pkmvsba presentation v9 · 2011. 11. 21. · implementation meets fles program goals of...
Post on 12-Oct-2020
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Decision‐Making
Abby Raphael, Chair, Arlington School Board
Patrick K. Murphy, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools
Arlington Public Schools
• 21,845 students • Schools
– 22 elementary
– 5 middle– 4 high– Several alternative programs
• School Board– 5 members elected at‐large
Our students
9.6% Asian11.0% African American27.8% Hispanic46.5% White
Advantages of Matrix• Defines Values• Provides a framework• Fosters collaboration and consensus• Provides clarity and understanding• Establishes rationale• Ensures transparency• Helps staff understand Board’s direction
Development of matrix
• Discussions between Board and staff• Work session to develop criteria
Matrix in Action
• Sustainable energy alternatives
• Foreign Language in Elementary School
• Capacity planning
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR NEW WAKEFIELD HIGH SCHOOL
• Five Values • Evaluation Criteria
CARBON FOOTPRINT
Does this approach effectively produce environmental benefits?
VISIBILITY
Does this approach effectively demonstrate environmental stewardship?
EDUCATIONAL VALUE
Does this approach benefit or contribute to student learning?
FIRST COST
Does this approach represent sufficient value from a first‐cost perspective?
Life‐cycle cost
Does this approach represent sufficient value from a life‐cycle cost?
Geothermal
Geothermal
Geothermal
Geothermal
Geothermal
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT
FIRST COST
LIFE-CYCLE COST
• Infinite energy source• Reduces carbon footprint• Reduces reliance on outside sources
• Demonstrates use of a renewable source
• Competitive with base system• Positions APS for global change
• Relatively high cost
• Can contribute to science curriculum• Students can track fluid temps, seasonal differences, and long-term ground temps
Solar HW
Solar HW
Solar HW
Solar HW
Solar HW
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT
FIRST COST
LIFE-CYCLE COST
• Converts energy from sun• Reduces carbon footprint• Reduces reliance on outside sources
• Demonstrates use of a renewable source• Highly visible
• Favorable life cycle cost•Positions APS for global change
• Low first cost
• Can contribute to science curriculum• Students can track sun angles, solar days and performance of system
Green Roof
Green Roof
Green Roof
Green Roof
Green Roof
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT
FIRST COST
LIFE-CYCLE COST
• No significant advantage over base system
• Highly visible alternative
• No measurable life-cycle benefit
• Significant first cost with undetermined pay-back or cost benefit
• Can contribute to science curriculum
PV 2.5%
PV 2.5%
PV 2.5%
PV 2.5%
PV 2.5%
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT
FIRST COST
LIFE-CYCLE COST
•Converts energy from sun• Reduces carbon footprint• Reduces reliance on outside sources
• Demonstrates use of a renewable source• Highly visible
• Higher than base system• Positions APS for global change
• Reasonable first cost
• Can contribute to science curriculum• Students can track sun angles, solar days and performance of system
PV 7.5%
PV 7.5%
PV 7.5%
PV 7.5%
PV 7.5%
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT
FIRST COST
LIFE-CYCLE COST
• Converts energy from sun• Reduces carbon footprint• Reduces reliance on outside sources
• Demonstrates use of a renewable source• Highly visible
• Higher life-cycle cost
• Relatively high cost
• Can contribute to science curriculum• Students can track sun angles, solar days and performance of system
Energy and Environmental Design AlternativesDecision Tree
Green Roof
Green Roof
Green Roof
Green Roof
PV 2.5%
PV 2.5%
PV 2.5%
PV 2.5%
PV 7.5%
PV 7.5%
PV 7.5%
PV 7.5%
APS designs new facilities to include many features that are environmentally friendly and conserve energy. How do individual and collective values drive the decision for additional features?
Does this approach benefit or contribute to student learning? (Educational value)
Does this approach effectively produce environmental benefits? (Carbon footprint)
Does this approach effectively demonstrate environmental stewardship? (Visibility)
Does this approach represent sufficient value to you from a first-cost perspective? (First cost)
Solar HW
Solar HW
Solar HW
Solar HW
Geothermal
Geothermal
Geothermal
Geothermal
Green Roof PV 2.5% PV 7.5%Does this approach represent sufficient value to you from a life-cycle cost? (Life-cycle cost)Geothermal Solar HW
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Geothermal • Solar Hot Water • Photovoltaic 2.5%
FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (FLES)
• Previously introduced into 6 of 22 schools• Aspired to expand to other schools• Desired to end “early release Wednesdays”• Budgetary constraints• Process needed to determine importance of
expansion in light of budget limitations
FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (FLES)
SCHOOL BOARD GOAL
All Arlington Public School students should be proficient in at least two languages upon graduation and should have access to world language proficiency programs regardless of school of attendance.
• Four Values • Evaluation Criteria
ALIGNMENT
Aligns with APS Strategic Plan and School Board Vision, Mission, and Priorities (Student Success / Achievement and Elimination of Gaps)
22
EFFICACY of IMPLEMENTATION
Meets FLES program goals of novice-mid to novice-high levels for student language proficiency as detailed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
23
ACCOUNTABLIITY
Meets APS policy requirements for teacher planning time and budget planning factors (staffing)
24
POTENTIAL LONG‐TERM BENEFITS FOR STUDENTS
Affords students strong access to future participation and success in world languages at the secondary level and college and career readiness
25
26
SUMMARY
Value StandardsCriteria
Exceeds Meets Does Not Meet
Alignment
Aligns with APS Strategic Plan and School Board Vision, Mission, and Priorities (student success and achievement and elimination of gaps)
Efficacy of Implementation
Meets FLES program goals of novice‐mid to novice‐high levels for student language proficiency as detailed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
Accountability Meets APS policy requirements for teacher planning time and planning factors (staffing)
Potential Long‐Term Benefits for Students
Affords students with strong access to future participation and success in world languages at the secondary level and for college and career readiness
Value StandardsCriteria
Exceeds Meets Does Not Meet
Alignment
Aligns with APS Strategic Plan and School Board Vision, Mission, and Priorities (student success and achievement and elimination of gaps)
Efficacy of Implementation
Meets FLES program goals of novice‐mid to novice‐high levels for student language proficiency as detailed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
Accountability Meets APS policy requirements for teacher planning time and planning factors (staffing)
Potential Long‐Term Benefits for Students
Affords students with strong access to future participation and success in world languages at the secondary level and for college and career readiness
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION: Expand FLES program to 4 elementary schools in first year, and continue to expand in future years
CAPACITY PLANNING
Capital Improvement Planning (CIP) using optimization model to address increasing capacity needs
The Challenge
• Increasing enrollment• Space for modular classrooms nearing maximum• Need for 3400 additional seats by 2016
OPTIMIZATION MODEL
• Provides a process and software tools for:– Evaluating capital solutions– Based on Board‐created criteria
– Develops a long‐range plan based on $$$ available
• Creates a transparent and structured process for complex decision‐making
30
WHAT IS AN OPTIMIZATION MODEL?
• Group decision‐making process using a software solution and a proven and robust methodology
• Method for quickly collecting and synthesizing qualitative and quantitative information from multiple sources and stakeholders for prioritization and/or resource allocation decisions
• Approach for quantifying and making explicit subjectivity that is part of all decision‐making in order to use experience and judgment more effectively
A decision-support solution provides . . .
33
BENEFITS OF OPTIMIZATION MODEL
• Enables clear articulation of strategy and alignment of solutions to objectives and values
• Provides decision‐makers with scenarios around different funding strategies
• Rapidly adapts to changes in priorities and funding circumstances should they arise
CAPACITY PLANNING PROCESS
Initial steps
• Criteria Development Identify criteria/values for evaluating capacity planning solutions
• Develop Solutions Catalogue Collect potential capacity‐ planning options and develop a catalogue of potential solutions
In July the APS board completed the Pairwise Process to prioritize the criteria
Actual outcome of the July 2011 Pairwise Comparison process prioritized list of criteria
37
CAPACITY PLANNING PROCESS (cont’d)
• Data Collection and Analysis Conduct investigations, analysis and feasibility studies of theprioritized solutions
• Rank Capacity Planning Solutions Leverage a collaborative process to rank solutions for inclusion in the Capital Improvement Plan
Review capacity generation and funding scenarios
• Superintendent presents CIP to the Board
School Board members rate each of the identified solutions across all of the criteria
34
This results in a priority of solutions with dynamic sensitivity that enables analysis before proceeding to the final step
Using cost variables and priority value scores the optimizer recommends funding strategies to address capacity and cost considerations
QUESTIONS
Decision‐Making
Abby Raphael, Chair, Arlington School Board
Patrick K. Murphy, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools
top related