100 4 400 4 400
Attendance 200 1 200 1 200
Bookkeeper 150 1 150 1 150
Records Storage 200 1 200 1 200
Toilets 75 2 150 2 150
Subtotal 19 3170 19 3170
Safety
Student Resource Officer 80 2 160 2 160
In School Suspension 250 1 250 1 250 w/toilet
Subtotal 3 410 3 410
Building Services/Maintenance
General Public Toilets 250 2 500 2 500 others in departments / dispersed
Custodian Office 120 1 120 1 120
Receiving/Storage 1000 1 1000 1 1000
Lockers/Dressing 150 2 300 2 300
Janitor Closets 50 7 350 7 350 plus small area in communities
Mechanical/Electrical 1 8760 1 9513 5% of GSF
Subtotal 14 11030 14 11783
Subtototal ASBS 36 14610 36 15363
Subtotal Program S.F. 185730 201513
35% Gross 65006 70529
Total Gross S.F. 250736 272042
COMMUNITY USE - NON-PROGRAM

TLC - UVA and VT
Community TV Station
Subtotal 6122 6122 Assumes will not change
Appendix F - 11

MASTER PLAN
Final Report
March 2011

FCCPS Facilities Master Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FCCPS Facilities Master Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2 – Existing Conditions

Chapter 3 – Education Specifications

Chapter 4 – Program of Space Needs

Chapter 5 – Option Development

Massing Diagrams Scheme D 5-19

Chapter 6 – Preferred Option

97‐98 6% 93 4% 58 10% 142 80% 1154

(11) gives the 2009 total of 145 anticipated births, and so on, as 2009 145

Falls Church Enrollment Projections

Program Capacity 275

Program Capacity 490

Program Capacity at 85% 600

Program Capacity @ 80% 1055

Impact of Expandable Design Capacity

3-1 Purpose of a Division-Wide Educational Specification

3-2 The Division-Wide Educational Specification Development Process

Defining the Programmatic Requirements

Review of existing documents and school division web site information

Defining the Spatial Requirements

Defining the Environmental Requirements

Defining the FCCPS Environment for Learning

We value our students and believe that:

We value our staff and believe that:

We value our independent public education system and believe that:

We value our partnership with the community and believe that:

Specifications to Support the Goals of the Facility Master Plan

Objective 3.1: To offer a variety of developmentally appropriate extra and co-curricular

Objective 3.1: To manage carefully the resources provided.

Objective 1.4: To provide a comprehensive environmental assessment in all FCCPS buildings on

Objective 2.1: To ensure that all FCCPS facilities are secure.

3-3 Major Outcomes of Design Committee Process

Educating, challenging and supporting student success

Transitioning From Division-Wide to Site-Specific Programming

Project-specific decisions (to include, but not limited to):

4-1 Overview of Space Programming

Space Requirements for Use in the Master Planning Process

4-2 Space Requirements - Elementary

Suggested Square Foot Guidelines for Elementary Schools

Desired Grade Configuration: TBD

Elementary Space Program Highlights – based on FCCPS instructional delivery

Space DOE Guidelines FCCPS MP Program

Program Areas Related to Increase in Facility Size

Extended Day Care Program – School Year

Current Capacity and Space Comparison to Master Plan Space Program

Figure 4-2 Current Model

Program Capacity (Student Seats) Facility Size (SF)

Figure 4-3 Efficiency Shift

Program Capacity (Student Seats) Facility Size (SF)

4-3 Space Requirements – Middle School

Suggested Square Foot Guidelines for Middle Schools

Desired Grade Configuration: 5-7 or 6-8 (TBD)

Current Capacity and Space Comparison to Master Plan Space Program

Figure 4-4 Current Model

Program Capacity (Student Seats) Facility Size (SF)

4-4 Space Requirements – High School

Suggested Square Foot Guidelines for High Schools

Desired Grade Configuration: 8 – 12 or 9 – 12 (TBD)

High School Space Program Highlights – based on FCCPS instructional delivery

Space DOE Guidelines FCCPS MP Program

Program Areas Related to Increase in Facility Size

Key Relationships Identified in High School Programming

English World Languages, Film Study, Interdisciplinary Commons, Outdoor

Mathematics Science, Cafeteria (math lab during lunch), Interdisciplinary Commons

Science Mathematics & Technology (STEM), IB Design Tech/Robotics,