TFR Updates 9/28/11 10/26/11 11/22/11 1/25/12 9/12/12

Study Sessions 4/25/12 11/13/12 2/13/13 3/13/13

1

School Configuration Committee (SCC)

Board Study Session IV

March 13, 2013 (Update IX)

Agenda • Review Updated Background Slides 3-14 • Review Updated Facts, Assumptions, Considerations and

Key Question Slides 15-24 • Review Updated Costs of Options Slides 25-33 • Summary Option Slides 34-39 • Data Summary Slide 40 • Further Considerations 41-42 • Way Ahead

2

Problem

• Given our educational needs, declining enrollment, future facility needs and limited resources, we may not have the most effective K-8 school configuration considering all factors for implementation of a revised K-12 program.

3

So that … Vision, Mission, Goals…

School Configuration Committee Purpose

• Based upon educational research, and the needs of

CKSD and our community, analyze K-8 configuration • Provide options for a recommendation not later than

school year 2012-13

4

Secondary Configuration Committee: 2007-08 Summary

• Completed study during school year 2007-08 • Recommendation: move 9th grade from CKJ, RJH, FJH

to CKHS & OHS and maintain KSS 7-12 • Given resource constraints, space available at CKHS &

OHS, and capital costs for CKHS & OHS expansion (lab space), reconfiguration was deferred (to be reviewed 24-36 months out)

• K-8 configuration intentionally was not completely analyzed and remains unresolved

5

KSS Guidance • Confirmed 9th graders moving up, two 9-12 HS with KSS

at 7-12 or 6-12 • Minimal Transitions inside K-12 • More configuration similarities • Configuration outcome will not impact the standard size of

elementary school (JP) • “Configuration related decisions” is a four phase process • Current configuration is not an option (9th are moving up),

current is a baseline, may allow us to stay there until the costs to change are minimized

6

1-25-12

Committee Membership

• Elementary • Debbie Allensworth (Cert) • Greg Cleven (Admin) • Peggy Ellis (Admin) • Denyse Hemmersbach (Cert) • Anne Lunden (Parent) • Julie McKean (Admin) • Tim McNett (Cert) • Cheri Mlodzik (Class) • Sheri Shipe (Cert) • Philip Wetherby (Cert) • Scott Woehrman (Parent)

• Elementary and Secondary • Katie Coleman (Admin)

• Secondary • Andy Campbell (Cert) • Doyle Clouser (Admin) • Steve Coons (Admin) • Jo Conner (Class) • Jeremy Faxon (Cert) • Susan Jung (Admin) • Franklyn MacKenzie (Admin) • John McGannon (Parent) • Laurie Moore (Parent) • Laura Murray (Parent) • Linda Roberts (Class) • Carla Yenko (Class) • Jodie Woolf (Admin)

7

Voting Members

Non-Voting Members • Jeanne Beckon (Admin) • Sue Corey (Admin) • David McVicker (Admin) • Patti Woolf (Admin)

• Nate Andrews (CKCA Bargaining) • Kari Clithero (CKESP Bargaining) • Kirstin Nicholson (CKEA Bargaining)

School Configuration Work SY 2012-13

Oct 15 - 7-12 Pros/Cons - Facilities - Definitions - Communication - 7-12 Clarification - Committee Replacement

Oct 29 - Facilities

Nov 26 - Staffing

Oct 29

Nov 13

Board Update

Dec 10 - Extra-curricular

Jan 14 - Research - Transportation

Feb 11 - Curriculum - Special Programs

Feb 25 -Provide input to input process

Mar 11 -

Mar 20,25,26

Input Meetings

Apr 22 - Analyze input

May 13 - Analyze input - Draft final Pros/Cons

June 3 - Review Supt. Recommendation

June 12 or 26

Board Meeting

Recommendation

School Board

Staff/Community Meeting

KEY

8

Feb 13

Board Update

Oct 15

Oct 29

Nov 26

Jan 14 Board

Updated March 8, 2013

Feb 25

Mar 13

Board Update

School Configuration “Other” Major Events

2012 2018 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Jackson Park Open

Aug 2014

Silverdale Open

Aug 2016

Transp/ FS/Warehouse

Open Dec 2017

Capital Projects Levy Phase One (2012-2016)

Silverdale Transp/

Facilities Committee Work

(Sept 2013-Jan 2015)

District Event

Community Event

KEY

Technology (CPL)

Repairs Across District (CPL)

School Support

Levy Feb 2014

Capital Projects Measure Feb 2016

HB 2776 and 2661 Full

Implementation

SCC Work (Oct 2012-June

2013)

Phase II Election Planning

(Feb 2015-Feb 2016)

9

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30

30 30 31

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28

30 31

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S

1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 S M T W T F S

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

31 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

SCC 2012-13 Tentative Meeting Calendar

Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12

Feb-13

Jun-13

Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13

Dec-12 Jan-13

10

SCC Meeting Date Staff/Community Input Meeting

School Configuration Four Phases

Phase I Configuration Options K-8 Support Plans

Phase II Cost of Options K-12

Community and Staff Input – March

Phase III Boundary Options K-12

Phase IV Implementation Options K-12

11

School Configuration Tasks Draft Pros and Cons 7-12 Data Analysis (costs for each option) Research Curriculum Staffing Special Programs Extra Curricular Transportation Facilities

Plan and provide input to Community/Staff Meetings • Participate in Community/ Staff Meetings • Analyze and review feedback from Meetings • Review/Finalize Pros/Cons • Superintendent Recommendation to Board

12

Updated March 8, 2013

Definitions • Extracurricular is defined as optional non-credit student

activities that are either Cultural, Athletic, Recreational, or Social in nature.

• Co-Curricular would be those activities that are somehow

connected to a curricular program. Examples are DECA, FCCLA, Choir, Journalism, Newspaper, Yearbook, Band, Drama, The Orchestra

• Middle Level We will not use • Middle School Grades 5-8, 6-8, 7-8 • Junior High Grades 7-9

13

Definitions • School Philosophy

• Middle School (6-8, 7-8) Programs/Structure

14 14

Facts After much study, the School Configuration Committee (SCC) is

reviewing alternate configuration options

9th graders will move up to high school in all configurations Transitions impact student achievement

Current Junior High and High School buildings have additional

capacity.

Few elementary schools have additional capacity

The School Board will make a decision after receiving a recommendation from the Superintendent following review of all data, options, and pros and cons from the SCC including feedback opportunities for community and staff

15

Facts Implementation of any changes would begin not sooner than 2015-

16

2012 Demographic Study indicates that enrollment will continue to decline slightly for five years and then level-off

Other districts have studied configuration, and for the most part have gone to a K-5, 6-8, 9-12

A configuration decision will be required to complete the Facilities

Committee work on Phase Two of the Capital Projects Long Range Plan

HB 2776 includes recommendations for reductions in K-3 class size and statewide implementation of All Day Kindergarten

The Superintendent’s recommendation is scheduled for June 2013

16

Assumptions • One or more schools may close

• Over time, reconfiguration will provide a savings

• In terms of infrastructure and organizational resources, we have the capacity to reconfigure

• Reconfiguration may require facilities changes

• Any change made would have benefits for students

• Selective options could take a decade or more to fully implement

17

Considerations • Early identification of individual student needs for

support/intervention • Maximize options for student achievement • Professional Development – support and time • Emotional impact for students, families, staff • Balanced and efficient enrollments • Improve feeder system • Voter Confidence- timing of 2014 SSL election • Implementation plan • Grading Model integration • Cost integration with Capital Projects Phase Two • Time on the bus

18

Considerations • Athletic and activity programs • High School Athletic Classifications

(1A, 2A, 3A, 4A) • Building start and end times • Capacity for gym space, science labs, art classrooms,

music performance, special education and specialized Career and Technical Education (CTE) courses

• Non-District (ND) and Non-School (NS) transfer student data (in and out) along with student data for enrollment in online programs outside the district

• Grandfathering of current transfers

19

Key Questions • What are optimal building sizes?

• Elementary 450-500, Middle/JH 700-900, HS 1100-1300 • What does the demographic study tell us about our future

enrollment? • Enrollment will continue to slowly decline over the next five years

mostly at the secondary level before leveling out somewhere above 10,000 students.

• What is the capacity for each building? • See additional worksheets (link)

• What facility modifications will be required and how will we pay for them? • Depends upon which configuration is selected. Modifications will

require Capital Projects Funds. Currently, all funds are committed except future Emergent Critical Repairs, which means that modifications would need to be included in Capital Projects Phase II

20

Key Questions • How will configuration meet the need of special education, including

preschool? • A new configuration will required adjustments for District Level Special Education

programs. Those that serve grades 6-9 will need to be relocated to new buildings. Depending upon the final configuration, this could require facility modification and a reduction to overall building capacity.

• Does reconfiguration for all schools need to occur simultaneously? • This question poses a number of issues, but in general because we do not have

clean feeder schools across the District from elementary to junior high and junior high to high school, the answer is yes. The one exception in our options would be the model with 7-12 “Campus”, which could be extended into multiple years based on funds available for Capital Projects and the list of facility priorities.

• Will either option produce potential school closure? • If the current class sizes (or close to current) continue, all options will produce a

potential school closure. If K-3 class size is reduced, this answer could change based on the state funding, configuration selected and Capital Projects Phase II

• Is data available about 6th -12th grade students riding the same bus? • Not specifically in this configuration. Districts across our state have a variety of bell

schedules and resulting bus capacity. Rural districts tend to have a greater span of students riding busses due to distances of travel. Some districts have K-12 on the same bus.

21

Updated 3-8-2013

Key Questions: Boundaries

• What data tool do we use to determine the current grade levels and numbers within the current boundary lines? • PowerSchool

• Are clean feeders a requirement to our boundaries? • Any boundary changes have not been completed. There are

benefits for clean feeders, yet this may not be possible when boundaries are redrawn.

• What impact do NS/ND students have on creating new boundaries? • None. The option for NS and ND student waivers will be

determined after new boundaries are drawn.

22

Key Questions: Implementation

• What is our middle school structure/school philosophy, including sixth graders? • This question will be part of the implementation phase and highly dependent

upon which configuration is selected. • What Professional Development will support the changes?

• Professional Development regarding curriculum and any new configuration may be required.

• How will student transitions be accomplished? • What athletic and activities programs will exist?

• Extra-curricular review for 9th graders is currently under review by a committee. • Will we extend or change special programs (TEAM, Montessori,

Venture, Special Education)? • What is the plan for implementation for the transfer/moving process?

• The implementation plan will be developed following a determination of what configuration we will use moving forward.

23

Updated 3-8-2013

Key Questions: Implementation • What support is required for students, staff and parents? • How will configuration impact the cost of transportation?

• The cost of transportation may vary slightly with each configuration, but unless bell schedules are adjusted and or transportation tiers are eliminated, costs will not be significantly different.

• What is the communications plan? • The current communication plan will be focused on providing

updates and preparing for staff and community input opportunities.

24

Updated 3-8-2013

Scoring Results with K-6, 7-12

• Previous scoring

25

Rate: 4=Very Good, 3=Good, 2=Fair, 1=Poor

Boa

rdC

riter

ia

Possible Configurations

Optio

n A

K-6,

7-8

, 9-1

2

(incl

udes

KSS

7-1

2)Op

tion

BK-

5, 6

-8, 9

-12

(incl

udes

KSS

6-1

2)Op

tion

CK-

4, 5

-8, 9

-12

Optio

n D

P-2,

3-5

, 6-8

, 9-1

2Ad

ditio

nal O

ptio

n E

K-6,

7-1

2Al

l Sch

ools

Addi

tiona

l Opt

ion

F

K-6,

7-1

2 KS

S an

d

othe

rs a

s "C

ampu

s"

Sta

ffing

Effi

cien

cy

Configuration Committee Sub-Criteria

Impact on HQ Staffing Requirement (5)

School Model/Size (Added Staff, Co-Curricular, Athletic, Lunch) (12)

3.23 3.18 1.32 1.91 2.28 2.39Co-Curricular Costs (Transportation, Coaches, No. of buildings/programs in model) (10) 3.73 3.18 2.05 2.91 2.39 3.33Transportation Cost (15)

Capacity - Can model fit inside current facilities (1) 4.00 4.00 2.36 3.64 2.78 2.11Facility Modification Cost (DLP, Science, PE, CTE, Music, Alt Schools) (9) 4.00 3.82 2.09 3.09 2.17 2.17

Saf

ety Public Opinion Factor - Number of schools a parent may need to support, How many grade levels move, school start/end times (17)

Equitable academic opportunity for all students - curriculum area impact (3)

Impact on programs (TEAM, Montesori, Venture/Magnet, Special Ed, Alt Schools) (7) 3.86 2.27 1.77 1.32 3.78 3.94Number of Transitions (Fewer with purpose, School Community, No. of Schools, parents must support) (2) 2.23 4.00 3.86 2.55 4.00 3.11Geography (Time on the bus, Neighborhood Schools) (11) 3.82 2.86 1.95 1.05 1.94 3.06Curriculum Considerations (Alignment Materials and Professional Development, K-5, 6-8) (14)

2.09 4.00 2.09 3.09 2.11 2.11

Clean Feeder (16)

Average Score on Scale 1-4 3.37 3.41 2.19 2.44 2.68 2.78Ranking by Average Score

on Scale 1-4 2 1 6 5 4 3

Cos

t Effe

ctiv

eM

axim

izes

Stu

dent

Ach

ieve

men

tS

taffi

ng E

ffici

ency

Equ

ity

Addi

tiona

l Opt

ion

E

Average Rating Scores

Not Rated

Not Rated

Not Rated

Not Rated

Not Rated

Ret

urn

on

Inve

stm

ent

Facilities Costs - Summary

26

Option

Current Class Size K-3 Class Size 17:1

Rank

CP Added Costs/Savings Rank

CP Added Costs/Savings

Option A: K-6, 7-8, 9-12, KSS 7-12

4 ($1,050,000) 3 ($5,550,000) -($31,250,000)*

Option B: K-5, 6-8, 9-12, KSS 6-12 3 ($4,050,000) 4 ($5,350,000) -

($7,250,000)*

Option E: K-6, 7-12 All Bldgs 2 ($13,300,000) 2 ($17,800,000) -

($43,500,000)*

Option F: K-6, 7-12 Campus (7-8, 9-12) 1 ($50,600,000) 1 ($55,100,000) -

($80,800,000)*

Current: K-6, 7-9 10-12, KSS 7-12 ($300,000) ($3,900,000) -

($29,600,000)*

Staffing Summary Summary Worksheet

Option A K-6, 7-8, 9-12

(KSS 7-12)

Option B K-5, 6-8, 9-12

(KSS 6-12)

Option E K-6, 7-12

Option F K-6, 7-12 Campus

Current K-6, 7-9, 10-12

(KSS 7-12)

Costs ($ 56,572) ($ 56,572) ($665,623- $ 1,355,760)

($56,572)

Considerations 9th Grade Moves Up

9th Grade Moves Up

All Secondary 7-12

Secondary Configuration

6th Grade Moves Up

Based on Campus Structure

Rank 3 3 1 3

4 - Least Expensive 3 2

1 - Most Expensive

27

Extra-Curricular 2010-11 Extra-Curricular Budget Expenditures (including Salary/Benefits, Substitutes, Transportation, Contractual Services, Officials, others)

Option A K-6, 7-8, 9-12

(KSS 7-12)

Option B K-5, 6-8, 9-12

(KSS 6-12)

Option E K-6, 7-12

Option F K-6, 7-12 Campus

Current K-6, 7-9, 10-12

Elementary 85,500 73,286 85,500 85,500 85,500 Junior High/Middle School 309,890 309,890 309,890 309,890 326,200 High School 901,530 901,530 1,452,040 901,530 858,600

Total 1,296,920 1,284,706 1,847,430* 1,296,920 1,270,300 Difference From Current Program ($26,620) ($14,406) ($577,130)* ($26,620) 0

Program includes Athletics, Music, Drama, Debate, Athletic Trainers, Activity Coordinators, Athletic Director, History Day, Honor Society, Class Advisors, Knowledge Bowl, Newspaper, Yearbook

↓ MS 5% ↑ HS 5%

↓ MS 5% ↑ HS 5% ↓ Elem 1/7

↓ MS 5% ↑ HS 5% ↑ HS Startup ↑ HS 1 Prog

↓ MS 5% ↑ HS 5% ↑ HS Startup ↑ HS 1 Prog

Rank 2.5 4 1 2.5

4 - Least Expensive

3 2

1 - Most Expensive

28

* Includes Start Up of $250,000

Transportation/Food Service Warehouse

Option A K-6, 7-8, 9-12

(KSS 7-12)

Option B K-5, 6-8, 9-12

(KSS 6-12)

Option E K-6, 7-12

(all schools)

Option F K-6, 7-12 Campus Current

Start and End Times NA NA NA NA NA

Equipment -1 0 0 0 NA

Number of Runs -1 0 0 0 NA

Staffing NA NA NA NA NA New Federal Standards for FS 0 0 0 0 0

Number of Kitchens 0 0 0 0 0

Central Kitchen and Delivery of Food 0 0 0 0 0

Warehouse 0 0 0 0 0

Rank 4 2 2 2

Key Cost more = 1 Cost same = 0 Cost less = (-1)

29

Research Summary Statements

• Inconclusive relationship between grade span configuration and academic achievement

(Dove, Pearson, & Hooper, 2010; Paglin & Fager, 1997; Renchler, 2002)

• Greatest positive impact on student achievement: • Effective programs and practices/how the school is structured to meet the needs of

particular grades it contains • quality instruction * interdisciplinary teaming * developmentally appropriate integrated

curriculum * focus on learning targets and outcomes * data-driven decisions)

(Bolser, 2011; Goodwin, 2010; NMSA, 2005; OSPI, 2007; Paglin & Fager, 1997)

• Limited number of transitions (Cullen & Robles-Pina, 2009; Pietarinen, Pyhalto, & Soini, 2010)

• District & building leadership (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Marzano & Waters, 2009; OSPI, 2007; Wahlstrom & York-Barr, 2011; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003)

• Strong community relations/parent & family partnerships

(Jacobson, Hodges, & Blank, 2011 ; OSPI, 2007)

• Other?

30

Works Cited Bolser, U. (2011). Doing What Works: Return on Educational Investment. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress.

Cullen, M., & Robles-Pina, R. (2009). Grade Transitions from Elementary to Secondary School: What is the Impact on Students. Southeaster Teacher Education Journal, 31-38.

Dove, M. J., Pearson, C., & Hooper, H. (2010). Relationship Between Grade Span Configuration and Academic Achievement. Journal of Advanced Academics, 272-298.

Goodwin, B. (2010). Changing the Odds for Student Success: What Matters Most. Denver: McRel. Jacobson, R., Hodges, R., & Blank, M. (2011). Mutual Support: The Community Schools Strategy. Principal Leadership, 18-22.

Leithwood, K., Louis, S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How Leadership Influences Student Learning; Review of Research. New York: The Wallace Foundation. Marzano, R., & Waters, T. (2009). District Leadership That Works: Striking The Right Balance. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.

NMSA. (2005, 8 5). Middle level education is not about grade configuration, but rather about effective programs and practices. Retrieved from Research Brief - Research in Support of Middle Level Grade Configuration: http://www.nmsa.org/portals/0/pdf/advocacy/opinion_leaders/grade_configuration.pdf

OSPI. (2007). Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools. Olympia: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Paglin, C., & Fager, J. (1997). Grade Configuration: Who Goes Where? Portland: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Pietarinen, J., Pyhalto, K., & Soini, T. (2010). A Horizontal Approach To School Transitions: A lesson learned from Finnish 15-year-olds. Cambridge Journal of Education, 229-245.

Renchler, R. (2002). School Organization: Grade Span. Trends and Issues. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 8.

Wahlstrom, K., & York-Barr, J. (2011). Leadership: Support and structures make the difference. Journal of Staff Development, 22-32.

Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). McRel, Balanced Leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Retrieved from McRel: http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/LeadershipOrganizationDevelopment/5031RR_BalancedLeadership.pdf

31

October 24, 2011

Program Impact Key More = 5,000 to 50,000 Same = + or - 5,000 Less = less than 5,000

Opt A K-6, 7-8, 9-12

(KSS 7-12)

Opt B K-5, 6-8, 9-12

(KSS 6-12)

Opt E K-6, 7-12 All Schools Non-Campus Model

Opt F K-6, 7-12 KSS As

Is/All Other Schools Campus Model

Current K-6, 7-9, 10-12

(KSS 7-12)

Special Ed – DLP

Same Same Same Same

Team

Same Same Same Same

Montessori

Same Same/More Same Same

Venture

Same Same (6th would be in a

new location)

Same Same

CTE

Same Same More More

PE

Same Same More More

Art

Same Same More More

Music

Same Same More ++ More ++

Science

Same Same More ++ More ++

RANK 3 3 1 3

32

OTL/C & I Topics Opt A

K-6, 7-8, 9-12 (KSS 7-12)

Opt B K-5, 6-8, 9-12

(KSS 6-12)

Opt E K-6, 7-12 All Schools Non-

Campus Model

Opt F K-6, 7-12 KSS As

Is/All Other Schools Campus Model

Current K-6, 7-9, 10-12

(KSS 7-12)

Professional Development Curricular Materials/Adoption/Design

More Same More

More

Assessment: Common Core Standards

More

Less More

More

Assessment: Standard Based Grading (aligned with CCSS)

More

Less More

More

Assessment: MSP/HSPE/Other Standardized Assessment

Same More Same

Same

State Organization N/A N/A N/A N/A Funding Organization(time) N/A N/A N/A N/A RANK 2 4 2 2

Key More = 5,000 to 50,000 Same = + or - 5,000 Less = less than 5,000

33

Option

A

K-6, 7-

8, 9-1

2 KSS 7-12

Option

B

K-5, 6-

8, 9-1

2, KSS 6-12

Option

E

K-6, 7-

12 (a

ll sch

ools)

Option

F

K-6, 7-

12 (K

SS all o

thers

as "c

ampu

s")

K-6, 7-

9, 10

-12 and 7

-12

(curre

nt co

nfigura

tion)

Boar

d Cr

iteria

Max

imiz

e St

uden

t Ac

hiev

emen

t Organization -Curriculum OSPI

Research - Middle School Structure (Transitions)

Staf

fing

Effic

ienc

y

Staffing

Equi

ty

Program Impact

Extra and Co-Curricular

Retu

rn o

n In

vest

men

t

Facilities

Safe

ty

Transportation and Food Services

Cost

Eff

ectiv

e

Boar

d Cr

iteria

Max

imiz

e St

uden

t Ac

hiev

emen

t

Ranking of Costs

34

Rank Options 4 - Least Expensive 3 - 2 - 1 –Most Expensive

Current Class Size 4 3 2 1

Core 24/Reduced K-3 3 4 2 1

2.5 4 1 2.5

3 3 1 3

AVERAGE 3.07 3.29 1.57 2.07

N/A N/A N/A N/A

3 3 1 3

2 4 2 2

4 2 2 2

34

SCHOOL CONFIGURATION

Current Configuration

7-9 Junior High Model

• K-6 elementary

• 7-9 junior high

• 10-12 high school

• 7-12 secondary school

12

2

1

461

876

876

2015-16 Average # Students

3 639

Potential School Closure: 1 junior high, high school or secondary (not included above)

700-900

450-475

1100-1300

Target Size

1000-1100

35

Option #F 2015-16 Base General Fund Capital Projects Fund Years (Costs) or Savings (Costs) or Savings Y1 $1,200,000 ($300,000) Y1-Y5 $6,000,000 $0 Y1-Y10 $12,000,000 $0

9th graders in JH Closure will create some very small and/or large JH, HS, Secondary

SCHOOL CONFIGURATION

Configuration Option #A

7-8 Middle School Model

• K-6 elementary

• 7-8 middle school

• 9-12 high school

• 7-12 secondary school

12

2

1

461

1050-1100

950-1050

2015-16 Average # Students

2 639

Potential School Closure: 1 junior high

450-475

700-900

1100-1300

1000-1100

Target Size

36

Option #A 2015-16 Base General Fund Capital Projects Fund Years (Costs) or Savings (Costs) or Savings Y1 $1,116,808 ($1,050,000) Y1-Y5 $5,584,040 $0 Y1-Y10 $11,168,080 $0

Elementary No Change Least Change Across District 7-8 Middle School

SCHOOL CONFIGURATION

Configuration Option #B

6-8 Middle School Model

• K-5 elementary

• 6-8 middle school

• 9-12 high school

• 6-12 secondary school

11-10

2

1

429-472

1100-1200

1050-1100

Average # Students

3 649

Potential School Closure: 1-2 elementary

450-475

700-900

1100-1300

1000-1100

Target Size

37

Option #B 2015-16 Base General Fund Capital Projects Fund Years (Costs) or Savings (Costs) or Savings Y1 $692,022-$1,329,022 ($4,050,000) Y1-Y5 $3,145,110-$6,645,110 $0 Y1-Y10 $6,290,220-$13,290,220 $0

K-5, 6-8 Matches most state Potential space for reduced K-3 class size Closes elementary school(s) 6-12 Klahowya

SCHOOL CONFIGURATION

Configuration Option #E

K-6, 7-12 Secondary

Model

• K-6 elementary

• 7-12 secondary schools

12

4

461

1136

Average # Students

Potential School Closure: 2 junior high

450-475

1000-1300

Target Size

38

Option #E 2015-16 Base General Fund Capital Projects Fund Years (Costs) or Savings (Costs) or Savings Y1 $0 ($13,300,000) Y1-Y5 $467,110-$717,110 $0 Y1-Y10 $4,052,610-$8,193,482 $0

Elementary No Change All Secondary 7-12 Four HS Athletic/Activities Programs Later Implementation (2019+) Smaller 9-12 Groupings

SCHOOL CONFIGURATION

Configuration Option #F Campus Model K-6, 7-12

Campus Model

• K-6 elementary

• 7-12 secondary school, and/or

• 7-8 and 9-12 On Same Campus

12

1

2+2

461

950-1050

639 1050-1100

Average # Students

Potential School Closure: 1 junior high

450-475

1000-1100

700-900, 1100-1300

Target Size

39

Option #F 2015-16 Base General Fund Capital Projects Fund Years (Costs) or Savings (Costs) or Savings Y1 $0 ($50,600,000) Y1-Y5 $1,116,808 $0 Y1-Y10 $6,700,848 $0

Elementary No Change 9th Graders Up to High School 7-8 on Campus with 9-12 Retains 3 High Schools Later full implementation (2019+)

Cost Summary Option #A Option #B Option #E Option #F

Description K-6 7-8 9-12, KSS 7-12 K-5 6-8

9-12, KSS 6-12 K-6 7-12 K-6 7-12

7-8,9-12 Campus

Resulting Avg Building Size

Increased "Model" cost $56,572 $56,572 $665,623-$1,355,760 $56,572

Extra-curricular cost $26,620/yr $14,406/yr $327,130/yr $26,620/yr

Start up costs $0 $0 $250,000 $0

Potential Savings $1.2 M $700,000 - $1.4M $2.4 M $1.2 M

Potential School Closure 1 JH 1-2 Elem 2 JH 1 JH

Total General Fund Impact – 1st year/2+ $1,116,808 $629,022-$1,329,022 $467,110-1,157,247 (Y5) $717,110-1,407,247(Y6) $1,116,808 (Y5-10)

Impact To General Fund 5 year/10 Year $5,584,040 $11,168,080 $3,145,110-$6,645,110

$6,290,220-$13,290,220

$467,110-$717,110

$4,052,610-$8,193,482 $1,116,808 $6,700,848

Earliest Implementation Date 2015-16 2015-16 or beyond 2019 or beyond 2019 or beyond

Added Facility cost $1,050,000 $4,050,000 $13,300,000 $50,600,000

Efficient Target School Size Closure/Boundary Impact (Parent/Student)*

Community Impact (grades moved)*

Staff Impact (grades moved)*

Small impact Medium impact

High impact

Key*

Further Considerations

• Full Implementation of HB 2261 and HB2776 • All Day Kindergarten • K-3 Reduced Class Size

• Other Legislative Changes

41

Further Considerations • Two Large 9-12 High Schools, No 7-12 Secondary School

• Add more portables to both HS Buildings • Add science Labs to both HS Buildings • Add special education District Level Programs to both HS Buildings • Add more gym space to both HS Buildings • KSS and OHS (East and West) or CKHS and OHS (Central and

East) or KSS and CKHS (West and Central)? • CKHS and OHS increasing facility issues (2 renovation?) • Total Facility Costs?

42

Way Ahead • Community and Staff Input

• Wed, Mar 20, KSS 3:15 and 6:30 • Mon, Mar 25, CKHS 4:00 and 6:30 • Tues, Mar 26, OHS 3:30 and 6:30

• Committee Reviews Data April/May

• Board Update April/May

• Superintendent Recommendation June

43