1. Fremont Unified School District Board Report Draft March 14, 2012 B&F 17 1

2. The Focus of this Study Create a Facilities Needs Assessment that will be the foundation of the District’s Long-Range Facility Plan (LRFP) 2

3. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT DATA Long-Range Facility Plan: Puzzle Pieces EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY FACILITY CONDITION DATA SCHOOL BUILDING CAPACITY DATA CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGETING STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY READINESS 3

4. The Stakeholder Involvement Process  Board of Education  Administrators  FUDTA, CSEA, SEIU, FSMA  Instructional services  Business services  Pupil services  Special services  Purchasing  Risk management  Technology  Adult/career education  Students  Parents  Teachers  Principals  Custodians  Maintenance  Managers InterviewsFocus Groups 4

5. The Stakeholder Involvement Process  Public meetings  February 4 and 6, 2012  Online surveys  February 7 through 17, 2012 Community Input 5

6. Participation Rates  December – February  Interviews & Focus Groups: 54.5 hours  Two public forums: 133 participants  Online survey: 744 participants By the Numbers 6

7. Graphical data from public meetings & surveys Major Themes The school system is an integral part to the overall success of the community and the people recognize this fact. Fremont is the place to live and the schools play a major role in creating this feeling. Theme 1: Support for Fremont Unified School District The chart shows the response to question: “How would you rate the quality of education students receive in Fremont Unified School District?” 77% as either Excellent or Good 7

8. Major Themes One caveat…. Class sizes, condition of the schools, and inequalities in programs are creating a concern that these high standards are being jeopardized. Theme 1: Support for Fremont Unified School District 8

9. Major Themes  There is a lack of funding that affects every area of the district  The age of buildings creates many needs such as:  Restrooms are in need of upgrading  Curb appeal is lacking at most schools  HVAC systems don’t work or are not balanced within buildings (too hot/too cold)  Limited capacity of schools to receive technology (electrical outlets)  Safety of buildings  Outside lighting  Open campuses Theme 2: Facilities have a long list of needs Graphical data from public meetings & surveys The chart shows the response to question: “How would you rate the overall physical condition of the school buildings in Fremont Unified School District? ” 31% rated as Excellent or Good and 68% as Fair or Poor 9

10. Graphical data from public meetings & surveys Major Themes Program opportunities are not equitable within Fremont schools. People want the program offerings to be equitable and still recognize the uniqueness of each school. They want a core curriculum at every school while allowing some program variance. Theme 3: EQUITY! EQUITY! EQUITY! The above charts shows the responses to “Program offerings are equitable among Fremont schools.” 32% rated as Strongly Agreed/Agreed and 47% as Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed 10

11. Major Themes The equity areas most often mentioned were:  Performing arts  Parking and bus/parent drop off zones  Playgrounds and athletic facilities  Science labs  Lack of classroom space for programs  Technology Theme 3: EQUITY! EQUITY! EQUITY! (continued) 11

12. Major Themes Technology must be a focus within all schools when addressing issues of equity.  There is little equity in technology throughout the district  The age and condition of existing equipment is a key indicator of the problems with technology  The connectivity is slow, undependable and unreliable  There is a need to establish a base line on how great these differences are within schools Graphical data from public meetings & surveys Theme 4: Technology is lacking The chart shows the response to question: “How would you rate the technology provided for students and staff?” 65% rated as Fair or Poor 12

13. Major Themes  Be data-driven  Be based on standards that are equitable  Be based on a process that engaged the public in the creation and implementation of the plan  Address issues of capacity  Recognize the right time to ask the public for additional financial support  Improve overall communications for the district Theme 5: The “right” long-range facility plan (LRFP) should: 13

14. Facilities Assessment Scores

15. Building Condition Scores 90+ New or Like New: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition, less than one year old, and only require preventive maintenance. 80-89 Good: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance. 65-79 Fair: The building and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor to moderate repair. 50-64 Poor: The building and/or a significant number of its systems are in poor condition and require major repair or renovation. Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The building and/or a majority of its systems should be considered for replacement. 15 This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the building conditions.

16. Building Condition Score Range Site Type Building Condition Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools72.8587.74 Middle Schools75.4879.40 High Schools65.7979.35 Other Facilities55.0085.08 90+Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 16 This slide shows the resulting range of building condition scores for Fremont schools.

17. Suitability Scores 90+ Excellent: The facility is designed to provide for and support a majority of the educational program offered. It may have a minor suitability issues but overall it meets the needs of the educational program. 80-89 Good: The facility is designed to provide for and support the educational program offered. It may have minor suitability issues but generally meets the needs of the educational program. 65-79 Fair: The facility has some problems meeting the needs of the educational program and may require some remodeling. 50-64 Poor: The facility has numerous problems meeting the needs of the educational program and needs significant remodeling or additions. Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The facility is unsuitable in many areas of the educational program. 17 This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the educational suitability.

18. Suitability Score Range Site Type Suitability Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools55.0774.88 Middle Schools60.3377.36 High Schools58.0397.53 Other Facilities41.9869.73 90+Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 18 This slide shows the resulting range of educational suitability scores for Fremont schools.

19. Site Scores 90+ New or Like New: The site and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition, less than one year old, and only require preventive maintenance. 80-89 Good: The site and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance. 65-79 Fair: The site and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor to moderate repair. 50-64 Poor: The site and/or a significant number of its systems are in poor condition and require major repair or renovation. Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The site and/or a majority of its systems should be considered for replacement. 19 This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the site and grounds conditions.

20. Site Scores Range Site Type Site Assessment Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools53.6489.10 Middle Schools51.4581.25 High Schools56.6180.20 Other Facilities69.8790.00 90+Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 20 This slide shows the resulting range of site condition scores for Fremont schools.

21. Technology Scores 90+ Excellent: The facility has excellent infrastructure to support information technology. 80-89 Good: The facility has the infrastructure to support information technology. 65-79 Fair: The facility lacking in some infrastructure to support information technology. 50-64 Poor: The facility is lacking significant infrastructure to support information technology. Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The facility has little or no infrastructure to support information technology. 21 This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate technology readiness.

22. Technology Scores Range Site Type Technology Readiness Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools35.7079.10 Middle Schools45.80 76.70 High Schools53.40 100.00 Other Facilities38.25 59.10 90+Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 22 This slide shows the resulting range of technology readiness scores for Fremont schools.

23. Combined Scores Site Name Building Condition Score Suitability Score Site Condition Score Tech. Readiness Score Combined Score 40/30/10/20 Elementary Schools Ardenwood ES76.6373.02 60.6539.9566.61 Azevada ES75.5067.90 72.9073.2072.50 Blacow ES72.8562.27 72.5144.8564.04 Brier ES77.8662.09 68.2051.6066.91 Brookvale ES76.1171.20 67.1635.8565.69 Cabrillo ES77.4558.95 67.8544.9564.44 Chadbourne ES80.3573.77 74.4947.5571.23 Durham ES77.3070.35 75.0458.3071.19 Forest Park ES78.1674.88 68.4764.9073.55 Glenmoor ES78.0761.80 64.7362.5068.74 Gomes ES87.7461.47 78.7275.0076.41 Green ES78.7157.16 76.8561.6068.64 Grimmer ES76.4164.46 89.1035.7065.95 Hirsch ES77.3363.34 80.7958.3069.67 Leitch ES78.8274.10 80.4179.1077.62 Maloney ES78.1762.92 82.0648.2568.00 Mattos ES73.9161.36 67.8557.4066.24 Millard ES77.2855.07 80.9051.6065.85 Mission San Jose ES79.1665.02 77.6169.9072.91 Mission Valley ES77.7056.46 76.5645.8064.83 Niles ES84.2756.72 78.3846.7067.90 Oliveira ES73.6959.33 81.5145.8564.60 Parkmont ES80.9363.59 53.6441.7065.15 Patterson ES78.3063.87 74.8664.9070.95 Vallejo Mill ES75.6362.48 74.7849.9066.46 Warm Springs ES78.5055.46 79.2649.9065.94 Warwick ES77.3471.90 67.5751.6069.59 Weibel ES80.0269.71 81.0953.2071.67 Elementary School Average78.0164.31 74.0753.9368.69 23

24. Combined Score (continued) Site Name Building Condition Score Suitability Score Site Condition Score Tech. Readiness Score Combined Score 40/30/10/20 Junior High Schools Centerville JrHS 76.3871.7370.9376.7074.50 Hopkins JrHS 79.4067.3575.8551.6069.87 Horner JrHS 77.9560.3351.4545.8063.58 Thornton JrHS 78.5477.3666.6154.2072.12 Walters JrHS 75.4875.9281.2561.7073.43 Junior High School Average 77.5570.5469.2258.0070.70 High Schools American HS 74.3763.9280.2053.4067.63 Irvington HS 75.4165.1775.5989.2075.12 Kennedy HS 79.3558.0366.8081.7072.17 Mission San Jose HS 77.8459.3772.2959.3068.04 Washington HS 77.6971.7956.6178.4073.95 Mission Valley Regional Occupational Program 75.5097.5365.18100.0085.98 Robertson HS 65.7969.3574.7956.7065.94 High School Average 75.1469.3170.2174.1072.69 Other Facilities Corporation Yard 76.33 N/A72.7638.25 N/A Ed Center 55.00 N/A90.0051.89 N/A Fremont Adult School 83.0769.7370.1851.7071.50 Glankler Preschool 79.6441.9869.9859.1063.27 Marshall 85.0851.5977.35 N/A Tak Fudenna Stadium 75.44 N/A69.87 N/A Other Facilities Average 75.7654.4375.0250.2367.39 District Average77.2365.1673.0857.2769.53 24

25. Estimated Budget School Type100% Elementary $213,789,000 Junior High $73,712,000 High School $225,923,000 Other Facilities $54,508,000 Total $567,932,000 25 Based on the Facilities Needs Assessment, in order to address 100% of the District’s facilities needs, the estimated required budget would be $567,932,000.

26. Next Steps  Receive/hear public comment and Board discussion -March 14, 2012  Present final report -March 28, 2012  Present timeline and tasks for community engagement -March 28, 2012  Conduct meetings with schools to review their detailed reports -March 2012 to June 2012  Assemble committee for establishing priorities - April 2012  Present recommended list of priorities to the Board -June 2012 26