More Seats for Students
-
Upload
illana-blair -
Category
Documents
-
view
15 -
download
2
description
Transcript of More Seats for Students
![Page 1: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
More Seats for Students
History of Tuckahoe Capacity and APS Actions
![Page 2: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Tuckahoe’s Physical Structure
• Constructed in 1953: 16 classrooms, library, multipurpose room, several smaller admin rooms.
• 1971: Addition of 9 classrooms, a music room, an open media center, and a gym.
• 1983: Reed Elementary School was closed due to declining enrollment, students reassigned to Tuckahoe.
• 1999-2000: School Renovation to Upgrade the Physical Plant, resulting in a School Supporting 499 Students (Now School Defined Capacity At 521 Students)
![Page 3: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Tuckahoe Enrollment Growth
![Page 4: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
APS Elementary Enrollment
![Page 5: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Changes to Tuckahoe Campus
• 6 Relocatables located behind the school with the Potential for Additional Relocatables to Accommodate Projected Enrollment Increases
• Additional Classroom Space Created from Rooms Formerly Dedicated to Programs (i.e., Special Education pull-out, Computer labs)
![Page 6: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Challenges Resulting from Current Capacity
• Building and Maintaining Strong and Personal Connections Among Students, Parents and Staff
• Foregoing FLES Program • Diminishing Computer Lab Space• Sharing Space for Integral Programs (Music, Arts,
Special Education Pull-Out)• Custodial Issues• Diminishing Play Space
![Page 7: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Tuckahoe Projected Enrollment
![Page 8: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
APS Projected Elementary Enrollment
![Page 9: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
APS Efforts to Address Projected Student Enrollment Increases
• 2004 Boundary Process– Created Barrett cluster– Revised transfer admissions policy to 95% capacity– Moved some planning units from Taylor and a Montessori class from
McKinley– No planning units moved from Tuckahoe
• 2007-2008 – Elementary Crowding and Capacity Committee (ECCC)– Moved one Tuckahoe planning unit to Glebe– Moved one Tuckahoe planning unit to Nottingham– Moved McKinley Montessori class to Campbell– Moved Interlude from Nottingham to Oakridge– Moved MIPA from Barrett to Abingdon– Barcroft transfers to Randolph instead of Barrett
![Page 10: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
More Seats for Students
Highlights from Oct. 5 APS Presentation
![Page 11: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Defining the CapacityShortage
• 2011 enrollment: 22,245 students– 83 relocatable classrooms (28 added this year)– 50% of our schools now have students in relocatables
• Projected growth at 4% per year through 2016• Resulting system-wide shortages in capacity
2013: 834 seats2016: 3,387 seats
• Cannot resolve crowding within existing facilities
![Page 12: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Quantifying the Shortage• Elementary School shortages– 2013: 1,084 seats (approx 46 classrooms)– 2016: 1,608 seats (approx 69 classrooms)
• Middle School shortages– 2016: 921 seats (approx 38 classrooms)
• High School shortages– 2013: 105 seats (approx 4 classrooms)– 2016: 857 seats (approx 36 classrooms)
• Total additional classrooms needed in 2016: – 143 classrooms
![Page 13: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Progressive Planning Model
• Stepwise approach to developing capacity– 4 phases (2010 thru 2016 and beyond)
• Some solutions immediate• Other solutions require longer planning
horizon
![Page 14: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
APS strategies for increasingcapacity and balancing utilization
1. Move programs from crowded to underutilized schools when possible
2. Increase class size3. Increase utilization of secondary schedule (6/7
model)4. Convert computer labs and other internal
spaces (10 for 2011)5. Add relocatables (28 classrooms for 2011)6. Increase enrollment at countywide schools7. Construction
![Page 15: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Results of APS capacitystrategies
• Since 2005, APS has added 2,531 seats– 929 elementary schools– 684 middle schools– 918 high schools
• Does not include relocatable seats• More seats are needed
![Page 16: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Convergence of Two Processes
• Capital Improvement Process• Capacity Planning• Capacity Planning process will result in CIP
projects and programmatic strategies for addressing capacity concerns
![Page 17: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Capacity Planning Process
Milestones & Outcomes•Criteria Development June –July 2011– Identify criteria for evaluating capacity planning
solutions•Develop Solutions Catalog May - Sept 2011– Collect potential capacity planning options and
develop a catalogue of potential solutions• Potential solutions include summary of PTA responses, staff
options etc.• Refine the master list of potential options with FAC/PCS
subcommittee, senior staff, evaluation committee (9/15)
![Page 18: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Capacity Planning Process(cont’d)
Milestones & Outcomes•Data Collection and Analysis Fall 2011– Conduct investigations, analysis and feasibility studies
of the prioritized solutions•Rank Capacity Planning Solutions Late Fall-Winter 2011– Leverage a collaborative process to rank solutions for
inclusion in the Capital Improvement Plan– Review capacity generation and funding scenarios
•Superintendent presents CIP to the Board May 2012
![Page 19: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
APS Site Evaluation Process• Capacity Building Solutions: CCPTA Survey of all schools• Evaluation Committee, including:
– Facilities Advisory Council subcommittee on projections/capacity
– 8 community members– APS senior staff representing all departments– CCPTA representation
• Evaluation Committee determined which APS sites to pursue further as part of CIP development
• Two critical questions:– Is it feasible to build on this site?– Which sites are recommended and why?
![Page 20: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Evaluation Criteria
• Open Space• Buildability Concerns– Parking– Slope– Environmental issues
• Cost (based on size of additions)
![Page 21: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Evaluation Limitations
• APS cannot plan/build/fund expansions on 30 sites simultaneously
• Building above an existing building– Requires that all students be out for construction
• Building where relocatables are located– Requires that all students be moved prior to start
of construction• APS does not assume that we can build on or
use adjacent County property
![Page 22: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Sites Recommended for Further Study
• Abingdon• Arlington Traditional• Ashlawn• Carlin Springs• Drew• Glebe• Hoffman-Boston• Jamestown
• McKinley• Nottingham• Oakridge• Taylor• Jefferson• Kenmore• Williamsburg• Reed
![Page 23: More Seats for Students](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062717/56812a66550346895d8de56c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Next Steps
• November 10th Town Hall Meeting– Special Guest– Todd McCracken Will Provide
Update on APS Planning Process and Answer Questions/Concerns Regarding the Planning Process
• Tuckahoe Input To Requests from APS Planning Process
• Advocacy– Staying Informed and be Willing to Voice Tuckahoe Challenges