Our process was developed in such a way that it could be used in perpetuity for the purposes of school facility planning in APS. Our hope is that this data-informed approach, centered on equity, can illuminate creative possibilities for properties that meet the needs of students and communities. As the resource gap continues to widen and Atlanta continues to address its inequities, public schools have the potential to contribute to the solution. Decisions about how publicly-owned land is utilized can have a significant impact on how a community develops and thrives.
In centering community need in our approach, we state the importance of equitably allocating resources and adopting a community development strategy that provides necessary support to underserved areas. Although the four recommendations that came out of this process are well informed, we suggest thorough engagement with community stakeholders to confirm they are the best uses for the properties.
We understand that exogenous shocks could change the trajectory of these projections. The first section of our report appendix provides a guide for understanding some of the potential changes that could impact Atlanta Public Schools, including population change, an economic downtown, an increase in privatized education, and more.
Our Key Learnings from the Process
A number of key learnings emerged from our mixed-methods planning process. Our initial data collection and analysis illuminated discrepancies in population projections across sources (i.e. City of Atlanta, Atlanta Regional Commission), demonstrating the importance of creating alternative growth scenarios and maintaining analytical flexibility. Relatedly, the nature of imperfect data drove our reliance on qualitative research as a necessary supplement. Our interviews with stakeholders, site visits and attendance at community meetings were invaluable contributions to our process and recommendations. In particular, we learned that community engagement is critical to strengthening ideas and evaluating their potential for success. Our communications with school principals emphasized the importance of establishing a local advocate who can ensure recommendations are responsive to community needs.
Given the limited duration of this project, we also developed the ability to strike a balance between a broad exploration of possibilities and a narrow assessment of site-specific recommendations. We found it was necessary to begin with a wide aperture and use our data analysis to reduce our scope to the few priorities we explored in more detail. Similarly, our process highlighted best practices for balancing the “traditional” and the “creative.” We entered the project with an understanding of APS’ priorities and over time learned each of the clusters’ strategies. Rather than producing recommendations that simply reflected this existing information, we found it valuable to infuse our areas of planning expertise and elements of creativity into our proposals. Based on the feedback we received after our presentation, the Board appreciated this blended approach.
We are excited to have completed this work and our hope is that APS can build on these learnings as it drives forward its strategic planning and facilities development process.