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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facilities Assessment Scores

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 Good: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance Fair: The building and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor to moderate repair 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.

Building Condition Score Range Site Type Building Condition Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Other Facilities Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 16 This slide shows the resulting range of building condition scores for Fremont schools.

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 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 Fair: The facility has some problems meeting the needs of the educational program and may require some remodeling 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.

Suitability Score Range Site Type Suitability Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Other Facilities Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 18 This slide shows the resulting range of educational suitability scores for Fremont schools.

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 Good: The site and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance Fair: The site and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor to moderate repair 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.

Site Scores Range Site Type Site Assessment Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Other Facilities Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 20 This slide shows the resulting range of site condition scores for Fremont schools.

Technology Scores 90+ Excellent: The facility has excellent infrastructure to support information technology Good: The facility has the infrastructure to support information technology Fair: The facility lacking in some infrastructure to support information technology 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.

Technology Scores Range Site Type Technology Readiness Score Range LowHigh Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Other Facilities Excellent 80-89Good 65-79Fair 50-64Poor Below 50Unsatisfactory 22 This slide shows the resulting range of technology readiness scores for Fremont schools.

Combined Scores Site Name Building Condition Score Suitability Score Site Condition Score Tech. Readiness Score Combined Score 40/30/10/20 Elementary Schools Ardenwood ES Azevada ES Blacow ES Brier ES Brookvale ES Cabrillo ES Chadbourne ES Durham ES Forest Park ES Glenmoor ES Gomes ES Green ES Grimmer ES Hirsch ES Leitch ES Maloney ES Mattos ES Millard ES Mission San Jose ES Mission Valley ES Niles ES Oliveira ES Parkmont ES Patterson ES Vallejo Mill ES Warm Springs ES Warwick ES Weibel ES Elementary School Average

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 Hopkins JrHS Horner JrHS Thornton JrHS Walters JrHS Junior High School Average High Schools American HS Irvington HS Kennedy HS Mission San Jose HS Washington HS Mission Valley Regional Occupational Program Robertson HS High School Average Other Facilities Corporation Yard N/A N/A Ed Center N/A N/A Fremont Adult School Glankler Preschool Marshall N/A Tak Fudenna Stadium N/A69.87 N/A Other Facilities Average District Average

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, 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.

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