Huron Valley Schools Building Utilization Building Dialogue

1
Huron Valley Schools Building Utilization
Building Dialogue
December 2007
1
2
Building Utilization

• Strategic Plan Initiative 2004 Onward
• Independent Cost Containment Report January
  2006 presented to Board in June September
  2006
• Budget Constraints/Summary
• Demographic Study
• Other Task Force recommendations

2
3
Strategic Plan Phase II 2004-OnwardSelected
Result Statements

• Develop a standard for efficient utilization of
  facilities to manage overcrowding and
  underutilization (5.4)
• Maximize efficiency of district programs and
  services to yield the highest possible
  instructional benefit and cost effectiveness to
  the district (6.1)
• Maximize efficiency of student distribution to
  increase the cost effectiveness to the district
  (6.3)

3
4
Independent Cost Containment Process and
RecommendationsPresented to the Board on June 29
and September 8, 2006

• Strategic Plan 6.1.9 recommended an independent
  financial analysis be completed to identify areas
  for cost containment

4
5
Summary ofIndependent Financial Cost Containment
Report

• Peterson Public Sector Consulting, LLC
• Ric Peterson, Presented to HVS Board of Education
  June 29, 2006
• Donna Welch, Summarized to HVS Board of Education
  September 7, 2006

5
6
23 Area for Short-Term Consideration Classified
into 4 Areas

• Curriculum and Instruction
• Building Utilization
• Personnel
• Business Operations

6
7
Building Utilization

• Staff Deployment Benchmarks (D.)
• International Academy West Physical Plant (K.)
• Elementary Building Utilization (N.)
• Administration Building Utilization (O.)
• Vacant Land (P.)
• Bus Route Review (U.)
• Summer Facility Utilization (W.)

(alpha letters correspond with cost containment
report)
7
8
Budget Constraints

• Cost of doing business continues to increase in
  excess of revenue increases
• District has minimal ability to significantly
  increase revenue
• The State controls 89 of the Districts revenue

8
9
Huron Valley SchoolsDemographic Study
Pupil Head Count
M/C Middle Cities E/S Educational Services,
Inc.
Fiscal Years
9
10
Huron Valley SchoolsDemographic Study

• BIG PICTURE PERSPECTIVE
• State of Michigan loss of 15,000 pupils
• Allied Van Lines report
• HVS School of Choice campaign

10
11
Building UtilizationOther Recommendations

• Choice Program Task Force (FY2000-2001)
• Early Childhood Education Task Force
  (FY2005-2007)
• School Building Grade Configuration District
  Research (FY2007)

11
12
Building UtilizationDistrict Objectives with an
Educational Perspective
12
13
Building Utilization District Objectives

• Utilize buildings to maximize student learning
• Minimize student transitioning
• Provide placement options
• Provide equal opportunities for students
• Offer enrollment choices
• Support the professional learning community model

13
14
Building UtilizationEducational Perspective
Questions

• How does enrollment impact learning?
• What is the impact or two calendars in one
  building?
• i.e. year round and traditional

14
15
Building UtilizationImpact on Learning

• Conducted Research
• Educational Research Services (ERS)
• Association for Supervision and Curriculum
  Development (ASCD)
• Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)

15
16
Utilize Buildings toMaximize Student Learning

• How does enrollment impact learning?
• Too few students limits placement
• Too few students creates more combination
  classrooms
• Too few students impacts effectiveness of
  professional learning community model

16
17
Utilize Buildings toMaximize Student Learning

• How does enrollment impact learning?
• Enrollment impacts special schedules
• Enrollment impacts blocks of uninterrupted
  learning time

17
18
Utilize Buildings toMaximize Student Learning

• How does enrollment impact learning?
• Too many students affect room usage
• Too many students affect school relationships
  (i.e. student/staff, parent/parent, staff/staff)

18
19
Enrollment Impact on LearningElementary
Combination Classes
19
20
Enrollment Impact on LearningElementary
Buildings - Enrollment Inequity(Classes with
less than 20 students)
Contract Class Size Maximums K-28, 1-29, 2-30,
3-31, 4-31 5-31
20
21
Enrollment Impact on LearningElementary School
of Choice
21
22
Enrollment Impact on LearningElementary Open
Enrollment
note 1 Students that live in their YR
attendance are not identified as open enrolled
22
23
Utilize Buildings toMaximize Student Learning

• What is the impact of two calendars in one
  building? (i.e. Year Round and Traditional)
• Limits student placements
• Creates more disproportionate classrooms
• Impacts effectiveness to operate as one community

23
24
Impact of Two CalendarsYear Round Students by
Home School
24
25
Impact of Two CalendarsOne Class in Grade Level
When determining acceptance of O/E SOC spaces
left open as follows 1 class in grade level for
building 4 spaces 2 or more classes in grade
level for building 6 spaces Split classes using
lower grade class size 6 spaces
25
26
Free Reduced Meal Eligibility Data
26
27
Displaced Students2006/07
27
28
Building Utilization

• Site visits of other school districts who
  performed building utilization studies July
  2006
• Board Dialogue September 2006
• Parameters presented to Board November 2006

28
29
Building Utilization

• Application Process / Facilitator January 2007
• Study Committee Selection / Student Demographic
  Study February 2007
• Study Committee meetings February 2007 through
  May 2007
• Study Committee Board updates March, April,
  June 2007

29
30
Building Utilization Study Committee Demographics

• 32 Community Residents
• 27 Parents
• 4 Administrators
• 6 Teachers (includes retired)
• 4 Support Personnel
• 3 Alumni

Note Team members may be listed in more than
one category (i.e., a parent who is also staff
member)
30
31
Building Utilization Study Committee Goal

• Study Committee Goal
• To review data as it relates to the
  educational, facility and financial building
  utilization parameters and provide findings and
  conclusions to the Board. The Board will review
  the findings and conclusions. The committee may
  be asked to participate in developing additional
  information for specific placement of programs
  and/or facility use.

31
32
Building Utilization ParametersIdentified into
three areas

• Educational Provide a premier education
• Facility Maintain facilities conducive for
  student learning
• Financial Maximize resources for student
  learning

32
33
Elementary Building UsageStudent Counts 07-08
Note 1 Number of Literacy room(s) included in
actual unused classrooms - full classroom not
required
33
34
Elementary Buildings Capacity vs. 07/08 Fall
Head Count
Available Classrooms w/ 281 ratio 51
Note Building capacity figures exclude rooms
for music, art, computer lab, specifically
designed special education classrooms.
34
35
Elementary Buildings Capacity vs. 12/13
Demographic Projections
Available Classrooms w/ 281 ratio 45
Note Building capacity figures exclude rooms
for music, art, computer lab, specifically
designed special education classrooms.
35
36
Committee ReviewElementary Facility Data

• Age of Building
• Square Footage of Building
• Current enrollment of School of Choice
• Current enrollment of Open Enrollment
• Proximity to another elementary school
• Actual number of current walking students
• Utility cost to run building
• Investment in building in last 30 years

36
37
Committee Review, continuedElementary Facility
Data

• Dollar amount of improvements needed in the
  future
• Number of current empty classrooms
• Number of regular education classrooms
• Square footage of existing land available for
  expansion
• Ability to
• Hold more than? 300 400 students
• Accommodate PLC learning model

37
38
Building Utilization April 19th Board Update
Review

• Committee Findings Conclusions
• Make all elementary buildings single calendar
  schools
• Establish Early Childhood Center by combining PAL
  / Headstart Programs into one facility
• Dedicate rooms/space for specific programs
• art, music, p.e., computer lab, learning lab,
  video carts

38
39
Building Utilization June 28th Board Update

• Committee Findings Conclusions
• Based on demographic projections, some schools
  enrollment will continue to exceed capacity
  limits while some schools will continue to
  decline in enrollment causing under utilized
  facilities
• Boundary lines for elementary schools should
  change due to over and under capacity of
  buildings
• The district is under capacity by at least one
  elementary building based on demographic
  projections

39
40
Building Utilization

• Board discuss Study Committee findings August
  2007
• Board identified additional data to review
  August and September 2007
• Board approved next steps October 2007

40
41
October 4, 2007Board Meeting

• Board Directed Administration to continue with
  building utilization process (Phase II),
  incorporating the following findings from
  Building Utilization Study Committee

• Combine PAL/Head Start programs into one facility
  (combined Fall 2007)
• Make all elementary buildings single calendar
  schools with one building housing the YR program
• Repurpose one elementary facility
• Revise boundary lines for the remaining 10
  elementary schools to equalize student enrollment
  and address over or under capacity issues

41
42
Building Utilization Phase IICommittee
ReconvenedOctober November 2007

• Committee Reviewed Input from
• Board meeting , October 4th/ Board Parameters
  Phase II
• Board Dialogue, October 15th
• Community Forums, October 16th and 22nd
• Committee Comments, October 10th, 17th, 24th and
  November 7th and 14th
• Emails to buildingutilization_at_huronvalley.k12.mi
  .us

42
43
Building Utilization Phase IICommittee Review

• Reviewed, Compared Discussed
• Possible year-round schools
• Possible repurposed schools
• Possible scenarios for redistricting elementary
  schools
• Maps for all feasible scenarios and developed new
  options for scenarios

43
44
Building Utilization Phase IICommittee
Findings and Conclusions

• Committee weighed all input and options and
  narrowed the number of schools that the Board may
  want to consider for year-round and repurposed
  options
• The committee presented information used to
  narrow their selection to the Board on November
  8, 2007

44
45
45
46
Driving Reasons

• Overcrowding
• Underutilization
• Consistency in class sizes
• Combination classrooms
• Single class/grade
• Single calendar buildings
• Resource Reallocations
• Socioeconomic diversity

47
Committee Preferred Options

• Repurpose Apollo / Baker Year-Round
• Repurpose Apollo / Kurtz Year-Round
• The Board also requested Administration to
  consider option
• Repurpose Apollo / Kurtz Year-Round Traditional

47
48
Building Utilization Percentage Summary
48
49
Proposed Elementary RedistrictingThree Scenarios
with Descriptions of Areas Relocated
49
50
Undetermined IssuesBuilding Utilization

• Repurposed Building
• Use of freed-up resources
• 1) new programs/educational materials or
• 2) used to help offset the budget deficit
• Year-Round Building
• Traffic flow for Year-Round

50
51
Undetermined IssuesBuilding Utilization

• Grandfathering students/siblings
• Open Enrollment continuation
• School of Choice continuation

51
52
Building DialogueQuestion / Comment Norms

• Please
• State your home school
• One person talk at a time
• Limit to one question / comment at a time
• Remain respectful
• Refrain from public demonstration such as
  applause
• Let everyone speak before asking/making
  additional questions/comments

52