Facilities Review Team FRT

1

• Facilities Review Team(FRT)
• PUBLIC FORUM

2
WHY ARE WE HERE?

• March 8, 2004 the Board of Trustees voted to
  Ask our administration to constantly monitor
  and update annually our needs in reference to
  the Stevenson study and to bring back to the
  Board a recommendation for the appropriate time
  to go for a bond referendum.
• Based upon this action, annual review is
  necessary.

3
OVERVIEW

• We shape our buildings and then they shape us.
  Winston Churchill
• Our main purpose is TEACHING and LEARNING.
• Two MAJOR inputs into facilities
• The building needs to FIRST meet the
  instructional program needs of our students.
• The building also needs to be able to safely and
  physically house our students.

4
Facilities Review TeamMembership

• Student Advisory 2
• Parent Advisory 2
• Business Advisory -2
• Human Relations 1
• Senior Advisory 2
• Lex/Rich County Planning Dept. Reps. - 2

• Faculty/Support 2
• D.O. Administration 3
• 3 Principals (E, M, H)
• Experts 2
• Architect
• Construction Mgr
• Board - 2

5
Studies
6
Stevenson (2003)

• RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
• Additions to CMS, DFES and IES.
• 2 new elementary schools
• Open one 8/06 (Oak Pointe) and other in
  8/12
• 1 Middle School (to open 8/11)
• 1 High School (to open 8/11)

7
Southern Mgmt.(2006)

• RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
• Begin immediate planning to accommodate
  growth building new structures and additions and
  renovations.
• Analyzed facilities to evaluate the core
  capacities. CORE CAPACITY was studied for
  cafeterias, media centers, gymnasiums, theaters,
  administrative space, auditoriums and hallways.

8
Holden(2006)

• By the 2009-2010 school year, the difference
  between the Permanent In-Building Program
  Capacity and the projected enrollment would leave
  the district with a deficit of 2,928 student
  spaces.
• This study looked at PROGRAM CAPACITY.
  Program capacity looks at CLASSROOM SPACE (as
  opposed to CORE area spaces) and analyzed each
  schools ability to put students in classroom
  spaces.

This was the conclusion of the report and is
not current thinking.
9
Study Synthesis
Yellow boxes denote space deficiencies.
10
What has Changed?

• Instructional needs of students
• Program availability
• State and Federal Requirements
• Enrollment

11
An Illustration
Difference 30 students
12
ILLUSTRATION
The illustration, in simple terms, shows that
even though a building was initially designed for
a certain use or capacity, that over time, the
uses and capacity can change. In reality, many of
the changes are more complex that the simple
illustration shown here.
13
Another Illustration
Difference 90 students
14
Another IllustrationThe Evolving Classroom
Chalkboard
Chalkboard/Screen
SmartBoard

Reading Center
TeacherDesk
Students 30
Students 27
Students 24
Students 20
Shelving
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Overhead Projector
LCD/Video Projector
Pencilsharpener
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Computer Station
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
15
Jobs They Are A Changin
What Else Has Changed?The Job Market!

• 1955 2007
• Unskilled 60 12
• Skilled 20 68
• Professional 20 20

16
High School ReformPost-Secondary Future
Employment Needs
Close Gap
Maintain
17
What Else Has Changed?

• Instructional needs of students
• Program availability
• State and Federal Requirements
• Enrollment

18
EnrollmentLive Births
19
EnrollmentBirth to K Ratio
20
Enrollment Projections
Expect at least 2880 new students in 10 years.
Monitor yearly
21
Enrollment - School By School
Indicates enroll. in excess of Board parameters
Uses 5-Year Birth Survival Proj. and Straight
Percentage Methodology
22
EnrollmentCluster History
Recent trend in IRMO cluster shows increasing
enrollment.
23
What is CHANGING?

• Instructional needs of students
• Program availability
• High School Reform
• Early Intervention
• Targeting Resources
• Enrollment

24
High School ReformDrop Out Reduction
25

High Schools That Work

• The New 3 Rs
• Rigor
• Relevance
• Relationship

26
Lexington/Richland School District
FiveCu"rrr"iculum Framework20072008 
27
HS Program Location
28
HS Program Location, Pt. 2
29
Key Stats

• Currently using/planning 120 portables.
• Growth rate is equivalent to needing ONE
  elementary school every 2-3 years and/or
• ONE middle school every 3-5 years and/or
• ONE high school every 5-7 years.
• We have a five-year implementation of HS reform
  initiative.

30
FRT Outcomes

• Identify needs.
• Frame solution(s).
• Pass on to Finance and Construction experts to
  advise on strategies to implement solution(s).

31
Timeline Overview
Oct 23 District enrollment projections updates
completed Nov 30 Capabilities of existing
facilities identified. Facilities Review Team
(FRT) to be established Nov 30 District
(including school) administration to
identify instructional programmatic needs and
identify any impact on facility planning Jan
22 Five-year and twenty-year capital plan
submitted March 12 FRT to make final
recommendation to superintendent March
26 Superintendent to make recommendation to
Board Nov Bond Referendum
Modifications necessary!
32
We need YOUR help!
Were listening
Visit us _at_ www.lex5.k12.sc.us