Title: Elementary FAC
1Elementary FAC
- Pre-Bond Committee July 2006
- Elementary Facility Recommendations
- Capacity and Enrollment Needs Predictions
- Current Crisis Update How bad can it get?
- Bond structure what you put off today will be
back tomorrow!
2Elementary Subcommittee Members
- Steve Rebrovich BISD parent, PTO board
(elementary middle) - Pat Worrell BISD retired school administrator
- Rosie Perez Community representative, past BISD
parent - Patsy Dumas Community representative, past BISD
parent - Vance Reidel BISD parent
- Bruce Basden BISD parent, business owner in
school construction - Earla Houser Crowley BISD retired school
administrator - Philo Waters BISD principal (past principal at
Denison ISD) - Connie Jackson BISD teacher BISD parent
- Julie Reidel BISD teacher BISD parent
- Lynn Quarzenski BISD administration employee
BISD parent - Pam Ehrich BISD administration liaison to our
committee
3Facility Recommendations
- This committee was provided with an existing
working summary of spaces for a prototype
elementary campus (gt 96,000 square feet, designed
for 675-900 students), comparison space numbers
for Bransom Elementary, and a statement that the
current thought was to lean toward a compact
design school. - Our first order was to remove duplication, reduce
unreasonable or unnecessary spaces, design to
desired capacity, and assure we provided the most
significant gains possible in design that would
lead to student achievement.
4Facility Recommendations
- Additional considerations
- Provide a building that enhances the
instructional program through features designed
to benefit students and teachers. - While being financially responsible, create a
pleasant space for effective learning. - Plan for flexibility today and into future
decades build in the ability to meet the needs
of changing programs over time.
5Building Configuration
- The committee was initially led toward a compact
design plan with day-lighting alternatives. We
quickly found that after touring many different
campuses, we are strongly opposed to any form of
compact design school. While one might
anticipate the desire to have a window is driven
more by the personal well-being of being able
to see outdoors, in surveying Stribling
Elementary teachers (who work in a compact design
setting) the overwhelming response was that the
inability to do classroom extension (teaching
weather, nature, science, other TEKS) without
moving the class outside was the most important
reason they wished for a window.
FOR MORE INFO...
Review the completed Summary of Spaces for
proposed BISD future elementary facilities.
6Building Configuration
- Additionally, there are dozens of studies
indicating the calming, centering, and
stimulating effects that a view of
nature/outdoors can provide a classroom. The
committee experienced this personally while
traveling through different spaces and evaluating
our reactions to each type of space and as a
result strongly recommends a more traditional (or
finger) style design with extensive windows.
Day-lighting is recommended for its educational
value, however it requires additional evaluation.
FOR MORE INFO...
Review the completed Summary of Spaces for
proposed BISD future elementary facilities.
7Building Configuration Cost differentiation
by design
- Based upon our interviews with architects the
base costs for differently designed buildings
that are otherwise similar are - Compact Plan Traditional Plan
Compact Plan Traditional Plan - No daylighting No daylighting With
daylighting With daylighting - x x 500,000
x 1,000,000 (x 500,000)
500,000 - OR IN SAMPLE WITH A BASE COST OF X
12,000,000 - 12,000,000 12,500,000 13,000,000
13,000,000 - After experiencing the compact plan (even WITH
daylighting, the committee found that it SHOULD
NOT be considered acceptable.
8Building Configuration
- The compact design (with or without day-lighting)
limits classroom extension of TEKS, is an
unfriendly environment, and is considered not
acceptable by the committee.
Campus toured and deemed not acceptable
9Building Configuration
- A more traditional design. More adaptive,
provides classroom extension with windows in
classrooms, great atmosphere and educational
opportunity.
Toured considered a model school by the
committee
10Building Configuration
- This design was discussed early in the planning.
It is interesting in that it creates a secure
area for outdoor learning and provides windows in
classrooms while maintaining a reasonably compact
footprint. - More feedback is necessary and we are waiting on
a response from the administrators of the
Washington, D.C. campus where this plan was built.
An interesting alternative considered by the
committee
11Building Configuration
- CONCLUSION
- The committee found educational instructional
advantages of a more traditional design
(classrooms with lots of windows) make it ideal. - The committee firmly recommends that a compact
design plan not be considered in any manner. - The committee also found that the only way a
compact plan lowered costs was with dark,
non-daylit classrooms severely prohibited.
12Building Design - features
- Building features
- Types of spaces
- Adaptable effective spaces driven by instruction
13Outside spaces curb appeal
- Create an inviting building but not a showplace.
- Entry should have good visibility for safety.
Designs should be functional, friendly, and
responsible
14Outside spaces curb appeal
- This entry feature struck the committee as highly
effective as you approach the campus without
being offensive in showmanship.
A responsible entry feature
15Outside spaces safe inviting
- Building features provide safety at entry
- Parents have a place to gather outside of
building.
Many parents will spend more time here than
anywhere else on campus
16Outside spaces safe inviting
- Safe and accessible campus traffic patterns for
each site plan must be successfully addressed.
Successful traffic planning is a MUST
17Outside spaces student learning
- Outside learning courtyard secured with fencing.
- Landscaping will provide additional security when
mature.
Security issues should be addressed at
construction
18Outside spaces parent communication
- A high quality sign was identified as an integral
part of parent communication.
We must find every effective way to involve
parents
19Outside spaces community entrance
- A separate entrance allows after-hours access to
community spaces while instructional areas remain
secured.
Gyms, cafeteria, meeting space for the community
20Entrance secure facility
- A secure entry that requires visitors to sign in
at the office. Bransom space was identified as
ideal due to its configuration and size that
allows room for parents a place to wait in bad
weather.
Others have this but none as effective as
Bransom
21Office - visibility
- The office reception area benefits from an
expansive view of the front of the building.
Safety and security at the entrance are paramount
22Office/Nurse structure
- Sightlines noted to allow office staff to monitor
nurses office for emergencies and be able to see
corridor door so students can always find someone
available to assist them.
These spaces must be able to work together.
23Nurses Office
- Provide adequate space for 3 beds, 1 as
isolation. Provide sufficient egress for
emergency services should the need arise.
Something we have struggled with in our current
buildings.
24Schools that brighten the day
- This sun-filled hallway that leads from the
entryway/office, past the instructional hallways
and library, to the community shared building
features (gym, cafeteria) was identified as one
of parents and students favorite features. It is
achieved without unreasonable cost.
Positive attitudes and atmosphere enhance student
achievement
25Schools that brighten the day
- The previously shown hallway affords a quick view
of the playground from just outside the front
office - a distinct safety advantage.
Design must include inside and outside
considerations
26Its all about education
- Features like this expanded hallway space
affords teachers an opportunity to read to
students while working them through the adjacent
student restrooms without disturbing other
classes.
Turning every available space into instructional
space
27Its all about education
- Science labs with highly adaptable furniture for
flexible methods of student instruction and a
high degree of safety.
Rolling science tables can abut counters, sinks,
etc.
28Its all about education
- Science prep space provides storage and
availability of resources to all grade levels
even when building overcrowding forces the
designated science lab into duty as a full-time
classroom.
A science prep lab great for campus FOSS kit
distribution
29Its all about education
- An art lab designed to be functional for all
grade levels. This space is flexible for use as
additional science space, classroom space, etc.
An art lab with necessary fixtures and great
daylight features
30Its all about education
- Larger classrooms (recommended in the facility
study) allow space for classroom technology and
differentiated instruction groups per the
district instructional model.
View of classroom technology center
31Its all about education
- A unique design picked up from several successful
schools allows every 2 classrooms to share a
flex space
View from classroom looking into flex space
32Its all about education
- This flex space can be closed off or opened to
one or both classrooms simultaneously. It is
achieved without any added square footage to the
original planned programming.
View from flex space looking into 1 classroom
33Its all about education
- This flex space when opened to both classrooms
allows a full grade level to congregate in their
own space for featured instruction, special
programs, safety training, more!
View from flex space looking into 2 classrooms
34Its all about education
- The additional storage, counter and water
available in every flex space brings
opportunities for science, art, and more to every
classroom space, without any distraction inside
the classroom.
Classroom amenities extend educational opportunity
35Its all about education
- Educators on the committee had an exhaustive list
of uses for this space including experiments,
reading groups, tutoring, independent study, team
building, etc.
Uses for the flex space are limited only by
imagination
36Its all about education
- Our committee is investigating aligning the flex
space with the corridor to allow 1) more
flexibility in future renovation, and 2) windows
into the classroom as opposed to into the flex
space.
Conceptual view of flex space see right for our
recommendation
37Its all about education
- This architects rendering shows a classroom with
the flex space adjacent to the corridor and a
large amount of natural light through a wall of
windows.
38Its all about education
39Its all about education
- Details such as classroom furnishings can be a
major factor contributing to classroom
efficiency. Things like highly flexible student
trapezoid desks, rolling teacher desks/tables and
effective storage have been noted.
Details can help teachers accomplish more in less
space
40Its all about education
- Day-lighting is recommended by the committee for
the educational advantages it offers. There are
however trade-offs to be discussed and specific
needs for it to be done in a certain manner to be
cost effective.
Day-lighting monitors
Day-lighting will not pay for itself in MO
costs (its more of a break-even), but does offer
returns in educational value.
41The Day-Lighting Decision
- New methods of Day-lighting offer better energy
controls than the system in place at Bransom.
Concerns of increased roof maintenance can be
minimized by using a slightly more expensive but
more effective construction method. It is
believed that the roughly 650,000 cost to
provide day-lighting would be a break-even
proposition over the life of the building.
- Assuming the break-even projection in MO
costs, the day-lighting feature is recommended
for the educational value it provides to
students. - This is seen as the first place to limit initial
costs (before reducing classroom size or deleting
other building features).
42Campus safety security
- Common safety features in most of todays new
schools include carded access at main entrances
doors to the playground from classroom wings,
communication (preferably phones for full teacher
communication options) in every classroom, and
panic buttons in all classrooms.
43Technology
- The committee took specific note of technology
requests both by the district IT staff and
through observations made in campus tours within
other districts. - ALL classrooms should be fitted with projection
equipment at build. - ALL classrooms should be wired for 4 student
computer workstations (possibly in 2 locations
for classroom flexibility).
44Technology
- Schools should include two computer labs 1 for
rotational instruction and one to facilitate
teachers providing class instruction.
45PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
- CURRENT CAPACITY
- FUTURE CAPACITY
- PLANNING LEVELS OF OVERCROWDING
- REALISTIC FUTURE ENROLLMENT
- AN ONGOING FLEXIBLE BONDING PLAN FOR THE FUTURE
46Current Student Capacities what they are not
- The capacity in this document (3,460) was
determined to not meet criteria for effective
planning
47Current Student Capacities good news
- The 3,460 capacity was derived from the original
base of the facility studys state standards
capacity (2,760). This is not an accurate number
as we have not actually done any renovation to
make existing campuses meet those standards. The
result is we actually have more seats available
than indicated.
Standards capacity assumes building renovation
has eliminated seats to meet state standards for
all classrooms and facilities.
48Current Student Capacities bad news
- In addition to the 2,760, another 700 seats were
added based upon moving several of these programs
that were using 1 full classroom into smaller
spaces (sharing full classrooms and creating
available rooms for classes). However, not all
programs calculated exist on all 7 campuses and
not all of the programs were actually moved,
meaning the true gain is much lower than the
theorized 700.
List of programs compacted to create additional
capacity
49Current Student Capacities verified
- In order to determine true capacity, current
campus maps were evaluated for spaces available
for classrooms along with current special
program space needs and portables available for
utilization. There is minimal ability to add
additional portable space due to limited building
facilities (cafeterias, restrooms, etc).
50Current Student Capacities verified
- Once a school is highlighted, there is no current
additional growth (ie space is fully utilized).
Most schools will be near Inside Capacity this
year. Only 2 schools have additional space after
that time. There is minimal ability to add
additional portable space due to inadequate
common facilities (cafeterias, gyms, etc). - The green circle represents short term planning
capacity, the red circle crisis level capacity
while abusing buildings and negatively impacting
instruction.
51Planning Student Capacities Levels of
overcrowding
- Capacity must be divided into levels depending
upon the planning goal. While the long-term goal
is to provide ALL campuses with adequate
educational space to meet district instructional
programming needs, the current goal is to provide
space to house all students with the least amount
of negative impact to instruction. The following
levels were identified as useful in planning
52Current Student Capacities verified
53Planning Student Capacities Level
1 No overcrowding, allows for district
instructional programming
- LEVEL 1 This is the ultimate goal the number
of students the district can accommodate with all
students housed inside brick-and-mortar
buildings. No special programs (reading
intervention, gifted talented, etc.) or
educational spaces (science labs, etc.) are
displaced by classroom use. Additionally, all
spaces provide sufficient room to meet the
district instructional program as identified in
the facility study (classrooms with space for
student seating, several breakout groups for
differentiated instruction, and technology space
for up to 4 computers). - This level is attainable within the committees 8
year plan.
54Planning Student Capacities Level 2 buildings
at current functional levels, instruction mildly
effected at existing campuses that lack the space
needed for instructional programming
- LEVEL 2 This is the immediate goal the number
of students the district can accommodate with all
classrooms housed inside brick-and-mortar
buildings. Special programs (reading
intervention, gifted talented, etc.) or
educational spaces (science labs, etc.) are not
displaced by classroom use. New construction
spaces provide sufficient room to meet the
district instructional program (classrooms with
space for student seating, several breakout
groups for differentiated instruction, and
technology space for up to 4 computers), however
existing schools do not. - This level is 90 met within the committees 3
year plan.
55Planning Student Capacities -living
against our motto!
- In the facility study document preface,
appreciation is expressed to Dr. Troutman for
providing the motto instruction drives
construction indicating that facilities are
only important in the degree that they hinder or
enhance instruction. Operation at level 2 begins
to cause the abuse of facilities to result in
degraded instructional effectiveness. Level 3
disregards instructional quality altogether for
the sake of packing in the students.
56Planning Student Capacities
Level 3 severely overcrowded, instructional
quality highly compromised
- LEVEL 3 This is where we are (and its getting
worse!) the number of students the district can
accommodate with classrooms housed everywhere
there is a space. All special programs (reading
intervention, gifted talented, etc.) or
educational spaces (science labs, etc.) are
displaced by classroom use and/or moved to
portables. New construction spaces provide
sufficient room to meet the district
instructional program, however buildings are
abused to hold maximum capacity in every
available space. Instructional quality is highly
compromised on a daily basis. This should be
remedied as soon as possible. - This level is where we are and it will get worse
until a suitable number of new schools are
completed.
57Planning Student Capacities Percentage of
occupancy
- While determining capacity is one thing, filling
schools to that capacity is another. The only
way to reach 100 capacity at all schools is to
assign a campus to new students as opposed to
using defined attendance zones. Because only 1
or 2 of our campuses have reached this stage,
several operate well below 100. For planning
purposes, 92 occupancy (201) was identified as
a hopeful goal without the need to utilize mass
transfers within the district. - Occupancy will rise as campuses reach capacity.
58Planning Student Capacities Percentage of
occupancy
- Percentage of occupancy goals have a huge impact
on facility design. The current prototype
facility has been designed to educate 534-580 at
optimum capacity using a target of 92 (201) and
the board stated preference of 4 sections per
grade level. - However, if the long term goal is lower
student/teacher ratios (say 181), an additional
change in planning is required. - The facility design would be reduced to an
operating capacity of about 486-532, or would
require more classrooms (5 sections per grade)
and would result in a design capacity of 549-717
students and involve an additional cost of about
2,000,000 per building.
59Planning Student Capacities Percentage of
occupancy
- At 181, a 5th section per grade level on a
permanent basis increases student population from
a low of 549 (at 181) to a high of 717 (at
221). Additionally, an additional classroom
per grade level would need to be added to the
current building design. This would add roughly
6,080 square feet at an increased cost of roughly
1.3 million per facility. - If this facility then operates at 92 occupancy,
the population would be 650-700 students (up to
920 overcrowded with portables) at 100
capacity the population would be 700-725 (up to
1,000 overcrowded with portables). - These higher levels of maximum occupancy would
require another 650,000 in increased cost for
cafeterias and restrooms, in addition to the
1.3 mil..
60Planning Student Capacities Percentage of
occupancy
- While this is a long range planning issue, it
must be addressed NOW before a high volume
construction phase begins in order to be
meaningful. - Planning long term for a goal of student
populations at an 181 ratio and campus
populations of _at_475 results in final build-out
requirements for 27 elementary schools. - Planning long term for a goal of student
populations at a 201 ratio and campus
populations of _at_534 results in final build-out
requirements for 24 elementary schools.
61Student Capacities Goal Target planning
- With the previous levels in mind, the immediate
goal is to plan to level 2 (at 92 occupancy), so
that all campuses are not suffering reduced
instructional quality due to displaced programs,
new facilities are constructed to meet
instructional program goals, and overcrowding is
immediately alleviated without mass transfers. - While new facilities will initially be the only
ones to meet instructional program goals (level
1), the committee has formed a reasonable plan to
overcome current overcrowding and replace or
renovate all BISD campuses to meet instructional
programming goals.
62Student Capacities Goal New facility capacity
- The prototype facility programmed by the
Elementary Facility Advisory Committee using the
preferences from the Planning Criteria Executive
Summary we were provided has an optimum operating
capacity of 580 students at 100 capacity. This
means the facility would have a common maximum
operating capacity of 534 (92), and would likely
function in the 525-550 range. The facility will
however accommodate up to 671 (_at_617 functional
capacity) without portables and up to 806 (_at_742
functional) with 3 portables on site.
63Enrollment planning How many are coming?
- Once again, the committee determined that this
document is no longer acceptable criteria for
planning. While the current position seems to
indicate the high numbers from the 2004
demography study are close to accurate, the
following pages will demonstrate why that will
change drastically in the immediate future.
64Enrollment planning How many we thought were
coming
- This chart shows the areas that the demographer
identified as high growth areas for the period
through 2009. There are only 2 locations
identified for growth of 164-263 students and 8
locations with growth of 69-163 students. New
development has altered this outlook drastically.
65Enrollment planning Where they are coming from
- This is a current aerial map of BISD. The
previous demographers map of anticipated growth
for 2004-2009 has been laid over this map,
resulting in the green shaded areas. The
brownish shaded areas are those under
construction. The boxes (that you cannot read on
this copy-see next page) indicate currently
platted lots within BISD.
Updated June 2006 with numbers from the City of
Burleson, Ft Worth, and local developers.
66Enrollment planning How many are really coming
- The color coded numbers on this map represent
currently platted lots. The colors indicate what
level of growth the 2004 demographers report
predicted from those lots. At the 2000-2004
rate of .45 students per new home, we would gain
4,767 students. The demographers rpt indicated
only 2,100 growth in 8 years. This committee
estimates it at 3,400.
250
124
300
550
1,617
192
403
231
141
233
195
163
117
473
24
299
17
30
749
2,385
1,809
Lots identified as high growth (164-274 students)
212
1,146
55
1,796
Lots identified as moderate growth (69-163
students)
71
156
28
730
837
Lots identified as low growth (21-68 students)
6,150
Lots identified as NO growth (-9 - 9 students)
Updated June 2006 with numbers from the City of
Burleson, Ft Worth, and local developers.
10,592
TOTAL LOTS PLATTED/IN DEVELOPMENT
67Enrollment planning How many are really coming
- The demographers study also identified that
during 2000-2004 every new home produced .45 new
students (a very low ratio with a common number
being .6-.8 per home). Therefore, the current
inventory of 10,891 known platted lots equates to
4,901-8,713 new students (in addition to those
moving into existing housing). At the low end of
the scale, our growth rate would grow to double
that of the demographers report.
68Enrollment planning How many are really coming
- Based upon the number of lots illustrated that
were not a part of the demographers projections
and currently exist, of the known timeframe for
those lots being developed, and common sense
predictions, the committee believes that one of
the bottom 2 projections (that phase in growth)
will be accurate for planning.
Note color coding that shows above
demographers predictions
69Note color coding that shows above
demographers predictions
70Facility planning Facility availability vs
enrollment
- The following two charts project the
recommendations of the Elementary Facility
Advisory Committee in terms of the number of new
facilities needed to meet growth projections, the
number of facilities required to implement the
recommendations of the repurposing committee
(with modifications to be able to accommodate
growth), and for renovating existing facilities
in order to create equity in the instructional
environment. - The first chart shows what facilities are needed
(new or repurposing/replacement) and timing.
Please note that while the timing for bonds 2/3
will be adjusted over the span of time as real
numbers are determined, the follow-up years
(bonds) were planned with the same detail as the
current recommendation and should not be taken
lightly. - The second chart shows the resultant of seats
available as a result of each of the proposed
facilities. Color coding highlights different
projections.
71Facility planning What we need to be prepared
72Facility planning What we need to be prepared
73Facility planning What we need to be prepared
74Current Recommendations
- The current bond should include 4 elementary
facilities. Three of these would be new
campuses, one would be to facilitate the
repurposing of Frazier Elementary as recommended. - While not recommended, if this bond is reduced to
3 elementary facilities, the repurposing of
Frazier would have to be put off (at a
significant cost to the district) so that maximum
new seats are added. - The Nola Dunn campus should be replaced as soon
as possible (no later than 2008 bond) due to
building condition (see facility study),
educational environment, and extremely poor
student safety. - A new middle school should be considered for this
bond. The illustrations attached show that
including a middle school high school design in
this bond with high school construction on the
following bond creates the most reasonable
funding plan. Without a middle school included,
this bond would result in 9-10 elementary
campuses feeding 2 middle schools.
75Because the recommendation of this committee is
only valid as it works with overall planning, the
below illustrates how the recommendations made
impact this and future bonds that will be
required.
76- Important notesRegardless of bonding, high
school construction could not begin until
2008.Leaving middle school construction to 2008
results in much higher future bonding.If middle
school construction is left to future bonding,
design work should be funded now.The district
goal is 3 elementary schools feeding 1 middle
school we will have 9-10 elementary campuses
after the 2006 bond.
77Important notesNot shown is option to build
complete high school AND middle school in 2006.
This would result in 275 mil bond in 06 (and
reduce an 08 bond to around 100 mil).Building a
portion of the high school (with or without a
middle school) could also be considered.DESIGN
WORK FOR ALL LEVELS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS
BOND.
78Important notesThe below addresses all levels
of facilities required at the apparent least
painful level.DESIGN WORK FOR ALL LEVELS SHOULD
BE INCLUDED IN THIS BOND.
79Important notesThe below addresses all levels
of facilities required but falls 1 elementary
short.DESIGN WORK FOR ALL LEVELS SHOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THIS BOND.
80Need for continued planning
- This committee (and the others) have all noted
the fact that it is extremely critical that BISD
remain in a constant state of facility planning
due to the impending growth rate. This was
learned from discussion, experience of
professionals consulted, and through the
experience of other districts that several
individual committees consulted in planning.
81Need for continued planning
- This committee has shown commitment, has gained
expertise, and is a strong representation of our
community and district. This committee would
submit that it should be continued (with some
additional representation of district staff) in
order to 1) monitor changes in demographics
that will cause these recommendations to require
updating, 2) assist in construction oversight,
and 3) continue to identify best practices for
building features that will help us to meet our
instructional program goals.
82Commitment to excellence
- The members of this committee are to be praised
for their dedication and commitment to the
students and staff of our community. Each has
given significant time to assure that no stone
was left unturned. Additional thanks are due to
Pam Ehrich and Nicole Hammons of the
administration staff for their assistance in
completing our task. Finally, Terry Hoyle and
Craig Drone of SHW Architects worked with us on
this project as if their own kids attend BISD and
should be commended. - Thank you to each of you.
83Related Documents
- Elementary FAC PPT Presentation
- Elementary FAC Recommendation
- Capacity, enrollment projections, facility
bonding recommendations, and resultant seats
available. - Burleson ES SOS and Costs Projections
- Size quantity of spaces to be included in a
prototype elementary facility. - Cost Projections current costs anticipated
inflation - Overlay PPT Slide indicates number of
developing lots that were not included in the
2004 demographers study. - BISD layover with numbers shows active
developments the number of lots included.
FOR MORE INFO...
Documents will be posted to the BISD web-site at
http//www.burlesonisd.net/facility_committee.php