Last week, we introduced the concept of building utilization, or how much of a school’s available classroom space is being used.
Since that article was published, we’ve received questions about why utilization rates for some schools appear different in recent district reports, even when enrollment changed very little. That’s a fair question, and the answer gets to the heart of how building utilization is measured.
The short version is this: in some cases, the utilization percentages changed not because the number of students changed, but because the district changed the way capacity is calculated.
To understand why, it’s helpful to remember that building utilization is a ratio.
Utilization = Enrollment ÷ Capacity
Enrollment is relatively straightforward. It is the number of students attending a school.
Capacity is more complicated. It is an estimate of how many students a school building is designed to serve.
When either number changes, utilization changes.
For several years, the district estimated school capacity using preferred class sizes and educational programming assumptions. While those measures can be useful for instructional planning, they can vary over time as programs, staffing, and educational priorities evolve.
In considering modernizing, rightsizing, and optimizing our district for the future, we opted for a more objective methodology based on Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) classroom space standards. Rather than focusing on preferred class sizes, the PDE approach calculates capacity using classroom square footage and statewide space guidelines for students at different grade levels.
Because the new methodology measures capacity differently, some schools showed significantly different utilization percentages even though their enrollment remained nearly the same.
For example, a school that enrolled 330 students last year may still enroll approximately 330 students this year. However, if the estimated capacity of the building changes under a different methodology, the utilization percentage will also change.
This has led some community members to ask: Which number is correct?
The answer is that both methods can provide useful information, but they measure capacity differently.
The district’s recent facilities analysis relies on PDE space standards because they provide a consistent and objective framework that can be applied across all schools using the same criteria. This makes it easier to compare buildings and understand how available space is being used throughout the district.
To see how this works in practice, let’s look at the enrollment and capacity calculations for the district’s new consolidated elementary school, for which construction is scheduled to begin next year.
| Room Type | # Rooms | Max Capacity | Bldg. Capacity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-K Classrooms | 2 | 20 | 40 |
| Grade K-2 Classrooms | 12 | 25 | 300 |
| Grade 3-5 Classrooms | 12 | 28 | 336 |
| Autistic Support (SPED) | 2 | 8 | 16 |
| LS-AS (SPED) | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Learning Support (SPED) | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Art | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Music | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Small Group Instruction | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| TOTAL CAPACITY | 692 | ||
Notice that capacity is not simply determined by the total number of rooms in a building. Different spaces serve different purposes, and not every room is counted the same way when calculating building capacity. Notice, it does not include space for special education classrooms (SPED), with the exception of Autistic support, because those students attend their classroom all day. Art, music, nor any other instructional space outside of the core classes counts toward the total capacity number.
So, if we had a total enrollment at the new elementary school of 610, the building utilization would be 610 ÷ 692 = 88%.
Now, this does not mean utilization is the only factor considered when evaluating a school’s future.
Utilization helps us understand how fully a building is being used. It does not, by itself, determine whether a school should remain open, be repurposed, or be closed. In fact, utilization is only one piece of a much larger picture. Student enrollment trends, educational programming, transportation considerations, facility condition, neighborhood access, financial impacts, and, yes, preferred class sizes all play important roles in long-range facilities planning.
That’s one reason we are forming the Right for the Future Task Force: to help us answer these questions, identify community priorities, and articulate the values that should guide long-range facilities planning.
We encourage all families and concerned stakeholders to consider applying to join our task force, and especially to take time to participate in focus groups and respond to surveys when invited. Your input is critical to this work.
As part of our commitment to transparency, we will continue explaining both the data itself and the methods used to calculate it so community members can better understand the factors shaping future decisions.