8. UTILIZATION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES

Transcription

1 8. UTILIZATION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES Page 105

2 Page 106

3 8. UTILIZATION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES OVERVIEW The capacity of a school facility is driven by the number of classrooms or other spaces in which children are educated (teaching spaces), multiplied by the preferred number of students per teacher (student/teacher ratio). That capacity is adjusted based on the number of spaces needed to support specialty program. The capacity divided by the enrollment provides the utilization factor. As shown in the summary table many facilities are currently near or over 100 % utilization School EEC 110% 117% 130% Beach ES 93% 88% 85% Ellis ES 96% 104% 117% Indian Hill ES 105% 133% 166% Murphy ES 98% 95% 100% Village ES 90% 110% 141% Magee MS 93% 86% 101% MS 113% 124% 145% HS 145% 157% 170% Total Capacity 109% 117% 132% By the end of the planning period, if the demographic projection holds, district-wide facilities will be utilized at 132% of capacity. Currently, facilities district-wide are utilized at 109% of capacity. Clearly, there is a crowding issue at RLASD 116. A. INTRODUCTION Another factor in the Master Facilities Plan is the utilization of each school. This is done by evaluating the capacity of each facility as compared to enrollment. At the elementary level, where students do not typically change classrooms throughout the day except for some enrichment classes, it is possible to program the use of spaces more efficiently. Most plans do not call for 100% utilization. They allow for some extra capacity to provide space to accommodate those exceptionally large "bubble grades" that, for whatever reason, have more than the usual number of students from year to year. Therefore, a typical 3-section K through 6 school, with 3 classes at each grade level will have more than 21 teaching stations. This allows for some internal "swing space" when an exceptionally large number of students in a particular grade, or grades, is experienced and there needs to be extra 3rd and 5th Grade classrooms for example. However, allowing for internal "swing space" introduces a significant cost. Additional classrooms that may not be fully-utilized represent a cost that is not a priority given the current economic conditions. Therefore, while having some additional space to accommodate those "bubble grades" is desirable, it is not absolutely necessary. Thus, for the purposes of this Master Facilities Plan, utilization for elementary schools is based on the 100% capacity level. At the middle and high school level targeting 85% capacity allows for those exceptionally Page 107

4 large grades. This is referred to as the "optimal capacity". Also, it is virtually impossible to schedule a building where students change classrooms at a higher level of utilization. Classrooms or other teaching stations, due to the curriculum and class scheduling, will be unused at various times throughout the school day. Finally, a utilization analysis is a 3-step process. It begins with calculating the capacity at each facility. The second step is to gauge student enrollment. And the third step is to actually calculate the utilization percentage by dividing the student enrollment by the capacity. B. CAPACITY ANALYSIS As stated throughout this report, one of the first tasks in preparing a Master Facilities Plan is to assess the physical and educational adequacy of each facility. While the results of that assessment are addressed in a previous section of this report, it is mentioned here, since that is where the capacity analysis began. Prior to the assessment teams performing a walk-through at each facility, they met with the principal or other key administrator at each building. As part of that process, the team "marked up" a floor plan for the building showing the current uses of each space. A typical definition of "school capacity" is the number of students that can be accommodated in a building considering the physical, operational and programmatic variables. The degree to which the variables are quantified defines the "tightness" of the capacity calculation. There are several key components to each of the variables. The physical variable component most often assessed is the number and type of teaching stations in the facility. The operation component that typically influences capacity is specialty program offerings. Finally, the components of the programmatic variables that are usually factored into a capacity calculation are student/teacher ratios and scheduling. This is not to diminish the fact that the other variables can and do play a role in determining the capacity of a building. Physical variable components such as the size of support facilities including the kitchen and lunchroom influence capacity. Policies affecting the operation of a building and educational program offerings are components of the operational and programmatic variables that also affect capacity. Consideration of these and other capacity variable components require a study with an expanded scope. Such a study is desirable and yields the greatest information. However, time and cost constraints often dictate a more condensed analysis. For this and most capacity studies, the variable components listed: the number and type of teaching stations; the specialty program offerings; the student/teacher ratios; and scheduling, are most often used. The overall Fanning Howey method of computing capacity is straightforward and is the method most often employed in the preparation of other studies. The capacity of a school facility is driven by the number of classrooms or other spaces in which children are educated (teaching spaces), multiplied by the preferred number of students per teacher (student/teacher ratio). That capacity is adjusted based on the number of spaces needed to support specialty program. These are Page 108

5 offerings which are most often self-contained classrooms for students with special needs which operate at a lower student/teacher ratio. The capacity is further adjusted by scheduling considerations such as the school calendar or extra class periods during the school day. The Area Schools District 116 target student/teacher ratios are currently set at 24:1 at the kindergarten level. At the elementary level the target ratio is 26:1. The middle and high school ratio is 28:1. Special education classes target a 10:1 ratio. These ratios were used by Fanning Howey in the preparation of this Master Facilities Plan. Again, as part of the field assessment of each school, the teams documented which spaces in the building are currently used for student education. Spaces were listed by 5 categories: 1. Teaching Spaces classrooms that are used in the calculation of the capacity. 2. Special Education Spaces Self-contained special education classrooms with a student/teacher ratio of 10:1. 3. Resource Rooms Classroom-sized spaces that are used for a variety of programs including, but not limited to ESL, Title 1, remediation, etc. Since these are primarily "pull-out" programs located in the resource rooms, no capacity was assigned. The exception is one room at the Middle School that does have students assigned at a ratio of 15:1 4. Resource Space Non-classroom Size Other areas where education is provided but in smaller, non-classroom size rooms. These may or may not be totally appropriate learning environments. 5. Other Classrooms Not Included in Capacity Classrooms used for other teaching activities that do not have a class permanently assigned to it. At the elementary level this would include music, art and computer lab spaces. The number of teaching spaces was multiplied by the appropriate student/teacher ratio and their sum is the current use capacity of the building based on a traditional school calendar. Again, at the "end of the day" this method assesses how buildings are currently used and what capacity spaces are available. C. STUDENT ENROLLMENT The demographics of RLASD 116, including projections of future student enrollment, are detailed in Section 6 and are not re-printed here. However, it is important to note that the utilization percentages calculated in the next sub-section are based on this year s ( ) actual fall student enrollment. In addition, the projections developed for the District are used in the next sub-section to calculate future capacity. D. UTILIZATION CALCULATION The following table lists the schools (column a.) and the number of teaching stations in each (columns b. through f.) Columns g. and h. show the total capacity and the optimal capacity respectively. Again, the optimal capacity for elementary schools is 100% of the total capacity. At the middle schools and high school the optimal capacity is calculated at 85% of total capacity for the aforementioned reasons. Page 109

6 a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. TS TS - K TS - Reg TS - SPED TS - Resource TOTAL Capacity OPTIMAL Capacity School Elementary Schools Early Education % 117% 130% Center Beach ES % 88% 85% Raymond Ellis ES % 104% 117% Indian Hill ES % 133% 166% Murphy ES % 95% 100% Village ES Middle Schools John T. Magee MS MS High Schools HS Total Capacity % 110% 141% ,604 3,604 3,541 3,835 4,360 98% 106% 121% % 86% 101% ,045 1, % 124% 145% 1,873 1,592 1,645 1,686 1, % 106% 124% ,538 1,307 1,894 2,057 2, % 157% 170% 7,015 6,503 7,080 7,578 8, % 117% 132% Columns i. through k. show this year s enrollment and the projected enrollment 5 and 10 years from now respectively. Columns l. through n. are the calculated utilization percentages. The calculated utilization cells that are colored "red" indicate that the utilization is greater than 95%. In other words, the capacity of the school divided by the enrollment is in excess of 95%. Those schools are "overcrowded" and need to either construct additions or re-assign students to other schools. The "yellow" cells have a utilization percentage greater than 90% but less than 95%. Schools in that category typically need to be planning for additions or reassignment. The "green" cells have utilization rates less than 90%. No immediate action is needed for those schools. Page 110

7 Note that the solution to overcrowding is not just to build additional classrooms. If there is capacity at other schools, redefining attendance areas to equalize utilization may provide a solution. That is often not a popular action. Parents and their students understandably prefer to remain enrolled at the same school. Districts can be reluctant to embrace that solution. However, with proper community engagement where the stakeholders are thoroughly involved, reassignment, while still difficult, is achievable. In some cases a combination of additions and reassignment is called for. At the elementary and middle school levels in Area Schools District 116 that is a definite option. Consider Beach Elementary School. Located in a more "demographically mature" area, the enrollment at that facility is projected to decrease over the 10-year planning period of this Master Facilities Plan. To build additions to the other schools while there is excess capacity at Beach Elementary School would not be prudent. While there is no excess capacity at the middle school level after 10 years, there is an imbalance between John T. Magee and Round Lake Middle Schools. After 10 years, with no change in attendance boundaries, Magee Middle School will be at 101% of capacity while Middle School will have increased to 145% of capacity. Again, that calls for a shift in attendance boundaries. This will be examined in greater detail in the Recommendations section of the Master Facilities Plan. Page 111