1. Anne Arundel County Public Schools Strategic Facilities Utilization Master Plan MGT of America, Inc. September 2, 2015

2. BACKGROUND o 2006 Strategic Facilities Utilization Master Plan o Identified facility needs o Established recommended priorities o Provided objective decision making tool o Background o 2006 Master Plan Priorities o 2015 Goals o Planning Process o Educational Priorities o Community Collaboration o School Size o Demographics o Enrollment Projections o Facility Assessments o Capacity and Utilization o Prioritization o Master Plan Recommendations o Supporting Recommendations PRESENTATION OUTLINE

3. 2006 MASTER PLAN BY PRIORITY TYPEPRIORITY 1PRIORITY 2PRIORITY 3TOTAL Elementary$198,189,000$103,179,000$152,189,000$453,557,000 Middle $334,328,000$96,664,000$430,992,000 High$278,868,000$124,767,000$128,490,000$532,125,000 County Wide$6,154,000$22,261,000$46,314,000$74,729,000 Total$483,211,000$584,535,000$423,657,000$1,491,403,000

4. o To update the 2006 Strategic Facilities Utilization Master Plan o To provide 10-year recommendations for facilities capital improvements and building utilization o To examine best practices regarding school size o To provide an inclusive, transparent process for planning o To provide data-driven recommendations 2015 GOALS

5. PLANNING PROCESS o Task 1.0 – Project Initiation o Task 2.0 – Develop Facilities and Site Inventory o Task 3.0 – Educational Review and Programmatic Priorities o Task 4.0 – Conduct Facilities Assessments o Task 5.0 – Analysis of School and Community Demographics o Task 6.0 – Analysis of Capacity and Utilization o Task 7.0 – Public Involvement and Community Collaboration o Task 8.0 – Develop Standards for Ranking Building Needs o Task 9.0 – Budget Estimates o Task 10.0 – Develop Master Plan Scenarios and Budgets o Task 11.0 – Preparation and Presentation of Final Facilities Master Plan

6. EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY GUIDE EDUCATIONAL PRIORITIES o Educational mission, goals, and programs o Interviews with key staff o Program delivery and facility implication o Educational Suitability and Technology Readiness Guide

7. COMMUNITY COLLABORATION o Input Sessions – Annapolis HS, March 24 and Old Mill HS, March 26, 2015. o 87 participants o Survey #1 – posted to district website in English and Spanish and available from March 23 – May 20, 2015. o 512 participants o Feedback Sessions - Broadneck HS, May 27 and North County HS, May 28, 2015. o 20 participants o Survey #2 – posted to district website in English and Spanish and available from May 28 – July 3, 2015. o 794 participants

8. COMMUNITY COLLABORATION - FINDINGS o Repair identified building deficiencies – including roofs and HVAC. o General classroom issues – including correcting the open concept schools. o Size of schools – focusing initially on the size of high schools, but including all grade levels as new schools and additions are planned. o New schools in growing area(s) of the county – focusing on the north, west, and central county areas for ES and HS.

9. SCHOOL SIZE RESEARCH o The Impact of School Size on Student Achievement: Evidence from Four States EDRE Working Paper No. 2013-03. Last Updated May 2013 o School/District Structure/Operations: School Size Education Commission of the States, 2015 o School Size Effects Revisited Springer Education Briefs, 2014 o School Size and its Relationship to Achievement and Behavior Public Schools of North Carolina, 2014 o Evaluation of the Gates Foundation’s High School American Institutes for Research, SRI International, National Evaluation of High School Transformation, 2006 o Maryland Equity Project Prepared for the Maryland State Department of Education, 2015

10. SCHOOL SIZE RESEARCH FINDINGS o No consistent definition for “small” and “large” schools. o Results vary widely; optimal sizes for high schools vary from 300 to 1,600. o Smaller schools tend to show an advantage: o academic achievement o student behavior o Many studies point to: o leadership structure o program offerings o extracurricular offerings o School size is only one factor. o Advantage of smaller schools may not be great enough to advocate for widespread school construction.

11. SCHOOL SIZE RECOMMENDATIONS o Policy to guide further master planning. o Preferred school sizes are: High School1,600 Middle School1,200 Elementary 600 o Policy should be a factor in determining master plan priorities. o Policy should be implemented on an ongoing basis. o High school size reduction should be one of the priorities as the master plan is implemented. o Monitor the progress of the proposed State small schools grant.

12. DEMOGRAPHICS - FINDINGS o Live births are projected to decrease. o Kindergarten capture rate is historically less than 100 percent, indicating some level of exodus of students out of the district. o Census data from 2000 to 2010 shows a decrease in elementary age children. o General consensus among stakeholders that the rates of building and migration into the county will increase as the economy improves. o Enrollments are projected to fluctuate slightly in the next few years, but show a modest increase by the end of the ten year planning period.

13. ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Current District 2014-15 enrollment = 79,518 |Projected District 2023-24 enrollment = 86,568

14. FACILITY ASSESSMENTS 4 ASSESSMENTS FOR EACH SCHOOL o Building Condition o Educational Suitability o Site Condition o Technology Readiness o Combined score – Assessments weighted 55%/35%/5%/5% respectively SCORESDESCRIPTION > 90Excellent/Like New 80 - 89.99Good 70 - 79.99Fair 60 - 69.99Poor < 59.99Unsatisfactory

15. FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGE BUILDING CONDITION SITE TYPE BUILDING CONDITION SCORE RANGE AVERAGE CONDITION SCORE LOWHIGH Elementary Schools 58.97100.0085.33 Middle Schools 64.0296.5879.98 High Schools 60.07100.0082.69 County-Wide Schools 63.9592.5280.09 Other Facilities 75.3879.8577.61

16. FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGE EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY SITE TYPE SUITABILITY SCORE RANGE AVERAGE SUITABILITY SCORE LOWHIGH Elementary Schools 53.45100.0082.96 Middle Schools 65.3791.3278.67 High Schools 65.19100.0077.24 County-Wide Schools 59.2786.5173.63 Other Facilities 75.2680.5477.90

17. FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGE SITE CONDITION SITE TYPE SITE CONDITION ASSESSMENT SCORE RANGE AVERAGE SITE SCORE LOWHIGH Elementary Schools 63.04100.0089.57 Middle Schools 61.0392.7081.06 High Schools 69.71100.0083.52 County-Wide Schools 52.7799.6779.30 Other Facilities 80.3986.2783.33

18. FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGE TECHNOLOGY READINESS SITE TYPE TECHNOLOGY READINESS SCORE RANGE AVERAGE TECHNOLOGY SCORE LOWHIGH Elementary Schools 47.60100.0075.00 Middle Schools 57.6096.7071.25 High Schools 60.90100.0073.18 County-Wide Schools 47.6085.9066.27 Other Facilities 50.1067.6058.85

19. FACILITY ASSESSMENT RANGE / AVERAGE COMBINED SCORES SITE TYPE COMBINED SCORES RANGE AVERAGE COMBINED SCORE MINMAX Elementary Schools 62.59100.0084.20 Middle Schools 65.5194.1079.14 High Schools 63.10100.0080.35 County-Wide Schools 70.1590.3278.47 Other Facilities75.2078.9377.06

20. FACILITY ASSESSMENTS NUMBER OF SCHOOLS BY COMBINED SCORE RATING DESCRIPTION RATING SCORE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS MIDDLE SCHOOLS HIGH SCHOOLS COUNTY- WIDE SCHOOLS OTHER FACILITIES TOTAL Excellent/ Like New >9020121 24 Good80 – 89.9936631147 Fair70 – 79.9917964238 Poor60 – 69.996310010 Unsatisfactory<59.99000000

21. CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION CURRENT & PROJECTED RATES FOR SAMPLE SCHOOLS UTILIZATIONDESCRIPTION > 110Inadequate 101 - 110Approaching Inadequate 85 - 100.9Adequate 75 - 84.99Approaching Inefficient < 74.99Inefficient SCHOOLS 2014 SRC 2014-15 FTE 2024 SRC 2024-25 PROJECTED FTE 2014-15 CURRENT UTILIZATION 2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION Elementary Schools Annapolis ES31425931429182%93% Arnold ES45640856539989%71% Belle Grove ES30426130426586%87% Middle Schools Annapolis MS1,4957061,49590247%60% Arundel MS1,0719411,0711,10288%103% Bates MS1,0308501,0301,12683%109% High Schools Annapolis HS1,8881,8131,8882,39996%127% Arundel HS2,0392,0212,0392,46999%121% Broadneck HS2,2092,1042,2092,06195%93%

22. CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION CURRENT & PROJECTED BY GRADE BAND UTILIZATIONDESCRIPTION > 110Inadequate 101 - 110Approaching Inadequate 85 - 100.9Adequate 75 - 84.99Approaching Inefficient < 74.99Inefficient GRADE BANDS 2014-15 CURRENT UTILIZATION 2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION Elementary Schools91% Middle Schools73%81% High Schools88%106%

23. PRIORITIZATION o Combined score of less than 75, and/or o Projected utilization of over 110%, or o New schools to provide solutions to overcrowding and to accommodate projected development.

24. MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED PROJECTS PHASE 1 – 10 YEAR PLAN GROUNDS SITE NAME COMBINED SCORE 55/35/5/5 2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION ADDITION BUDGET RENOVATE BUDGET REPLACE BUDGET Edgewater ES62.59110% $37,184,000 Tyler Heights ES63.31146% $37,184,000 Richard Henry Lee ES64.06110% $37,184,000 Quarterfield ES64.2588% $37,184,000 Hillsmere ES64.99107% $37,184,000 Crofton Area HS (New) $113,323,000 Old Mill West HS (New) $113,323,000 Rippling Woods ES (Replacement)66.24113% $37,184,000 Old Mill MS North (Replacement)65.5183% $79,681,000 Old Mill MS South (Replacement)68.4087% $79,681,000 Old Mill HS (Replacement)63.10109% $113,323,000 Northeast ES (New) $37,184,000 Continued on next slide

25. MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED PROJECTS PHASE 1 – 10 YEAR PLAN GROUNDS SITE NAME COMBINED SCORE 55/35/5/5 2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION ADDITION BUDGET RENOVATE BUDGET REPLACE BUDGET Bates MS68.14109% $28,886,000 West Co Area HS (New) $113,323,000 West Co Area ES (Arundel MS/HS) (New ) $37,184,000 Marley Glen SP70.1559% $8,938,000 Shady Side ES70.4697% $13,164,000 Brock Bridge ES70.8862% $11,910,000 J Albert Adams Academy71.4171% $7,192,000 Hilltop ES71.51105% $13,187,000 Odenton ES80.06114%$1,648,100$8,307,000 Maryland City ES71.62114% $9,156,000 West Meade EEC72.2789% $7,981,000 Woodside ES72.8098% $8,648,000 Eastport ES73.1378% $6,019,000 Glen Burnie HS73.28113% $64,551,000 Millersville ES73.9098% $7,031,000 Glen Burnie Park ES74.07101% $6,928,000 PHASE 1 TOTAL$1,648,100$201,898,000$910,126,000

26. MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED PROJECTS PHASE 1A – 10 YEAR PLAN GROUNDS SITE NAME 2024-25 PROJECTED UTILIZATION REDISTRICTING South River HS118%Redistrict with Southern HS Arundel HS121%Redistrict to receive from Arundel MS only North County HS117%Redistrict George Cromwell ES Meade HS115%Redistrict to receive from MacArthur MS only Solley ES120%Redistrict with New ES Annapolis HS127% Redistrict long term to not receive students from Mills-Parole ES and Naval Station students from Annapolis ES Germantown ES118%Redistrict with Rolling Knolls ES Marley ES134%Redistrict with New ES Crofton ES113%Redistrict with New ES PHASE 1-A TOTAL

27. SUPPORTING RECOMMENDATIONS o Implement non-instructional facility improvements in conjunction with the 10-year master plan. o Monitor the implementation of a proposed competitive grant program to support the construction of small schools and/or the renovation of large school buildings. o Annually review boundary adjustments necessary to implement the master plan. o Continue to regularly update educational specifications. o Continue to update long-range enrollment projections on a regular basis and coordinate with local and state planning and zoning officials. o Communicate the master plan.

28. Thank you!