anne arundel county public schools strategic facilities utilization master plan mgt of america, inc....
TRANSCRIPT
Anne Arundel County Public SchoolsStrategic Facilities Utilization Master Plan
MGT of America, Inc.September 2, 2015
BACKGROUND
o 2006 Strategic Facilities Utilization Master Plano Identified facility needs
o Established recommended priorities
o Provided objective decision making tool
o Backgroundo 2006 Master Plan
Prioritieso 2015 Goalso Planning Processo Educational Prioritieso Community Collaborationo School Size o Demographicso Enrollment Projectionso Facility Assessmentso Capacity and Utilizationo Prioritizationo Master Plan
Recommendationso Supporting
Recommendations
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
2006 MASTER PLAN BY PRIORITY
TYPE PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 TOTAL
Elementary $198,189,000 $103,179,000 $152,189,000 $453,557,000
Middle $334,328,000 $96,664,000 $430,992,000
High $278,868,000 $124,767,000 $128,490,000 $532,125,000
County Wide $6,154,000 $22,261,000 $46,314,000 $74,729,000
Total $483,211,000 $584,535,000 $423,657,000 $1,491,403,000
o To update the 2006 Strategic Facilities Utilization Master Plan
o To provide 10-year recommendations for facilities capital improvements and building utilization
o To examine best practices regarding school size
o To provide an inclusive, transparent process for planning
o To provide data-driven recommendations
2015 GOALS
PLANNING PROCESS
o Task 1.0 – Project Initiation
o Task 2.0 – Develop Facilities and Site Inventory
o Task 3.0 – Educational Review and Programmatic Priorities
o Task 4.0 – Conduct Facilities Assessments
o Task 5.0 – Analysis of School and Community Demographics
o Task 6.0 – Analysis of Capacity and Utilization
o Task 7.0 – Public Involvement and Community Collaboration
o Task 8.0 – Develop Standards for Ranking Building Needs
o Task 9.0 – Budget Estimates
o Task 10.0 – Develop Master Plan Scenarios and Budgets
o Task 11.0 – Preparation and Presentation of Final Facilities Master Plan
EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY GUIDE
EDUCATIONAL PRIORITIES
o Educational mission, goals, and programs
o Interviews with key staff
o Program delivery and facility implication
o Educational Suitability and Technology Readiness Guide
COMMUNITY COLLABORATION
o Input Sessions – Annapolis HS, March 24 and Old Mill HS, March 26, 2015.
o 87 participants
o Survey #1 – posted to district website in English and Spanish and available from March 23 – May 20, 2015.
o 512 participants
o Feedback Sessions - Broadneck HS, May 27 and North County HS, May 28, 2015.
o 20 participants
o Survey #2 – posted to district website in English and Spanish and available from May 28 – July 3, 2015.
o 794 participants
COMMUNITY COLLABORATION -
FINDINGS
o Repair identified building deficiencies – including roofs and HVAC.
o General classroom issues – including correcting the open concept schools.
o Size of schools – focusing initially on the size of high schools, but including all grade levels as new schools and additions are planned.
o New schools in growing area(s) of the county – focusing on the north, west, and central county areas for ES and HS.
SCHOOL SIZE RESEARCH
o The Impact of School Size on Student Achievement: Evidence from Four StatesEDRE Working Paper No. 2013-03. Last Updated May 2013
o School/District Structure/Operations: School SizeEducation Commission of the States, 2015
o School Size Effects RevisitedSpringer Education Briefs, 2014
o School Size and its Relationship to Achievement and BehaviorPublic Schools of North Carolina, 2014
o Evaluation of the Gates Foundation’s High SchoolAmerican Institutes for Research, SRI International, National Evaluation of High School Transformation, 2006
o Maryland Equity ProjectPrepared for the Maryland State Department of Education, 2015
SCHOOL SIZE RESEARCH FINDINGS
o No consistent definition for “small” and “large” schools.
o Results vary widely; optimal sizes for high schools vary from 300 to 1,600.
o Smaller schools tend to show an advantage:
o academic achievement
o student behavior
o Many studies point to:
o leadership structure
o program offerings
o extracurricular offerings
o School size is only one factor.
o Advantage of smaller schools may not be great enough to advocate for widespread school construction.
SCHOOL SIZE RECOMMENDATIONS
o Policy to guide further master planning.
o Preferred school sizes are:High School 1,600Middle School 1,200Elementary 600
o Policy should be a factor in determining master plan priorities.
o Policy should be implemented on an ongoing basis.
o High school size reduction should be one of the priorities as the master plan is implemented.
o Monitor the progress of the proposed State small schools grant.
DEMOGRAPHICS - FINDINGS
o Live births are projected to decrease.
o Kindergarten capture rate is historically less than 100 percent, indicating some level of exodus of students out of the district.
o Census data from 2000 to 2010 shows a decrease in elementary age children.
o General consensus among stakeholders that the rates of building and migration into the county will increase as the economy improves.
o Enrollments are projected to fluctuate slightly in the next few years, but show a modest increase by the end of the ten year planning period.
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
Current District 2014-15 enrollment = 79,518 | Projected District 2023-24 enrollment = 86,568
05-06 07-08 09-10 11-12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 24-250
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Enrollment by Gradeband and District
K-5 6-8 9-12 District
FACILITY ASSESSMENTS4 ASSESSMENTS FOR EACH SCHOOL
o Building Condition
o Educational Suitability
o Site Condition
o Technology Readiness
o Combined score – Assessments weighted 55%/35%/5%/5% respectively
SCORES DESCRIPTION
> 90 Excellent/Like New80 - 89.99 Good70 - 79.99 Fair60 - 69.99 Poor
< 59.99 Unsatisfactory
FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGEBUILDING CONDITION
SITE TYPEBUILDING CONDITION
SCORE RANGE AVERAGE CONDITION SCORE
LOW HIGH
Elementary Schools 58.97 100.00 85.33
Middle Schools 64.02 96.58 79.98
High Schools 60.07 100.00 82.69
County-Wide Schools 63.95 92.52 80.09
Other Facilities 75.38 79.85 77.61
FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGEEDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY
SITE TYPESUITABILITY
SCORE RANGE AVERAGE SUITABILITY SCORE
LOW HIGH
Elementary Schools 53.45 100.00 82.96
Middle Schools 65.37 91.32 78.67
High Schools 65.19 100.00 77.24
County-Wide Schools 59.27 86.51 73.63
Other Facilities 75.26 80.54 77.90
FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGESITE CONDITION
SITE TYPESITE CONDITION ASSESSMENT
SCORE RANGE AVERAGE SITE SCORE
LOW HIGH
Elementary Schools 63.04 100.00 89.57
Middle Schools 61.03 92.70 81.06
High Schools 69.71 100.00 83.52
County-Wide Schools 52.77 99.67 79.30
Other Facilities 80.39 86.27 83.33
FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGETECHNOLOGY READINESS
SITE TYPE
TECHNOLOGY READINESS SCORE RANGE AVERAGE
TECHNOLOGY SCORE
LOW HIGH
Elementary Schools 47.60 100.00 75.00
Middle Schools 57.60 96.70 71.25
High Schools 60.90 100.00 73.18
County-Wide Schools 47.60 85.90 66.27
Other Facilities 50.10 67.60 58.85
FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGECOMBINED SCORES
SITE TYPECOMBINED SCORES RANGE AVERAGE
COMBINED SCOREMIN MAX
Elementary Schools 62.59 100.00 84.20
Middle Schools 65.51 94.10 79.14
High Schools 63.10 100.00 80.35
County-Wide Schools 70.15 90.32 78.47
Other Facilities 75.20 78.93 77.06
FACILITY ASSESSMENTSNUMBER OF SCHOOLS BY COMBINED SCORE
RATING DESCRIPTION
RATING SCORE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
HIGH SCHOOLS
COUNTY-WIDE
SCHOOLS
OTHER FACILITIES TOTAL
Excellent/ Like New >90 20 1 2 1 24
Good 80 – 89.99 36 6 3 1 1 47
Fair 70 – 79.99 17 9 6 4 2 38
Poor 60 – 69.99 6 3 1 0 0 10
Unsatisfactory <59.99 0 0 0 0 0 0
CAPACITY AND UTILIZATIONCURRENT & PROJECTED RATES FOR SAMPLE
SCHOOLSUTILIZATION DESCRIPTION
> 110 Inadequate101 - 110 Approaching Inadequate85 - 100.9 Adequate75 - 84.99 Approaching Inefficient
< 74.99 Inefficient
SCHOOLS 2014SRC
2014-15 FTE
2024SRC
2024-25 PROJECTED
FTE
2014-15 CURRENT
UTILIZATION
2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION
Elementary SchoolsAnnapolis ES 314 259 314 291 82% 93%Arnold ES 456 408 565 399 89% 71%Belle Grove ES 304 261 304 265 86% 87%
Middle SchoolsAnnapolis MS 1,495 706 1,495 902 47% 60%Arundel MS 1,071 941 1,071 1,102 88% 103%Bates MS 1,030 850 1,030 1,126 83% 109%
High SchoolsAnnapolis HS 1,888 1,813 1,888 2,399 96% 127%Arundel HS 2,039 2,021 2,039 2,469 99% 121%Broadneck HS 2,209 2,104 2,209 2,061 95% 93%
CAPACITY AND UTILIZATIONCURRENT & PROJECTED BY GRADE BAND
UTILIZATION DESCRIPTION> 110 Inadequate
101 - 110 Approaching Inadequate85 - 100.9 Adequate75 - 84.99 Approaching Inefficient
< 74.99 Inefficient
GRADE BANDS2014-15
CURRENT UTILIZATION
2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION
Elementary Schools 91% 91%
Middle Schools 73% 81%
High Schools 88% 106%
PRIORITIZATION
o Combined score of less than 75, and/or
o Projected utilization of over 110%, or
o New schools to provide solutions to overcrowding and to accommodate projected development.
MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED PROJECTS PHASE 1 – 10 YEAR PLAN
GROUNDS
SITE NAMECOMBINED
SCORE 55/35/5/5
2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION
ADDITION BUDGET
RENOVATE BUDGET
REPLACE BUDGET
Edgewater ES 62.59 110% $37,184,000Tyler Heights ES 63.31 146% $37,184,000Richard Henry Lee ES 64.06 110% $37,184,000Quarterfield ES 64.25 88% $37,184,000Hillsmere ES 64.99 107% $37,184,000Crofton Area HS (New) $113,323,000Old Mill West HS (New) $113,323,000Rippling Woods ES (Replacement) 66.24 113% $37,184,000Old Mill MS North (Replacement) 65.51 83% $79,681,000Old Mill MS South (Replacement) 68.40 87% $79,681,000Old Mill HS (Replacement) 63.10 109% $113,323,000Northeast ES (New) $37,184,000
Continued on next slide
MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED PROJECTS PHASE 1 – 10 YEAR PLAN
GROUNDS
SITE NAMECOMBINED
SCORE 55/35/5/5
2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION
ADDITION BUDGET
RENOVATE BUDGET
REPLACE BUDGET
Bates MS 68.14 109% $28,886,000 West Co Area HS (New) $113,323,000West Co Area ES (Arundel MS/HS) (New ) $37,184,000Marley Glen SP 70.15 59% $8,938,000 Shady Side ES 70.46 97% $13,164,000 Brock Bridge ES 70.88 62% $11,910,000 J Albert Adams Academy 71.41 71% $7,192,000 Hilltop ES 71.51 105% $13,187,000 Odenton ES 80.06 114% $1,648,100 $8,307,000 Maryland City ES 71.62 114% $9,156,000 West Meade EEC 72.27 89% $7,981,000 Woodside ES 72.80 98% $8,648,000 Eastport ES 73.13 78% $6,019,000 Glen Burnie HS 73.28 113% $64,551,000 Millersville ES 73.90 98% $7,031,000 Glen Burnie Park ES 74.07 101% $6,928,000
PHASE 1 TOTAL $1,648,100 $201,898,000 $910,126,000
MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED PROJECTS PHASE 1A – 10 YEAR PLAN
GROUNDS
SITE NAME2024-25
PROJECTED UTILIZATION
REDISTRICTING
South River HS 118% Redistrict with Southern HS
Arundel HS 121% Redistrict to receive from Arundel MS only
North County HS 117% Redistrict George Cromwell ES
Meade HS 115% Redistrict to receive from MacArthur MS only
Solley ES 120% Redistrict with New ES
Annapolis HS 127% Redistrict long term to not receive students from Mills-Parole ES and Naval Station students from Annapolis ES
Germantown ES 118% Redistrict with Rolling Knolls ES
Marley ES 134% Redistrict with New ES
Crofton ES 113% Redistrict with New ES
PHASE 1-A TOTAL
SUPPORTING RECOMMENDATIONS
o Implement non-instructional facility improvements in conjunction with the 10-year master plan.
o Monitor the implementation of a proposed competitive grant program to support the construction of small schools and/or the renovation of large school buildings.
o Annually review boundary adjustments necessary to implement the master plan.
o Continue to regularly update educational specifications.
o Continue to update long-range enrollment projections on a regular basis and coordinate with local and state planning and zoning officials.
o Communicate the master plan.
Thank you!