A Proposal for a Consolidated Philadelphia Military Academy
at the James Elverson Building
Summary
The School District of Philadelphia has proposed merging the Philadelphia Military
Academies at Elverson and Leeds into a single school at the Theodore Roosevelt Middle School
building in Northwest Philadelphia. In this report we will reject this proposal and suggest an
alternative. After careful study of the Roosevelt site, other locations, costs, and feasibility, we
come to two conclusions: (1) that the Roosevelt location is unacceptable for a citywide high
school and (2) that the best alternative is to consolidate the two schools at the Elverson building.
There are four primary considerations that support Elverson as a location:
•
Location. Elverson’s location is ideal for a citywide school because it is easily accessible
by private and public transit and close to universities and Center City for field trips.
•
Educational opportunities. Elverson offers an unparalleled number of educational
opportunities, features, and benefits, many of which are due to its unique location.
•
Environment. Elverson is a high-functioning school as is. Its motivated and excellent
teachers offer an above-average education in a safe environment for our city’s children,
especially some of its most vulnerable.
•
Safety. Elverson is in a safe neighborhood and would be a “neutral space” to all students.
Moreover, it benefits from the increased security around Temple University.
In light of the many problems with the Roosevelt site and public opinion in favor of the
Elverson location, the School District and superintendent explicitly requested that we make this
proposal. In light of our findings, we expect that the School District and local government will
support our conclusion.
1
Table of Contents
Introduction
3
Section 1: The Roosevelt Location
7
Section 2: Advantages of the Elverson Site
11
Location
12
Educational Opportunities
18
Environment
22
Safety
29
Section 3: Facilities and Practical Considerations
33
Conclusion
40
About This Report and its Authors
42
2
Introduction
Background
As part of the newly announced Facilities Master Plan (FMP), the School District of
Philadelphia has proposed to close or consolidate dozens of schools to make up for a budgetary
shortfall by improving the efficiency with which resources and staff are allocated. While there
are many issues that could be raised about the plan and the schools concerned, this report deals
with only two of them: The Philadelphia Military Academy at Leeds and the Philadelphia
Military Academy at Elverson. The FMP tentatively proposed that the two schools merge at the
Theodore Roosevelt Middle School building in Northwest Philadelphia (between Germantown
and Mount Airy). This proposal immediately generated a storm of protest from students,
parents, and teachers at the schools. Overall the message was clear and consistent: the proposal
to merge the schools was acceptable; the Roosevelt location was not.
We should emphasize that this proposal is being submitted at the request of, and not
in opposition to, School District officials. In the past, when the District has closed one or two
schools at a time, it has done so after careful and nuanced deliberation. In contrast, because of
its large scope the FMP was designed following broad and algorithmic processes that did not
take into account the full details about the schools under consideration. At a recent meeting to
discuss the details of Elverson’s proposed closing, school district officials admitted that they had
not considered alternatives and invited us to submit better plans. We will leave for others the
question of how a school could be proposed to close without alternatives having been
considered. For our purposes, what ought to be made clear is that the proposal to bring both
schools to Elverson does not inherently contradict the District’s primary conclusion: that the
3
schools should be combined. The experience, wisdom, and expertise of the superintendent, his
staff, and the School Reform Commission are beyond question. Because of the sheer
enormousness of the FMP project, however, the proposal to place a unified academy at
Roosevelt was not made with full focus of those talents. We therefore expect that this alternate
proposal will be welcomed as the clear-eyed and sound solution it is.
Scope
Our report is divided into three sections. First, we will briefly discuss the Roosevelt
location and why it is unsuitable for a high-performing citywide high school. Second, we will
analyze the numerous advantages of the Elverson site for a combined military academy. Finally,
we will present an analysis of the Elverson facility that demonstrates it is logistically feasible and
financially reasonable as a location.
The middle section is the most detailed and makes a compelling case for keeping the
Elverson location open as a unified Philadelphia Military Academy. This section outlines the
evidence for our conclusions along four major considerations: location, educational
opportunities, environment, and safety.
Location
One of Elverson’s biggest advantages which neither Roosevelt nor Leeds is able to match is its
central location. Minutes away from City Hall on the Broad Street Subway line, Elverson is
convenient and easy to access from most parts of the city. This location is appropriate for a
citywide magnet school. Moreover, Elverson’s location presents better educational opportunities
because it is within easy reach of museums, universities, and historic sites.
4
Educational Opportunities
In part because of its location and in part because of the efforts of its staff, the Elverson site has a
unique wealth of educational opportunities. The close proximity to Center City makes frequent
field trips possible. Partnerships with nearby Temple University give students afterschool and
summer programs. The cadets are also able to make use of Temple’s athletic and building
facilities. With more time and an enlarged population, even stronger partnerships will be forged.
Environment
Elverson is an extremely high-functioning school as is. Its motivated and excellent teachers
offer an above-average education in a safe environment for our city’s children, especially some
of its most vulnerable. Graduation rates are in the top 20 citywide and staff turnover is lower
than at Leeds. The parents are more involved and the principal more highly regarded than at
other schools (including PMA Leeds). Moreover, the district has already allocated thousands of
dollars to establishing a “Champions of Caring” program at Elverson which is beginning to bear
fruit. Rather than risk uprooting this “tree of life,” logic demands it should be expanded.
Safety
Elverson is in a safe neighborhood and is made even safer by the increased security around
Temple University. Moreover, Elverson is a “neutral space” to all students. Whereas in some
schools there can be friction between students who are “from the neighborhood” and students
who are not, or between students from all over the city and local youths who do not go to the
school, the Temple area does not have a large cohort of local youths.
5
In our final section, we will demonstrate that the current Elverson building is both
financially and logically feasible as a consolidated Military Academy. The school has enough
room to fit all students comfortably with no renovations at all, and its large plot of land would
make future expansion easy. Because both schools currently operate within budget
independently, they would easily be able to operate economically with the economy of scale that
would result from their merger. Finally, the Elverson location would save the District money on
the renovations it plans to conduct at the Roosevelt site and on having to purchase an increased
number of transit passes for students.
Respectfully submitted,
The Committee to Save the Philadelphia Military Academy
January 2013
6
Section 1:
The Roosevelt Plan
7
Evaluation of Theodore Roosevelt Middle School Facility
On January 16, 2013, cadets from both Elverson and Leeds Military Academies visited
and toured Roosevelt Theodore Middle School with District officials. After their visit, they met
with Mr. David Kipphut and the cadets were asked to share their observations of the facility.
Unimpressed, their evaluations were grim, and all agreed that students would be better served
merging at Elverson.
Upon nearing Roosevelt, students noticed that the grassy perimeter of the school was
“dirty and not tended.” As they entered the building, the students discovered that the building’s
interior mirrored its exterior. Roosevelt was in “horrible shape,” the cadets reported. “It was not
what we expected. It was stuffy; I felt trapped walking around.” Another student shared his
assessment: “Roosevelt…was not what [we] thought it would be…It’s a very dull and
depressing building.”
Oddly, much of the school space incorporated elements of separation. Built in the
Roaring Twenties, Roosevelt was designed during and built in an era of gender-segregated
education. Instead of one large gymnasium or one large cafeteria, Roosevelt has two small
cafeterias and two small gyms. The classrooms, too, are separated with thin, removable wooden
dividers, which provide little soundproofing between them. In addition, the remote
administrative offices seem detached from the classrooms, and even the boys’ and girls’
bathrooms were relegated to opposite sides of the building. One student noted that the distant
bathrooms “could be a major problem for students who are on the wrong side [of the building].”
Perhaps this is why one student remarked that Roosevelt “felt like a prison instead of a school.”
8
While Roosevelt may have been a model school in the 1920s, it is now a crumbling
fossil, barely equipped to provide students with the 21st century skills they need to be successful.
Only eight of Roosevelt’s twenty-eight classrooms have Promethean boards, and of these eight
classrooms, three have malfunctioning projectors. Furthermore, most of the classrooms have just
two electrical outlets—one in the front of the room and one in the back, and Roosevelt lacks
security cameras and air conditioning. In fact, one of the school’s few perks—its elevator—only
functions 25% of the time!
After the visit, the students agreed that merging at Roosevelt is a “terrible idea.” It is
located in the middle of a “problematic neighborhood,” which the guide admitted, occasionally
forces the school to “close due to robberies.” Its location, according to the cadets “is very
secluded and inconvenient.” Elverson, in comparison, is in a safe neighborhood and has plenty
of room to grow. In her speech to the SRC on January 17, 2013, an Elverson cadet said, “Why
move us away from …Elverson’s location? As medieval China isolated itself from the world
and didn’t grow as a country, the same would happen to our school if we isolate it from all of the
opportunities offered around Elverson.”
Conclusion:
These reactions speak for themselves. In terms of its facilities the Roosevelt building is
completely unsuitable for a modern, competitive high school. Many of the building components
are dangerous, run down, or inadequately small. Renovation would be costly and
counterproductive since the whole purpose of the FMP is to promote efficiency and save money.
In light of Elverson’s many advantages (which will be shown below), less money would
be better spent renovating that school. Similar considerations preclude many other locations.
9
For example, although the William Penn High School building is large and well-located, district
officials inform us that making it usable would require an $80 million investment. Therefore, the
Roosevelt location should be rejected, and we should consider the suitability of Elverson for a
consolidated Philadelphia Military Academy.
10
Section 2:
Advantages of the Elverson Site
11
Convenience of Location
During the January 16th meeting with Mr. Kipphut, a major student concern was
Roosevelt’s remote location. Mr. Kipphut informed us that his staff had made a map showing
where the current cadets at Elverson and Leeds live. This map revealed that Elverson/Leeds
students were commuting from all over Philadelphia and that no particular region of the city was
overrepresented. It is therefore critical that if the military academies merge, they should do so at
a central location that is easily accessible from all parts of the city. By this criterion, Elverson is
a perfect choice and certainly better than Roosevelt or any other location under consideration.
Not only is Elverson located conveniently close to Center City and adjacent to Temple
University, it is also at a public transit crossroads. Cadets can walk a mere block to board the
Broad Street Subway Line (BSS). Elverson’s Susquehanna Avenue subway stop is also only 10
minutes from the Broad Street Line’s intersection at City Hall with the city’s other arterial route:
the Market-Frankford Line (the MLF or “El”). This means Elverson is a straight shot or a single
free interchange from North, South, East, and West Philadelphia as well as all the neighborhoods
served by the Northeastern part of the MFL’s route (Northern Liberties, Fishtown, Kensington.
Frankford, etc.). In stark contrast Roosevelt and other locations border neither of these subway
lines, making transit options much more limited.
In addition to the subway, the 4, 16, 23, and 39 bus routes all stop within walking
distance of Elverson. Moreover, the Market-Frankford Subway line, the 10, 11, 13, 15, 34, 36
Trolley Lines, and the 2 bus route all stop along or within walking distance to the BSS. Thus,
any student, parent, or SDP employee who uses one of these SEPTA routes is just one BSS
transfer away from arriving at Elverson.
12
The chart on the next page shows the average commute times by SEPTA to the Elverson,
Roosevelt, and Leeds locations from the various regions of Philadelphia. Two patterns to these
data are noteworthy. First, the commute to Elverson is shorter than to the other schools from all
regions except the Northwest. Often the difference is by a factor of over 50%. Because of how
Philadelphia’s transit system is laid out, there are even places in Philadelphia (i.e. in the North
and Northeast) that are
Student Commute Times
geographically closer to
(% of students)
Roosevelt but where the
trip to Elverson is
shorter by public transit.
This suggests that
Elverson is the best
location for a citywide
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Roosevelt
Elverson
Less than
30
30
minutes
minutes
1 hour
1.5 hours 2 hours
More
school while Roosevelt
or Leeds would be better locations for a school serving only the Northwest region.
Second, note that the commute times to Roosevelt and Leeds are essentially the same.
That means that if the Roosevelt location is unsuitable, the Leeds location would be no better.
The only real accessible option is Elverson.
Table 1 (below) shows the connections between various regions of Philadelphia and the
three school locations: Elverson, Leeds, and Roosevelt.
Notice that Elverson commuters have
access to as many or more transportation routes in all 7 regions of the city.
13
Average SEPTA Travel Time to School
FROM:
West Philadelphia
Northeast Philadelphia
Northwest Philadelphia
TO:
Elverson Military Academy
North Philadelphia
Leeds Military Academy
Roosevelt Middle School
Southwest Philadelphia
South Philadelphia
Center City, Philadelphia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
14
70
80
90
100
MINUTES
TABLE 1: SCHOOLS AND NEIGHBORHOODS SERVED BY SEPTA
The table below shows which schools are accessible from which neighborhoods by various public transit lines.
SEPTA ROUTES
West
Philadelphia
Northeast
Philadelphia
Northwest
Philadelphia
North
Philadelphia
Southwest
Philadelphia
South
Philadelphia
Center City,
Philadelphia
Broad Street
Subway
Elverson
Elverson
Elverson
Elverson
Elverson
Elverson
Elverson
MarketFrankford
Line
Elverson
Elverson
4
16
18
23
26
39
65
L
H
XH
Elverson
Elverson
Roosevelt/
Leeds
Elverson
Elverson
Elverson
Roosevelt/ Leeds
Roosevelt
Elverson/
Roosevelt
Elverson
Elverson
Elverson
Elverson
Roosevelt/
Leeds
Roosevelt/ Leeds
Roosevelt/
Leeds
Elverson
Roosevelt/ Leeds
Elverson
Roosevelt
Elverson
Roosevelt
Leeds
Roosevelt
Regional Rail
Totals
Elverson
Leeds
Roosevelt
Leeds
Leeds
Roosevelt
Elverson/ Leeds
Elverson (5)
Roosevelt (3)
Leeds (2)
Elverson (4)
Roosevelt (4)
Leeds (3)
Leeds
Leeds
Roosevelt
Leeds
Roosevelt
Elverson/ Leeds
Elverson/ Leeds
Elverson (4)
Leeds (3)
Roosevelt (2)
Elverson (4)
Leeds (3)
Roosevelt (2)
Elverson (4)
Roosevelt (2)
Leeds (2)
15
Leeds
Leeds
Roosevelt
Elverson/
Roosevelt/ Leeds
Elverson (2)
Leeds (2)
Roosevelt (1)
Elverson (4)
Leeds (3)
Roosevelt (3)
While
hile SDP students and pa
parents usually reside within Philadelphia, many
y SDP
employees live outside of Philadelphia, and it is worth conside
considering
ring their transportation needs too.
too
Although all of the proposed sites
sites—Elverson, Leeds, and Roosevelt—are
are within driving distance
from Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties, only one school has a train station
equipped to serve them all: Elverson. Elverson is located 0.4 miles (a 9 minute walk) from the
Temple University Regional Rail Station. This station is served by 12 different Regional Rail
lines; whereas both Leeds’ and Roosevelt’s train stations, Sedgwick and Washington Lane
respectively, are served by only 1 train line (Chestnut Hill East). Table 2 (below
below) lists all the
Regional Rail lines served by each school’s nearest station. Notice that riders from Leeds would
woul
have to walk almost a mile to and from the closest train station (Sedgwick).
TABLE 2: REGIONAL RAIL ACCESS
This table shows which schools are served by which SEPTA regional rail lines. The columns
indicated which schools are served by which railway line
liness as well as how far those stations are
from the school.
REGIONAL RAIL LINES
ELVERSON
Temple Station
(0.4 mi; 9 minute walk)
Airport Line
Warminster Line
Wilmington/
Newark Line
West Trenton Line
Media/Elwyn Line
Lansdale/
Doylestown Line
Paoli/Thorndale Line
Manayunk/
Norristown Line
Chestnut Hill East Line
Trenton Line
Fox Chase Line
Chestnut Hill West
Line
16
ROOSEVELT
Washington Lane
(0.3 mi; 8 minute
walk)
LEEDS
Sedgwick Station
(0.8 mi;
mi 17 minute walk)
By all measures, Elverson is an extremely accessible school by public transit while other
possible sites (Roosevelt and Leeds) are not. It is therefore the most suited to house a citywide
school. We will discuss the fiscal considerations of transport in Section 3 below, but the
numbers clearly demonstrate that since 90% of Leeds students already receive free SEPTA trans
passes from the District while many Elverson students do not, choosing the Elverson location
will also save considerable money while the Leeds or Roosevelt sites will increase the number of
these passes the district will have to buy.
Finally, we would also note that convenient location is not just a matter of saving
students time on their commutes; it will be key to attracting and retaining students from all over
the city. As the graph
(right) shows, in a
"Would you go to the Roosevelt location if
our schools moved there?"
recent survey 47% of
2%
current students said
they would not attend
the school at the
Yes
47%
51%
No
Unsure
proposed Roosevelt
location. Ironically,
the current FMP came
about because of mass student attrition from District schools into charters and private schools.
P.M.A. Elverson is one of the few District schools that draw students back into the public school
system from these alternatives. It would be an entirely avoidable mistake to keep the
Philadelphia Military Academy open only to risk its operating below capacity because of a poor
choice of location.
17
Educational Opportunities
Elverson’s location is not just a matter of making it convenient and appealing to students.
It also provides unique educational opportunities to improve learning outcomes. Philadelphia
plays home to an astounding number of museums, artistic venues, historical attractions, and
architectural landmarks. Elverson’s location affords its students the opportunity to enjoy them.
Elverson cadets may conveniently visit museums, explore the zoo, relax in the city’s parks and
gardens, tour historical attractions, observe sacred places of worship, and enjoy plays and
musical productions. These opportunities broaden their knowledge of the world, teach them new
skills, and develop their unique talents.
Whereas Elverson students must simply hop on the Broad Street Line for field trip travel,
Roosevelt and Leeds students must either cram into a crowded SEPTA bus, or rent a bus for their
field trips. Located one block from the Susquehanna-Dauphin Station, Elverson is a mere 15
minute commute to Center City and a 35 minute commute to Old City. The Broad Street and
Market-Frankford Subway Lines make travel from Elverson to the Historic District, to the
Parkway Museums District, and to the Avenue of the Arts a quick, convenient, and safe trip.
The chart below shows the average SEPTA travel times from Elverson, Leeds, and Roosevelt to
various points of interest around the city. Notice that for each field trip, Elverson students have
the shortest commute.
Currently, teachers at Elverson make frequent use of these convenient and low-cost field
trips to enrich their teaching. For many students, these trips can be among the more memorable
parts of a content unit or help students connect key ideas learned in class with their social,
cultural, or political context and implications.
18
Average SEPTA Travel Time for Field Trips
To Musuem District
To Zoo
Elverson Military Academy
Leeds Military Academy
To Old City
Roosevelt Middle School
To Center City
0
20
40
60
80
MINUTES
Listed below are some of the sites from which Elverson is only a short field trip away:
away
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
American Philosophical
ical Society Museum
Arch Street Friends Meeting House
Arch Street United Methodist Church
Arden Theatre Company
Barnes Foundation
Carpenters’ Hall
Cathedral Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul
Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia
Christ Church
City Hall
Congress Hall
Declaration (Graff) House
Edgar Allan Poe National Historical Site
Fairmount Park
Franklin’s Print Shop
Free Library of Philadelphia
Independence Hall
Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts
Masonic Temple
Merriam Theater
Mother Bethel African Methodi
Methodist Episcopal
Church
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
19
Mutter Museum
National Constitution Center
National Liberty Museum
National Museum of American Jewish History
Old Pine Street Presbyterian Church
Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts
Philadelphia Museum of Art
Philadelphia Theatre Company
any
Prince Music Theater
Rodin Museum
Rodeph Shalom Synagogue
The Academy of Music
The African American Museum in Philadelphia
The Betsy Ross House
The Fabric Workshop and Museum
The Franklin Institute
The Liberty Bell Center
The Philadelphia Orchestra
The Philadelphia Shakespeare Theatre
University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology
Wagner Free Institute of Science
The District has also invested heavily in Elverson’s infrastructure; this money would be
wasted if the school is moved. Apart from physical improvements, in the last 5 years, over
$60,000 has been spent on Promethean Board hardware and accessories, not including the tens of
thousands spent on installation of these boards in over 14 classrooms. More money was spent on
purchasing and installing Wi-Fi, electrical, and surveillance equipment by the District, making
PMA Elverson technologically advanced in teaching its cadets with the latest innovations.
Students at Elverson currently make use of these technologies every day to improve their
preparedness for competition in the 21st century knowledge economy. Similarly, the city and
school have invested time and money in clearing out and renovating Elverson’s science lab
which will allow students to conduct engaging, hands on lessons in all four years of high school.
All of these facilities are lacking at Roosevelt and many other sites which would severely limit
educational opportunities for our students.
Finally, Elverson also has strong connections with its neighborhood that enable
opportunities for students inside and outside the classroom. Local churches and civic
organizations often provide extracurricular and service opportunities for students. Temple
University offers students access to their libraries, athletic facilities, and academic Upward
Bound program. Temple students raise money for Elverson classrooms and volunteer at the
school. Temple Alumni working at Elverson are in the process of expanding these partnerships
to include more facilities access, tutoring, and possible financial connections.
As just one example, consider the partnership between Elverson’s and Temple’s music
departments. Elverson’s music department has access to people, facilities, and supplies through
the University. Next semester a Temple intern expert in the field will be working at PMA
Elverson. The University’s music department has indicated that they are happy to continue this
20
partnership for as long as Elverson remains at its current location. In these times of everdwindling arts funding and enrichment opportunities for students, the District needs to preserve
external sources of money and resources like Temple. These resources go to Elverson because it
is near Temple and because its staff have cultivated these relationships. If the school moves, this
collaboration and others, along with the money and support they bring, will leave the district
altogether.
The educational opportunities we have discussed here are a direct result of either
Elverson’s building or its location. If the school were to be moved, many of these partnerships
would be lost or weakened—if not immediately, certainly eventually. With the City and District
in financial straits, it makes sense to preserve as many external resources as possible,
21
Safety
The issue of school safety must be examined before making any final say on school
closings. In addition to putting staff and students at risk, unsafe schools raise issues of liability,
hamper student performance, and incur additional costs to the school District. Among the many
strengths of the Philadelphia Military Academy at Elverson is the climate and safety afforded to
students and staff.
When managing a school, administrators should carefully consider the adequacy of their
facility’s security and safety features. Safety is not just a matter of the physical wellbeing of
staff and students; an unsafe school environment can expose the school, city, or district to legal
liability. Additionally, school safety has been shown to have a direct impact on student
academic achievement.
Day-to-Day Safety
In general, school safety issues can be divided into two categories: day-to-day safety and
emergency safety. Let us begin with an analysis of day-to-day safety concerns. Studies have
shown that learning is enhanced when building occupants feel safe and secure. When
considering any school a host of questions arise. Are the facilities up to date and adequately
protected? Is the school one where students can easily fight, sneak in illicit substances, or steal
from each other? Is the neighborhood one where students or their property will be at risk to the
mischief of non-students? Is the school near other points of high youth activity that could cause
friction or enable gangs and factions to flourish?
22
The success of PMA Elverson is underpinned by the positive and safe environment
within the school. It is a place of teaching and learning at which students and teachers can work
together for the success of our young citizens. This is borne out especially when reviewing the
results published via the High School Survey report available on the school district’s website.
According to the findings,
“92 percent of students
report feeling safe or very
Students Worried about Safety in
Germantown or Mt. Airy
safe in and around their
school and traveling
No
31%
between home and
school.” In addition, 64
Yes
69%
percent of the student’s
parents agreed. This
should not be taken for granted. In stark contrast, the results of a student survey taken at PMA
Elverson found that 69% of cadets said they had safety concerns about the Roosevelt location
(see graph).
The Philadelphia Police Department concurs. One local officer visiting Elverson recently
remarked: “this is the first time I’ve ever been in this school. I consider that a good thing.”
(Meaning that he never had to come in response to a crime or disturbance at the school even
though he patrols the area). In fact, several police officers signed a recent petition to keep the
academy at Elverson open for precisely that reason.
What makes Elverson so safe? One factor is certainly the culture that the staff, students,
and administration have developed over the years of its existence. An equally important factor,
23
however, is its location. First, the school’s placement in a central area is key. Because students
have short and direct commutes, they can travel straight to and from school without having to
hang around waiting for a transfer connection and can usually travel during reasonable (daylight)
hours. Moving the school to Roosevelt or a similar location would not only impose a time
burden on students but would also require them to be out later and spend more time waiting for
bus and subway transfers.
In addition to imposing a formidable amount of travel time, many students are worried
about the potential rivalries that may arise as a result of bringing them so far from their homes
and current school. Many schools suffer from internal friction between students from the local
neighborhood and those from outside the neighborhood or externally between their students and
local youths. One advantage of the Elverson location is that it is in “neutral space.” The student
body is geographically diverse, which helps prevent factions, and there are very few teenagers
who live immediately around the school. This means that there is no regional “in” and “out”
dichotomy. This neutrality contributes to Elverson’s excellent safety record and would be
jeopardized if the school were moved to a less neutral neighborhood like Germantown.
Finally, Elverson benefits from the increased safety of its neighborhood. Being only one
block away from Temple University, it is in an area routinely patrolled by university and city
police forces. It is an established neighborhood with a population mostly of students or of
working families, many active churches, and established business along the Broad Street
Corridor. There is relatively low crime and gang activity. The same could not be said about the
Roosevelt or Leeds sites.
24
Emergency Preparedness
An emergency situation, such as a fire or violent incident like the Columbine and
Newtown school shootings can have consequential effects on school operations and the entire
school community. For example, a fire or other peril could result in the disruption of facility use,
the destruction of school records and assets, or even the loss of life. For these reasons, it is worth
considering the costs of adequate safety and security protection. Elverson’s safety status was
recently reviewed in an academic paper by a graduate student at Temple University. The
following outline is excerpted from this study and documents the safety features that exist at the
Philadelphia Military Academy at Elverson (PMA) school plant.
1. Building Size: PMA has an enrollment (currently) of less than three hundred students. Research
indicates that smaller schools are better learning environments for high school students and are
easier to police (Nadel, 2004).
2. Building Site:
2.1. Located one block away from Broad Street and the Broad Street Line, PMA is an accessible
school site.
2.2. Located one block north of a large, state university, PMA is located within a relatively safe
community. College students and families inhabit the neighborhood, and there are numerous
nearby businesses.
3. Vehicular Circulation:
3.1. Emergency Vehicle Routes: Surrounding streets are wide enough for fire trucks and EMS
vehicles. There is ample space (on both the surrounding streets and sidewalks) for emergency
vehicles to park. Emergency vehicles can also find parking in the unfilled school parking lot.
3.2. The building’s main entrance is located on the northeast corner of the building and at an
intersection with a traffic light. This is a safe building access point, as both streets are one-way,
and neither street is heavily trafficked. The exits on the west side of the building lead to a twoway street. Multiple signs designate the area as a school zone.
3.3. Parent and Bus Drop-Off Zones: Parents can drop-off and pick-up their children directly in front
of the building’s main entrance without disrupting traffic. In addition, students do not have to
cross the street to enter the building upon exiting their parent’s car.
3.4. Parking Areas: Parking is located behind the building and is visible from numerous classrooms
and offices. The parking lot’s entrances are narrow; this prevents vehicles from speeding into
the lot.
4. Building Penetration and Openings:
4.1. Design Elements:
25
4.1.1.Most of the building’s openings, such as windows and doors are constructed from
hardened material. The main entrance door is metal. All other doors are metal and have
metal frames mounted in concrete blocks.
4.1.2.Metal gratings cover all first floor windows.
4.1.3.Exit doors (e.g., fire exits) are visually neutral. They are painted brown (the same color as
the building) and do not have door handles or other hardware that could attract attention
as entries.
4.2. Main Entrance:
4.2.1.The main entrance is visible from the street and is equipped with a door entry security
system. Building visitors must look into the camera and speak into the intercom in order
to gain access to the building.
4.2.2.The administration offices are located about twenty feet from the main entrance. A
security guard station is located in front of the main entrance and adjacent from the
administration offices in order to screen building visitors.
4.2.3.The entrance corridor is wide, which minimizes congestion.
5. Interior Design:
5.1. Circulation Systems:
5.1.1.The internal layout (i.e., floor plan) is simplistic and easy to navigate.
5.1.2.Corridors and stairways are wide enough for pedestrian flow.
5.1.3.Corridors are short and therefore, easy to supervise.
5.1.4.In the annex, recessed door openings prevent doors from swinging into hallway traffic. In
the main building, doorways open into the hallways; however, even when the classroom
doors are open, the hallways are wide enough so as not to obstruct hallway traffic.
5.2. Lighting and Visibility:
5.2.1.To facilitate visibility during power outages, windows are installed in all offices,
classrooms, bathrooms, stairways, and many corridors.
5.2.2.The building’s windowpanes are semitransparent, impact-resistant Plexiglas.
5.2.3.Vision panels on all corridor doors allow visibility into classrooms.
5.2.4.Large common areas provide clear visibility.
5.3. Administration Areas:
5.3.1.The administrative area is located just inside the front door of the school and is
continuously staffed during the school day.
5.3.2.The doors to the reception area have multiple vision panels, which enhances observation
capability.
6. Security and Safety:
6.1. Perimeter Control:
6.1.1.Students are not permitted to leave the school campus during school hours (closed
campus).
6.1.2.Fencing and Barriers: The school parking lot and “yard” are enclosed by a tall fence, which
discourages trespassing onto school grounds.
6.1.3.Clear sight lines maximize security—no landscape or architectural elements block view.
6.1.4.Outdoor hiding places and corners are minimized.
26
6.1.5.During the evening hours, lights illuminate the parking lot and building entrance points.
6.2. Emergency Power: The building is equipped with an emergency generator. The generator is
connected directly to the building’s gas line, and therefore, can run indefinitely. In the event of
a power outage, the generator will automatically activate, illuminating all exit signs and some
lights.
6.3. Communication Systems:
6.3.1.An intercom system allows the staff to make school-wide announcements.
6.3.2.A telephone is installed in every room for inter-room communication.
6.3.3.The school secretary, building engineer, cleaning staff, principal, assistant principal, gym
teacher, and two “aides” have been supplied with walkie-talkies.
6.4. Fire Protection and Prevention:
6.4.1.Design Elements:
6.4.1.1.
While each room has multiple windows which can be used for emergency
rescue or escape, metal grates cover the window openings to prevent students from
throwing items outside the window or from jumping.
6.4.1.2.
Fire division walls and doors separate rooms and enclose stairways, minimizing
the spread of fire and smoke to other areas of the building.
6.4.1.3.
Exit signs indicate means of egress.
6.4.2.Life Safety Equipment:
6.4.2.1.
Alarm Systems: PMA is equipped with a manual fire alarm system. That is, the
alarm system is not triggered by smoke or heat, but rather, a person must activate it.
Once an alarm is triggered, the fire department automatically receives a signal
indicating that an alarm has sounded. The fire department, then, contacts either the
principal or the building engineer to determine if there is an actual fire emergency
(as opposed to a fire drill or prank). In addition, each alarm has a unique ring, so that
the building engineer or principal can pinpoint the exact location of the triggered
alarm.
6.4.2.2.
Fire Extinguishers: Each hallway is equipped with a Class A (trash, wood, and
paper fires) fire extinguisher. The kitchen, boiler room, and computer labs are
equipped with Class B (liquid grease fires)/C (electrical equipment fires) fire
extinguishers.
6.4.3.Fire Fighting Forces:
6.4.3.1.
Response Time: Six fire engines are located within ten minutes or less than two
miles from the school.
6.4.3.2.
Hydrant Locations:
6.4.3.2.1.
13th and Diamond Street
6.4.3.2.2.
North Park Avenue and Diamond Street
6.4.3.2.3.
North Park Avenue and West Susquehanna Avenue
6.4.3.2.4.
13th and West Susquehanna Avenue
6.5. Building Materials:
6.5.1.Shatterproof mirrors are installed in bathrooms.
6.5.2.Partitions in bathrooms are securely installed.
27
When parents send their children to a public school, they expect school authorities to take
reasonable precautions so that their children return home safely. Not only should administrators
monitor their buildings for dangerous conditions and behaviors, but also, they should create a
school safety plan to prepare for emergency situations. This plan should examine the safety risks
that exist in the school plant and stipulate the procedures for responding to various crises.
School administrators who fail to mitigate safety risks may put themselves and their school
district in legal jeopardy. In addition, unsafe building conditions and practices may hinder
student achievement, as a positive correlation exists between these two variables (Tanner &
Lackney, 2006). The above analyses of the security features of PMA reveal that the building is
a safe building. Reasonable measures have been provided to ensure life safety against the
hazards of fire, panic, and security breaches, as PMA’s security is enhanced by the use of
physical design elements which positively influence human behavior (Nadel, 2004). These
design elements may prevent crime perpetrated by outsiders and building occupants.
Conclusion
The foregoing analysis shows clearly that Elverson not only is a very safe school, but that
there are clear and demonstrable reasons why it would be safer than most alternatives, especially
the Roosevelt site. A portion of the school’s safety comes from the actions of its staff and
administration. Another portion comes from the school culture that has evolved. But two factors:
the physical resources and the design of the building, combined with its location, are inherent to
its current site and cannot be transferred along with the staff and students. The best solution,
therefore, is to keep the school in its present location in order to maximize the safety benefits for
staff and students.
28
Environment and Staff
While it is certainly true that a school is bigger than any one person, it is also true that the
staff and environment of the school are as important, if not more important, to student success
than any other factor. A school is only as good as its people. Therefore, we ought to consider
the current school cultures at Elverson and Leeds and how those cultures will be impacted by a
move. If Elverson and Leeds are to be consolidated, there is no doubt that a new and
homogenous school culture will emerge in time. There are, however, essentially three modes in
which their cultures could come together. (1) The two schools could be entirely uprooted and
combined in a new location as, essentially, a new school. (2) The Elverson academy could be
merged into Leeds (3) The Leeds academy could be merged into Elverson.
All the anecdotal and empirical evidence suggest that Elverson has a very strong school
culture and committed staff whereas the Leeds culture is more problematic. Last year, the entire
Leeds military staff, a cohort of veteran educators, resigned or transferred. Many of the civilian
teachers have also quit and been replaced with newer, less experienced teachers. In contrast,
most of the teachers at Elverson are classroom veterans with years of experience who love the
school and plan on staying there indefinitely. One Leeds teacher we interviewed said that “this
is just a job until I can find a better one where my true passion lies.” No teacher at Elverson
expressed a similar sentiment.
We do not know Leeds or its administration well enough to judge the origins of these
problems. No doubt the challenges the school faces are complex and belie simple explanations.
For our purposes, it is sufficient to say that Elverson has an extremely strong culture that should
not be taken for granted. Not all schools have such a committed and dedicated corps of staff and
29
teachers. If the school stays at Elverson, the administration and staff have almost unanimously
indicated that they would stay, which would be a boon to the new school.
It is also worth noting that if the school moves, there are major staff retention concerns if
the school is placed in a less accessible location. Many Elverson teachers, especially those who
already have long commutes, have indicated that they would not make the move. The teachers
who would be lost are veteran educators with decades of experience in effective instruction and
classroom management. One teacher in particular we are concerned about is SFC Monica
Harris. SFC Harris, who commutes daily from Delaware, is one of the only female army
instructors in the Philadelphia JROTC program. Although she has not given a definite statement
about whether she would retire if the school is moved, many students and colleagues believe that
she would because of the increased commute. Her exit would be the loss not only of an excellent
educator, but would also open the district and the JROTC program to the legal and moral
questions about the efficacy of a program to promote leadership that has no female leaders.
One might object that school logistical decisions should not be based around the school’s
staff. To this we would counter that effective staff and committed teachers are absolutely critical
to making a good school and that the retention of qualified teachers is a rampant problem,
especially in Philadelphia. To make such an objection, however, is to miss the point: this is not a
question of preserving Elverson. Everyone intends to leave Elverson running, ostensibly with
the same staff and students, the question is where. Our contention is that since the District
intends to preserve this excellent school, they ought to do so in a manner and location that is
most likely to preserve the school’s staff and culture instead of risking breaking it in the move
like a set of grandmother’s china.
30
As a final environmental factor, we ought to consider the emotional impact on students of
a relocation. Elverson’s unique admittance process of accepting only incoming ninth grade
cadets helps to create a family-like atmosphere. Relationships that have been made between
students and staff have led to many positive outcomes such as a high attendance rate and a
scarcity of serious criminal incidents. Baumeister and Leary noted that students: “develop a
greater sense of belonging in smaller sized schools than in larger sized schools. Specifically,
when schools are small in size, students are more likely to get to know their teachers and their
classmates on a more interpersonal level. Because it may be easier to form social relationships
both with students and teachers in a smaller sized school environment, the need for belonging
may be more easily satisfied in a smaller school” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
The culture in the Elverson building is tight-knit and caring. To disrupt this environment
could affect students in a negative way and lead to psychological effects similar to those who
experience divorce. A move disrupts the routines, relationships, and attachments that define the
student’s world, forcing them to develop new friendships and adjust to a new curriculum and
new teachers. If Elverson were to close, the emotional and psychological disruptions that would
have to be addressed would take a considerable amount of time and resources that could
significantly hurt academic achievement.
It is our recommendation, therefore, that the best model for creating a unified military
academy would be to merge Leeds and its staff into the already excellent Elverson framework.
This will also allow the Leeds component, which has been beset by problems of school culture to
get a fresh start and allow the thriving Elverson component to continue in situ.
As one final consideration, we note that the school district has already spent over ten
thousand dollars on the “Champions of Caring” program at Elverson. Only four schools in the
31
District were selected to receive such funding. The aim of this program is to “sensitize, educate,
and empower young people to take active roles in improving their communities.” The program
at Elverson is beginning to bear fruit: student citizenship has improved greatly. These gains,
however, are still in their infancy and would certainly be lost if the whole school disruptively
uprooted. Not only would this be a waste of monies already appropriated and spent, it could also
garner extremely negative media attention during a transitional period when the School District
most needs public support.
32
Section 3:
Feasibility and Practical Considerations
33
The preceding section has established that the Elverson location is an excellent site for a
consolidated Philadelphia Military Academy. In this final section, let us turn to some logistical
and financial considerations. Only two major concerns have been raised about the suitability of
the Elverson building: space and facilities. Let us being by looking at whether Elverson has the
space to accommodate all the students from both academies.
Is the Elverson building large enough to accommodate all the students currently at Leeds
and Elverson? The answer is an unqualified “yes.” Even assuming all 400 students from both
schools make the move, Elverson will have plenty of room to accommodate them. Currently,
Elverson has 8 empty classrooms. At the maximum density of 33 students per class, this
provides room for 264 students, more than the current population of Leeds. This means that all
of Leeds could be fit into Elverson right now without even combining any classes. And this
is without taking into account that many more students could be absorbed by vacancies in rooms
already in use.
In fact (of course) Leeds students and Elverson students would be put in the same classes.
Therefore, the 23 rooms at Elverson could maximally hold 690 students. Even at a more
comfortable class size of 30 and assuming each teacher’s classroom sits empty during his lunch
and prep time (3 periods), 431 students could comfortably fit into Elverson. But it gets even
better. Elverson has a floor of its main building occupied by Crossroads Accelerated Academy.
This academy will be leaving next year and vacating 9 classrooms. This will bring the total
number of available rooms to 32, giving a maximum capacity of 1024 and a comfortable
capacity of 600 students. Therefore, the Elverson building would comfortably house all students
from both military academies with some room to grow. The building and classrooms may not
feel as wide-open as they do now, but with all the recent crises about under-utilization of space it
34
seems best to err on the side of higher student density instead of risking another crisis. These
numbers, of course, include only bona fide classrooms and not labs, storage rooms, small rooms,
lounges, offices, etc.
The table below summarizes these calculations. The final row shows the most likely
scenario and clearly demonstrates that the school would have comfortable capacity for all current
students at both academies.
Table: Maximal and Comfortable Student Capacity at the James
Elverson Building under Various Conditions
Population of Leeds
250
Vacant rooms at PMA Elverson
8
Maximum capacity of vacant rooms at Elverson
Assumed initial population of merged academy
Maximum capacity of Elverson’s current rooms
Comfortable capacity of Elverson’s current rooms
264
400
690
431
Maximum capacity including rooms to be vacated
by Crossroads
1024
MOST LIKELY SCENARIO:
Comfortable capacity including rooms to be
vacated by Crossroads
600
35
Not only is there plenty of space
for students inside the building, there is
also room to expand on the 2.5 acres of
land that Elverson sits atop. The official
site plan on record with the city (shown
here) clearly demonstrates that the portion
of this land currently used by Temple
University as parking is part of the
Elverson complex and could be built upon
as needed.
A second major concern has been the adequacy of Elverson’s facilities. It is true that the
Roosevelt building does have slightly more room in its facilities (namely an additional gym and
an additional cafeteria). However, the overall quality of the building is in such terrible shape,
that making it serviceable would require a considerable investment of money. These monies
could be better, and more economically, spent on improving the Elverson site. Moreover, while
expenditures on the Roosevelt complex would need to be undertaken immediately for the school
to be useable in the autumn, Elverson can be gradually improved over a series of years.
Continuing with the Elverson location also makes sense because the City and District
have already invested millions of dollars into the Elverson building. Over $60,000 has been
spent on Promethean Board hardware and accessories, not counting the thousands that have gone
into their installation. Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent on physical maintenance.
Even more was spent on updating and installing Wi-Fi and security. Over $1 million dollars was
36
spent on a brand new broiler system that was installed in 2010, thousands were spent on asbestos
removal that was conducted less than five years ago, and as recently as a few months ago, the
Philadelphia Water Department finished installing new water pipes and planted trees as part of
their $1.6 billion plan to make Philadelphia a “Green City.” The Philadelphia Environmental
Services “Green City, Clean Waters” program has rejuvenated the outside of Elverson that
finally reflects the beauty of those who occupy the inside. Except for the cafeteria, Roosevelt
has had no such major capital investment. If the school is moved, these expenditures will have
been wasted at considerable expense to the taxpayer and considerable embarrassment to the city
government and School District.
Renovated sidewalks and water pipes (not visible) were installed outside Elverson as part
of a $1.6 Billion “Green City” initiative
37
Finally, leaving the Elverson building vacant would be disastrous for the neighborhood,
the City, and the School District. The building has a lot of history. Construction on the James
Elverson Jr. School, now the Philadelphia Military Academy at Elverson, started in 1929 and
finished in 1930. In 1954, an addition was added behind the eastern side of the building, making
the present building L-shaped. The school was named after beloved Philadelphia Inquirer
publisher James Elverson Jr., who successfully fought for civic improvements in the city, such as
the Benjamin Franklin Parkway and the Broad Street Subway. The James Elverson Jr., School
was officially placed on the National Register of Historic Places on November 18, 1988, and has
been a fixture of the local community for over 80 years.
In practical terms, this means that the building is landmarked and cannot be substantially
modified. Because it was constructed to the high standards of the 1920s, ‘30s, and ‘50s, it is
ideally suited for a school. If the school were closed there is only one likely outcome: that the
building would sit vacant for a long time, possibly indefinitely. Past experience has shown that
the City and District do not have the resources to protect vacant schools from becoming havens
for drugs, crime, and who knows what. One needs look only at the nearby William Penn school
to see an example of this. A shuttered Elverson would be practically unsalable “as-is” and would
be a tragic invitation for urban blight to enter a safe neighborhood on the edge of Temple
University’s campus. As the condition deteriorated, it would become even more of a nuisance
and legal liability to the city.
The financial feasibility of Elverson has not been questioned. Since both Leeds and
Elverson are operating within their budgets, it stands to reason that a combined school could
operate well within the combined allocation. It is worth noting, however, that Elverson’s
location would provide a fiscal savings to the district. As was noted in the Chicago school
38
closure plan, a considerable portion of the savings from closing schools can be consumed by new
personnel, transportation, and safety costs. Currently, over 90% of Leeds students receive
SEPTA passes from the District. Many Elverson students, however, live close enough that they
do not need these passes. Therefore, if the schools are moved to the Northwest, thousands of
new passes will need to be issued, whereas if the schools moved to Elverson few new passes
would need to be issued. Similarly, because Elverson is a safe school in a safe neighborhood and
benefits from the free security provided by Temple University, security costs would be low.
Elverson has only one full-time security officer and is not understaffed. Keeping the schools at
Elverson, therefore, would be more economical and would avoid many of the “surprise”
transportation and security costs that have embarrassed other districts that have tried to
save money by closing schools.
In fairness, the Elverson building is not perfect. Particularly some facilities (like the gym
and cafeteria) are too small for a high school. The ideal location would be a centrally located
building with large, modern facilities. At present, however, no such vacant school exists. Were it
available, the William Penn High School building would be an excellent solution. But it is not
available. Because the vacant building was not protected, district officials inform us, it has been
looted and ruined by vandals and would cost $80 million to fix. Other buildings have been ruled
out for similar reasons. The only options really on the table are Roosevelt and Elverson.
Roosevelt’s facilities are far inferior to Elverson’s. Moreover, as any real estate professional will
tell you, Elverson has three important facilities that cannot be built: location, location, and
location. What matters is that Elverson’s facilities are adequate for the task of housing both
schools. Any problems can be remedied in ways that would be no less expensive than putting
the necessary work into the Roosevelt building.
39
Conclusion
In conclusion, then, our proposal is clear. The Philadelphia Military Academies
should be combined into a single school located in the Elverson building with as much of the
current Elverson staff and leadership in place as possible. This decision was based on four
considerations for an excellent school: location, safety, educational opportunities, and
environment. The proposed Roosevelt building is unacceptable because of its poor location,
safety concerns and decrepit condition. Other sites that would be well-suited are not feasible or
available. Therefore, the best available
option is the Elverson building.
This table and the graph below show
a summary of how Roosevelt and Elverson
compare along several variables. Although
Leeds is not under consideration as a new
Location
Local
Partnerships
Facilities
Environment
Safety
Total
Elverson Roosevelt Leeds
9
1
1
6
0
4
7
10
9
41
location, we thought that it would serve as a useful point of comparison.
Merit of Three School Proposals
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Elverson
Roosevelt
40
Leeds
3
6
2
12
7
2
7
21
We concede fully that the Elverson building is not the ideal location for the Philadelphia
Military Academy. It needs some cosmetic work. The corridor to the annex is a bottleneck. The
gym and cafeteria are a bit small for a high school. As noted above another centrally located
school with larger and better facilities would be ideal. But the ideal location is not an option. As
noted above, the William Penn High School building has already been destroyed be vandals.
The only options really on the table are Roosevelt and Elverson. Between those the choice
is clear in favor of Elverson. (Though some have proposed Leeds as a possible location, Leeds
has many of the same obvious problems as Roosevelt).
Finally, even if Elverson is not to be the final site for a combined school, it is the best
location for now. Elverson is a convenient and safe with suitable facilities. Since the District
own the building and its land the Military Academy could remain there indefinitely at minimal
cost until a better site, or the funds to make or renovate one, become available in happier fiscal
times. Keeping the Academies at Elverson would also mean that District and school officials
could take the time and effort to plan a future transition in an efficient and logical way instead of
having to take an unacceptable option just because it is available. Merging the two schools at the
central location would also let the District gauge how many students would actually attend a
combined citywide military academy instead of trying to predict the future. In a best case
scenario, the school would grow and thrive at its current site, improving and renovating its
building when resources to do so are available. In the worst case, Elverson will be a reasonable
home for the school to maintain its record of excellence until a more ideal solution can be found
and the school can be moved there in a way that will have the least negative impact.
41
About Us and About This Report
The Committee to Save the Philadelphia Military Academy was founded immediately
after the announcement that our schools would be affected by the FMP. Our supporters, and
especially those representing Elverson, have been at every single FMP meeting, School Reform
Commission meeting, and FMP town hall since the announcement.
This proposal is not merely the work of one or two individuals. Rather it reflects the
consensus among a diverse group of parents, teachers, and students drawn from both military
academies. The clear majority of students and community members who have expressed a
preference favor locating the consolidated military academy at Elverson. In fact, of the
stakeholders who attended the SRC meetings on and December 20th 2012, the FMP meetings in
the preceding week, and the SRC meeting of January 14th 2013 every single one of them from
either school favored keeping the Military Academy at Elverson.
We have tried to make this proposal as clear and accurate as possible. Because of the
short timeframes involved, however, some errors and omissions are bound to occur. Any that do
are purely the fault of the editor.
Any questions or concerns about our proposal can be directed to our staff advisors:
Theodore E. Yale (E-mail: tyale@philasd.org - Cell: 646-784-4796)
Jennifer Thomas (E-mail: jtthomas@philasd.org)
Maureen Carey (E-mail: macarey@philasd.org)
Daniel Gaudiello (E-mail drgaudiello@philasd.org)
42