Update on the Administrative Recommendation
Download
1 / 30

Update on the Administrative Recommendation AISD Facility Master Plan - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 99 Views
  • Uploaded on

Update on the Administrative Recommendation AISD Facility Master Plan. Presented to the AISD Board of Trustees. September 12, 2011 Work Session. Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011. Purpose. Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Update on the Administrative Recommendation AISD Facility Master Plan' - danil


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Update on the Administrative Recommendation

AISD Facility Master Plan

Presented to the AISD Board of Trustees

September 12, 2011

Work Session

Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


Purpose
Purpose

Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

The primary purpose of tonight’s meeting is to provide an update to the Board of Trustees on the Administrative Recommendation for the Facility Master Plan. The focus for tonight is on the framework, especially the process.

At the September 26 Regular Board Meeting,the administration will present the Administrative Recommendation, which may include specific facility recommendations.


All Plans Align to the Strategic Plan

The Facility Master Plan is a framework in alignment with the district’s 2010-2015 Strategic Plan.

Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

2


Theory of action 2011 2012

If we prioritize our work to target our greatest needs; stabilize our plans around a set of proven practices; and optimize our resources by eliminating what doesn’t work, and redirecting it to what works well, then we can focus on the whole child, streamline our systems management and improve human capital.

Theory of Action 2011-2012

Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


Prioritize stabilize optimize superintendent s 2011 2012 work plan

Whole Child

Prioritize, Stabilize, OptimizeSuperintendent’s 2011-2012 Work Plan

  • Rich Portfolio of Academic Options

  • Dual Language Immersion

  • Response to Intervention

  • Social Emotional Learning

  • Child Study Teams

  • Fine Arts

  • Health and Wellness

  • Attendance

(In addition to the core curriculum

and assessments)

Human

Capital

  • Staffing to Maximize Learning

  • Performance and Accountability

  • New Performance-Based Appraisal System

  • Staff Wellness and Attendance

  • Cloud Computing – Anywhere, Any Time!

  • Performance-Based Empowerment

  • Integrated Curriculum Management System

  • Long-Term Facilities Master Plan

  • Long-Term Fiscal Planning & External Resources

  • Multicultural Outreach

  • Focus on Efficiency and Environmental

  • Stewardship and Sustainability

Systems

Improvement

Presented at 2011 Staff Convocation

Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


Draft board identified 2011 2012 priority initiatives for superintendent s evaluation
Draft Board Identified 2011-2012 Priority Initiatives for Superintendent’s Evaluation

New Delivery Models

Explore/establish new delivery models to provide an enhanced portfolio of academic options with supporting facilities plans and budget scenarios.

  • School &

  • District Climate

  • Improve overall school and district climate for learning.

  • Whole Child/Every Child

  • Health & Wellness

  • Safety

  • Multicultural Outreach/ Engagement

  • Cultural Proficiency & Inclusiveness

Human Capital

Refine human capital strategies to support and improve the new performance management model.

  • Special Populations

  • Develop academic achievement and support strategies for special populations through accelerated and differentiated instruction.

  • Special Education

  • ELL and Secondary ESL Services

  • African American Student Support

  • Advanced Academics

Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

5


Facility master plan
Facility Master Plan

  • The FMP is a three-part framework which includes:

    • An FMP process;

    • Annual information needed to inform the process; and

    • Annual Facilities Recommendations (AFR).

  • The FMP is a comprehensive and long-term process supporting the AISD Strategic Plan.

  • The Annual Facilities Recommendation results from identification of academic program and operational facility needs.

  • Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


    Needs of the district
    Needs of the District

    • A strong framework in which facilities decisions support the Strategic Plan, including academic goals and measurable outcomes.

    • A FMP that is sufficiently flexible to respond to Board decisions and actions from year to year, as well as rapid changes in the economic and demographic environment.

    • A formal process that will make facilities planning more systematic and transparent.

    • A process that will allow for on-going community engagement.

    • A basis for informed decisions regarding TREs and bond elections.

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


    Where we ve been
    Where We’ve Been

    • Over the past 18 months, AISD has been in the process of developing a long-term Facility Master Plan.

  • While the process was launched in November 2009, the Facility Master Plan Task Force completed its work in March 2011.

  • From March 2010 to March 2011, the Facility Master Plan Task Force worked on an FMP that was received by the Board on March 28, 2011.

  • On May 16, 2011 the administration presented its response to the Facility Master Plan Task Force Report.

  • On May 23, 2011, the Board referred the plan to the administration for development of an administrative recommendation, and approved a revised timeline for implementation with key benchmarks.

  • Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


    Board approved timeline with key benchmarks
    Board-Approved Timeline with Key Benchmarks

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


    FMP Task Force vs.

    Administrative Recommendation

    FMPTF Report:

    Perceived to be efficiency focused

    School assessments limited to permanent capacity factors

    Narrower acceptable permanent capacity range: 85-105%

    No specific boundary or transfer changes recommended

    Basic industry standards utilized for Facility Condition Index plus enhancements

    School performance not included as assessment factor

    Administrative Recommendation:

    Academically and operationally focused

    School assessments include permanent and functional capacity factors

    Return to traditional AISD permanent capacity range: 75-115%

    Includes specific actions related to boundaries and transfers

    Utilizes basic industry standard for Facility Condition Index

    School performance included as assessment factor

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


    FMP Framework

    FMP Process

    Annual Information

    Annual Facilities Recommendations

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

    11


    Fmp process
    FMP Process

    • Provides an annual schedule for academic and operational guidance, data verification, community engagement, a site selection process for new schools, developing recommendations, and Board action

    • Utilizes annually updated information regarding district utilization, district assessment, facility condition index results, and individual facility assessments

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


    Facility assessment criteria
    Facility Assessment Criteria

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


    Quantitative criteria
    Quantitative Criteria

    • Percent of permanent capacity:

      • Used in long-range planning, such as where to locate new schools or to construct classroom additions

      • Assesses a school facility’s ability to accommodate its future neighborhood population

    • Percent of functional capacity:

      • Used to make annual decisions such as determining which schools to freeze to transfers

      • The number of students a school can accommodate, taking into account permanent and portable classrooms and classrooms used by district administrative staff

      • Assesses a school facility’s ability to accommodate its current enrollment, including “in” and “out” student movement and additional capacity provided by portables

    • Permanent and functional capacity are considered together to reflect both long-range projections & current, real-time campus conditions

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

    14


    Quantitative criteria continued
    Quantitative Criteria (Continued)

    • Academic Performance

      • Identifies a method for quantifying academic performance, which is based on the rating earned by a campus in the Texas Education Agency Accountability System

    • Facility Condition

      • Assesses the state of repair of a facility’s existing building systems by comparing the current cost to address building systems needs to the total cost to replace the building

    • Financial Allocation Study for Texas (FAST) – Examines the relationship of expenditures in a district and in individual campuses relative to its and their student achievement results

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

    15


    Quantitative criteria continued1
    Quantitative Criteria (Continued)

    • Cost per student

      • Identifies efficiencies in operating costs for both maintenance and operations and grant/external funding sources

    • Student movement

      • In support of the neighborhood schools concept, student movement in and out of the attendance zone was assessed

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

    16


    Permanent capacity
    Permanent Capacity

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

    • Count permanent classrooms

    • Subtract special areas (art, music, multi-purpose rooms) at elementary schools

      • 3-7 classrooms based on staffing ratios

    • Multiply by class size factor

      • 22 at elementary

      • 28 at middle and high schools

    • Apply efficiency factor

      • 95% (or 85% for Title 1 schools) at elementary

      • 75% (or 70% for Title 1 schools) at middle and high schools

    17


    Functional capacity
    Functional Capacity

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

    • Count permanent and portable classrooms

    • Subtract special areas (art, music, multi-purpose rooms) at elementary schools

      • 3-7 classrooms based on staffing ratios

    • Subtract classrooms used by District administration staff and special education, then

    • Multiply by class size factor

      • 22 at elementary,

      • 28 at middle and high schools

    • Apply efficiency factor

      • 95% (or 85% for Title 1 schools) at elementary

      • 75% (or 70% for Title 1 schools) at middle and high schools

    18


    Student population projection methodology
    Student Population Projection Methodology

    • Step 1: Move students forward from one grade to the next (cohort survival method)

    • Step 2: Add projected number of students from new housing based on data from MetroStudy to identify trends for individual subdivisions and multi-family developments

    • Step 3: Estimate kindergarten student population using Travis County live births

    • Step 4: Aggregate planning area projections. The sum always exceeds the mid-range projection total, which serves as a control parameter

    • Step 5: Adjust projection downward based upon out-migration trends

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

    19


    What is a facility condition index fci
    What is a Facility Condition Index (FCI)?

    • An indexing ratio used in the school facility management industry to benchmark the relative physical condition of a group of schools

    • Defined as the ratio of the Cost of Repairs divided by the Current Replacement Value (CRV) of a facility

      • FCI= Cost of Repairs / CRV

    • Strict definition compares the cost of repairing the existing deficient site and building systems of a facility to the cost of replacing the facility exactly as currently constructed

    • Facility condition assessment deficiencies are verified at the facility level. The FCI calculation will reflect occupant feedback

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


    Differences in facility condition index
    Differences in Facility Condition Index

    BASIC INDUSTRY STANDARDS(NACUBO*)

    Actual condition of existing permanent building and site systems, including:

    Roofs

    HVAC systems

    Site drainage systems

    Plumbing systems

    Electrical and lighting systems

    Paving and sidewalks

    Wall and floor coverings

    *National Association of College and University Business

    FMPTF COMPONENTS

    • Basic Industry Standards:

      +

      • Expansion of various building and site systems

      • Addition/replacement of moveable equipment

      • Technological needs

      • ADA renovation needs

      • Portable renovations

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

    21


    How is a fci used
    How is a FCI Used?

    • Provides a metric to be used to enable relative comparisons to be made among the physical condition of facilities

    • The lower the FCI, the better the physical condition of the building and its site improvements

    • The FCI offers a qualitative sense of the “Good”, “Moderate”, “Fair” or “Poor” condition of a facility

    • FCI (as % of CRV)

      • Good: 0%-15%

      • Moderate: 15%-30%

      • Fair: 30%-50%

      • Poor: 50% or more

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


    Qualitative criteria
    Qualitative Criteria

    • Historic Preservation

    • Special programs/ Portfolio of Options

    • Equity and Parity

    • Community Needs

    • Proximity to “Like” Schools

    • Swing Space Capability

    • Overflow Capacity

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


    FMP Framework

    FMP Process

    Annual Information

    Annual Facilities Recommendations

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

    24


    Annual information
    Annual Information

    • Annual Information to inform the process about our district and our schools:

      • District utilization

      • District assessment

      • Facility Condition Index (FCI)

      • Individual facility assessments

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


    FMP Framework

    FMP Process

    Annual Information

    Annual Facilities Recommendations

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

    26


    FMP Annual Facilities Recommendations Diagram

    • ACADEMICALLY DRIVEN:

    • AISD Strategic Plan; Annual Priority Initiatives

    • OPERATIONS DRIVEN:

    • Facility Assessment Results

    Annual

    Facilities

    Recommendations

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

    27


    Schedule for fmp annual facilities recommendations
    Schedule for FMP Annual Facilities Recommendations

    January-August

    February-May

    October-December

    September

    August

    May-July

    • Board updated on population trends and impacts on school capacities

    • AFR implemented/ completed;

    • CBAC members recruited and appointed for proposed 2013 Bond Program

    • Administration receives community feedback

    • Facility condition assessment updated

    • FCI updated and verified (at a campus/facility level)

    • Initiate Boundary Advisory Committee

    • Assessment criteria will be applied to identify current status of all facilities

    • Superintendent’s Priority Initiatives will be defined and applicable initiatives will be applied to AFR planning

    • Boundary Advisory Committee will be convened, as appropriate

    • Family and community engage-ment: local workgroups to identify regional solutions within a district-wide context

    • Academic portfolio of options and associated costs defined

    • Priorities 1 & 2 building system upgrades and costs defined

    • Placement of academic options determined

    • Implementation issues and costs defined

    • Public comments Board of Trustees meeting

    • Public communica-tionof the AFR

    • Board will consider/revise AFR

    • Board will approve FMP AFR for following academic school year

    • Public comment period at regular Board of Trustees meeting (November)

    • Public communication of the AFR; public feedback through the budget planning process

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011

    28


    Next steps
    Next Steps

    • At the September 26 Regular Board Meeting, the Administration will present its Administrative Recommendation and propose Board actions needed to implement the Annual Facilities Recommendation for 2012-2013.

    • October through mid-November will be devoted to community outreach and engagement.

    • At the November 28 Regular Board Meeting, the Board is scheduled to take action on the Facility Master Plan.

    • At the December 12 Regular Board Meeting, the Board will take action on the Annual Facilities Recommendation for 2012-2013

    Draft in preparation for September 26, 2011


    ad