Fluent Essays

American School Board Journal � www.asbj.com � October 2009 37 Perhaps more than anything, the break- neck speed of technological advances has put the issue squarely under the micro- scope. The capacity to retrofit classrooms for Internet and networking connections, video, and data ports has challenged dis- tricts with how to prioritize basic repairs, remodels, expansions, and the ultimate de- cision to raze a building and replace it with a new one. Sometimes it can feel like the decision- making process is random, with, forgive the pun, the squeakiest wheel often winning the competition for limited district dollars. But a squeaky-wheel approach to facilities re- pair is an inadequate way of distributing limited funds. In Minnesota’s Saint Paul Public Schools, we serve 40,549 students in 73 district-owned instructional and admin- istrative campuses (7.3 million square feet). Our department receives about $230 million of yearly upgrade and remodeling requests. Our budget is $30 million. To approach this ongoing disparity thoughtfully and responsibly, we decided it was time for a facilities master plan, which would forecast and establish capital im- provements and deferred maintenance needs for several years. Because the district established a new strategic plan in 2007 and was embarking on a large-scale systems change, the timing was perfect to marry our facilities conditions assessment with an ed- ucational adequacy assessment. FORECASTING EDUCATIONAL NEEDS An educational adequacy assessment bridges the gap between a district’s facilities and its educational standards and goals. This was the first time that we directly linked the degree to which a school’s facilities could adequately support its instructional mission and methods. As an example, if we plan to expand a school’s burgeoning music pro- gram to better serve students and families, then that school first must be assessed based on its capacity to integrate features such as soundproof practice studios or adequate re- hearsal and performance facilities. If the studies deem the building inade- Mastering the Plan To ensure facilities are maintained equally, you need to be systematic in your assessment Hitesh Haria RMA Photography, Inc. B roken windows, peeling paint, and leaky roofs are all part of the never- ending maintenance cycle of school buildings. Yet, not until recently has the state of a building and its grounds been fully understood in terms of its impact on student learning. ASBJ Special Report: Facilities & Construction Mother’s Club Family Learning Center in Pasadena, Calif., received a citation of excellence for green school building of the transformation of a 10,000- square-foot factory into a learning center. Reprinted with permission from American School Board Journal, October 2009 © 2009 National School Boards Association. All rights reserved. 38 American School Board Journal � www.asbj.com � October 2009 quate for remodeling and expansion, then the question will be whether another building should carry the music program or the current building should be rebuilt or reconfigured. Obviously, these considerations carry seri- ous financial, educational, and emotional weight. But the educational adequacy assess- ment asks the critical questions often over- looked by a facilities condition assessment: What needs to be done to bring a particular school to a standard of adequacy that meets educational and instructional needs? At what point does a school’s inability to meet educa- tional needs mean that it should be replaced? To comprehensively assess educational effectiveness, you must first understand the components that affect the instructional pro- gram. These components are formulated into educational adequacy assessment guidelines that broadly fit into eight major categories: � Capacity � Support for programs � Technology � Supervision and security � Instructional aids � Physical characteristics � Learning environment � Relationship of spaces The data from this standards-based as- sessment gives administrators a big picture that is objective and has been applied con- sistently across all district facilities. The data enable you to assign priorities district- wide to the facilities that are most likely to meet the educational needs of students and support the district’s academic mission. (See sidebar for tips on undertaking facili- ties and educational adequacy assessments.) INVESTING WISELY Your community may be concerned about the costs of conducting both a facilities con- ditions assessment and educational adequa- cy assessment. However, considering the amount of money districts spend on facili- ties upkeep and maintenance (in St. Paul, it’s $240 million over eight years), it would be a disservice to taxpayers to not undertake an in-depth assessment. The cost of the study was less than a half a percent of the overall long-term investment to be made in our buildings, which is an in- expensive way to understand what you’re re- ally doing. For smaller districts, the cost would be less as the cost for an assessment is typically quoted in terms of square footage. While districts can continue to do a fa- cilities conditions assessment without the benefit of an educational adequacy assess- ment, keep in mind that you’ll only be get- ting half the story. An account of the health of a building is important, but only so far as it is directly tied to that building’s ability to support the delivery of the programs within the building. In other words, the facilities conditions assessment tells you what is bro- ken, and the educational adequacy assess- ment tells you what is missing. Remember that the deficiencies identi- fied in these dual assessments can then be combined with district enrollment projec- tions to provide an overall facilities master plan that can be the basis for a district-wide facilities improvement funding strategy. With this data-driven plan, it will be that much easier to justify borrowing money to repair, maintain, or build facilities. By employing a comprehensive assess- ment of your facilities first, you are taking the time to ensure that repairs and expansions are wise investments for your community. Doing a million-dollar facelift to a school might oil the squeaky wheel, but it will be a poor in- vestment if you later determine that the build- ing falls short of its potential to be adapted to the growing needs of 21st century learners. � Hitesh Haria ([email protected]) is the chief operations officer of Saint Paul Public Schools, St. Paul, Minn. Tips on undertaking facilities and educational adequacy assessments It will cost you money if you don’t take the time to preplan. It’s critical that dis- trict leaders know how they’ll use the data: Will it inform a referendum, bonding authori- ty, facility master plan, or prioritize projects for wise investments? Before embarking on a request for proposal (RFP) process, research what other districts have done. Be wary of firms that say they can do it all. It will take partnerships among a few specialized firms to undertake a comprehensive facilities and educational assess- ment. In our case, there was a lead architectural firm that partnered with three national experts to get the job done. Be very specific about roles and responsibilities. Clarify what resources you have and don’t have and where you need the consultants to fill in the gaps. For in- stance, we already had a lot of CAD data and drawings that we didn’t have to pay a con- sultant to do. Keep the data updated. The assessment is a snapshot in time as the condition of facilities are always in flux, so it’s essential to keep the database updated or else you’ll have to repeat both the study and the initial investment. Get broad input on the educational adequacy guidelines. Involve teachers, athletic directors, music directors, administrators, parents, and students to determine the educational adequacy guidelines so that the study will reflect your school communi- ty’s direct “on the ground” experiences and educational vision. Be realistic about the timeline. For a district our size, it took a year—eight to 10 months, including the pre-planning, and two more months for the school board to ap- prove the winning contract. If your RFP is lacking in important details, the timeline will expand. Reprinted with permission from American School Board Journal, October 2009 © 2009 National School Boards Association. All rights reserved. Due Thursday, October 14, 2021 A group of concerned parents make an appointment to see you. They want to discuss a rumor that they heard that the Port Townsend School District is making plans for another local levy increase. The parents want to make sure that they know exactly what the proposed levy is going to cover and are especially concerned about the need for more safety and security measures to be put in place in all schools. You prepare for this meeting by reviewing the Capital Projects that will be addressed if the levy passes. You know that the projects are: (1) student technology; (2) safety and security; (3) finishing ADA access at the high school; and (4) finishing the vision for the Salish Coast Campus. You want to be able to show the parents how to access the information themselves. The documents you will need can be found on the Port Townsend School District website. Access the Departments Tab on the Port Townsend School District website. Find the “Business and Finance” subsection on the website. Find the subsection on the website that will provide you with information on the amount requested for the levy and share the website address for this information. Find the accompanying page number and budget line items that will support safety and security measures in 2020. List the line item numbers and amounts budgeted for this issue. Share in your post of 300–500 words how you would use the information you found in your meeting with these parents.