Fremont Unified School DistrictBoard Report DraftMarch 14, 2012B&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

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT

DATA

Long-Range Facility Plan: Puzzle Pieces

EDUCATIONAL

SUITABILITY

FACILITY CONDITION

DATA

SCHOOL BUILDING CAPACITY

DATA

CAPITAL PROJECT

BUDGETING

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

TECHNOLOGYREADINESS

3

The Stakeholder Involvement Process

Board of Education Administrators FUDTA, CSEA, SEIU, FSMA Instructional services Business services Pupil services Special services Purchasing Risk management Technology Adult/career education

Students Parents Teachers Principals Custodians Maintenance Managers

Interviews Focus Groups

4

The Stakeholder Involvement Process

Public meetings February 4 and 6, 2012

Online surveys February 7 through 17, 2012

Community Input

5

Participation Rates December – February

Interviews & Focus Groups: 54.5 hours

Two public forums: 133 participants

Online survey: 744 participants

By the Numbers

6

Graphical data from public meetings & surveys

Major Themes

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.

Theme 1: Support for Fremont Unified School District

The chart shows the response to question: “How would you rate the quality of education students receive in Fremont Unified School District?”

23%

53%

20%

2% 1%

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion/I don’t know

77% as either Excellent or Good

7

Major Themes

One caveat….Class sizes, condition of the schools, and inequalities in programs are creating a concern that these high standards are being jeopardized.

Theme 1: Support for Fremont Unified School District

8

Major Themes

There is a lack of funding that affects every area of the district

The age of buildings creates many needs such as: 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) Safety of buildings

Outside lighting Open campuses

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? ”

6%

25%

44%

24%

1%

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion/I don’t know

31% rated as Excellent or Good and 68% as Fair or Poor

9

Graphical data from public meetings & surveys

Major Themes

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.

Theme 3: EQUITY! EQUITY! EQUITY!

The above charts shows the responses to “Program offerings are equitable among Fremont schools.”

20%

12%

22%

30%

16%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral DisagreeStrongly Disagree

32% rated as Strongly Agreed/Agreed and 47% as Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed

10

Major Themes

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

Theme 3: EQUITY! EQUITY! EQUITY! (continued)

11

Major Themes

Technology must be a focus within all schools when addressing issues of equity.

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

Graphical data from public meetings & surveys

Theme 4: Technology is lacking

The chart shows the response to question: “How would you rate the technology provided for students and staff?”

6%

26%

34%

31%

3%

Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion/I don’t know

65% rated as Fair or Poor

12

Major Themes

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

Theme 5: The “right” long-range facility plan (LRFP) should:

13

Facilities Assessment Scores

Building Condition Scores

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.

Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The building and/or a majority of its systems should be considered for replacement.

15

This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the building conditions.

Building Condition Score Range

Site TypeBuilding 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

This slide shows the resulting range of building condition scores for Fremont schools.

Suitability Scores

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.

80-89Good: 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

This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the educational suitability.

Suitability Score Range

Site TypeSuitability

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

This slide shows the resulting range of educational suitability scores for Fremont schools.

Site Scores

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

This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the site and grounds conditions.

Site Scores Range

Site TypeSite Assessment Score

RangeLow High

Elementary Schools 53.64 89.10

Middle Schools 51.45 81.25

High Schools 56.61 80.20

Other Facilities 69.87 90.00

90+ Excellent

80-89 Good

65-79 Fair

50-64 Poor

Below 50 Unsatisfactory

20

This slide shows the resulting range of site condition scores for Fremont schools.

Technology Scores

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

This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate technology readiness.

Technology Scores Range

Site TypeTechnology 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

This slide shows the resulting range of technology readiness scores for Fremont schools.

Combined ScoresSite Name Building Condition

ScoreSuitability

ScoreSite Condition

ScoreTech. Readiness

ScoreCombined Score

40/30/10/20

Elementary SchoolsArdenwood ES 76.63 73.02 60.65 39.95 66.61 Azevada ES 75.50 67.90 72.90 73.20 72.50 Blacow ES 72.85 62.27 72.51 44.85 64.04 Brier ES 77.86 62.09 68.20 51.60 66.91 Brookvale ES 76.11 71.20 67.16 35.85 65.69 Cabrillo ES 77.45 58.95 67.85 44.95 64.44 Chadbourne ES 80.35 73.77 74.49 47.55 71.23 Durham ES 77.30 70.35 75.04 58.30 71.19 Forest Park ES 78.16 74.88 68.47 64.90 73.55 Glenmoor ES 78.07 61.80 64.73 62.50 68.74 Gomes ES 87.74 61.47 78.72 75.00 76.41 Green ES 78.71 57.16 76.85 61.60 68.64 Grimmer ES 76.41 64.46 89.10 35.70 65.95 Hirsch ES 77.33 63.34 80.79 58.30 69.67 Leitch ES 78.82 74.10 80.41 79.10 77.62 Maloney ES 78.17 62.92 82.06 48.25 68.00 Mattos ES 73.91 61.36 67.85 57.40 66.24 Millard ES 77.28 55.07 80.90 51.60 65.85 Mission San Jose ES 79.16 65.02 77.61 69.90 72.91 Mission Valley ES 77.70 56.46 76.56 45.80 64.83 Niles ES 84.27 56.72 78.38 46.70 67.90 Oliveira ES 73.69 59.33 81.51 45.85 64.60 Parkmont ES 80.93 63.59 53.64 41.70 65.15 Patterson ES 78.30 63.87 74.86 64.90 70.95 Vallejo Mill ES 75.63 62.48 74.78 49.90 66.46 Warm Springs ES 78.50 55.46 79.26 49.90 65.94 Warwick ES 77.34 71.90 67.57 51.60 69.59 Weibel ES 80.02 69.71 81.09 53.20 71.67

Elementary School Average 78.01 64.31 74.07 53.93 68.69

23

Combined Score (continued)Site Name Building Condition

ScoreSuitability

ScoreSite Condition

ScoreTech.

ReadinessScore

Combined Score 40/30/10/20

Junior High SchoolsCenterville JrHS 76.38 71.73 70.93 76.70 74.50 Hopkins JrHS 79.40 67.35 75.85 51.60 69.87 Horner JrHS 77.95 60.33 51.45 45.80 63.58 Thornton JrHS 78.54 77.36 66.61 54.20 72.12 Walters JrHS 75.48 75.92 81.25 61.70 73.43

Junior High School Average 77.55 70.54 69.22 58.00 70.70 High Schools

American HS 74.37 63.92 80.20 53.40 67.63 Irvington HS 75.41 65.17 75.59 89.20 75.12 Kennedy HS 79.35 58.03 66.80 81.70 72.17 Mission San Jose HS 77.84 59.37 72.29 59.30 68.04 Washington HS 77.69 71.79 56.61 78.40 73.95 Mission Valley Regional Occupational Program 75.50 97.53 65.18 100.00 85.98

Robertson HS 65.79 69.35 74.79 56.70 65.94 High School Average 75.14 69.31 70.21 74.10 72.69

Other FacilitiesCorporation Yard 76.33 N/A 72.76 38.25 N/A Ed Center 55.00 N/A 90.00 51.89 N/A Fremont Adult School 83.07 69.73 70.18 51.70 71.50 Glankler Preschool 79.64 41.98 69.98 59.10 63.27 Marshall 85.08 51.59 77.35 N/A N/A Tak Fudenna Stadium 75.44 N/A 69.87 N/A N/A

Other Facilities Average 75.76 54.43 75.02 50.23 67.39

District Average 77.23 65.16 73.08 57.27 69.53

24

Estimated Budget

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

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.

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