How do you want your neighborhood to look?

It’s time for an update.

Over the next couple of months existing content on this site will be verified, new information provided and the look/feel updated.  Please be patient as these changes are implemented.

Thanks for your interest in learning about Ohio’s Historic School.

Portsmouth High School – Portsmouth, Ohio (Demolished: 2007)

How do you want your neighborhood to look - Portsmouth High School

Historic Neighborhood Schools Deliver 21st Century Educations

The information below is a portion of “Historic Neighborhood Schools Deliver 21st Century Educations” by Constance E. Beaumont.

Historic Neighborhood Schools Deliver 21st Century Educations

Many people equate old schools with substandard schools, but as hundreds of school districts throughout the United States have shown, well-renovated, well-maintained historic schools can support a first-class twenty-first century educational program. Moreover, such schools often provide features lacking in newer schools, such as inspiring architecture, grand auditoriums, large windows, and meticulous craftsmanship.

The generally smaller size of historic neighborhood schools often means more personal attention for students—something most educators favor and extensive research supports. Their small scale can help them be safer and more secure and also lets them fit gracefully into residential neighborhoods. This “easy fit” facilitates greater involvement by parents and residents in the school and can make communities more amenable to passing future bond issues. The proximity of these schools to established residential neighborhoods, coupled with the typically pedestrian friendly layout of the neighborhoods themselves, means more students can walk or bike to school. Thus states and school districts can save on student transportation costs and invest more heavily in programs that foster student learning.

Recent renovations of historic schools in Spokane, Washington; San Antonio, Texas; and Boise,Idaho, illustrate these points and challenge the notion that well renovated historic schools cannot meet modern standards. This article recounts the stories of these schools and concludes with several briefer examples that show how communities have found creative solutions to common problems.

A few additional examples of school renovations, noted below, illustrate how school districts, architects, planners, and others have creatively addressed different barriers, including such widespread problems as:

  • unfamiliarity with techniques for bringing older structures up to modern codes;
  • funding biases that favor new construction over renovation;
  • daunting acreage requirements for schools; and
  • the notion that a new building is inherently better than an old one.

Funding Biases
A policy in Ohio of withholding state funds from school renovation projects that cost more than two-thirds of the expense of a new school discouraged school districts from updating historic schools. But in Greenfield, Ohio, residents worked with Triad Architects of Columbus to have the rule waived to permit renovating the historic Edward Lee McClain High School. This school, built in the Georgian Revival style, was created in 1914 by Edward McClain, whose modest family circumstances required him to work in his father’s harness shop as a young man. There he invented a detachable horse-collar pad that eventually made him rich—rich enough to finance the school’s construction and outfit it with works of art. The school, with its renovation completed in 2001, still enjoys decorative tiles at the drinking fountains, a courtyard flanked by pillars and fountains, marble sculptures, and an art gallery of 165 masterpieces.

In a move toward better stewardship of existing schools, Pennsylvania eliminated its “sixty-percent rule,” which, as with Ohio’s “two-thirds rule,” once favored new construction over the renovation of existing schools. Controversy surrounding the Pennsylvania rule boiled over in 1994 soon after residents of Brentwood, Pennsylvania, learned it would mean losing two beloved elementary schools. In protest, the Concerned Citizens of Brentwood Borough worked with Preservation Pennsylvania, Inc., to persuade the state department of education to change the rules. In 1998, the state not only rescinded the 60 percent rule but also modified its policy against funding the renovation of any school built with wood-frame construction. So long as such schools pose no increased safety risk, they are permitted. Brentwood’s historic Moore Elementary School now has been renovated and continues to serve the neighborhood it has anchored since 1923.

Acreage Requirements
Though well-intentioned, acreage requirements often force school districts into two bad choices: either destroy the neighborhood they are trying to educate or build “sprawl schools” on remote sites to which few children can walk. Such requirements threatened the historic Logan Elementary School in Columbia, South Carolina, in the mid-1990s because the school, which occupies only four acres, could not meet the state’s edict requiring seven acres for elementary schools. But after the school district obtained a waiver from the acreage requirements, the Boudreaux Group, a local architectural firm, completed a $7.9 million renovation in 1999. The project has not only solved space, technology, and building code issues, but has also improved neighborhood property values, once on the decline, and encouraged reinvestment in the area.

Magnets for Sprawl or Anchors For Civic Life?
Not every valued or historic school can or should be renovated. But too many schools are casually condemned by biases that favor new construction, by school facility assessments that reflect little expertise in the rehabilitation of older buildings, and by ignorance of basic techniques for helping older buildings meet modern codes and program requirements. In early 2002, the historic Kirk Middle School in East Cleveland, Ohio, became a casualty for these very reasons. One of the city’s most distinguished landmarks, the school was demolished and carted off to the landfill without so much as a serious evaluation of the school’s potential for renovation.

Too often, ADA, fire safety, and other important requirements are used as an excuse to demolish a valued school when in fact these requirements frequently can be met at a reasonable cost. Too often, smaller, community-centered schools that have held neighborhoods together for decades are destroyed without competent evaluations of their potential for continued use through modernization.

Lakis Polycarpou, a young graduate of Columbine High School in Colorado, strikes home when he writes:

Of course we will always need some new schools. But we have a choice in how we build them. Will they carry a sense of permanence, dignity, respect for education and the public life? Or will they be interchangeable and disposable? Will they be built as the center of a community—an anchor for civic life—or will they be put on the outskirts of town as magnets for sprawl?

The choice is not merely between the old and the new—it is between the dignified and the undistinguished—the enduring and the disposable. It is a choice between thoughtless replication of sprawl and the conscious decision to invest in civic life.

About the Author
Constance Beaumont is director for state and local policy at the National Trust for Historic Preservation and author of Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School: Historic Neighborhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl.

 

“Many older schools, designed so that students could walk to school, provide small, personal educational settings – reflecting a style of education whose value has only recently been rediscovered by teachers, parents, and community leaders. To abandon or demolish such property without a thorough and creative look at their potential to continue to support twenty-first century educational programs is a waste of valuable community assets.” 

- Council of Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI)

Back to Main

Do New Schools Reduce Operational Expenses?

Introduction:

This briefing is the result of a basic operational expense analysis for twenty-one Ohio schools that abandoned & demolished existing schools for new facilities.  The supporting data is available to the public from the Ohio Department of Education’s (ODE) website.

Ohio School Districts That Have Replaced Educational Facilities

School District County Move In Date New Facility Type(s) Original Facility Dates
Ada EVSD Hardin 2008-2009 K-12 1929,1951,1953
Adena Local SD Ross 2001-2002 K-12 1912,1923,1952,1962
Alliance City SD Stark 2002-2003 3-ES, 1-JH, 1-HS* 1910,1916,1922,1951,1958
Bridgeport EVSD Belmont Jan-2007 PK-12 1915,1928
Buckeye Central LSD Crawford 2002-2003 PK-12 1920,1925,1956,1977
East Cleveland City SD Cuyahoga   5-ES, 1-JH, 1-HS 1905,1910,1921,1923,1930
Fairfield Union LSD Fairfield   K-4, 5-8, 9-12 1910,1916,1922,1951,1958
Fairlawn LSD Shelby   PK-12 1923,1958
Fredericktown LSD Knox   PK-12 1894,1916,1938
Galion City SD Crawford 2007 9-12 1917,1925,1950,1962
Indian Valley LSD Tuscarawas 2007 2-ES, 1-JH, 1-HS 1917,1925,1927,1955
Lima City SD Allen   4-ES, 3-JH, 1-HS 1917,1923,1950,1959,1967
Mechanicsburg EV SD Champaign 2007-2008 PK-12 1894,1920,1939,1950,1957
Minerva Local SD Stark 2004,08,09 1-ES, 1-HS* 1915,1928,1937
Montpelier EVSD Williams Jan-2006 PK-12 1915,1939,1952,1960
New London LSD Huron   K-12 1923,1951,1956,1960,1967
Ostego Local SD Wood   7-12 1915,1916,1917,1936
Painsville City LSD Lake   3-ES, 1-JH, 1-HS 1918,1922,1932,1936,1960
Portsmouth City SD Scioto   2-ES, 1-JH/HS 1912,1914,1922,1929,1957
Springfield City SD Clark   10-ES, 3-JH, 1-HS 1909,1922,1923,1950,1960
Waverly City SD Pike 2004-2005 K-12 1924,1932,1950’s

Definition:

The Ohio Department of Education’s definition of “Expenditure Data”

Building Support:

Facilities and operations support includes facilities and operations at the building and central office levels. It is made up of multiple functions, which combine both capital goods (building, buses, heating equipment, etc.) and the resources necessary to operate, clean, repair and improve them. Purchasing for the Enterprise funds, the largest of which is the Lunchroom operation, is also included.

Summary:
  • analysis of 21 Ohio school districts that abandoned buildings mostly from 1910-1950 and built new facilities
  • only one school district experienced a continued drop in operational expenses (East Cleveland City SD)
  • 20 schools have seen periodic drops in operational expenses, which could be related to occupying the new facility in the middle of the school year
  • after a periodic drop in operational expenses, the next year’s expenses are usually higher than the year prior to the year of savings
  • moving into a new facility usually increases that year’s operational expenses over the prior year
    For example, Indian Valley LSD moved into their new facilities for the 2007-2008 school year.
    Operational Expenses were:
    - $2,880,095 for 2006-2007
    - $4,309,766 for 2007-2008
    - $4,030,956 for 2008-2009
  • a drop in district enrollment does not necessarily mean a drop in operational expenses
  • most districts that have had a drop in enrollment, still saw increases in operational expenses (East Cleveland City SD was the exception)
  • even districts with enrollment that remained somewhat constant still experienced increases in operational expenses after moving into new facilities
  • some Ohio school districts that have built new facilities are now participating in the Ohio House Bill 264 – Energy Conservation Program to help reduce the major increases in the operational expenses of new buildings

Conclusion:

Based on these results and the expenditure data, do new educational facilities really reduce operational expenses for school districts?

Many districts that have participated in the Ohio School Facilities Commission program to build new educational facilities are now requesting to participate in the OSFC – School Energy Conservation Program.  Galion City School District, referenced in this analysis, just announced on August 27, 2010 they will be participating in the School Energy Conservation Program at a cost of $1.7 million.  Even after completing a new high school, middle school and two elementary schools for the 2007 – 2008 school year, annual operational expenses jumped from $2.6 million to $3.3 million.

Again, this is only a very basic analysis from the data that is uploaded to the Ohio Department of Education by the local school districts.  A more indepth study needs to be completed before the answer is truly known.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Supporting data/charts:

Operational Expenses From 1997 – 2009

School District FY97 FY99 FY01 FY03 FY05 FY07 FY09
Ada EVSD $859,453 $907,010 $1,112,083 $1,040,093 $1,014,310 $1,150,633 $1,306,429
Adena LSD $1,257,428 $1,265,983 $1,301,718 $1,781,938 $2,005,176 $2,074,169 $2,427,191
Alliance City SD $4,455,365 $4,795,446 $4,275,372 $5,140,024 $5,284,912 $5,398,874 $6,028,659
Bridgeport EVSD $848,595 $934,249 $1,021,039 $1,097,529 $1,214,017 $1,502,706 $1,408,922
Buckeye Central $811,989 $799,579 $832,371 $1,108,442 $1,248,074 $1,420,724 $1,446,894
East Cleveland City $9,271,860 $10,116,413 $8,790,115 $9,401,353 $7,383,871 $7,579,292 $7,835,472
Fairfield Union LSD $1,852,022 $2,502,298 $2,112,183 $2,448,691 $2,827,792 $2,802,508 $3,075,263
Fairlawn LSD $513,895 $585,430 $764,390 $693,135 $752,052 $796,149 $913,555
Fredericktown LSD $1,173,391 $1,395,025 $1,465,541 $1,430,221 $1,630,842 $1,823,303 $2,055,130
Galion City SD $2,193,967 $2,716,059 $2,558,199 $2,838,485 $2,640,985 $2,613,693 $3,308,826
Indian Valley LSD $2,021,036 $2,035,706 $2,370,708 $2,689,163 $2,895,606 $2,880,095 $4,030,956
Lima City SD $6,163,983 $6,650,051 $7,072,826 $7,467,194 $8,425,192 $8,617,136 $8,561,578
Mechanicsburg $918,506 $912,699 $900,669 $1,288,677 $1,114,285 $1,170,448 $1,904,798
Minerva LSD $2,051,060 $2,129,076 $2,391,927 $2,521,454 $3,184,353 $2,781,283 $3,471,486
Montpelier EVSD $1,212,380 $1,040,636 $1,214,903 $1,661,891 $1,526,969 $1,766,560 $1,761,178
New London LSD $1,104,293 $1,307,825 $1,186,234 $1,544,784 $1,570,832 $1,623,296 $1,843,536
Ostego LSD $1,701,052 $1,701,438 $2,076,306 $2,149,004 $2,228,572 $2,412,716 $2,616,297
Painsville City LSD $3,171,871 $3,664,373 $3,997,310 $3,045,275 $5,075,906 $5,506,564 $6,008,016
Portsmouth City SD $3,024,312 $3,225,178 $3,282,265 $2,864,119 $2,977,689 $3,949,700 $4,100,990
Springfield City SD $10,052,227 $11,736,276 $13,297,759 $13,382,042 $13,228,784 $12,585,468 $13,850,835
Waverly City SD $2,012,043 $2,150,217 $2,578,719 $2,631,316 $3,905,817 $3,604,815 $4,145,479

Enrollment Below 2000 Students – 1997 to 2009

School District

FY97 FY99 FY01 FY03 FY05 FY07 FY09
Ada EVSD 858 843 825 815 867 829 856
Adena LSD 1,232 1,199 1,221 1,202 1,226 1,206 1,286
Bridgeport EVSD 847 837 803 761 744 697 706
Buckeye Central LSD 607 575 521 681 727 732 761
Fairlawn LSD 522 515 475 506 518 551 584
Fredericktown LSD 1,266 1,206 1,152 1,134 1,130 1,136 1,114
Mechanicsburg EVSD 740 799 806 866 844 880 924
Montpelier EVSD 1,166 1,110 1,130 1,118 1,076 1,108 1,090
New London LSD 1,234 1,184 1,158 1,101 1,180 1,168 1,166
Fairfield Union LSD 1,849 1,844 1,800 1,816 2,011 1,955 2,074
Ostego Local LSD 1,694 1,641 1,602 1,591 1,664 1,636 1,672
Indian Valley LSD 1,745 1,797 1,835 1,898 1,808 1,827

1,909

Enrollment Above 2000 Students – 1997 to 2009

School District FY97 FY99 FY01 FY03 FY05 FY07 FY09
Alliance City SD 3,753 3,479 3,465 3,188 3,152 3,068 2,938
Galion City SD 2,432 2,294 2,207 2,227 2,179 2,026 2,026
Minerva LSD 2,359 2,238 2,179 2,280 2,359 2,127 2,111
Painsville City LSD 2,147 2,387 2,611 2,702 2,826 2,836 2,930
Portsmouth City SD 3,048 2,977 2,631 2,147 1,989 2,068 1,993
Waverly City SD 2,093 2,039 2,036 2,071 2,147 2,109 2,050

Enrollment Special Considerations – 1997 to 2009

School District FY97 FY99 FY01 FY03 FY05 FY07 FY09
East Cleveland City SD 5,985 6,066 5,653 5,177 4,633 3,738 3,411
Springfield City SD 10,386 10,212 9,756 9,100 8,701 8,059 7,525
Lima City SD 5,785 5,697 5,514 5,119 4,650 4,607 4,323

*large reduction in  student enrollment