Connecting with OSFC:

Melanie Drerup

Tracy Healy

Building Bridges through Building Schools

Introduction

Melanie Drerup, REFP, LEED AP

Deputy Chief of Planning, OSFC

Tracy Healy, REFP

President, DeJONG-HEALY

Connecting in 2011

Connecting in 2011

1.8 million students in PreK-12

613 districts Enrollment ranges from: 14 students in Kelley’s Island Local SD to 53,000 in Columbus Public SD

17 districts have > 10,000 students 129 have < 1,000 340 have < 2,000

Public Education in Ohio

Overview

Created in 1997

Administers statewide public school construction program

Helps districts fund, plan, design, build & renovate schools

7 Main Programs – CFAP, ELPP, ENP, HB264,VFAP, VFAP-ELPP, QSCB

Program Milestones

192

839

107

159

$4

$8.5

Districts fully completed

New or renovated buildings occupied

Buildings in active design

Buildings under construction

Million in state & local funds spent each day onschool construction throughout the state

Billion disbursed since 1997

Background

Sept, 2009 Commission charged Executive Director with examining four

focus areas (*)

Nov, 2009 3 Workshops held (*)

Dec, 2009 Report presented to Commission incorporating feedback

from workshops (*)

June, 2010 2 Workshops held (*)

Copy of “Language of School Design-Design Patterns for the

21st Century Schools” distributed to workshop participants

July, 2010 Symposium held

Focus Areas

A clear definition of a 21st Century physical learning environment and the development of a strategic plan to achieve the building of 21st century learning environments

Quality construction practices and sustainable funding

Effective community partnerships (*)

Strategic alignment of Commission programs and design manual to support the education reforms adopted in HB 1

November, 2009 Workshops

Quality Construction

21st Century Learning Environments & HB 1 Strategic Alignment

Effective Community Partnerships (*)

Participants represented a broad cross section of the state from school districts, state agenciesand non profits. In addition to the workshops, a Community Use Survey was submitted to

400 districts with 218 respondents completing.

Provide more planning tools for school districts (school boards, administrators, teachers, staff) and communities

Emphasize sustainability of facilities (total cost of ownership including operations and maintenance, “green schools” and variety of spaces needed to meet changing teaching/learning approaches)

Continue outreach to stakeholders; broaden scope to more actively include educational associations, teachers, staff and students

Continue to build on successful program

Common Themes

Gather data from districts that characterize how their facilities are currently configured for educational delivery

Conduct focus groups and user group meetings on school design from the perspective of various users, including teachers, staff & students

Build on dialogue with ODE by seeking their participation in outreach and development efforts

Develop tools for districts that are in the early stages of school facilities planning process Build on 21st Century design attribute checklist Document examples of 21st Century design concepts from Ohio schools that already incorporate

model features Sponsor seminars highlighting experts in 21st Century design Encourage partnerships with higher education

Recommendations

June, 2010 Workshop

Held June 29th & June 30th

Keynote speaker – Dr. Stanford (Governor’s Office)

Design Pattern Presentation – Randy Fielding (Fielding Nair)

Nine districts in early pre-planning attended each workshop

21st Century Design Concepts

Akron City School District – Inventors Hall of Fame

Window Seating

21st Century Design Concepts

Akron City School District – Inventors Hall of Fame

ELA Group Space

21st Century Design Concepts

Akron City School District – Inventors Hall of Fame

Media Center

21st Century Design Concepts

Clyde Green Springs Local SD – Clyde Elementary School

Study Cave

21st Century Design Concepts

Clyde Green Springs Local SD – Clyde Green Elementary

Student Mural

21st Century Design Concepts

Cincinnati Public School District - SCPA

Cafe

Implementation

Currently working with 55 districts in pre-planning & planning

May 2011 21st Century School Design Symposium 2.0

June 2011 workshops to be held

Dec. 2010 Architect Roundtable to discuss Commission direction on 21st

Century

2011 Design Manual Update- Process Narrative

Community Use of Space

October 2009 H.B. 1 Community Use Survey

Survey distributed to 400 Districts

218 Respondents

Dealt with community use of space, partnership & its obstacles, how state could promote partnerships, lessons learned, & success stories

Great way for OSFC to feedback quickly. Survey was open on Survey Monkey for 3 weeks; results completed in a week.

Community Use of Space

Over 90% of participants indicated that classrooms, gymnasiums & athletic fields were used by the community during non-school hours

15% of districts indicated they attempted to create a partnership that did not materialize. Some of the obstacles encountered were:

Funding Space & location of facility Lack of community interest Concerns over facility operations Differing time frames Security

Develop case studies

Create compendium of successful projects

Build on list of characteristics of successful partnership

Research other governance models

Convene work group

Examine OSFC’s role in encouraging partnerships

Recommendations

Switzerland of Ohio Local Schools

Two Separate Processes – One in 2006 & one in 2008

3 Distinct Communities: Beallsville / Monroe Central / River

2006 process identified options community would support

2008 process focused on community engagement

2,400 Students

550 Square Miles

Switzerland of Ohio Local Schools

$84M – 37% Local Share

Scope:

Build 3 new PK - 8

1 new PK - 12

1 New 9 - 12

Renovations/addition to K – 12

Status:

3 buildings in design

3 buildings in construction

Ohio Schools for the Deaf & Blind

2 distinct schools with their own identities

320 students with 160 residential

Worked with both school staffs jointly &

independently

Identified opportunities where spaces &

resources could be shared

Goals:

Student-centered

Easy access to community

Flexible to meet current & future needs

Ohio Schools for the Deaf & Blind

$43.98 million

Scope:

2 New Academic Buildings

2 New Dorms

Status:

Academic buildings in design

Dorm construction underway

Planning Process

Assessment

Enhanced Environmental Assessment

Enrollment Projection

Ohio School Design Manual

Master Facility Plan

Learning Opportunities

Planning Process

N D J F M A A S O N D J M A M J J A S O N D

M i l e s t o n e s o f P l a n n i n g Y e a r

SEPTEMBER OCTOBER MAY JUNE JULY

OSFC APPROVES NEW PROJECTS

STUDENT COUNT SUBMITTED TO OHIO DEPT OF EDUCATION BY SCHOOL DISTRICT

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROVIDES OSFC WITH EQUITY RANKING

DISTRICT APPROVES MASTER FACILITY PLAN

OSDM INFLATION UPDATES APPROVED

MASTER PLANNING (ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED OR REVISED) - DISCUSSION WITH DISTRICT TO SORT OUT SCOPE OF FACILITY MASTER PLAN

DISTRICT IN BOND LEVY CAMPAIGN MODE AFTER FILING WITH COUNTY BOARD of ELECTIONS IN AUGUST

DESIGN AND BIDDING

2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1

To

da

y

Milestones of Planning Year

Assessment

To develop a comprehensive infrastructure assessment for the entire district, resulting in a building by building, itemized scope of work & budget to construct the required improvements.

Objective/Methodology

Age of System/Material

Condition of System/Material

Code Considerations

Does It Exist??

Quantity of System/Material

Enhanced Environmental Assessment

To provide accurate numbers for the master facility plans, the Commission contracted with environmental specialists who would be able to provide their expertise and perform actual testing at the buildings.

Objective/Methodology

Provide a more accurate budget for abatement of hazardous materials during the master plan process

Eliminate potential cost overruns during project renovation or demolition

To further assure the safety and health of students and staff in renovated facilities

Enrollment

District provides

Projection

OSFC contracts with Multiple

Demographers

Competitive Selection of 1 Demographer

OSFC adopts Review Process

1997 1998 2001 2006

OSFC Enrollment Process - Historical Overview

Enrollment

District Submits Questionnaire

DeJONG-HEALY Draft Projection

OSFC EP ReviewOSFC

Recommends Release to District

DeJONG-HEALY sends Draft to

District

District Review District Approval

Begins after student count is submitted to Ohio Department of Education each October

Enrollment

To provide accurate district-wide enrollment projections in order to assist with the finalization of the Master Facility Plan. Enrollment Projections are determined by the following:

Objective/Methodology

District Questionnaire

Review of the districts housing, land, historical-community –open enrollment, live birth data, demographics, and survival ratios

Review of draft enrollment projections with input by district

Enrollment

Major Inputs are:

10 years of historical enrollment data

15 years of live birth data

Other factors considered are:

Potential housing developments

Number of students attending community schools & open enrollment in/out

Vocational students

Pre-school students

Demographics

Other information the district may feel is important to consider

Enrollment

Online District Questionnaire

Objective/Methodology

Increased efficiency & accuracy in gathering data

Easier for Districts to provide information

Easier for OSFC to track data

Data is updated annually

Questionnaire is revised annually to reflect any

changes in OSFC policy

http://osfc.dejonghealy.com/osfc/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fosfc%2fdefault.aspx

Enrollment

Methodology – Recommendation Factors

Accuracy of projection vs. actual enrollment

Primarily look at early elementary grades

Change in program, i.e., Pre-K or Career Tech

Completion date of latest projection

Change in community [housing, closing of private school, boundary change, etc.]

Grade 2009-10 Dec. 01 EP Difference Percentage

K 359 323 36

1 398 360 38

2 425 355 70

3 392 373 19

4 412 382 30

5 416 356 60

6 462 393 69

7 431 409 22

8 461 486 -25

9 497 527 -30

10 475 541 -66

11 320 360 -40

12 272 399 -127

K - 12 Total 5,320 5,347 -27

Ungraded 5 15 -10

Special Education 1

CT Comp - Low Bay 101 40 61

Grand Total 5,427 5,402 24 0.44%

Northmont City School District

Historical Enrollment

Enrollment

Methodology – ELPP to CFAP

Once a District moves from ELPP to CFAP, a review of the latest projections is performed.

Review is Initiated by OSFC rather than District

Recommendation is based on when projections were done and/or accuracy of projections based on actual enrollment.

District moves to CFAP

DeJONG-HEALY Reviews

Projection

DeJONG-HEALY Provides

Recommendation

Geographic Information Systems(GIS)

Collection of computer hardware, software [ArcGIS], & geographic data

Interactive Map

Overlay Student Data [address, grade, codes, etc.]

Schools

Attendance Boundaries

Land Use, Parcels, Subdivisions, etc.

Roads, Rivers, Railroads, Parks, etc.

GIS – Zip Code Data

GIS – Block Group Data

GIS – Block Group Data

Master Facility Plan

To develop a district wide facility solution which brings all facilities for all children up to the OSFC Design Manual standards. The Master Facility Plan will determine:

Disposition of Each Building (New, Renovation Only or Renovation/Addition

Number of Students & grade level for each building

Itemized scope of work for each renovated building

Itemized budget for each building

Objective/Methodology

Master Facility Plan

Determining Enrollment

Compare Year One (2010-2011) against final year of projection

If increasing----use 10th year (2019-2020)

If decreasing----use 5th year (2014-2015)

For Urban & Large Districts with several segments, the Master Plan Year is the Projected Build-out Year

Grade

2009-10

Actual2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

K - 6 2,864 2,786 2,771 2,746 2,720 2,672 2,657 2,661 2,670 2,660 2,652

7 - 8 892 893 877 836 827 841 842 791 766 780 797

9 - 12 1,564 1,552 1,495 1,485 1,443 1,407 1,384 1,378 1,370 1,328 1,301

K - 12 Total 5,320 5,231 5,143 5,067 4,990 4,920 4,883 4,830 4,806 4,768 4,750

Ungraded 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Special Education 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Career Tech Comprehensive - Low Bay 101 105 100 98 96 94 93 88 88 89 90

Grand Total 5,427 5,343 5,250 5,172 5,093 5,021 4,983 4,925 4,901 4,864 4,847

Northmont City School District

Projected Enrollment by Grade Group

Source: DeJONG-HEALY

Ohio School Design Manual

Defines square foot per student

Defines cost per square foot

Defines systems & materials

2011 – Will be adding 21st

Century implementation process narrative

Ohio LEED Projects

310

65

19

LEED Projects – 255Version 2.0 – 156Version 3.0 – 94Pending Access - 5

45

101

7

®

Implementation of LEED Requirements

centerforgreenschools.org

Center for Green Schools

Conclusions

Staying connected not always easy

With such a wide range of needs, different approaches work for different Districts

However, OSFC needs to be consistent with policy across the board

Reach out Try something new Listen