Background Report · 2014. 12. 2. · Background Report 1 5/19/2015 Table of Contents PAGE...

3225 Hilliard Rome Road

Hilliard, Ohio 43026

P: 614.798.8828 f: 614.798.8839

www.dejongrichter.com

Background Report

May 19, 2015

Background Report

1 5/19/2015

Table of Contents

PAGE

Acknowledgements 2

Mission, Vision, Goals 3

Process 4

Demographics 9

U.S. Census 16

Housing Data 17

Live Birth Counts 18

Sullivan Co. DOE Historical Enrollment 19

Sullivan Co. DOE Projected Enrollment—Recommended 20

Students Living Within Sullivan Co. DOE Boundaries Historical Enrollment 21

Students Living Within Sullivan Co. DOE Boundaries Projected Enrollment—Recommended 22

Building Information 23

Program Offerings 25

Capacity 26

Educational Adequacy 39

Facility Condition Assessment 40

Conclusion 41

Background Report

2 5/19/2015

Acknowledgements

DeJONG-RICHTER would like to thank the Sullivan County Department of Education’s students, staff, Board of Education, Steering Committee,

and community for their commitment and dedication to the Facility Master Planning Process.

Sullivan County Department of Education

Dr. Jubal Yennie, Director of Schools

Board of Education

Jack Bales—Vice-Chairman

Todd Broughton

Betty Combs

Jerry Greene

Michael Hughes

Randall Jones

Dan Wells—Chairman

DeJONG-RICHTER

Tracy Richter, REFP, C.E.O.

Ann Hoffsis, REFP, Director of Enrollment Projection Services

Matt Sachs, GIS Analyst

Chloe Anderson

Sarah Aulds

David Bays

Rachel Burdine

Melanie Calhoun

Joey Carico

LaDonna Compton

Cathy Davenport

Dennis Houser

Alesia Dinsmore

Tabitha Ellis

Gary Estepp

Christy Frazier

Doug Giles

Rachel Hall

Mark Harr

Jennifer Hutson

Randall Jones

Brandy Kisner

Lew Kizer

Valerie Lick

Jacob Maine

Mike McQueen

Stephanie Miller

Darrell Moore

Becky Olinger

Melissa Osborn

Sonya Owens

Brent Palmer

Amanda Pitts

Evelyn Rafalowski

Mandy Rupe

Margaret Seale

Mike Smith

Kristy Sproles

Angie Stanley

Angie Sybert

Payton Vaughn

Ron Whitacre

Chayten Williams

Nicole Wolfe

Steering Committee

Background Report

3 5/19/2015

Mission Statement

The Sullivan County Board of Education, in partnership with students, families, employees and community, will utilize all available resources to

provide a collaborative learning environment that will enable each student to reach his/her maximum potential as a productive and

successful citizen in an ever changing global and technological environment.

Vision

The vision of the Sullivan County Department of Education is to prepare each student and teacher to meet the challenges of the world

today and tomorrow with the skills and desire for lifelong learning.

Goals

1. Sullivan County will demonstrate sustained growth in student achievement.

2. Sullivan County will allocate resources to increase efficiency and improve quality.

3. Sullivan County will increase and improve stakeholder partnerships and satisfaction.

Background Report

4 5/19/2015

Comprehensive Facility Plan Process—September 2014 to March 2015

Community

Engagement

Community Dialogue #1

Nov. 3, 2014

Community Dialogue #2

Jan. 27, 2015

Project Start-

Up

Plan for Planning

Goals

Schedule

Decision Points

Futures Conference

May 16, 2014

Assemble Steering Committee

Guides Process

Review Documents

Includes Parents, Staff & Community Members

Final Report

Background Report

Enrollment Projection Report

Capacity Report

Educational Adequacy Report

Building Condition Report

Options Packet

Recommendations Packet

Final Report

Board Updates

& Work

Sessions

Board Update

Oct. 2, 2014

Options Development Work

Session

Dec. 4, 2014

Board Update

Dec. 4, 2014

Internal Work Session

Feb. 10, 2015

Board Work Session

Mar. 4, 2015

Final Board Presentation

Apr. 9, 2015

Steering

Committee

Steering Committee Mtg. #1

Sept. 25, 2014


Oct. 14, 2014


Dec. 16, 2014


Jan. 12, 2014


Feb. 24, 2015

Data

Collection &

Analysis

Background Data

Facility Data

Enrollment

Programs

Geographic Information System

[GIS]

Student Data

Attendance Boundaries

Housing & Demographics

Geographic Base Layers

Capacity, Educational Adequacy &

Facility Assessments

Master Schedules

Floor Plans

Background Report

5 5/19/2015

Comprehensive Facility Plan Process—September 2014 to March 2015

September 25, 2014: Steering Committee [SC] Meeting #1

SC Members

After DeJONG-RICHTER has completed the District Background

Report, we invite the Steering Committee members to meet for the

first time. At this initial meeting, the committee reviews the draft

Background Report and provides the DeJONG-RICHTER team with

their initial questions, comments and feedback. Steering

Committee members take this report home for further analysis and

feedback in preparation for their second meeting. The Steering

Committee then selects their internal leadership to help publicize

community events and present their findings to the community.

October 2, 2014: Board Update

DeJONG-RICHTER

Updates to the Board will be presented on the current status of the

process. This meeting will include Background Report information,

Steering Committee meeting updates, and meeting logistics for the

first Community Dialogue.

October 14, 2014: SC Meeting #2

SC Members

The Steering Committee reconvenes shortly after their initial

meeting to make final edits to the Background Report which

provides a central reference in the planning process. The

Committee and the DeJONG-RICHTER team then prepare to

present the Background Report to the broader community and

develop a questionnaire to receive their feedback. The

questionnaire provides our team with important knowledge of local

history and sentiment relative to facilities, along with specific

strengths and challenges facing the District and the community.

These valuable insights help the DeJONG-RICHTER team personalize

the upcoming Community Dialogue.

November 3, 2014: Community Dialogue #1

SC& Community Members

The Community Dialogue is the first time for the Steering Committee

and the DeJONG-RICHTER team to present the Committee’s

approved Background Report to the public, giving a “state of the

district” in terms of data relevant to the Facility Master Planning

process. The primary goal of this meeting is to receive community

feedback regarding the Educational Framework that will set the

parameters for planning.

By utilizing questionnaires and small group dynamic, members of

the community will be provided an opportunity to provide their

views and insights on a variety of educational topics such as school

size, grade configurations, future use of portables, program delivery,

etc… It is important to note that the community does not “vote”

through the process, though feedback from the community is vital

to determine the community’s current support for a variety of

initiatives and facility options.

We realize that not all members of the community will be able to

attend the community meetings, therefore we will provide an online

presentation and questionnaire in order to reach all people that

want to participate.

Background Report

6 5/19/2015

December 4, 2014: Options Development

Executive Team & SC Members

DeJONG-RICHTER meets with the District staff and members of the

Steering Committee. In this meeting, our team presents our analysis

of the community’s feedback in advance of the third Steering

Committee meeting. It is vital for our staff to understand the

Executive Steering Committee’s response to the initial Educational

Framework questionnaire and to incorporate that feedback into

the future meetings that draft the Educational Framework.

Options development integrates all of the data sources to date

including:

a. Facility condition & adequacy analysis

b. Demographic/GIS analysis & enrollment projections

c. Educational program vision

d. Financial data

e. Community input

By breaking down the silos of information and combining them into

one discussion, our team, along with District staff can begin to

compile facility options that best meet the needs of the District.

Options can include:

a. New construction

b. Renovations/modernization

c. Additions

d. Boundary changes

e. Consolidations

f. Program realignment

DeJong-RICHTER understands that all Districts are unique in that the

above options may include some of those listed or may include all

listed. The options developed in this work session will be presented

to the Steering Committee to finalize before presenting at the

second Community Dialogue.

December 4, 2014: Board Update

DeJONG-RICHTER

Board update on the output of the first Community Dialogue and

update on the options development

December 16, 2014: SC Meeting #3

SC Members

When the Steering Committee meets for the third time, the

outcome is a set of documents that start to synthesize the work to-

date into the draft Facility Options Packet. It is proposed that this is

an opportunity to collaborate with citizens of the Kingsport City

Schools Steering Committee and review both districts collectively.

The intent is to analyze the districts together to explore opportunities

for working together to best serve the students of the County.

The Facility Options Packet includes our GIS analyses and reports,

results of the community questionnaires, and a list of action items

recommended by DeJONG-RICHTER and approved by the

Executive Steering Committee. With the guidance of the DeJONG-

RICHTER planning team, the Steering Committee pulls from previous

meeting documents, the approved Background Report, Executive

Steering Committee input, and community feedback to organize

the relevant documents and data needed to create the first draft

of the Facility Options Packet.

Background Report

7 5/19/2015

January 12, 2015: SC #4

Proposed Collaborative Meeting with Kingsport City Schools SC

SC Members

In this meeting, DeJONG-RICHTER continues to work with the

Steering Committee to develop the Facility Options Packet. Our

team leads the Steering Committee through a process to assemble

draft options to be presented to the community. These options

address specific building actions and are based on the established

Educational Framework. Our team provides the Committee a draft

questionnaire for their review and edits in advance of our second

Community Dialogue. At this point, the Steering Committee begins

to see the results of their work and how the final deliverable is

organized.

January 27, 2015: Community Dialogue #2

SC & Community Members

In the second Community Dialogue, DeJONG-RICHTER, in

collaboration with the Steering Committee solicits the community’s

input on the draft Facility Options Packet. The community has their

chance to provide valuable feedback concerning the specific

actions suggested in the Facility Options Packet using both paper

and online questionnaires.

We realize that not all members of the community will be able to

attend the community meetings, therefore we will provide an online

presentation and questionnaire in order to reach all people that

want to participate.

February 10, 2015: Internal Work Session—Preferred Options

District Staff & SC Members

Review results from the second Community Dialogue and work with

DeJONG-RICHTER, Steering Committee members and Community

Dialogue data as well as the approved Background Report to

develop the preferred options that will be presented to the

Superintendent.

March 3, 2015: SC #5

SC Members

In our fifth meeting with the Steering Committee, the facility

recommendations receive their final review and edits. DeJONG-

RICHTER takes care to ensure each detail of the Recommendations

Packet is exhaustively reviewed and approved by the Steering

Committee before presenting the committee-approved Facility

Recommendations Packet to the Superintendent, who presents the

findings to the Board of Education. By now the Steering Committee

has become intimately acquainted with the data, rationale and

process that have gone into creating the final preferred

Recommendations Packet. These Committee members now

become highly valued resources for your District as the

recommendations become public, and especially so if the District

decides to take action in response to the report’s findings.

March 4, 2015: Board Work Session

DeJONG-RICHTER

DeJONG-RICHTER will work with the Board of Education in a work

session that is intended to review the preferred options as

developed in the community process. Board members will have an

opportunity to provide input on the preferred options that will then

be developed into facility recommendations.

May 4, 2015: Final Board Presentation

DeJONG-RICHTER

Background Report

8 5/19/2015

Timeline

Meeting Date Time Location

Futures Conference May 16, 2014 8:30 AM MeadowView Marriott Conference

Resort & Convention Center

Steering Committee #1 September 25, 2014 6:00 PM Central Office Board Room

Board Update October 2, 2014

Steering Committee #2 October 14, 2014 6:00 PM Central Office Board Room

Community Dialogue #1 November 3, 2014

Options Development December 4, 2014 8:30 AM—4:00 PM SCBE Board Room

Board Update December 4, 2014 5:30 PM SCBE Board Room

Steering Committee #3 December 16, 2014 6:00 PM SCBE Board Room

Steering Committee #4 January 12, 2015 6:00 PM Tennessee Room (KCS)

Community Dialogue #2 January 27, 2015 6:00 PM

Internal Work Session February 10, 2015 8:30 AM—4:00 PM SCBE Board Room

Steering Committee #5 March 3, 2015 6:00 PM SCBE Board Room

Board Work Session March 4, 2015 SCBE Board Room

Final Board Presentation May 4, 2015 5:30 PM SCBE Board Room

Background Report

9 5/19/2015

Demographics

The following information represents block group estimates and projections created from market research and U.S. Census data obtained

from the Environmental Systems Research Institute [ESRI]. ESRI provides a yearly update to their demographic data in increments of five

years. To make updates to their demographic data set, they use American Community Survey [ACS] data that takes a series of monthly

sample surveys but only from areas with populations of 65,000 or more. One year of ACS data is a period estimate as a twelve-month

average, rather than a single point in time.

According to the ESRI estimates, the total population of Sullivan County, Tennessee is projected to increase over the next five years. As

illustrated in the table, the number of children, ages 5-17, is projected to decrease by 888 children.

Age Cohort 2013 Estimate 2018 Estimate

Ages 0-2 4,734 4,717

Ages 3-4 3,266 3,230

Ages 5-10 10,318 9,895

Ages 11-13 5,382 5,246

Ages 14-17 7,259 6,930

Ages 5-17 22,959 22,071

Total Population 158,100 159,239

Source: ESRI BIS

Sullivan County Population Estimates

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Ages 0-2 Ages 3-4 Ages 5-10 Ages 11-13 Ages 14-17

Sullivan County

Population Estimates

Background Report

10 5/19/2015

Sullivan County Department of Education Area Estimated School Aged Population Growth 2013-2018

The map below shows school age population change in the U.S. Census block groups within/around the Sullivan County Department of

Education boundary. Population changes are based on 2013 and 2018 estimates.

A block group is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as, “a statistical division of a census tract, generally defined to contain between 600 and

3,000 people and 240 and 1,200 housing units, and the smallest geographic unit for which the Census Bureau tabulates sample data.”

Background Report

11 5/19/2015

Sullivan County Department of Education Schools & Student Boundary Map

The map that follows shows District’s current boundary structure. Elementary boundaries are represented by the different shading. The

middle school boundaries are delineated by the orange lines while the high school boundaries are in green.

The green squares indicate the elementary and K-8 schools. Orange triangles show the location of the District’s middle schools while the

purple stars represent the high school locations. Other District facilities are indicated by a yellow pentagon.

I


Elementary

Blountville

Bluff City

Central Heights

Emmett

Holston

Indian Springs

Ketron

Mary Hughes

Miller Perry

Rock Springs

Sullivan K8

Weaver

Middle

High

Sullivan County Schools

TYPE

") ELEMENTARY

") K-8

_̂ HIGH

#* MIDDLE

$ OTHER

Background Report

12 5/19/2015

Sullivan County Department of Education Student Density Map

The map below shows the density of the Sullivan County Department of Education student population. The shaded colors represent the

student density as of the 2013-14 school year. The dark red areas indicate high density and the dark blue areas indicate lower density areas.

Background Report

13 5/19/2015

Sullivan County Department of Education Elementary and K-8 Schools Socioeconomic Status Map

The following map shows the socioeconomic status of students for elementary and K-8 schools for the 2014-15 school year. The pie charts

show the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch at each school.

Does Not Receive Free or Reduced Lunch

Receives Free or Reduced Lunch

Lunch Code Data Not Provided


Elementary

Blountville

Bluff City

Central Heights

Emmett

Holston

Indian Springs

Ketron

Mary Hughes

Miller Perry

Rock Springs

Sullivan K8

Weaver

I

Background Report

14 5/19/2015

Sullivan County Department of Education Middle and K-8 Schools Socioeconomic Status Map

The following map shows the socioeconomic status of students for middle and K-8 schools for the 2014-15 school year. The pie charts show

the percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch at each school.





Middle

Blountville

Bluff City

Colonial Heights

Holston

Holston Valley

Mary Hughes

North

Sullivan K8

I

Background Report

15 5/19/2015

Sullivan County Department of Education High Schools Socioeconomic Status Map

The following map shows the socioeconomic status of students for high schools for the 2014-15 school year. The pie charts show the

percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch at each school.





High

Sullivan Central

Sullivan East

Sullivan North

Sullivan South

I

Background Report

16 5/19/2015

U.S. Census

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population in Sullivan

County, Tennessee increased from 153,048 to 156,823 or

approximately 2.5% between the 2000 and 2010 Census.

In terms of school-aged children [5-19], the population decreased by

532 or 2 percent. The under age 5 population decreased from 8,542

to 8,232 or 4 percent.

The median age of a Sullivan County, Tennessee resident is 43.6, an

increase of 3.5 years since the 2000 Census.

The average household size remained relatively the same from 2.36 to

2.33. The average family size has remained the same at 2.84.

The number of total housing units increased in tandem with the

number of occupied and vacant housing units.

The table to the right provides a comparison of the 2000 and 2010 U.S.

Census data.

Subject 2000 2010

Total population 153,048 156,823

SEX AND AGE

Male 73,860 75,826

Female 79,188 80,997

Under 5 years 8,542 8,232

5 to 19 years 28,324 27,792

20-64 years 91,856 91,584

65 years and over 24,326 29,215

Median age (years) 40.1 43.6

RACE

One Race 99.3% 98.7%

White 96.6% 95.1%

Black or African American 1.9% 2.1%

American Indian and Alaska Native 0.2% 0.3%

Asian 0.4% 0.6%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.0%

Some Other Race 0.2% 0.6%

Two or More Races 0.7% 1.3%

Hispanic or Latino 0.7% 1.5%

DEMOGRAPHICS

Average household size 2.36 2.33

Average family size 2.84 2.84

HOUSING OCCUPANCY

Total housing units 69,052 73,760

Occupied housing units 63,556 66,298

Vacant housing units 5,496 7,462

Source: U.S. Census

Sullivan County, Tennessee

U.S. Census

Background Report

17 5/19/2015

Housing Data

Housing development and building permits are tracked to determine their effect on student enrollment. The tables below illustrate the

number of single and multi-family building permits issued in Kingsport, Bristol, and Sullivan County as a whole, since 2000.

Year Kingsport BristolSullivan

County

2000 91 102 448

2001 85 118 600

2002 93 78 592

2003 142 100 660

2004 165 135 691

2005 154 150 705

2006 180 135 669

2007 111 154 610

2008 101 45 348

2009 74 46 323

2010 69 53 282

2011 66 8 173

2012 77 26 203

2013* 87 0 210

2014* 10 0 29

Single-Family Building Permits Issued

Source: SOCDS Building Permits Database

*preliminary through February 2014

Year Kingsport BristolSullivan

County

2000 0 0 9

2001 5 0 11

2002 74 0 146

2003 0 0 4

2004 2 0 9

2005 16 40 71

2006 96 52 237

2007 66 96 164

2008 2 4 16

2009 8 20 28

2010 12 0 12

2011 9 9 21

2012 86 0 86

2013* 0 0 0

2014* 0 0 0

*preliminary through February 2014

Multi-Family Building Permits Issued

Source: SOCDS Building Permits Database

Background Report

18 5/19/2015

Live Birth Data

Utilization of live birth data is recommended when projecting future kindergarten enrollments. This data provides a helpful overall trend.

Large bubbles in birth counts, either up or down, can also be planned for or anticipated by the District.

Data is arranged by the residence of the mother. For example, if a mother lives in Sullivan County but delivers her baby in Shelby County, the

birth is counted in Sullivan County. Live birth counts are different from live birth rates. The live birth count is simply the actual number of live

births. A birth rate is the number of births per 1,000 women in a specified population group.

The chart and graph includes the live birth counts for Sullivan County, Tennessee.

YearSullivan County

Total

1997 1,665

1998 1,780

1999 1,656

2000 1,811

2001 1,681

2002 1,570

2003 1,644

2004 1,534

2005 1,706

2006 1,686

2007 1,707

2008 1,686

2009 1,599

2010 1,613

2011 1,511

2012 1,596

Live Birth Counts

Source: Tennessee Department of Health, Div ision of Policy,

Planning and Assessment, Office of Health Statistics

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Sullivan County

Live Birth Counts

Background Report

19 5/19/2015

Sullivan County Department of Education Historical Enrollment

The table and graph illustrates

historical enrollment of students

a t t e n d i n g S u l l i v an Co un t y

Department of Education schools

from 2005-06 through 2014-15.

During this time, enrollment has

decreased 2,127 students.

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Trend

PK 107 133 234 237 229 220 227 219 235 203

K 858 841 839 855 810 711 794 816 736 678

1 951 906 874 861 836 830 725 778 792 736

2 864 889 861 844 820 808 816 709 771 756

3 856 865 871 864 823 792 792 818 696 773

4 865 865 862 879 853 792 778 768 783 708

5 928 901 834 863 867 847 801 795 759 785

6 948 963 896 841 878 891 835 808 781 761

7 977 969 961 880 821 873 889 858 794 783

8 1,013 1,029 982 980 919 833 846 858 835 800

9 1,151 1,145 1,135 1,056 1,089 919 852 859 873 854

10 1,050 1,054 1,067 1,058 944 963 898 831 829 863

11 939 905 910 893 887 905 919 875 816 796

12 795 881 801 782 873 904 844 848 851 785

N 207 12 185 194 185 187 163 112 101 101

Total 12,509 12,358 12,312 12,087 11,834 11,475 11,179 10,952 10,652 10,382

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Trend

PK 107 133 234 237 229 220 227 219 235 203

K-5 5,322 5,267 5,141 5,166 5,009 4,780 4,706 4,684 4,537 4,436

6-8 2,938 2,961 2,839 2,701 2,618 2,597 2,570 2,524 2,410 2,344

9-12 3,935 3,985 3,913 3,789 3,793 3,691 3,513 3,413 3,369 3,298

N 207 12 185 194 185 187 163 112 101 101

Total 12,509 12,358 12,312 12,087 11,834 11,475 11,179 10,952 10,652 10,382

Source: Sullivan County Department of Education

Source: Sullivan County Department of Education


Historical Enrollment



0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000



Background Report

20 5/19/2015

Sullivan County Department of Education Projected Enrollment—Recommended

Based on the recommended

projected enrollment, student

enrollment in the Sullivan County

Department of Education is

projected to decrease from 10,382

in 2014-15 to 8,719 students in 2024-

25.

2014-15

Actual2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Trend

PK 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203

K 678 715 602 686 667 667 667 667 667 667 667

1 736 676 713 600 684 665 665 665 665 665 665

2 756 715 657 693 583 665 647 647 647 647 647

3 773 752 712 653 689 580 661 643 643 643 643

4 708 764 743 703 646 681 573 653 636 636 636

5 785 709 765 744 704 646 682 574 654 636 636

6 761 784 708 764 743 703 646 681 573 653 636

7 783 760 783 707 762 741 702 644 680 572 652

8 800 777 754 777 701 757 736 696 640 675 568

9 854 813 789 766 789 712 768 747 707 650 685

10 863 834 793 771 748 770 696 750 730 691 634

11 796 834 805 766 744 722 744 672 725 705 667

12 785 767 803 776 738 717 695 717 647 698 679

N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101

Total 10,382 10,204 9,931 9,710 9,502 9,330 9,186 9,060 8,918 8,842 8,719

2014-15

Actual2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Trend

PK 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203 203

K-5 4,436 4,331 4,192 4,079 3,973 3,904 3,895 3,849 3,912 3,894 3,894

6-8 2,344 2,321 2,245 2,248 2,206 2,201 2,084 2,021 1,893 1,900 1,856

9-12 3,298 3,248 3,190 3,079 3,019 2,921 2,903 2,886 2,809 2,744 2,665

N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101

Total 10,382 10,204 9,931 9,710 9,502 9,330 9,186 9,060 8,918 8,842 8,719

Source: DeJONG-RICHTER




Projected Enrollment - Recommended


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000



Background Report

21 5/19/2015

Students Living Within the Sullivan County Department of Education Boundaries—Historical Enrollment

The table and graph illustrates the number of

students living within the Sullivan County

Department of Education boundaries from 2006-07

through 2014-15. During this time, enrollment has

decreased 946 students.

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Trend

EC 4 4 14 9 9 4 7 8 7

P3 52 50 69 54 54 52 54 9 12

P4 176 205 217 209 205 201 215 245 207

K 788 764 791 758 665 730 748 728 632

1 839 807 804 774 779 678 727 744 703

2 819 791 787 771 741 768 653 743 706

3 764 828 796 765 744 725 753 681 717

4 753 772 824 804 766 731 715 771 672

5 784 731 770 815 798 771 736 723 751

6 819 811 741 785 834 773 741 746 707

7 825 832 799 722 774 821 793 763 739

8 882 831 845 812 733 754 815 805 757

9 936 954 870 856 815 721 757 819 809

10 818 830 882 807 806 791 710 741 802

11 686 675 712 743 727 730 750 694 725

12 639 635 606 661 645 609 664 673 692

Total 10,584 10,520 10,527 10,345 10,095 9,859 9,838 9,893 9,638

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Trend

EC-P4 232 259 300 272 268 257 276 262 226

K-5 4,747 4,693 4,772 4,687 4,493 4,403 4,332 4,390 4,181

6-8 2,526 2,474 2,385 2,319 2,341 2,348 2,349 2,314 2,203

9-12 3,079 3,094 3,070 3,067 2,993 2,851 2,881 2,927 3,028

Total 10,584 10,520 10,527 10,345 10,095 9,859 9,838 9,893 9,638

Source: Sulliv an County Department of Education, Kingsport City Schools

Students Living Within Sullivan County Department of Education Boundaries


Source: Sulliv an County Department of Education, Kingsport City Schools



0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Students Living Within

Sullivan County Department of Education Boundaries


Background Report

22 5/19/2015

Sullivan County Department of Education Projected Enrollment—Recommended

Based on the recommended

projected enrollment, the number

of students living within the Sullivan

County Department of Education

boundaries is projected to

decrease from 9,638 in 2014-15 to

8,300 students in 2024-25.

2014-15

Actual2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Trend

EC 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

P3 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

P4 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 207 207

K 632 681 571 652 634 634 634 634 634 634 634

1 703 661 685 575 658 641 641 641 641 641 641

2 706 692 652 675 568 648 629 629 629 629 629

3 717 699 687 645 669 561 643 623 623 623 623

4 672 719 700 686 645 669 563 642 626 626 626

5 751 667 713 696 682 641 664 562 637 622 622

6 707 742 657 702 685 674 634 655 552 630 611

7 739 704 740 656 700 683 671 630 652 550 626

8 757 741 706 742 658 702 684 672 633 656 551

9 809 767 751 715 752 664 713 694 683 643 665

10 802 785 742 728 690 729 646 691 671 662 622

11 725 767 749 709 696 660 696 617 660 642 632

12 692 670 709 691 655 640 610 640 566 608 592

Total 9,638 9,521 9,288 9,098 8,918 8,772 8,654 8,556 8,433 8,392 8,300

2014-15

Actual2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Trend

EC-P4 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226 226

K-5 4,181 4,119 4,008 3,929 3,856 3,794 3,774 3,731 3,790 3,775 3,775

6-8 2,203 2,187 2,103 2,100 2,043 2,059 1,989 1,957 1,837 1,836 1,788

9-12 3,028 2,989 2,951 2,843 2,793 2,693 2,665 2,642 2,580 2,555 2,511

Total 9,638 9,521 9,288 9,098 8,918 8,772 8,654 8,556 8,433 8,392 8,300







0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Students Living Within

Sullivan County Department of Education Boundaries


Background Report

25 5/19/2015

Program Offerings

The following career technical programs are offered at Central High School:

The following career technical programs are offered at East High School:

The following career technical programs are offered at North High School:

The following career technical programs are offered at South High School:

Business Technology

Carpentry

Cosmetology

Criminal Justice

Culinary Arts

Dietetics and Nutrition

Electrical

Engineering

First Responder

Welding

Health Sciences

HVAC

Information Technology

Graphic Design

Agriculture

Business Technology

Carpentry / Masonry

Computer Aided Drafting

Cosmetology

Criminal Justice

Culinary Arts

Health Sciences


Machine Tool

Carpentry / Masonry

Computer Aided Drafting

Criminal Justice

Culinary Arts

Fire Science

Health Science Education

Information / Business Technology

Welding / Machining

Automotive Technology

Carpentry

Cosmetology

Culinary Arts

Graphic Design

Health Science Education


Marketing

Welding

Background Report

26 5/19/2015

Capacity

Executive Summary

Capacity Study Overview

In June of 2014 each school was walked by DeJONG-RICHTER and rooms that met classroom size minimums [greater than 600 s.f.] were noted

and their use listed. The school floor plans were analyzed and compared to DeJONG-RICHTER’s on-site analysis. Rooms were counted by

type (e.g. regular classroom, art room, music room, etc.) and a total number of teaching stations calculated.

Capacity can be difficult to calculate because there are a variety of programs that have different requirements within each building. For

example, in K-5 and K-8 schools, when students leave their homeroom to attend a specialty class like art or music, their homeroom remains

empty. Therefore, general classrooms (English, math, social studies) carry a student capacity and specialty spaces such as art rooms, music

rooms, or gymnasiums do not.

Capacity was calculated using two separate methodologies. The first being an “as programmed” capacity, and the second being a

recommended capacity. The “as programmed” capacity shows the number of students a facility houses based on the current use of all

teaching stations. The recommended capacity shows the number of students a facility can house based on the design/intended use of all

teaching stations.

Room Utilization Study Overview

In July and August of 2014 DeJONG-RICHTER digitized the floor plans of all middle and high schools. Using the master schedule databases , a

period by period room utilization was given to all assigned teaching spaces, and an “as programmed” capacity was developed for each

middle and high school. Room uses and master schedule data were based on the 2013-14 school year.

Background Report

27 5/19/2015

Elementary & K-8 Capacity

“As Programmed” Capacity

The table below outlines the capacities assigned to each room type based on Sullivan County Schools standards for class sizes.

Terms:

Total Teaching Stations = All spaces greater than 600 square feet used for instruction [including Specialty Spaces and SPED (Self-Contained)

spaces; not including portables]

Portables = A modular space greater than 600 square feet (outside of the permanent facility) used for instruction

Specialty Spaces = Pull out spaces such as art or music

SPED (Self-Contained) = Instructional space greater than 600 square feet used for self-contained special education

Net Classrooms = Total Teaching Stations minus Specialty Spaces and Special Ed (Self-Contained) Spaces

Permanent Capacity = Net Classrooms multiplied by capacities assigned for each room type (as listed above); 10 students are added per

SPED (self-contained) classroom

Portable Capacity = Number of Portables multiplied by capacities assigned for each room type (as listed above)

Total “As Programmed” Capacity = Permanent Capacity plus Portable Capacity

Utilization = Enrollment divided by Capacity

The table on the following page illustrates the “as programmed” capacity for each elementary and K-8 school.

Grade Students/CR

PK 20

K 20

1 20

2 20

3 20

4 25

5 25

6 25

7 25

8 25

SPED (Self-Contained) 10

Background Report

28 5/19/2015

Capacity Analysis

School Name

Total

Teaching

Stations

PortablesSpecialty

Spaces

SPED (Self-

Contained)

Net

Classrooms

Permanent

Capacity

Portable

CapacityTotal Permanent

Total w/

Portables

Elementary

Blountv ille Elementary 25 1 4 0 21 450 20 470 454 100.9% 96.6%

Bluff City Elementary 33 0 6 0 27 580 0 580 488 84.1% 84.1%

Central Heights Elementary 15 0 1 1 13 290 0 290 210 72.4% 72.4%

Emmett Elementary 28 0 5 2 21 470 0 470 359 76.4% 76.4%

Holston Elementary 24 0 4 1 19 415 0 415 342 82.4% 82.4%

Indian Springs 28 0 8 0 20 430 0 430 387 90.0% 90.0%

Ketron Elementary 45 0 7 2 36 790 0 790 711 90.0% 90.0%

Miller Perry Elementary 28 0 9 0 19 410 0 410 379 92.4% 92.4%

Rock Springs Elementary 33 0 7 2 24 530 0 530 452 85.3% 85.3%

Weaver Elementary 16 4 2 0 14 300 0 300 276 92.0% 92.0%

Total 275 5 53 8 214 4,665 20 4,685 4,058 87.0% 86.6%

K-8

Mary Hughes K8 27 0 4 0 23 520 0 520 459 88.3% 88.3%

Sullivan Gardens K8 46 0 18 1 27 625 0 625 501 80.2% 80.2%

Total 73 0 22 1 50 1,145 0 1,145 960 83.8% 83.8%

Utilization Key: 70% - 80% 80% - 90% 90% - 100% > 100%

"As Programmed"

2014-15

Enrollment

"As Programmed" Utilization

Background Report

29 5/19/2015

Recommended Capacity


DeJONG-RICHTER worked with Sullivan County Schools to develop a sliding scale used for calculating recommended capacity. This scale

allocates a set number of specialty spaces (roughly 25%), that do not carry capacity, based on the number of total teaching stations. This

methodology provides a uniform capacity standard based on the total number of teaching spaces and is not impacted by classroom

allocations at individual schools.

Terms:

Total Teaching Stations = All spaces greater than 600 square feet designed for instruction [including Specialty Spaces; not including portables]

Portables = A modular space greater than 600 square feet (outside of the permanent facility) designed for instruction

Specialty Spaces = Recommended number of pull out spaces

Net Classrooms = Total Teaching Stations minus Specialty Spaces

Permanent Capacity = Net Classrooms multiplied by 21.66 for elementary schools and 22.8 for K-8 schools (average of class sizes above)

Portable Capacity = Number of Portables multiplied by 21.66 for elementary schools and 22.8 for K-8 schools (average of class sizes above)

Total Recommended Capacity = Permanent Capacity plus Portable Capacity


The table on the following page illustrates the recommended capacity for each elementary and K-8 school.

Grade Students/CR

PK 20

K 20

1 20

2 20

3 20

4 25

5 25

6 25

7 25

8 25


Background Report

30 5/19/2015

Capacity Analysis

School Name

Total

Teaching

Stations

PortablesSpecialty

Spaces

Net

Classrooms

Permanent

Capacity

Portable


Total

w/Portables

Elementary

Blountv ille Elementary 25 2 6 19 412 43 455 454 110.2% 99.8%

Bluff City Elementary 33 0 8 25 542 0 542 488 90.0% 90.0%

Central Heights Elementary 15 0 3 12 260 0 260 210 80.8% 80.8%

Emmett Elementary 28 0 7 21 455 0 455 359 78.9% 78.9%

Holston Elementary 21 0 5 16 347 0 347 342 98.6% 98.6%

Indian Springs 28 0 7 21 455 0 455 387 85.1% 85.1%

Ketron Elementary 45 0 11 34 736 0 736 711 96.6% 96.6%

Miller Perry Elementary 36 0 9 27 585 0 585 379 64.8% 64.8%

Rock Springs Elementary 33 0 8 25 542 0 542 452 83.4% 83.4%

Weaver Elementary 18 4 4 14 303 87 390 276 91.1% 70.8%

Total 282 6 68 214 4,637 130 4,767 4,058 87.5% 85.1%

K-8

Mary Hughes K8 27 0 6 21 479 0 479 459 95.8% 95.8%

Sullivan Gardens K8 53 0 13 40 912 0 912 501 54.9% 54.9%

Subtotal 80 0 19 61 1,391 0 1,391 960 69.0% 69.0%

Utilization Key: 70% - 80% 80% - 90% 90% - 100% > 100%

Recommended/Maximum

2014-15

Enrollment

Utilization based on


Background Report

31 5/19/2015

Middle School Capacity



Terms:

Total Teaching Stations = All spaces greater than 600 square feet used for instruction [including Specialty Spaces and SPED (Self-Contained)

spaces; not including portables]


Specialty Spaces = Instructional spaces such as art or music

SPED (Self-Contained) = Instructional spaces greater than 600 square feet used for self-contained special education

Permanent Capacity = Total Teaching Stations [not including SPED (Self-Contained)] multiplied by 25 students per classroom, multiplied by an

85% load factor (this load factor allows each teaching station to be un-occupied one period of the day for planning purposes); 10 students

are added per SPED (Self-Contained) classroom

Portable Capacity = Number of Portables [not including SPED (Self-Contained)] multiplied by 25 students per classroom, multiplied by an 85%

load factor (this load factor allows each teaching station to be un-occupied one period of the day for planning purposes); 10 students are

added per SPED (Self-Contained) classroom



The table on the following page illustrates the “As Programmed” capacity for each middle school.

Grade Students/CR

6 25

7 25

8 25


Background Report

32 5/19/2015

Capacity Analysis

School Name

Total

Teaching

Stations

PortablesSpecialty

Spaces

SPED (Self-

Contained)

Permanent

Capacity

(2013-14)

Portable

Capacity

(2013-14)

Total

(2013-14)Permanent

Total w/

Portables

Middle

Blountv ille MS 20 0 4 0 425 0 425 291 68.5% 68.5%

Bluff City MS 22 0 4 1 456 0 456 359 78.7% 78.7%

Colonial Heights MS 21 3 4 0 446 64 510 397 89.0% 77.8%

Holston MS* 21 0 6 1 435 0 435 452 103.9% 103.9%

Holston Valley MS 14 0 4 0 298 0 298 192 64.4% 64.4%

North MS 18 0 3 0 383 0 383 347 90.6% 90.6%

Total 116 3 25 2 2,443 64 2,507 2,038 83.4% 81.3%

Utilization Key: 70% - 80% 80% - 90% 90% - 100% > 100%

*Holston Middle includes Innovation Academy program

"As Programmed"

2014-15

Enrollment

"As Programmed" Utilization

Background Report

33 5/19/2015


The table below outlines the capacities assigned to each room type based on Sullivan County Schools standards of average class size.

Terms:

Total Teaching Stations = All spaces greater than 600 square feet designed for instruction [including Specialty Spaces and SPED (Self-

Contained) spaces; not including portables]



SPED (Self-Contained) = Instructional spaces greater than 600 square feet designed for self-contained special education

Permanent Capacity = Total Teaching Spaces [not including SPED (Self-Contained)] multiplied by 25 students per classroom, multiplied by an

85% load factor (this load factor allows each teaching station to be un-occupied one period of the day for planning purposes); 10 students

are added per SPED (Self-Contained) classroom

Portable Capacity = Number of Portables [not including SPED (Self-Contained)] multiplied by 25 students per classroom, multiplied by an 85%

load factor (this load factor allows each teaching station to be un-occupied one period of the day for planning purposes); 10 students are

added per SPED (Self-Contained) classroom



The table on the following page illustrates the recommended capacity for each middle school.

Grade Students/CR

6 25

7 25

8 25


Background Report

34 5/19/2015

Capacity Analysis

School Name

Total

Teaching

Stations

PortablesSpecialty

Spaces

SPED (Self-

Contained)

Permanent

Capacity

Portable


Total w/

Portables

Middle

Blountv ille MS 27 1 3 0 574 21 595 291 50.7% 48.9%

Bluff City MS 26 0 5 0 553 0 553 359 64.9% 64.9%

Colonial Heights MS 27 6 9 0 574 128 701 397 69.2% 56.6%

Holston MS* 35 0 7 1 733 0 733 452 61.7% 61.7%

Holston Valley MS 14 1 4 0 298 21 319 192 64.4% 60.2%

North MS 20 0 3 0 425 0 425 347 81.6% 81.6%

Total 149 8 31 1 3,157 170 3,326 2,038 64.6% 61.3%

Utilization Key: 70% - 80% 80% - 90% 90% - 100% > 100%

*Holston Middle includes Innovation Academy program

Recommended/Maximum

2014-15

Enrollment



Background Report

35 5/19/2015

High School Capacity



Terms:

Total Teaching Stations = All spaces greater than 600 square feet used for instruction [including Specialty Spaces, Career Tech and SPED (Self-

Contained) spaces; not including portables]



Career Tech = Instructional spaces greater than 600 square feet used for career technical programs

SPED (Self-Contained) = Instructional spaces greater than 600 square feet used for self-contained special education

Permanent Capacity = Total Teaching Spaces multiplied by 25 students per classroom [not including Career Tech or SPED (Self-Contained)]

plus total Career Tech spaces multiplied by 20 students per classroom, multiplied by an 85% load factor (this load factor allows each teaching

station to be un-occupied one period of the day for planning purposes); 10 students are added per SPED (Self-Contained) classroom

Portable Capacity = Number of Portables multiplied by 25 students per classroom [not including Career Tech or SPED (Self-Contained)] plus

total Career Tech spaces multiplied by 20 students per classroom, multiplied by an 85% load factor (this load factor allows each teaching




The table on the following page illustrates the “As Programmed” capacity for each high school.

Grade Students/CR

9 25

10 25

11 25

12 25

Career Tech 20


Background Report

36 5/19/2015

Background Report

37 5/19/2015


The table below outlines the capacities assigned to each room type based on Sullivan County Schools standards of average class size.

Terms:

Total Teaching Stations = All spaces greater than 600 square feet designed for instruction (including Specialty Spaces, Career Tech and SPED

(Self-Contained) spaces; not including portables)



Career Tech = Instructional spaces greater than 600 square feet designed for career technical programs

SPED (Self-Contained) = Instructional spaces greater than 600 square feet designed for self-contained special education

Permanent Capacity = Total Teaching Spaces multiplied by 25 students per classroom [not including Career Tech or SPED (Self-Contained)]

plus total Career Tech spaces multiplied by 20 students per classroom, multiplied by an 85% load factor (this load factor allows each teaching


Portable Capacity = Number of Portables multiplied by 25 students per classroom [not including Career Tech or SPED (Self-Contained)] plus

total Career Tech spaces multiplied by 20 students per classroom, multiplied by an 85% load factor (this load factor allows each teaching




The table on the following page illustrates the recommended capacity for each high school.

Grade Students/CR

9 25

10 25

11 25

12 25

Career Tech 20


Background Report

38 5/19/2015

Capacity Analysis

School Name

Total

Teaching

Stations

PortablesSpecialty

Spaces

Career

Tech

SPED (Self-

Contained)

Permanent

Capacity

Portable


Total w/

Portables

High

Sullivan Central HS 61 2 15 14 0 1,237 43 1,279 962 77.8% 75.2%

Sullivan East HS 54 5 12 14 0 1,088 106 1,194 926 85.1% 77.6%

Sullivan North HS 52 0 12 11 0 1,058 0 1,058 532 50.3% 50.3%

Sullivan South HS 70 0 13 18 1 1,400 0 1,400 906 64.7% 64.7%

Total 237 7 52 57 1 4,783 149 4,931 3,326 69.5% 67.5%

Utilization Key: 70% - 80% 80% - 90% 90% - 100% > 100%

Recommended/Maximum

2014-15

Enrollment



Background Report

39 5/19/2015

Educational Adequacy

An educational adequacy inventory was taken in June 2014 as consultants walked through and assessed each school facility. Once

educational specifications are developed by the District, the educational adequacy inventory can be compared to the educational

specifications and an Educational Adequacy Index can be determined.

Background Report

40 5/19/2015

Conclusion

Analyzing facility condition and utilization by planning area or district-wide provides a high-level perspective on the relationships between

condition, capacity, and enrollment. When developing facility options, individual building data is necessary to help frame future action.

Beyond facility-related data, a Facility Master Plan considers the District’s mission, vision, and goals along with community feedback.

Ultimately, a Facility Master Plan must take into consideration a broad spectrum of needs, desires, and constraints to prioritize action while

successfully engaging the community to help inform and shape the process.

Background Report · 2014. 12. 2. · Background Report 1 5/19/2015 Table of Contents PAGE...

Documents

Transcript of Background Report · 2014. 12. 2. · Background Report 1 5/19/2015 Table of Contents PAGE...