Presentation on theme: "Anne Arundel Public Schools Strategic Facilities Utilization Master Plan Final Report July 2006."— Presentation transcript:
Anne Arundel Public Schools Strategic Facilities Utilization Master Plan Final Report July 2006
Final Report Outline Introduction Methodology and Approach Public Involvement Enrollment and Capacity Facility Assessments Findings and Analysis Conclusions and Recommendations
Methodology and Approach Program Impacts Utilization Public Involvement Facility Evaluation Analysis Recommendations
Enrollment and Capacity Average Percent Growth Model Linear Regression Model Cohort Survival Model Student Per Housing Unit Model
Enrollment Projections PROJECTED STUDENTS USING DIFFERENT MODELS PROJECTED STUDENTS USING THE MGT MODELS
Capacity and Utilization Analysis Middle School Example UTILIZATION INFORMATION STATE OF MARYLAND MODEL Site NameEnrollment (Aug 2006) Enrollment (2015) CapacityUtilization (Aug 2006) Projected Utilization (2015) ANNAPOLIS MIDDLE5777421,49538.6%49.6% ARUNDEL MIDDLE1,0291,0191,07196.1%95.1% BATES MIDDLE55054683366.0%65.5% BROOKLYN PARK MIDDLE56155662390.0%89.2% CENTRAL MIDDLE9359271,18778.8%78.1% CHESAPEAKE BAY MS1,3681,3522,23961.1%60.4% CORKRAN MIDDLE72571798573.6%72.8% CROFTON MIDDLE9108991,01989.3%88.2% GEORGE FOX MIDDLE85087397487.3%89.6% LINDALE MIDDLE9229131,37067.3%66.6% MACARTHUR MIDDLE1,0961,0861,42477.0%76.3% MAGOTHY RIVER MIDDLE7487391,09268.5%67.7% MARLEY MIDDLE8118051,10473.5%72.9% MEADE MIDDLE78878399679.1%78.6% OLD MILL MIDDLE NORTH1,0331,0311,06097.5%97.3% OLD MILL MIDDLE SOUTH7677581,08970.4%69.6% SEVERN RIVER MIDDLE79178398880.1%79.3% SEVERNA PARK MIDDLE1,4101,3951,47895.4%94.4% SOUTHERN MIDDLE8208171,09175.2%74.9% Middle School Total16,69116,7412211875.5%75.7%
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 preventative maintenance. 75-89Good: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance. 60-74Fair: The building and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor to moderate repairs. 50-59Poor: The building and/or a significant number of its systems are in poor condition and require major repair or renovation. Below 50Unsatisfactory: The building and/or a majority of its systems should be considered for replacement.
Building Condition Scores CONDITION SCORE RANGES Site TypeBuilding Condition Score RangeWeighted Average Condition Score Elementary Schools59.25100.0078.11 Middle Schools62.08100.0076.90 High Schools60.8783.7669.85 Other Schools51.4085.0073.22
Suitability Condition Scores 90+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. 75-89Fair: The facility has some problems meeting the needs of the educational program and may require some remodeling. 50-74Poor: The facility has numerous problems meeting the needs of the educational program and needs significant remodeling or additions. Below 50Unsatisfactory: The facility is unsuitable in many areas of the educational program.
Suitability Score Process SUITABILITY Site TypeSuitability Score RangeAverage Suitability Score Elementary Schools31.59100.0077.02 Middle Schools53.47100.0080.00 High Schools56.8681.3869.63 Other Schools33.3892.9759.80
Technology Readiness Scores 90+Good: The facility has the infrastructure to support information technology. 75-89Fair: The facility is lacking in some infrastructure. 50-74Poor: The facility is lacking significant infrastructure to support information technology. Below 50Unsatisfactory: The facility has little or no infrastructure to support information technology.
Technology Readiness TECHNOLOGY SCORE RANGES Site TypeTechnology Readiness Score RangeAverage Technology Score Elementary Schools48.30100.0081.13 Middle Schools55.50100.0078.32 High Schools58.5094.5067.21 Other Schools56.1889.0080.40
Grounds Condition Assessment 90+New or Like New: The grounds and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition, less than one year old, and only require preventative maintenance. 75-89Good: The grounds and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance. 60-74Fair: The grounds and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor repair. 50-59Poor: The grounds and/or a significant number of its systems are in poor condition and require major repair or renovation. Below 50Unsatisfactory: The grounds and/or a majority of its systems should be considered for replacement.
Grounds Condition Assessment Site TypeGrounds Assessment Score RangeAverage Grounds Score Elementary Schools57.50100.0084.35 Middle Schools48.33100.0075.52 High Schools44.9287.1970.01 Other Schools35.94100.0072.58 GROUNDS SCORE RANGES
High School Facility Assessment Summary Matrix Site NameCondition Score Suitability Score Technology Score Grounds Score Combined Score HIGH SCHOOLS ANNAPOLIS SENIOR74.9668.2958.5074.0671.22 ARUNDEL SENIOR68.0967.5258.5059.8866.14 BROADNECK SENIOR83.7677.3986.0081.6481.86 CHESAPEAKE SENIOR74.4274.6686.0067.0874.92 GLEN BURNIE65.8565.8964.0071.2566.22 MEADE67.8678.3558.5058.4469.13 NORTH COUNTY74.6681.3894.5076.8878.88 NORTHEAST SENIOR68.1756.8661.0044.9261.73 OLD MILL SENIOR64.8662.9858.5061.9563.37 SEVERNA PARK SENIOR60.8761.7564.0075.0062.86 SOUTH RIVER SENIOR68.7374.3458.5081.8870.70 SOUTHERN SENIOR65.9666.1758.5087.1967.40 HIGH SCHOOL AVERAGE69.8569.6367.2170.0169.54
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRAPHIC CONDITION SCORE SUMMARY
FACILITY OPTIONS ANNAPOLIS ZONE SchoolIssue(s)*Options Elementary Schools: Annapolis Condition Suitability Historical Significance Site size Renovations Repurpose Eastport Suitability Site size Renovations Georgetown East Excess space Boundary adjustment with Tyler Heights Convert portion to targeted program Germantown Condition Suitability Overcrowded Renovations and addition Replacement Replacement with 2 smaller facilities, 1 targeted program facility 5 th grade to MS Hillsmere Condition Renovations Mills – Parole Suitability Overcrowded Site size Addition 5 th grade to MS Renovation
FACILITY OPTIONS ANNAPOLIS ZONE SchoolIssue(s)*Options Elementary Schools (cont.): Rolling KnollsCondition Suitability Overcrowded Renovations and addition 5 th grade to MS Tyler HeightsCondition Suitability Overcrowded Renovations and addition Boundary Adjustment with Georgetown East 5 th grade to MS West AnnapolisCondition Suitability Site size Renovations Middle Schools: AnnapolisCondition Excess space Renovations Convert portion to targeted program facility Inclusion of 5 th grade Use as swing space during renovations BatesCondition Suitability Excess space Renovations Convert portion to targeted program facility Inclusion of 5 th grade High School: Annapolis SuitabilityRenovations
Summary and Budget Estimates Priority I Projects ELEMENTARY SCHOOLSCOST ($) ANNAPOLIS ES - Renovation6,097,000 BELLE GROVE ES - Replace16,954,000 CROFTON ES - Renovation9,084,000 FOLGER MCKINSEY ES - Replace24,118,000 GERMANTOWN ES - Replace22,728,000 LOTHIAN ES - Replace24,677,000 MILLS-PAROLE ES - Renovation and Addition for Capacity7,877,000 PERSHING HILL ES - Replace17,260,000 POINT PLEASANT ES - Replace25,088,000 SOUTHGATE ES - Replace22,365,000 WEST ANNAPOLIS ES - Renovation4,727,000 WEST MEADE ES - Replace17,214,000 HIGH SCHOOLSCOST ($) NORTHEAST HS - Replace114,501,000 OLD MILL HS - Replace117,638,000 SEVERNA PARK HS - Renovation46,729,000 COUNTY WIDE SCHOOLSCOST ($) PHOENIX ANNAPOLIS - Renovation6,154,000 TOTAL COST - PRIORITY 1483,211,000
Supporting Recommendations Re-Draw Attendance Boundaries to Address Imbalanced Utilization Targeted Program Facilities Develop Standards for the use of portable classrooms Continue to Update the Educational Specifications Implementation of the Security Recommendations and their impact on district facilities Implement Grade level Re-configuration in the Annapolis and Broadneck Feeder Zones Property Inventory District Office Facility Alternatives
Is Floridas School Grading System Biased?. FY2007 Relationship (r) between SAR Results and % Federal Lunch HS R HS M HS W HS S RGMGLR G LM G PT S ES -0.85*-0.79*-0.32*-0.80*-0.60*-0.34*-0.36*-0.07*-0.76*