Transcript Slide 1

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
Long-Range Facility Plan: Puzzle Pieces
STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
CAPITAL PROJECT
BUDGETING
FACILITY
CONDITION
DATA
EDUCATIONAL
SUITABILITY
SCHOOL BUILDING
CAPACITY
DATA
TECHNOLOGY
READINESS
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
DATA
3
The Stakeholder Involvement Process
Interviews











Board of Education
Administrators
FUDTA, CSEA, SEIU, FSMA
Instructional services
Business services
Pupil services
Special services
Purchasing
Risk management
Technology
Adult/career education
Focus Groups







Students
Parents
Teachers
Principals
Custodians
Maintenance
Managers
4
The Stakeholder Involvement Process
Community Input

Public meetings


February 4 and 6, 2012
Online surveys

February 7 through 17, 2012
5
By the Numbers
Participation Rates

December – February
 Interviews & Focus
Groups: 54.5 hours
 Two public forums: 133
participants

Online survey: 744
participants
6
Major Themes
Theme 1: Support for Fremont Unified School District
Graphical data from public meetings & surveys
The chart shows the response to question: “How would you
rate the quality of education students receive in Fremont
Unified School District?”
2%
1%
23%
20%
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.
54%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
No Opinion/I don’t know
77% as either Excellent or Good
7
Major Themes
Theme 1: Support for Fremont Unified School District
One caveat….
Class sizes, condition of the schools, and inequalities in
programs are creating a concern that these high
standards are being jeopardized.
8
Major Themes
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? ”
1%


 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)
6%
24%
25%
44%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
No Opinion/I don’t know
31% rated as Excellent or Good and
68% as Fair or Poor
There is a lack of funding that affects every
area of the district
The age of buildings creates many needs
such as:

Safety of buildings
 Outside lighting
 Open campuses
9
Major Themes
Theme 3: EQUITY! EQUITY! EQUITY!
Graphical data from public meetings & surveys
The above charts shows the responses to “Program
offerings are equitable among Fremont schools.”
16%
20%
12%
30%
22%
Strongly Agree
Neutral
Strongly Disagree
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.
Agree
Disagree
32% rated as Strongly Agreed/Agreed and
47% as Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed
10
Major Themes
Theme 3: EQUITY! EQUITY! EQUITY! (continued)
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
11
Major Themes
Theme 4: Technology is lacking
Graphical data from public meetings & surveys
The chart shows the response to question: “How would you
rate the technology provided for students and staff?”
3%
Technology must be a focus within all
schools when addressing issues of
equity.
6%

31%
26%

34%

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
No Opinion/I don’t know
65% rated as Fair or Poor

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
12
Major Themes
Theme 5: The “right” long-range facility plan (LRFP) should:






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
13
Facilities
Assessment Scores
Building Condition Scores
This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the building conditions.
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.
80-89
Good: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good
condition and only require routine maintenance.
65-79
Fair: The building and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and
require minor to moderate repair.
50-64
Poor: The building and/or a significant number of its systems are in
poor condition and require major repair or renovation.
Unsatisfactory: The building and/or a majority of its systems should
Below 50 be considered for replacement.
15
Building Condition Score Range
This slide shows the resulting range of building condition scores for Fremont schools.
Site Type
Building Condition
Score Range
Low
High
Elementary Schools
72.85
87.74
Middle Schools
75.48
79.40
High Schools
65.79
79.35
Other Facilities
55.00
85.08
90+
Excellent
80-89
Good
65-79
Fair
50-64
Poor
Below 50
Unsatisfactory
16
Suitability Scores
This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the educational suitability.
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.
80-89
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.
65-79
Fair: The facility has some problems meeting the needs of the
educational program and may require some remodeling.
50-64
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
Suitability Score Range
This slide shows the resulting range of educational suitability scores for Fremont schools.
Site Type
Suitability
Score Range
Low
High
Elementary Schools
55.07
74.88
Middle Schools
60.33
77.36
High Schools
58.03
97.53
Other Facilities
41.98
69.73
90+
Excellent
80-89
Good
65-79
Fair
50-64
Poor
Below 50
Unsatisfactory
18
Site Scores
This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the site and grounds conditions.
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.
80-89
Good: The site and/or a majority of its systems are in good
condition and only require routine maintenance.
65-79
Fair: The site and/or some of its systems are in fair condition
and require minor to moderate repair.
50-64
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
Site Scores Range
This slide shows the resulting range of site condition scores for Fremont schools.
Site Type
Site Assessment Score
Range
Low
High
Elementary Schools
53.64
89.10
Middle Schools
51.45
High Schools
Other Facilities
90+
Excellent
80-89
Good
81.25
65-79
Fair
56.61
80.20
50-64
Poor
69.87
90.00
Below 50
Unsatisfactory
20
Technology Scores
This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate technology readiness.
90+
Excellent: The facility has excellent infrastructure to support
information technology.
80-89
Good: The facility has the infrastructure to support information
technology.
65-79
Fair: The facility lacking in some infrastructure to support
information technology.
50-64
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
Technology Scores Range
This slide shows the resulting range of technology readiness scores for Fremont schools.
Site Type
Technology Readiness Score
Range
Low
High
Elementary Schools
35.70
79.10
Middle Schools
45.80
76.70
High Schools
53.40
100.00
Other Facilities
38.25
59.10
90+
Excellent
80-89
Good
65-79
Fair
50-64
Poor
Below 50
Unsatisfactory
22
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
76.63
75.50
72.85
77.86
76.11
77.45
80.35
77.30
78.16
78.07
87.74
78.71
76.41
77.33
78.82
78.17
73.91
77.28
79.16
77.70
84.27
73.69
80.93
78.30
75.63
78.50
77.34
80.02
73.02
67.90
62.27
62.09
71.20
58.95
73.77
70.35
74.88
61.80
61.47
57.16
64.46
63.34
74.10
62.92
61.36
55.07
65.02
56.46
56.72
59.33
63.59
63.87
62.48
55.46
71.90
69.71
60.65
72.90
72.51
68.20
67.16
67.85
74.49
75.04
68.47
64.73
78.72
76.85
89.10
80.79
80.41
82.06
67.85
80.90
77.61
76.56
78.38
81.51
53.64
74.86
74.78
79.26
67.57
81.09
39.95
73.20
44.85
51.60
35.85
44.95
47.55
58.30
64.90
62.50
75.00
61.60
35.70
58.30
79.10
48.25
57.40
51.60
69.90
45.80
46.70
45.85
41.70
64.90
49.90
49.90
51.60
53.20
66.61
72.50
64.04
66.91
65.69
64.44
71.23
71.19
73.55
68.74
76.41
68.64
65.95
69.67
77.62
68.00
66.24
65.85
72.91
64.83
67.90
64.60
65.15
70.95
66.46
65.94
69.59
71.67
78.01
64.31
74.07
53.93
68.69
23
Combined Score (continued)
Site Name
Centerville JrHS
Hopkins JrHS
Horner JrHS
Thornton JrHS
Walters JrHS
Junior High School Average
American HS
Irvington HS
Kennedy HS
Mission San Jose HS
Washington HS
Mission Valley Regional
Occupational Program
Robertson HS
Building Condition
Score
76.38
79.40
77.95
78.54
75.48
77.55
74.37
75.41
79.35
77.84
77.69
Suitability
Score
Junior High Schools
71.73
67.35
60.33
77.36
75.92
70.54
High Schools
63.92
65.17
58.03
59.37
71.79
Tech.
Readiness
Score
Combined Score
40/30/10/20
70.93
75.85
51.45
66.61
81.25
76.70
51.60
45.80
54.20
61.70
74.50
69.87
63.58
72.12
73.43
69.22
58.00
70.70
80.20
75.59
66.80
72.29
56.61
53.40
89.20
81.70
59.30
78.40
67.63
75.12
72.17
68.04
73.95
Site Condition
Score
75.50
97.53
65.18
100.00
85.98
65.79
69.35
74.79
56.70
65.94
70.21
74.10
72.69
72.76
90.00
70.18
69.98
77.35
69.87
75.02
38.25
51.89
51.70
59.10
N/A
N/A
50.23
N/A
N/A
71.50
63.27
N/A
N/A
67.39
73.08
57.27
69.53
High School Average
75.14
Corporation Yard
Ed Center
Fremont Adult School
Glankler Preschool
Marshall
Tak Fudenna Stadium
Other Facilities Average
76.33
55.00
83.07
79.64
85.08
75.44
75.76
District Average
77.23
69.31
Other Facilities
N/A
N/A
69.73
41.98
51.59
N/A
54.43
65.16
24
Estimated Budget
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.
School Type
100%
Elementary
$213,789,000
Junior High
$73,712,000
High School
$225,923,000
Other Facilities
$54,508,000
Total
$567,932,000
25
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 2012
26