2. NEW HIGH SCHOOL BACKGROUND In March of 2000, the Milan community voters passed a $49,915,000 bond issue. The bond provided dollars for a new high school; renovations, additions, and technology upgrades to existing school buildings; and new school buses. The 270,000-square-foot high school was built on a newly- acquired, 80-acre site west of downtown Milan. Based upon five- year enrollment projections, the Michigan Treasury Department allowed the building to be constructed to accommodate 828 students. The community of Milan has grown significantly since the passage of the bond issue, and 825 students were enrolled in the high school for the 2006-07 school year. During the design of the new Milan High School, the architectural/ engineering firm of Fanning Howey used an interactive process to gain input from the faculty, the Board of Education, and community members.

3. NEW HIGH SCHOOL BACKGROUND The newly-constructed Milan High School opened its door to students for the start of the 2003-04 school year. The facility is divided into two major areas: 1)a two-story academic wing containing classrooms, laboratories, a media center, and study areas; 2) a student events wing containing music rooms, a performing arts center, gymnasiums, athletic rooms, an elevated running track, a pool, a TV radio studio, and a cafeteria. The building features three rotundas—each serving as a “hub” for traffic flow. The rotundas were designed to help create a sense of identity and community for student activities within the larger building. The facility also provides state-of -the-art technology for delivery of instruction, security, and building management. Students have access to the latest technology tools for learning via cable or wireless connections throughout the building.

4. WHY WAS A SURVEY CONDUCTED? Milan High School has become a true landmark for the community. Visitors continue to provide positive comments and reactions about the unique qualities of the school. After several years of use, the district wanted to know if the building was, indeed, providing an appropriate educational environment for students and staff. Superintendent Dennis McComb, Principal Ron Reed, and, George Kacan, Owner-in-Charge from Fanning Howey, developed a survey for staff, parents, and students to determine the level of satisfaction for the new facility. The survey contained 54 questions in six general areas. Respondents were also encouraged to provide personal comments from their experiences at Milan High School.

5. WHY WAS A SURVEY CONDUCTED? Milan High School has become a true landmark for the community. Visitors continue to provide positive comments and reactions about the unique qualities of the school. After several years of use, the district wanted to know if the building was, indeed, providing an appropriate educational environment for students and staff. Superintendent Dennis McComb, Principal Ron Reed, and, George Kacan, Owner-in-Charge from Fanning Howey, developed a survey for staff, parents, and students to determine the level of satisfaction for the new facility. The survey contained 54 questions in six general areas. Respondents were also encouraged to provide personal comments from their experiences at Milan High School.

6. WHY WAS A SURVEY CONDUCTED? In reviewing the results of the surveys, it is evident that the staff, students, Board of Education, and parents are very pleased and satisfied with the new facility. Over 50% of all the respondents gave the building a grade of ’A’ with 7% giving a grade of ‘A+’. Participants answered a total of 9,607 questions, and 90% of those responses said that the building meets or exceeds expectations. The positive results are even more impressive, due to the fact that opinions were given after 3-1/2 years of building use. Perhaps, the most important question in the survey received outstanding results when 97% of all respondents said the building is able to accommodate the educational and program needs of the students. Also, 93% of all participants said that the classroom space design allows for appropriate educational activities. In addition, 92% of participants who provided planning input to the architect in 2000 said that their expectations were met or exceeded with the final results. Another significant question response showed that 92% of all respondents felt that Milan High School was a good value for the taxpayers.

7. WHY WAS A SURVEY CONDUCTED? The positive feeling about Milan High School is further validated by the letter grade assigned to the building by all respondents: ‘A’51% ‘B’42% ‘C’5% ‘D’2% ‘E’0%

8. The percentage breakdown for the four major areas that required a ranking response is as follows (includes all survey participants): No.SECTION MEETS or EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS DOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS IEXTERIOR FEATURES88%12% IIINTERIOR FEATURES88%12% IIIEDUCATIONAL FEATURES94%6% IVTECHNOLOGY92%8%

9. The survey also suggested some areas of question or concern. Students and staff indicated there are heating and cooling issues. Some students, parents, and staff indicated that the lockers are too small, and that students do not utilize the lockers because of their limited size. There is an overall concern of inadequate rest rooms and drinking fountains, mainly in the athletic areas. Students had many comments regarding the issue of too many restricted Web sites for research, and classroom technology being underutilized. These areas will be reviewed by the district for possible follow-up action.

10. Favorite and least favorite features from the staff, support staff, Board of Education, and students were: Favorites Classroom technology Gym/Pool areas Theater/Auditorium Least Favorites Heating/cooling system Lack of landscaping upkeep Security Lack of drinking fountains

11. This survey has provided a great deal of information on how students, staff, and parents perceive the building. Positive features have been identified as well as items that may require attention. Overall, this survey has established support that Milan High School provides and promotes an outstanding and inviting educational environment for its students.

12. Exterior Building Features - Staff Results

13. Interior Building Features - Staff Results

14. Interior Building Features - Staff Results, continued

16. Educational Features - Staff Results

17. Educational Features - Staff Results, continued

18. Technology - Staff Results

19. Exterior Building Features - Parents Results

20. Interior Building Features - Parents Results

21. Interior Building Features - Parents Results, continued

23. Educational Features - Parents Results

24. Educational Features - Parents Results, continued

25. Technology - Parents Results

26. Exterior Building Features - Students Results

27. Educational Features - Students Results

28. Educational Features - Students Results, continued

29. Technology - Students Results

30. Interior Building Features - Students Results

31. Interior Building Features - Students Results, continued