Anne Arundel County Public SchoolsStrategic Facilities Utilization Master Plan
MGT of America, Inc.September 2, 2015
BACKGROUND
o 2006 Strategic Facilities Utilization Master Plano Identified facility needs
o Established recommended priorities
o Provided objective decision making tool
o Backgroundo 2006 Master Plan
Prioritieso 2015 Goalso Planning Processo Educational Prioritieso Community Collaborationo School Size o Demographicso Enrollment Projectionso Facility Assessmentso Capacity and Utilizationo Prioritizationo Master Plan
Recommendationso Supporting
Recommendations
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
2006 MASTER PLAN BY PRIORITY
TYPE PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 TOTAL
Elementary $198,189,000 $103,179,000 $152,189,000 $453,557,000
Middle $334,328,000 $96,664,000 $430,992,000
High $278,868,000 $124,767,000 $128,490,000 $532,125,000
County Wide $6,154,000 $22,261,000 $46,314,000 $74,729,000
Total $483,211,000 $584,535,000 $423,657,000 $1,491,403,000
o To update the 2006 Strategic Facilities Utilization Master Plan
o To provide 10-year recommendations for facilities capital improvements and building utilization
o To examine best practices regarding school size
o To provide an inclusive, transparent process for planning
o To provide data-driven recommendations
2015 GOALS
PLANNING PROCESS
o Task 1.0 – Project Initiation
o Task 2.0 – Develop Facilities and Site Inventory
o Task 3.0 – Educational Review and Programmatic Priorities
o Task 4.0 – Conduct Facilities Assessments
o Task 5.0 – Analysis of School and Community Demographics
o Task 6.0 – Analysis of Capacity and Utilization
o Task 7.0 – Public Involvement and Community Collaboration
o Task 8.0 – Develop Standards for Ranking Building Needs
o Task 9.0 – Budget Estimates
o Task 10.0 – Develop Master Plan Scenarios and Budgets
o Task 11.0 – Preparation and Presentation of Final Facilities Master Plan
EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY GUIDE
EDUCATIONAL PRIORITIES
o Educational mission, goals, and programs
o Interviews with key staff
o Program delivery and facility implication
o Educational Suitability and Technology Readiness Guide
COMMUNITY COLLABORATION
o Input Sessions – Annapolis HS, March 24 and Old Mill HS, March 26, 2015.
o 87 participants
o Survey #1 – posted to district website in English and Spanish and available from March 23 – May 20, 2015.
o 512 participants
o Feedback Sessions - Broadneck HS, May 27 and North County HS, May 28, 2015.
o 20 participants
o Survey #2 – posted to district website in English and Spanish and available from May 28 – July 3, 2015.
o 794 participants
COMMUNITY COLLABORATION -
FINDINGS
o Repair identified building deficiencies – including roofs and HVAC.
o General classroom issues – including correcting the open concept schools.
o Size of schools – focusing initially on the size of high schools, but including all grade levels as new schools and additions are planned.
o New schools in growing area(s) of the county – focusing on the north, west, and central county areas for ES and HS.
SCHOOL SIZE RESEARCH
o The Impact of School Size on Student Achievement: Evidence from Four StatesEDRE Working Paper No. 2013-03. Last Updated May 2013
o School/District Structure/Operations: School SizeEducation Commission of the States, 2015
o School Size Effects RevisitedSpringer Education Briefs, 2014
o School Size and its Relationship to Achievement and BehaviorPublic Schools of North Carolina, 2014
o Evaluation of the Gates Foundation’s High SchoolAmerican Institutes for Research, SRI International, National Evaluation of High School Transformation, 2006
o Maryland Equity ProjectPrepared for the Maryland State Department of Education, 2015
SCHOOL SIZE RESEARCH FINDINGS
o No consistent definition for “small” and “large” schools.
o Results vary widely; optimal sizes for high schools vary from 300 to 1,600.
o Smaller schools tend to show an advantage:
o academic achievement
o student behavior
o Many studies point to:
o leadership structure
o program offerings
o extracurricular offerings
o School size is only one factor.
o Advantage of smaller schools may not be great enough to advocate for widespread school construction.
SCHOOL SIZE RECOMMENDATIONS
o Policy to guide further master planning.
o Preferred school sizes are:High School 1,600Middle School 1,200Elementary 600
o Policy should be a factor in determining master plan priorities.
o Policy should be implemented on an ongoing basis.
o High school size reduction should be one of the priorities as the master plan is implemented.
o Monitor the progress of the proposed State small schools grant.
DEMOGRAPHICS - FINDINGS
o Live births are projected to decrease.
o Kindergarten capture rate is historically less than 100 percent, indicating some level of exodus of students out of the district.
o Census data from 2000 to 2010 shows a decrease in elementary age children.
o General consensus among stakeholders that the rates of building and migration into the county will increase as the economy improves.
o Enrollments are projected to fluctuate slightly in the next few years, but show a modest increase by the end of the ten year planning period.
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
Current District 2014-15 enrollment = 79,518 | Projected District 2023-24 enrollment = 86,568
05-06 07-08 09-10 11-12 13 - 14 15 - 16 17 - 18 19 - 20 21 - 22 23 - 24 24-250
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Enrollment by Gradeband and District
K-5 6-8 9-12 District
FACILITY ASSESSMENTS4 ASSESSMENTS FOR EACH SCHOOL
o Building Condition
o Educational Suitability
o Site Condition
o Technology Readiness
o Combined score – Assessments weighted 55%/35%/5%/5% respectively
SCORES DESCRIPTION
> 90 Excellent/Like New80 - 89.99 Good70 - 79.99 Fair60 - 69.99 Poor
< 59.99 Unsatisfactory
FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGEBUILDING CONDITION
SITE TYPEBUILDING CONDITION
SCORE RANGE AVERAGE CONDITION SCORE
LOW HIGH
Elementary Schools 58.97 100.00 85.33
Middle Schools 64.02 96.58 79.98
High Schools 60.07 100.00 82.69
County-Wide Schools 63.95 92.52 80.09
Other Facilities 75.38 79.85 77.61
FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGEEDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY
SITE TYPESUITABILITY
SCORE RANGE AVERAGE SUITABILITY SCORE
LOW HIGH
Elementary Schools 53.45 100.00 82.96
Middle Schools 65.37 91.32 78.67
High Schools 65.19 100.00 77.24
County-Wide Schools 59.27 86.51 73.63
Other Facilities 75.26 80.54 77.90
FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGESITE CONDITION
SITE TYPESITE CONDITION ASSESSMENT
SCORE RANGE AVERAGE SITE SCORE
LOW HIGH
Elementary Schools 63.04 100.00 89.57
Middle Schools 61.03 92.70 81.06
High Schools 69.71 100.00 83.52
County-Wide Schools 52.77 99.67 79.30
Other Facilities 80.39 86.27 83.33
FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGETECHNOLOGY READINESS
SITE TYPE
TECHNOLOGY READINESS SCORE RANGE AVERAGE
TECHNOLOGY SCORE
LOW HIGH
Elementary Schools 47.60 100.00 75.00
Middle Schools 57.60 96.70 71.25
High Schools 60.90 100.00 73.18
County-Wide Schools 47.60 85.90 66.27
Other Facilities 50.10 67.60 58.85
FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGECOMBINED SCORES
SITE TYPECOMBINED SCORES RANGE AVERAGE
COMBINED SCOREMIN MAX
Elementary Schools 62.59 100.00 84.20
Middle Schools 65.51 94.10 79.14
High Schools 63.10 100.00 80.35
County-Wide Schools 70.15 90.32 78.47
Other Facilities 75.20 78.93 77.06
FACILITY ASSESSMENTSNUMBER OF SCHOOLS BY COMBINED SCORE
RATING DESCRIPTION
RATING SCORE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
HIGH SCHOOLS
COUNTY-WIDE
SCHOOLS
OTHER FACILITIES TOTAL
Excellent/ Like New >90 20 1 2 1 24
Good 80 – 89.99 36 6 3 1 1 47
Fair 70 – 79.99 17 9 6 4 2 38
Poor 60 – 69.99 6 3 1 0 0 10
Unsatisfactory <59.99 0 0 0 0 0 0
CAPACITY AND UTILIZATIONCURRENT & PROJECTED RATES FOR SAMPLE
SCHOOLSUTILIZATION DESCRIPTION
> 110 Inadequate101 - 110 Approaching Inadequate85 - 100.9 Adequate75 - 84.99 Approaching Inefficient
< 74.99 Inefficient
SCHOOLS 2014SRC
2014-15 FTE
2024SRC
2024-25 PROJECTED
FTE
2014-15 CURRENT
UTILIZATION
2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION
Elementary SchoolsAnnapolis ES 314 259 314 291 82% 93%Arnold ES 456 408 565 399 89% 71%Belle Grove ES 304 261 304 265 86% 87%
Middle SchoolsAnnapolis MS 1,495 706 1,495 902 47% 60%Arundel MS 1,071 941 1,071 1,102 88% 103%Bates MS 1,030 850 1,030 1,126 83% 109%
High SchoolsAnnapolis HS 1,888 1,813 1,888 2,399 96% 127%Arundel HS 2,039 2,021 2,039 2,469 99% 121%Broadneck HS 2,209 2,104 2,209 2,061 95% 93%
CAPACITY AND UTILIZATIONCURRENT & PROJECTED BY GRADE BAND
UTILIZATION DESCRIPTION> 110 Inadequate
101 - 110 Approaching Inadequate85 - 100.9 Adequate75 - 84.99 Approaching Inefficient
< 74.99 Inefficient
GRADE BANDS2014-15
CURRENT UTILIZATION
2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION
Elementary Schools 91% 91%
Middle Schools 73% 81%
High Schools 88% 106%
PRIORITIZATION
o Combined score of less than 75, and/or
o Projected utilization of over 110%, or
o New schools to provide solutions to overcrowding and to accommodate projected development.
MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED PROJECTS PHASE 1 – 10 YEAR PLAN
GROUNDS
SITE NAMECOMBINED
SCORE 55/35/5/5
2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION
ADDITION BUDGET
RENOVATE BUDGET
REPLACE BUDGET
Edgewater ES 62.59 110% $37,184,000Tyler Heights ES 63.31 146% $37,184,000Richard Henry Lee ES 64.06 110% $37,184,000Quarterfield ES 64.25 88% $37,184,000Hillsmere ES 64.99 107% $37,184,000Crofton Area HS (New) $113,323,000Old Mill West HS (New) $113,323,000Rippling Woods ES (Replacement) 66.24 113% $37,184,000Old Mill MS North (Replacement) 65.51 83% $79,681,000Old Mill MS South (Replacement) 68.40 87% $79,681,000Old Mill HS (Replacement) 63.10 109% $113,323,000Northeast ES (New) $37,184,000
Continued on next slide
MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED PROJECTS PHASE 1 – 10 YEAR PLAN
GROUNDS
SITE NAMECOMBINED
SCORE 55/35/5/5
2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION
ADDITION BUDGET
RENOVATE BUDGET
REPLACE BUDGET
Bates MS 68.14 109% $28,886,000 West Co Area HS (New) $113,323,000West Co Area ES (Arundel MS/HS) (New ) $37,184,000Marley Glen SP 70.15 59% $8,938,000 Shady Side ES 70.46 97% $13,164,000 Brock Bridge ES 70.88 62% $11,910,000 J Albert Adams Academy 71.41 71% $7,192,000 Hilltop ES 71.51 105% $13,187,000 Odenton ES 80.06 114% $1,648,100 $8,307,000 Maryland City ES 71.62 114% $9,156,000 West Meade EEC 72.27 89% $7,981,000 Woodside ES 72.80 98% $8,648,000 Eastport ES 73.13 78% $6,019,000 Glen Burnie HS 73.28 113% $64,551,000 Millersville ES 73.90 98% $7,031,000 Glen Burnie Park ES 74.07 101% $6,928,000
PHASE 1 TOTAL $1,648,100 $201,898,000 $910,126,000
MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED PROJECTS PHASE 1A – 10 YEAR PLAN
GROUNDS
SITE NAME2024-25
PROJECTED UTILIZATION
REDISTRICTING
South River HS 118% Redistrict with Southern HS
Arundel HS 121% Redistrict to receive from Arundel MS only
North County HS 117% Redistrict George Cromwell ES
Meade HS 115% Redistrict to receive from MacArthur MS only
Solley ES 120% Redistrict with New ES
Annapolis HS 127% Redistrict long term to not receive students from Mills-Parole ES and Naval Station students from Annapolis ES
Germantown ES 118% Redistrict with Rolling Knolls ES
Marley ES 134% Redistrict with New ES
Crofton ES 113% Redistrict with New ES
PHASE 1-A TOTAL
SUPPORTING RECOMMENDATIONS
o Implement non-instructional facility improvements in conjunction with the 10-year master plan.
o Monitor the implementation of a proposed competitive grant program to support the construction of small schools and/or the renovation of large school buildings.
o Annually review boundary adjustments necessary to implement the master plan.
o Continue to regularly update educational specifications.
o Continue to update long-range enrollment projections on a regular basis and coordinate with local and state planning and zoning officials.
o Communicate the master plan.
Thank you!