Loading...
B HS Discussion CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard POBox 147 Chanhassen,MN55317 Administration Phone: 952.2271100 fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1100 fax 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.2271160 fax: 952.2271170 Finance Phone: 952.2271140 fax: 952.2271110 Park & Recreation Phone 9522271120 fax: 952.227.1110 R~creation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone 952.227.1400 fax: 952.227.1404 Pianning & Natural Resources Phone 952.2271130 fax: 952227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 951.2171300 fax: 951.1171310 Senior Center Phone: 951.117.1115 fax 951.217.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor City Council FROM: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager DATE: May 8, 2002 SUBJ: Discussion of a District 112 High School in Chanhassen Staff has placed this item on the agenda to discuss the possibility of creating a partnership with School District 112 to locate a high school in Chanhassen. Discussion items would include planning, site selection, and possible sharing of financial resources (e.g. land costs, pennits, park fees, density transfers, utilities, roadway improvements, etc.). To answer some of these questions, the first step is to detennine possible locations and potential costs for each. r would recommend that the City Council designate the Park & Recreation Commission, or Planning Commission, or establish a Site Sdection Task Force to look at alternative sites and detennine preliminary cost estimates for each site being considered. I have attached some background infonnation that School District 112 used in detennining their facility needs for your review. g:\admin\tg\high school.doc The City of Chanhassen . A growing community with clean lakes. quality schools. a charming downtown. thriving husinesses. winding traits, and beautiful parks A great place to live. work, and play. Survey Summary Page 1 of2 « *Jt 112 c.rver. CUnh_. ClIMb .nd VIc:I:ori8, Mln__ '}. Survey Summary Bill Morris of Decision Resources, Ltd., presented the results of the telephone survey conducted on behalf of School District 112 at the School Board's April 4 work session. The survey focused on two general areas: public attitude toward issues affecting facilities in the future and general attitudes about our school system. The survey is based on responses from 400 residents called at random during March. Facilities Overall, the facilities portion of the survey gave the following information to use as we develop a facilities master plan for 2014: · The community's highest priority is smaller class sizes · There is little support for a 'mega' high school with all 2600 students under one roof in 2014. The community prefers two high schools or two buildings under the umbrella of one high school. · Beyond smaller class sizes, the community supports smaller school size and prefers that the small size be created though 'schools within schools' rather than smaller sized buildings. In a mixed message, the community supports fewer transitions if possible between buildings, but also prefers the currentgrade configuration. · People have little support for choice in programs. They prefer that schools serving the same grade levels provide the same programs. · The community strongly prefers to keep preschool and ECFE center-based. They do not favor moving preschool programs to elementary schools. · By a slim margin, the community prefers to keep kindergarten center-based instead of moving the kindergarten back to elementary schools. (46% favored moving back to elementary schools while 51% favored a center-based program.) · The community and parents see the issue of all-day kindergarten differently. While only 30% of the entire sample supported all-day kindergarten, 76% of parents surveyed supported all-day kindergarten. All day kindergarten did not come through as a top priority when parents were asked to priority-ranked issues. · District 112 residents are extremely tax-sensitive. They believe they are paying high taxes compared to other communities. Bill Morris described the community as "moderately tax hostile." The survey showed, however, that they want District 112 to balance cost with research or even tip the balance somewhat in favor of research when planning for students. · The Community is well aware of the District's enrollment growth. Eight-six percent agreed or somewhat agreed that District 112 has a pressing need for additional classroom space. Attitudes Toward District 112 The portion of the survey that tested public attitude toward our schools yielded very positive results. Bill Morris repeatedly noted that District 112 numbers were among the highest in the metro area. h ch e h School District 112: Facilities Options Page I of2 « ~'WfJt 112 c.rver, CUnh_, ClIMb .nd VIc:I:ori8, Mln__l Q and A: District 112 Long-Range Facilities Planning Process Frequently Asked Questions WHY IS DISTRICT 112 DOING A LONG-RANGE FACILITIES PLAN? District 112 ' s most recent demographic study shows a " boom period" ahead in the cities we serve. That rapid growth will impact schools with incredible enrollment growth over the next 12 years. Demographer Dr, Barbara Lukermann projects an additional 2,000 students in the next five years bringing the enrollment to nearly 9,500 students. By 2014,the enrollment is projected to peak at 11, 100.District 112 is creating a facilities 'master plan' based on community input. WHAT WILL THE FACILITIES 'MASTER PLAN' LOOK LIKE? The final model will show the number of facilities District 112 will have in 2014 as well as the grade organization and possible changes in programs. The final plan will suggest a timeline for opening new buildings and a possible referendum schedule to indicate when bond/operating levies could be brought to voters. WILL THE 'MASTER PLAN' LOOK LIKE ONE OF THE SIX MODELS DEVELOPED BY THE CITIZEN/STAFF STUDY GROUPS IN JANUARY? The six models created by the study groups are conversation starters. They suggest ways the District could address the space needs in the next 12 years; they also show various ways to use research on student leaming. It is possible that the 'master plan' will look like one of the six models or it could be a combination of several or an entirely new idea. The final plan will be developed based on feedback from staff and community. WHO WILL DEVELOP THE 'MASTER PLAN?' An administrative leadership team will review the community/staff feedback collected in February and March and create one model to present to the community. Superintendent Bev Stofferahn will present the model to a community/staff panel on April 23 for final suggestions. The Board expects to take action on the proposal in June. WHO MAKES THE FINAL DECISION? The District 112 School Board will make the final decision. The administration will present a final recommendation based on the feedback from the community/staff panel on April 23. HOW WILL DISTRICT 112 FINANCE NEW BUILDINGS AND/OR PROGRAMS? New buildings and programs are beyond our reach based on current revenues. They will require the approval of voters through bond and levy referenda. District 112 will include a timeline for tax referenda as part of the 'master plan.' HOW CAN PEOPLE BECOME INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS? The months of February and March are designated as 'listening months' on the District's planning process. We encourage everyone to review the research on learning and the summary of enrollment projections. Then complete the feedback form on the back of the District's newsletter mailed to every home, or go online at www.district112.org and click on Current Events and go to Long-Range Facilities Planning Process. WILL DISTRICT 112 BE DOING ANYTHING ELSE TO GET PUBLIC OPINION? District 112 has asked Decision Resources, Ltd., to conduct a telephone survey the first week in March. This survey will provide statistically valid input from a random sample of citizens and will be used to shape the option being brought to the community/staff panel in April. WHERE CAN I GET COMPLETE INFORMATION ON DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS AND UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA RESEARCH (CAREl) ON STUDENT LEARNING? A complete report on both of these studies can be found at www.district112.org under Current Events and then go to Long-Range Facilities Planning Process, DO THE DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS INCLUDE THE PROJECTED INCREASES IN LOCAL PRIVATE SCHOOLS? h ch fc h School District 112: Facilities Options Page 2 of2 The demographic report includes only enrollment for the public schools in this area. For more information call (952) 556-6100 Ab:QY_t1J.:2 I ç\,l!T@ntE.~n1$16.YI.I.eJtllß_ºª(Q I CQmm .Jn.ity_Ectu~tiºn Sç!lººLS!t~§ I P_QP,.~.Y_~ I J.º,Þ._Q».e:ningª 11,e1$1$QIJ. PIªn$ rtºrn.~ Copyright@2002School District 112. All Rights Reserved. h ch f c h Survey Summary Page 20f2 · 72% said they were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the education students receive from their public schools. Bill Morris said this was "extraordinarily strong" and that District 112's satisfaction rate was among the strongest in the metro area. · When asked to grade the nation's schools, 40% gave them an A or a B; when asked to grade District 112 schools, 70% gave us an A or a B. . 86% believe high quality public schools increase property values. · 81 % agreed that the community receives a good value from its investment in our schools. · 69% said they felt informed or somewhat informed about our schools. Bill Morris said this was a 'very high level' among metro area schools. · 70% said they trusted the School Board and administration to do what is right for the children in our district. Miscellaneous · 83% of our residents have access to the Internet. . 50% of parents support offering high school classes online. However, only 22% of parents approve of taking online classes instead of attending regular classes at the high school. · Respondents perceive that the Chaska Herald and other newspapers are the most credible source of information on our schools followed by the District newsletter. · District 112 is seen as prudent in going to voters, Sixty-one percent agree that a referendum is brought to the voters only as a last resort after all other budget alternatives have been considered. · 52% agree that the Board and administration spend tax money effectively and efficiently. · 51 % agree that District 112 is honest with residents about the ways in which tax money is spent. This question had one of the highest "Don't Know" responses: 22% · 52% of households in District 112 have school age children þ,þout 112 Çurre:ntl;"~lJt§ ßu ~tilJ_B()ªrØ I GOlJlm_Yni,ty_I;_Øt,l~ti()1l School Sites I Pop Quiz I Job Openings I LesscmPlans I Home Copyright © 2002 School District 112. All Rights Reserved. h ch e h School District 112: Facilities Options Page I of5 « ~Jt 112 Carver, CllenhUMn, CIuIeb .nd ~ Mln__ ~ Facilities Options ModeJ 1 Grade Organization: PreschoollECFE in all elementary schools 14 Elementary schools: K-6 3 Middle Schools: 7-9 1 High School in 2 buildings: 10-12 This model: · Builds 8 new elementary schools to house 400 students per school in smaller classrooms. Assumes full day kindergarten in each school and additional rooms in each building for preschool programs. · Adds classroom and core space to East Union to house 400 students. · Builds 1 new middle school with a pool and creates shared community space with hosting city · Adds a fourth house to current high school building and a third house to Pioneer Ridge. The two buildings form a high school campus. · Creates a field house on the high school campus · Sells the Early Childhood Center Pluses for this model: · Smaller, personal environment for elementary students . Only two student transitions between buildings, K-12 . Increases shared community space · Keeps Chaska High as one school but with two buildings and potential for "schools within a school" · Provides all-day kindergarten . Most new construction on less expensive elementary buildings Concerns for this model: · Land would be needed for nine new buildings . Keeps high school and middle schools larger than optimal · Increased number of small elementary schools adds significant operating costs · Eliminates ECC Model 2 Grade Organization: PreschoollECFE at all elementary schools 7 Elementary schools: Grades K-4 3 Intermediate Schools: Grades 5-7 1 Middle School: Grades 8-9 1 High School: Grades 10-12 h ch fc h School District 112: Facilities Options Page 2 of5 This model: · Builds a new high school with three CEpods' as CEschools within a school' for 900 students each · Moves grades 8 and 9 into the current high school building and adds a fourth house · Uses current middle schools and Pioneer Ridge as intermediate schools each with grades 5-7 · Adds one new elementary school, with all elementary schools housing all -day kindergarten and preschool programs · The Early Childhood Center becomes a K-4 elementary. · East Union is closed. Pluses for this model: · Maximizes all existing buildings and adds only two new schools · One less transition for students from preschool to elementary · Would use CEschool within a school' model for grades 5-12 Concerns for this model: · Schools remain large by research standards · Still three student transitions between buildings K-12 · High school would require large land purchase · High schools are more costly to build and operate · Eliminates East Union Model 3 Grade Organization: Preschool/ECFE at the ECC 9 Elementary Schools: K-5 3 Middle Schools: 6-8 2 High Schools: 9-12 This model: · Builds 3 additional elementary schools for 500 students each and expands East Union to hold 400 students. Existing elementary schools remain at current capacity. · Places all-day kindergarten in regular elementary schools. · Houses preschool programs in the Early Childhood Center. · Keeps CMS East and West as middle schools and changes Pioneer Ridge from a Freshmen Center to a middle school for grades 6-8. · Adds a swimming pool to Pioneer Ridge and creates additional sports facilities in partnership with communities. · Builds another high school and puts grade 9 at both high schools. " k· l' .' r: ~; I \1 ~' 'F " , h ch fc h t ¡ I l ~-.' - ¡ t ~ Pluses for this model: · Fewer transitions than current system · Elementary schools are a medium size · Integrates kindergarten into regular elementary program and provides all-day kindergarten · Two high schools of moderate size rather than one very large high school School District 112: Facilities Options Page 3 of5 Concerns for this model: · Creates a two-high school community setting up possible competition · Sports facilities increase the cost · Two middle schools are large · Still a student transition between buildings from preschool to kindergarten Model 4 Grade Organization: PreschooVECFE in all elementary schools 11 elementary schools: Grades K-6 2 preschool-grade 9 magnet schools 5 middle schools: Grades 7-9 2 high schools: Grades 10-12 This model: · Reduces class size to 18: 1 in K-6 · Builds five new elementary schools and remodels CMS East and CMS West to accommodate both middle school and elementary school students in a "school within a school" · Closes the Early Childhood Center . Uses the current high school houses as three middle schools of 500 students each · Places a magnet school at CMS East for 400 students in Preschool-Grade 9 in addition to its 500 middle school students · Places an elementary magnet program for 400 students at CMS West in addition to its 500 middle school students · Builds a new 1800 student high school with two separate houses, creating smaller schools within a school. · Adds a third house to Pioneer Ridge to create a 900 student high school · Neighborhood schools would include community services such as daycare, health services, dental offices, community centers · Increases East Union capacity to 400 Pluses for this model: · Small schools of 400 students at the elementary level, 500 at the middle level and 900 at the high school level. . Fewer transitions for students · Each elementary school serves multiple uses in the community · Offers options to families Concerns for this model: · Cost of lowering class size and building neighborhood schools . Closing ECC · May be harder to achieve diversity · Need to educate community on value of non-traditional grade organization · Two high schools may set up competition h ch fc h School District 112: Facilities Options Page 4 of5 Model 5 Grade Organization: 3 buildings housing PreschoollECFE through grade 8 6 buildings housing Preschool/ECFE through grade 5 2 middle schools: grades 6-8 2 high schools: grades 9-12 1 building for Adult Education/Career Education This model: · Offers choices that might include language immersion, teachers following students through Œlooping,' a career academy, non-graded schools, etc. · Builds two new buildings for 1000 students each plus CMS West to house students in preschool through grade 8 · Expands East Union to 400 students · Reduces enrollment at all elementary schools to 400 students · Adds preschool programs and all day kindergarten to elementary schools · Adds classrooms to Pioneer Ridge; Pioneer Ridge and CMS East house grades 6-8, · Adds a fourth house to the current high school and builds an additional high school, both serving grades 9- 12. · Remodels the Early Childhood Center for career education classes and adult education. Pluses for this model: · Minimizes transitions · Offers choices for students and families · Offers all day kindergarten for every five-year-old · Creates smaller elementary schools · Creates two high schools of moderate size instead of one large school Concerns for this model: · Creates a two-high school community setting up possible competition · Requires acceptance of different grade organization for three schools · Additional expense to develop choice programs · Making choices available to all may require additional transportation costs · Except for East Union, existing elementary schools may not be operating a core capacity Model 6 Grade Organization: Preschool in each elementary building 8 elementary schools: grades K-5 3 middle schools: grades 6-8 1 freshmen center: grade 9 2 high schools: grades 10-12 This model: h ch fc h -- ,..,. School District 112: Facilities Options Page 5 of 5 · Creates two new elementary schools and expands East Union to 450 students if needed · Adds preschool programs to each elementary school · Adds all day kindergarten at each elementary school · Continues using CMS East and CMS West for middle schools and adds a new 600-student middle school as a connecter between the current buildings. · Adds a field house at the middle school site · Continues using Pioneer Ridge as a 9th grade center and adds another house · Adds an additional high school. Current high school remains at 1100 student capacity 4th house is not added, · Retools the Early Childhood Center as a senior center and/or a children's nursery · Suggests partnering with city hosting new schools to create a community center attached to each school Pluses for this model: · Minimizes transitions before 6th grade · Creates two moderately-sized high schools · Continues use of CMSE, CMSW, and PR for middle level program Concerns for this model: · Still three student transitions, K-12, with two occurring after grade 6 · Two high schools offer potential to set up competition among communities · Undersized acreage at middle school site for addition of new middle school and field house. AþOllt 11~ I ç~rrent E;vents 1 Bll11etin E3oar.d I Cornrnunityl;.qlJçø,tîQIJ School Sites I Pop Qujz I Job Openings I Lesson Plans I HOlTle Copyright © 2002 School District 112. All Rights Reserved. h ch fc h Question 2 - Grade organization a. Models must not include a high number of transitions from building to building. b. Models must not exclude segments of the population, specifically pre-K and adult c. Models must consider the research on the relationship of school size, transitions, and grade organization to student achievement. Question 3 - Future of existing facilities a. Models must not include the use of inefficient or non-cost effective facilities (as part of a long-range solution.) Question 4 - Early childhood programs - no additional parameters Question 5 - Accommodating High School growth a. Models must maximize use of core space b. Models must consider the research on high school size and structure as they relate to student achievement. SCOPE OF RESPONSBILlTY AND AUTHORITY The FSG is expected to propose several workable models that address district facility needs to the District Leadership Team. These models will serve as the basis for broad staff and community discussion and feedback over the next several months. The community discussion and feedback will be coordinated by the Communications office and conducted by district administrators, Facility Advisory Committee, and the District Leadership Team. Ultimately, the Leadership Team, with assistance from the Facility Advisory Committee, will analyze the feedback, formulate a recommendation for a facilities master plan and present the recommendation to the Board of Education for approval. The FSG's primary responsibility is to get the process started by creating models for the broader community's discussion and response. TIMELlNE The Facility Study Group is expected to complete its work by Wednesday, January 30. The District Communication's Office will develop presentation and feedback materials so the models can be presented to the Facility Advisory Committee on February 11 after which staff and community discussions and response will begin. RESOURCES AVAILABLE 1. Print Documents ( 7 ) 2. Information "cheat sheet" 3. Personnel Steve Bonnie - Betsy Diana Nancy Dick $'s Program Research Re-purposing school facilities Facilities Study Communication Process Options MEMBER EXPECTATIONS 1. Creative thinking 2. District perspective (as opposed to a constituency perspective) 3. Follow these participation rules: - Take turns speaking - Listen with respect - Suspend judgment INFORMATION CHEAT SHEET I. ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS (From Lukennan Merged Model) B G d )v ra e Current 2001 2005 2009 2013 2015 K 629 740 793 789 781 1 629 749 813 809 793 2 577 761 831 829 807 3 621 767 856 851 826 4 608 767 855 862 846 5 571 743 848 871 863 6 589 673 844 880 869 7 563 701 828 892 877 8 558 672 814 883 886 9 529 637 791 876 900 10 552 648 720 872 891 11 546 607 740 851 878 12 444 584 695 828 871 Total 7,416 9,050 10,428 ] 1,092 11,089 C o . f urrent r~a mza IOn K 629 740 793 789 781 1-5 3,006 3,788 4,203 4,222 4,135 6-8 1,710 2,046 2,486 2,655 2,632 9 529 637 791 876 900 10-12 1,542 1,840 2,154 2,550 2,640 PARAMETERS As the FSG carries out its task, it is expected to operate within some parameters. The first of these concerns the desired educational programming in District 112. The direction for desired educational programming comes from three documents; the district's Educational Plan, Guiding Principles, and Long-Range Plan. The main concepts of these documents related to educational programming are: A. Aligned, standards based curriculum B. Aligned curriculum assessment and system accountability C. Aligned, rigorous and engaging learning opportunities 1., Personal learning plans that include active and applied . learning opportunities in both independent and team or group settings. 2. Learning communities in small, personal environments that: are led by visionary leaders require minimal transitions from building to building are safe, secure and accessible provide opportunities for people of all ages to be both learners and resources to learning include gathering places for the community at large 3. Instructional teams who provide learning opportunities that include self-directed, independent, team and group activities. 4. Accessible technology integrated into the teaching and learning process Consider this to be a "picture" or "vision" of how the teaching/learning transaction might look. The FSG is expected to develop models that can accommodate this description of desired educational programming. The second set of parameters defines the limits within which each of the five questions listed in the previous section (TASKS) must be answered. The parameters for each question are as follows: . Question 1 - Number of facilities a. Models need to include more than the number of facilities that currently exist in District 112 b. Models must be affordable c. Models must not include surplus space; at peak enrollment all facilities should be filled to or beyond capacity and being used as intended. d. Models must not include mandated year-around school programs in order to minimize facility needs. SECTION 8: PREKINDERGARTEN ':4s a nation, tbe United States pays about aJ mucb to parking-lot attendants and dry cieaning workerJ aJ Ù doeJ early cbildbood educators, according to tbe Bureau of Labor StaltStics. Tbe average annual salary of cbild-care workers in 1999 was 115,430. Prescbool teacbers, wbo typically work witb 3- to 5:}ear-olds, bad annual salaJieJ of 119,610, less tban balf wbat tbe average elementary scbool teacber earned. " Quality Counts 2002, p.9 Researchers and policy makers agree that good early education progranuning is one of the most effective ways to build the basic skills necessary for getting along in modern society. And yet, only three states - Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma, and the District of Columbia - are phasing in prekindergarten programs for any 4-year-old whose parents, regardless of income, desire it. Only Georgia has invested sufficient funds to make prekindergarten programming currently available to all children in the state. Tllis section includes a discussion of tile research findings in prekindergarten programs and presents them under the following headings: The /ìr!/lejÌlJ ~f>r¿!~il1d(!:garIeJl programJ IV/~y pn:kllldergm1tJl prograll/J matter Important COllterns Re({)lJlll/enda/ioll The benefits of prekindergarten programs The findings llighlighted below are gathered from fifteen representative studies, reports, and articles'. In tllese studies, research has shown that preschool progranuning regularly accounts for a substantial portion of the gains in academic, social, and language and communication skills. In many cases these gains persist only over the short term, but in several high quality programs' the effects remained until adolescence and, at times, until adulthood. I 1l1e srudies selected represent ù1e e\"aluations of many programs. For example, one srudy e\'aluated prekinderg:uren programs across SL'" states, one studied the effects on 500 children after three years of ~[ogr:lmming, \vhile another analyzed 25 years of research on 144 programs. - High quality programming is frequently associated with smaller classes, ]ower child to adult ratios, certified teí1chers or teachers who have attained a level of mastery, both an academic and sociallbehavioral component, and a strong, interactive parent component. Some concerns identified in the research \Vhile a vast amount of research points to the benefits of prekindergarten programs, some studies raised the following concerns or cautions, Balance. Rutledge (2000) cautions policymakers to strike a balance between strengthening and supporting the mother-child relationship and increasing cognitive de\-elopment and academic success skills. AI'oid long hOllrs. A study conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development found that while high quality preschool programming has positive effects on language and math skills, it cautioned that the long hours of preschoof programming may make some children more aggressi\-e. Luting efficts. Depending on the quality of tl,e program, the target skill, and tl,e particular child, some effects were large but lasted for only a short time while other effects may last to adulthood. Cone'entratioll alld dllmtion. Several studies examined but could not definitely conclude d,ether it was the concentration or duration of the prekindergarten prograrnming that made a difference on the children's success. The baseline for program duration was nva years. Recommendations Factors and recommendations frequently raised in discussions of prekindergarten program success. Comparing COJ!J'. \'Vhile expensive, prekindergarten programming is considered a good investment for the community or stare. Frequently the statement is made that it costs less to pay for this kind of programming than pay for a person in prison for a year. C'mÚrJaI acceSJ. Programming must be a\'ailable for all interested families regardless of income. EJ'tablish standards. Researchers, policymakers and practitioners frequently call for prekindergarten standards. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) has written a set of standards. PrograllJming to begin as earlY aJ·pnnata!. Many policy makers argue that beginning programming with prenatal assistance would ensure the best result for children, especially children from low-income families. Language foms. Programming should have language and communication as a central focus. Teacher certificatioll alld credentialing. Prekindergarten teachers should be well trained and certified in the area of Early Childhood Education, Small classes and low cbild to adult ratioJ. Classes should be small with many individual and small group activities. Time for teacbers to develop, ref/ect, and attainmaJtery. Teaching is best when teachers have time to generate questions, collect data, test hypotheses, and draw their own conclusions. Teachers should also receive ongoing professional development. Connection between scbool and bome. Progranuning should include a strong home-school component. Parents should be actively involved whenever possible. Some scbool content. Successful programs have .>'Ome formal classroom processes and content that resembles activities that children encounter in kindergarten, (For example, homework assignments, problem-solving in class, and individual work.) (Frede 1995) Integrated illlo other programming. Prekindergarten programs should be integrated into existing education systems to provide a sean1.1ess educational system. PREKINDERGARTEN SOURCES (1998). Early Childhood Standards for Programs for Three- and Four-Year Olds. U.S.; Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Dept. of Education Malden. Early Learning Services.: 30. (1998). Education in the earlv vears. Education in the early years: a conference for states on early childhood education, Atlanta. (2000). Preparing the workers of tomorrow: report on early learning, Child Care Action Campaign. (2000). "Standards-based reform: it works." Amelican Teacher 85(2): 2. (2002). Quality counts 2002: building blocks for success. Betl1esda, EdWeek: 8-10. Barnett, W. S. (1995). "Long-term effects on early childhood progroms on cognitive and school outcomes." The Future of Children 5(3): 25-50, Bosile, K. C. and G. T. Henry (1996). Quality and Effcctinness of Pre-Kindergarten Prograrns in Georgia: Parenral Perspcco\¥es. C.S.; Georgi:t, Georgia State Cmv-. Atlanta. ,-\ pplicd Research Cemer.: 37. Campbell, F. A, E. P. Pungello, et a!. (2001). "The de\'e]opment of cogniti"e and academic abilities: growth CUl:ns from an earl" childhood educational experiment." DC\-elopmenta] P"'cholo¡;v 37(2): 231--+2. Chermayeff, P. and T. Townsend (2000). Designing Schools Based on Brain Research. U.S.: Massachusetts: O. Clifford, R. ]\1., D. M. Early, et a!. (1999). "Almost a million children in school before kindergarten: who is responsible for early childhood services'" Young- Children 54(5): 48-51. Cryar, V. P. (1992). "PreJ.-indergarten parent involvement program: parenting skills in action." The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 58: 31-4. Curry,)., W. \\/ashington, et a!. (1997). Pre-K Best Practices Re,-iew, 1996-97. U.S.; Texas, Austin Independent School District TX. Office of Program Evaluation.: 57. Curry,). and G. ZyskowsJ.-i (2000). Prekindergarten E\'O]uation, 1999-2000. U.S.; Texas, c\ustin Independent School District TX. Office of Program Evaluation.: 15. Early, D., Dick Clifford, Tynette Hills (2002). Public schools and pre-K services. Chapel Hill, ;\;ationa] Center for Early De,-elopment and Learning: 2. Feldman, L. M. (1988). "Longitudinal study of disadnntaged prekindergarten children as young adults: achievers and non-achievers." Earlv Child Development and Care 33(1-4): 153-69. Feldman, L. M. (1995). "Family and community supports provided for low-income children in the Syracuse Prekindergarten Program: a follow-up study." Earlv Child Development and Care 111: 69-85. Frede, E. C. (1995). "The role of program quality in producing early childhood program benefits." The Future of Children 5(3): 115-132. Gamble, C. (1996). "Report urges more spending on preschool programs." Education Week 15: 7. Gomby, D., S., Mary B. Lamer, Carol S. Stevenson, Eugene ì\L Lewit, Richard E. Behrman (1995). "Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs: analysis and recommendations." The Future of Children 5(3): 6-24. Hicks, S. A, K. S. l.ekies, et at. (1999). Promising Practices: New York State Universal Prekindergarten. Expanded Edition. U.S.; New York, State Univ. of New York Ithaca. Coli. of Human Ecology at Cornelll'nic 85. HinJJe, D. (2000). Schoollm'oh'emenr in Early Childhood. C.S.: District of Columbia, "ational Inst. on Early Childhood Denlopmenr and Education (ED/OERI) \\'ashil1gton DC.: 68. Howes, C. (2002). Studv of best practices in early childhood education. Chape! Hill, National Cenrer for Early De,'e!opmenr and l.earning: 4. J:lcobson, L. (2000). "Plans for 'universal' preschool gain ground in New York State." Education \\/eek 20(8): 1,31. Jacobson, L. (2001). Focus on results tridding down to younger and vounger children. Education Week. Bethesda, MD. Jacobson, L. (2001). "Report details features of effectin state pre-K programs." Education Week 20(25): 6. Jacobson, L. (2001). State-financed preschools seen "iclding gains. Education Week. Bethesda, MD. Jalongo, M. R., K. Bauer, et al. (1998). "National Public School Prekindergarten: Issues and Future Directions." Dimensions of Eark Childhood 26(3-4): 3-11. Johnston, J. ì\I. (1984). "Perceived problems of day carel prekindergarten administrators." Child Care Ouarterl\' 13: 291-6. Lundin, J. E. (2000). Prekindergarten Learning & De\'elopment Guidelines. U.S.; California, California State Dept. of Education Sacramento. Div. of Child Development.: 204. Marcon, R. A. (1999), "Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public school inner-city preschoolers' development and academic performance." The School Psvchology Review 28(3): 395-412. McBride, B. A. and H.-F. Lin (1996). "Parental Invoh'ement in Prekindergarten At-Risk Programs: Multiple Perspectives." Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (fESPAR) 1(4): 349-72. Morado, C. (1986). "Prekindergarten programs for 4-year-olds." Young Children 41: 61-3. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1967). Preprimar\' enrollment of children under ,ix. [Washington). US Dept. of Health Education and Welfare Office of Education National Center for Educational Statistics. O),on, L. (2002). Starting Early. Education Week. Bethesda: 10-170. Pilcher, L. C. (1996). The Longitudinal Study of Georgia's Prekindergarten Children and Families. Executive Summary (1994-95). U.S.: Georgia: 14. Quae:, L. C. and et a1. (1996). The Longitudinal Enluation of Georgia's Prekindergarten Program: Results from the Third Year. L'.S.; Georgia: 26, Rœn" K. (2000). "Prc,chool in the public schools." School .-\dministrator 57(1): 20-4+. Ruùedge, D. (2000). ")Jcurons and nUrture in the earl\' yeats." Education Canada 39(4): 16- 18. SaluJa, G., D. l\1. Earl\', et a1. (2001). "Public school pre-kindergarten: does it make a difference'" Principal IRe, ton Ya.) 80(5): 18-21. Schulman, K., H. Blank, ct a1. (1999). Seeds of Success: State Ptekindergarten Initiatives, 1998-1999. U.S.; District of Columbia, Children's Defense Fund Washington DC.: 242. Schulman, K., H. Blank, et a1. (1999). "State prekindergarten initiatives: a ,'aried picture of states' decisions affecting availability, quality, and access." Y ouni' Children 54(6): 38- 41. Shaul, l\1. S. (2000). Early Childhood Programs: Charactetistics Affect the Availability of School Readiness Information. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. U.S.; District of Columbia, General Accounting Office Washington DC. Health Education and Human SelTices Div,: 24. Yiadero, D. (1997). "Study paints mixed picture of benefits of pre-K program in Ga." Education Week 16: 7. Weiler, J. (1998). Success for All: A Summary of Evaluations, ERIC/CUE Digest Number 139. U.S.; New York, ERlC Clearinghouse on Urban Education New York NY.: 7. Wohl, F. A. (2001). "Pre-kindergarten: expanding the boundaries of education." Principal (Reston Va.) 80(5): 22-5. Wohl, F. A. (2001). "Pre-Kindergarten: Expanding the Boundaries of Education." Principal 80(5): 22-25. Worobey, J. and H, S. Worobey (1999). "The impact of a two-year school breakfast program for pre-school aged children on their nutrient intake and pre-academic performance." Child Studv TournaI 29(2): 113-31. Yoshikawa, H. (1995). "Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency." The Future of Children 5(3): 51-75. Zervigon-Hakes, A. ~!. (1995). "Translating research findings into lorge-scale public programs and policI·." The Fumre of Children 5(3): 175-191. ...<B- ",f¡" ...~ ~ ...~~~"",~ ..~ ,'It; ~.. ~ ~'\~ ~ INFORMATION MffilNGSSEfFOR EACIICOMMUNtTY D;slflct112wIIIH InJOll'COII"'lIIIdlJ Inhllftlaryllld Man:htooulllMlht IS1lltIWldIll'COIIlld. el'lllolI II wa plan lacUltfll'DfOU ' p"""'(oll"'lI1lln 2014. W.lnYh·lDIl1O IIlillrDllfprUtnla. Ilon,ukl lIeSliollS antlcompl_!.. InÖ.clllorm. Yalllrl.elcolnIll any 01 Ih. prtlsenta_ I tions.ItJouc:annol Ittelldlh.meetln, J schtdul.dlnyOUf CDll'lTUlilJ,pl..ue I"' rnlo.tlenda me'lingln anolhlr ÇGlnnNni'Y. Cbub MMdIJ.FebnJ.¥}'25 ChuklComtTlllnily CIl1II!l,DryCrall Rooln,. 1:30 p.m. Victoria Tuud'J.Februll}'25 ViCIOril.CityHall, 5:30p.m. Cb~nhunn TluodaJ,F~2' ChaM.ntn RtcrulionCIM1I.... 1i:30p...., CarVIN TuUdI.J, grch5 CiVVerViIIllllllal1, I.Dwwtæwe~UOp.m. SCHOOL o 5 T ~ leT WE NEED YOUR IDEAS! More information on page 2. LONG RANGE FA(llITIES PLANNING BEGINS! A ccofding to our most recent demo9riphy study, District 112 will grow from our current 7,416 students to 11.113 by 2014. This growth means that more cbssroomswilLbeneededtoserveouryoung~ople. The question is this: how many more schools shoutdwe plan to build? But before we can answer that question, we need to consider other issues: What's the appropriate enrollment size for our schools? Should we buHd another high school or use CUflent buitdingsdifferenUy? Should we plan for the additional space needed to houseall-daykindergõllten programs? How many transitions between schools should we allow, knowing that tfansitions impede achievement? What's the rote of our communities? Should we plan for multiple use facilities that can be shared with cities? We want to hear from you! This newsletter includes information designed to engage our commun¡tyina discussion about the future. Weare seeking your feedbacl: on several issues. You may com- plete the feedbacl: form included in this newsletter, or Ie ply on· line atwww.district112.org.Clickon Current Event5 and go to FaciHties Feedback Form. Additional feedbackwiU be gathered through a BUDGET CUTS WILL TRIM $630,000 FROM 2002·03 Districtl12willcutapproxi- mately$6]0,000 from next year's generatfund budget or about 1%. The School Board has directed administration to reduce the general fund budget in order to maintain the 5% fund balance required by Board poUcy. The cut5 are based on Governor Ventura's budget proposal for K-12 education but without the sales tax change he is. proposing. Itappean that the proposal to eliminate the tax exempt status has no support in the legislature. His budgetpfoposalis a decrease in rev- enue of between $250,000 and 1300,000. The School Boud fs committed tocreatlngbudgeu bued on proJectlol15 beyond the foltowlng yeu. The budget projection modetused by the 60ard shows that the fund balance goal of S%wou{d be missed by more than $1 million;n 2003-04. In order to soften the impact of this short faU, the 60ard will reduce next year's budget by $6]0,000. I ProlettedfnroUmul! ~"" L "" }.."«'D....¡...'hkAN!y&I.....l."'__ ¡"'......otf'otoo. ,¡ft("Dh"IttUlIÞyD'...... U,Hohn"M__'fOC>. "" communitysurveyconductedbyOedsion Resources, ltd. in early March. How we look tomorrow witt depend on todaýs choices Fifty people representing staff and community created the models on page2and3 suggesting ways to addreu our peak enrollment in ~014. Tllese mod- els area way to begin tile discus- sion.Wearenot looking for a 'vote' on a model. Rather we want to ~lIow exam- ples of how the Oistrictcoutd look in 2014, depending on the clloice~ we make today. Your feedback wilt l1elp us Olakethe choice~ that most reflect the wiJhe~ of our community. The 60ard belíeve~ that by look- ing ahead several years, it can stabi- tile the Oi~trict's finance~. creating a steadier budget picture and pfotect- ing again}! wild ups and down~. Superintendent BevStofferahn will begin an internal proceu to idenlifypotentialbudgetfeductions and wiU bring a recommendation to the Board soon. Why isn't Dhtrict 112 cuttlnll mllUonsofdollusthhyear? OiHrict 112 is notin the same situation as our colleagues in other ~chooi di~trict~ who are facing deep budget cuts fOf a couple of reasons. "first, OUf enrollment continue~ to ctimb;theadditionalrevenuethat COOle~ witll additional ~tudents $ig- nificantly hetps us stay out of red ink. "Second,thetoughactiontakenlast year to cut $3.2 mitlion i~ keeping the Oistrictaftoat.MEverycornerofthe IndeptndentSchool District 112 1IPeivyRo¡,d, Chub. MH 55318 952-556-6100 ~ '. District i~ feeling the effects of those cuts thisyear,M saidSuper;ntendent BevStofferahn.H8uttheyweredeep enough toenableuJ to maintain our financial integrity this year and next without cutting millions again. The 80ardanticipated continued tough economic~timesforK-12education a~ it developed this year's budget. If they had not taken steps Ia~t year, we would be lookh'lg at cutting more than $6 miUion thj~year: Thulklflder· g""Ir15Iwenlswill h 5811iPrl in high 5chooluDblllcl 1Unperilncn our,ukenrlUInIII III 2014. Hel, II' '",lflllllln. "'em well In 1 II.1i1J 'l.cHhiellhraugho.... thelrldlooly."l'I. "m"'-' (Z:: - '.' START TIMES TO BE ADJUSTED NEXT YEAR In tight of opening a new building next faU (Pioneer Ridge) and the continued need to prune expenses, some school start times are tikelyto change next fall. Not every schoot witl be affected. The transportation department is devetopingsome possibilities fOf next fall, but nothing has been approved by the Board. Arecom- mendation to the Board is expected in early March. "'.,''''''0'.. U'}'''''''f' ,., r...,Ie.....) thollo.IIMn)!1 CUUENJPIACnC[ ININSTRlCTUZ SCllOOlCAPAClTn ~ho..........-... "',cIoooI_1ouIIt1o .... r.IJ'Chil"'d CeMK_I14 DI....OI.UoIuIi.1I c.lIIw(Ph.IQ_11 ... Ch,. _ IU Chtmau.._IU ChtllcaEI..._S71 aer..li..._.ZS bllllni"_l1l ---~.........- A COMMUNITV CONVERSATION ON LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLANNING GOAL: To rngagr the District 112 commu_ nityinthediscumonofwflatfadlities should be In p[¡ceby 2014 In order to srrve thl projected peakenroUment of 11,100 students To produce a 'mastlrp[¡n' to be approvrd by the SchooL Board in Junr.2oo2 PLANNING ASSUMmDNS: Peak rnroLlment at n.100 in 2014 completed on behalf of District n2 in Decrmber, 2001. SchoolSlze-Rrsurchindicatrs tnatsmaLlrrschoob rrsultin improved studrnt academic achievement. atti- tude and Hhavior. Smallrr schoob IxprrienceLrssviolencI.truancy. subsunœ abuse and gang partidpa_ tion. They havt thr grratestpositive effect on children of poverty. Sma!ler schoobaboencour¡gep¡rflltand community Involvement and in~r"se infuU-dayprogflmSIXptlriencl significantly greater growth in read- ing sldUdevelopment and score high. erontests. The program Is rsped¡Uy brneflcialtochlldrenoftowsoclo_ KOnomicbackgrounds. OTIIER IMPORTANT COSIDERftnONS: Nigh SchDDI-Whatlsthrbrstway to h¡ndlel high schootenroUmrnt that will dlmb to nearly 2.700 stu- drntsln2014?ShouldDistrictn2 ~-~-. Cler. Rw,. ÞIChw ,.."- S....~...II ..II1II., a"" CItJIhI\flI.. de11veñtt_1r1 Uansrafs"·rll ""!.....IIØII'. School District 112: Facilities Options Page 2 of 5 This model: · Builds a new high school with three CEpods' as CEschools within a school' for 900 students each · Moves grades 8 and 9 into the current high school building and adds a fourth house · Uses current middle schools and Pioneer Ridge as intermediate schools each with grades 5-7 · Adds one new elementary school, with all elementary schools housing all -day kindergarten and preschool programs · The Early Childhood Center becomes a K-4 elementary. . East Union is closed. Pluses for this model: · Maximizes all existing buildings and adds only two new schools · One less transition for students from preschool to elementary · Would use CEschool within a school' model for grades 5-12 Concerns for this model: · Schools remain large by research standards · Still three student transitions between buildings K-12 · High school would require large land purchase · High schools are more costly to build and operate . Eliminates East Union Model 3 Grade Organization: PreschoollECFE at the ECC 9 Elementary Schools: K-5 3 Middle Schools: 6-8 2 High Schools: 9-12 This model: · Builds 3 additional elementary schools for 500 students each and expands East Union to hold 400 students. Existing elementary schools remain at current capacity. · Places all-day kindergarten in regular elementary schools. · Houses preschool programs in the Early Childhood Center. · Keeps CMS East and West as middle schools and changes Pioneer Ridge from a Freshmen Center to a middle school for grades 6-8. · Adds a swimming pool to Pioneer Ridge and creates additional sports facilities in partnership with communities. · Builds another high school and puts grade 9 at both high schools. Pluses for this model: · Fewer transitions than current system · Elementary schools are a medium size · Integrates kindergarten into regular elementary program and provides all-day kindergarten · Two high schools of moderate size rather than one very large high school h ch fc h ¡, School District 112: Facilities Options Page 3 of5 Concerns for this model: · Creates a two-high school community setting up possible competition · Sports facilities increase the cost · Two middle schools are large · Still a student transition between buildings from preschool to kindergarten Model 4 Grade Organization: PreschooVECFE in all elementary schools 11 elementary schools: Grades K-6 2 preschool-grade 9 magnet schools 5 middle schools: Grades 7-9 2 high schools: Grades 10-12 This model: · Reduces class size to 18: 1 in K-6 · Builds five new elementary schools and remodels CMS East and CMS West to accommodate both middle school and elementary school students in a "school within a school" · Closes the Early Childhood Center · Uses the current high school houses as three middle schools of 500 students each · Places a magnet school at CMS East for 400 students in Preschool-Grade 9 in addition to its 500 middle school students · Places an elementary magnet program for 400 students at CMS West in addition to its 500 middle school students · Builds a new 1800 student high school with two separate houses, creating smaller schools within a school. · Adds a third house to Pioneer Ridge to create a 900 student high school · Neighborhood schools would include community services such as daycare, health services, dental offices, community centers · Increases East Union capacity to 400 Pluses for this model: · Small schools of 400 students at the elementary level, 500 at the middle level and 900 at the high school level. · Fewer transitions for students · Each elementary school serves multiple uses in the community · Offers options to families Concerns for this model: · Cost of lowering class size and building neighborhood schools · Closing ECC · May be harder to achieve diversity · Need to educate community on value of non-traditional grade organization · Two high schools may set up competition h ch fc h Cheat Sheet Addendum I. BUILDING SIZE - CFL GUIDELINES Facility CaDacitv Recommended Sq. Ft./Student High School 1000 - 1500 180 - 200 High School 1500 - 2000 170 - 190 Middle Level 1000 160 - 190 Elementary 500 - 999 110 - 135 II. CONSTRUCTION COST/SQ.FT. (2005) Level Cost Land Site Development Additional W/O Land Required Costs Site Costs Elem. (600) $196 16-21 Acres Included in "Cost w/o Llnd" Middle (1000) $193 30-45 Acres $65 - $70 KJ Acre Athletic Fac. H.S. (2000) $202 80 Acres $65 - $70 KJAcre Athletic, Parking, Stadium, Etc. III. CORE STAFF OPERA TING COST (OPTIMAL EST.) Total Core Cost Core Costs Per Student Small Elementary (300) $ 498,00 I $ 1,660 ~[edium Elementary (650) $ 741,329 $ 1.141 Large Elementary (1,000) $ 959,986 $ 960 Small Middle School (500) $ 949,731 $ 1,899 Medium Middle School (900) $ 1,260,144 $ 1,400 Large Middle School (1,200) $ 1,474,124 $ 1,228 Small High School (700) $ 498,001 - $ 1,660 Medium High School (1,500) $ 2,189,442 $ 1,460 Large High School (3,000) $ 3,744,310 $ 1,248 IV. FORMULA FOR CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Facility Sq.Ft./ Total Const. Cost! Cost Capacity x Student = Sq.Ft. x Sq.Ft. + Land + Site Dev. = Est. Elementary 135 IOOKJac Middle 175 100KJac High School 190 IOOKJac V. CORE OPERATING COST ESTIMATE/YEAR FACILITY CAPACITY X CORE COST/STUDENT = ANNUAL CORE COST EST.