Planning for the Future:

FMP Committee Meeting #2

December 8, 2016

Agenda
Part 1: Introductions

Activity 1 Welcome Back

Part 2: Committee Information

Roles
Boundary Process
Ground Rules
ACE (Academics, Culture, Economics)
Presentation Goals

Part 3: Subcommittee Report Out

Subcommittee 1: Financial
Subcommittee 2: Teaching and Learning
Subcommittee 3: Grade Configuration and Boundary Criteria
Subcommittee 4: New Schools and Renovations
Subcommittee 5: Closing and Repurposing

Part 4: Next Steps

Public Input Sign Up
Public Input Details
Schedule

At your table discuss what you learned from your subcommittee experience
Round Table Report Out

Time Limits 15 Minutes

Part 2:
Committee
Information
5

In order to ensure a positive outcome during the process and for the final outcome, the BOE
directed RSP to clearly state the roles of each entity in the Facility Planning Process:
Board of Education: Provide the framework of the process, community values, receive the Committee
recommendation, listen to community input, and after more discussion approve a plan that will guide the
district in making timely decisions for student academic achievement.
Administration: Provide guidance over the process, attend the committee meetings and public forums, be a
resource in answering questions related to school district related topics, communicate the educational vision,
and provide ongoing progress updates to the school community through a targeted communication plan.
RSP: Facilitator (Board, Committee, and Public Forums). Utilize GIS data, knowledge gained from city
jurisdictions and others to create accurate enrollment projections and facilitate meetings that produce positive,
meaningful dialogue for the BOE to consider in a solution to have World Class Educational experiences for all
students.
Committee: Discuss and analyze information, as well as engage in conversation with other committee members
and the community. Examine options presented and evaluate based on the community values and prioritized
framework established by the Board of Education, ultimately leading to a recommendation the BOE will
consider to implement for a Facility Master Plan.

Community: Review options and provide constructive feedback so the committee and/or Board can consider
how any of these ideas might benefit student educational experiences.

Meetings:
BOE: 7
Committee: 11
Subcommittee: 13
Public Input: 7
District Team: 38
Total: 72

Utilize existing Building Assessments and project

baseline from the 2013 Facility Master Plan
Focus always comes back to ACE Teaching and
Learning as the Focus of decision making to positively
impact student learning

A
C
A
D
E
M
I
C
S

C
U
L
T
U
R
E

E
C
O
N
O
M
I
C
S

 Professional Learning
Community
College & Career Ready
Relevant & Rigorous
Quantitative growth each
student at all ability levels
A
C
A
D
E
M
I
C
S

10

Equity / Proficiency
Class Size
Enrollment/Capacity

Educator resources and

tools

 Athletics
Activities
Clubs
Organizations

Student Engagement
Parent Involvement
C
U
L
T
U
R
E

11

Professional Learning
Community

Traditions/Pride
Teacher / Staff Experience
Safety
Multi-cultural changes
Cedar Rapids Experience
Beliefs
Values
Attitudes

 Resourceful

Life Cycle Costs

Repurpose of Schools
Remodeling/Additions
New Construction
E
C
O
N
O
M
I
C
S

Closing Schools
Bond Referendums
Community Support
Ability/Desire To Afford
Belief in future forecast
Fiscally responsible

12

BE READY

BE RESPECTFUL

Be Prompt
Be Prepared
Be Positive
Be Present

Limit side conversations

Silence Cell Phones
Assume good intention
Respectful discourse
Listen to hear

SPEAK UP
When it is uncomfortable
When you disagree/agree
When unpopular

BE THOUGHTFUL

BE WILLING TO CHANGE RULES

THREE STEPS
Ask questions
Speak up
Self-learn

Keep best interest of students in mind

Equity of voice
Embrace positive contributions from
community
All voices are heard
Education touches all
Support District efforts

Applies to Public Input Discussions

13

Presentation Goals
1. Provide information that will help guide the understanding to why the district has
embarked on the journey to plan its future:
Facility Master Plan Process
Report out of Belief Statements (Not about agreeing with them all)
Public Input Discussion Information

2. Provide a transparent dialogue between RSP, Administration, BOE, and Committee so

the public will better understand how the Facility Master Plan will guide the decision
of projects to complete and the timing in which that could likely happen.

14

15

Subcommittee #1 Finance Discussion

(RSP: Dave Stoakes, Robert Schwarz)

Subcommittee members would engage in conversations around District finances

including the use of General Fund, Physical Plant & Equipment Levy Fund (PPEL) and
Secure and Advance Vision for Education Fund (SAVE) for use in financing
improvements to existing schools and possible future schools.
OUTCOMES
More need than funds
How connects to academic achievement
Capital dollars can help with general dollars
Cost per pupil per building
Retaining students
Bond capacity
Timing of other city/county projects/taxes
what if sunset changes SAVE

16

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

17

We believe financial investments in school infrastructure should promote

innovation and best teaching practices while accommodating new growth
and the ability to reinvest or divest in existing areas.
We believe flexibility should be a part of how dollars are invested in the
future.
We believe other types of funds will be required to create better
teaching/learning spaces (Bond, SAVE Extension)
We believe in utilizing shared public resources (recreation, parking, city,
other public/private)
We believe we live in an era of declining resources for funding so
collaboration with public/private opportunities is imperative.
We believe given finite resources economies of scale must be a priority in
order to reallocate resources to teaching and learning.

Subcommittee #2 District Program Offerings

(RSP: Clay Guthmiller, Ann Sanders)

Subcommittee members would engage in conversations around such topics as

innovative learning, 21st Century Learning, students with special needs, English
language learners and other program offerings that influence existing and future
facilities design.
OUTCOMES
Blueprint for 21st Century learning
Closing academic achievement gap
Special/district programming (SPED, gifted) Early childhood = Think Big
Technology plan
PLC
Iowa Core
Program Values (education) ADK v. DK
Other options K-8, EC
Students experience
18

1.

2.

3.

4.

19

Facility Needs to Support Academic Programming: We believe in creating

environments that have equipment and spaces that are conducive to 21st
century learningwith stakeholder (i.e., teachers, etc.) input.
Academic Supports: We believe students and staff should get what they
need both academically and behaviorally when they need it.
Technology: We believe purposeful, meaningful integration of technology
enhances teaching and learning (Blended Learning). Access to technology,
remove barriers at home and school.
Professional Learning Communities: We believe moving away from planning
to collaboratively looking at data, creating lessons, peer observation, and
diving into effective strategies to improve student learning adding more
time for collaboration. We also believe all students can learn at high levels
and PLCs provide a systematic approach to deeper learning.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

20

Special Programming (SPED, ELL, EC, AP, Iowa Think Big, STEAM, Leadership):
We believe all students should have access to programming appropriate to
their individual strengths and needs.
Curriculum & Instruction: We believe students take responsibility and
ownership for their own learning.
21st Century Learning: We believe 21st Century Learning is about applying
skills into real work situation, problem-solving, working with others, being
creative & critical thinkers.
We believe in and support the implementation of the districts Theory of
Action.
We believe in and support the implementation of the districts Equity Plan.

Subcommittee #3 Grade Configurations

(RSP: Robert Schwarz, Craig Menozzi)

Subcommittee members would engage in conversations around how our student grade
levels are configured and the alignment of District boundaries at the elementary,
middle school and high school levels.
OUTCOMES
Framework of community values
Preferred prioritization Boundary criteria
Reasoning/Basis for change (grade configuration, grand center, transitions)
How improves student experience
Revisit last redistrict study parameters
How far does ADMIN want this (K-8 to K-12 or something else)?
Define neighborhood as it pertains to schools

21

22

1.

We believe the district should utilize their resources to provide optimal student
center opportunities to learn and be successful.

2.

We believe boundaries should preserve students sense of community.

3.

We believe boundary criteria should be based on the teaching and learning need.

4.

We believe specific information (background/context) is required to create a

prioritization of boundary criteria.

5.

We believe in phasing in changes which do not increase district operational costs.

6.

We believe all grade levels in elementary schools should be at least 2 sections.

7.

We believe and understand that a building may look underutilized for the first 3
years based on demographic changes and future growth.

8.

We believe that different criteria need to be established for ES, MS, and HS.

9.

We believe that specific situations must be created in order to establish the

appropriate prioritized boundary criteria that will ensure successful student learning
will continue with boundary changes.

10.

We believe in making a full commitment to learning options.

11.

12.
13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

23

We believe in curriculum options that help students identify their strengths and
interests.
We believe that the MS concept (teams) will best meet students need.
We believe that feeder teams create and maintain quality relationships between
students, teachers, and parents is vital.
We believe in curriculum options that recognize and honor different types of student
learning styles.
We believe, acknowledge and encourage different rates of learning.
We believe the ideal number of elementary sections at each school should be
between 4 to 5 where there should be no more than 25 students in each class.
We believe the middle school buildings should be between 250 and 300 students per
grade for a total middle school building capacity at each school between 750 and 900
students.
We believe the high school buildings should be between 400 and 450 students per
grade for a total high school building capacity at each school between 1,600 and 1,800
students.
We believe there should be minimal transitions for students.
We believe that the grade configuration should be determined by the learning need of
students.

Subcommittee #4 New Schools/School Renovations

(RSP: Clay Guthmiller, Dave Stoakes)

Subcommittee members would engage in conversations around what key elements or

triggers should be considered when determining where to site a new school or to
renovate an existing school.
OUTCOMES

24

Why build new schools if decreasing enrollment?

Efficiency
Improve educational programming
General fund
Replacement costs
Life cycle costs
Revitalization
Case Study Cedar Falls and Johnston Experience or Others
Will the renovation s improve students academic ability or just maintain a nice building?
What is an ideal elementary school capacity?
Reasoning/Triggers to build a new school or do renovations?
What needs to be in an Elementary School?
Programs
Playgrounds
Transportation
Portables
Ideal ES size/section

Re-Imagine - Re-envision - Re-Invest: CRCSD Students Deserve The Best

1.
2.

3.

4.

5.
6.

7.

8.

25

9.

We believe all learners are entitled to quality, contemporary, flexible learning centers.
We believe students, staff, parents and community are entitled to a safe, secure and
accessible learning environment.
We believe students and their learning should guide economic decisions when
considering facility improvements.
We believe school spaces and amenities must be flexible and sustainable to
accommodate current and future educational needs.
We believe in balancing new construction and renovation across the district.
We believe the need to renovate or build new should be supported by accurate
data. (i.e. enrollment, capacities, building appraisals)
We believe building larger elementary schools designed to accommodate small group
learning, will enhance economy of scale, maximize amenities available, and optimize
staff needs while preserving a sense of community.
We believe in order to maximize the benefit from economy of scale, an elementary
schools capacity should be less than what would require a second set of common
areas. (For example, second gym, second art room, etc.)

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.
15.

16.

26

We believe we should look for imaginative and creative ways to preserve all or part of
historic buildings.
We believe if renovation costs exceed fifty percent (50%) of new construction building replacement should be considered.
We believe the district should consider opportunities to combine two older
elementary schools by constructing one new facility while retaining a neighborhood
concept.
We believe neighborhood values and needs should be considered in making facility
decisions.
We believe new buildings must be designed to accommodate current and evolving
technologies.
We believe facility improvements should enhance opportunities for ALL career paths.
We believe "neighborhood" must be a consideration when defined as community
access, participation and ownership.
We believe "neighborhoods" may be more than where we live and can also be where
we work and play.

Subcommittee #5 Closing and Repurpose Schools

(RSP: Robert Schwarz, Craig Menozzi)

Subcommittee members would engage in discussions around what key elements or

triggers should be considered when determining to close or repurpose an existing
school.
OUTCOMES

27

Info needed

Operation costs for each school

o Hard costs
o Staff costs
o Physical improvements

City needs future

PTO/PTA political reality

Future General fund

Educational needs/opportunities
o PLC
o Academic Achievement
o FRL
o Academic Data
o Class size policy
o Ideal sections per schools

Have to provide reasoning why change is needed

o Funding
o Enhance neighborhood
o Improve students experience
o reinvestment

1. We believe the decision to close or repurpose a school should consider qualitative, as well a
quantitative data. These considerations may include:
Accessibility
Safety
Student Performance (Growth and Absolute)
Cost of Operations
Enrollment, Demographic, and Development Trends
Educational Programming data (student performance, programming options etc.)
Traditions and contributions to a neighborhood (cultural and economic)
Neighborhood (geography)
Community Input
2. We believe prior to closing a school, other innovative programming options should be
explored to increase enrollment (Examples such a Johnson ES, Kenwood ES, and Roosevelt
MS).
3. We believe the district need to be able to financially support the facilities in its inventory
and provide relevant and innovative learning environments
4. We believe that if a school needs to be closed or repurposed public input will be a part of
the discussion.

28

Part 4:
Next Steps

29

Public Input Session Details

Public Input Meetings:
Goal: listen to what the community has to offer about the subject of the
subcommittee content
Agenda of Meeting:
District Introduction (Administration and BOE)
RSP Presentation
Breakout to 5 stations (one for each subcommittee)
Station will have Belief Statements enlarged and paper to record
community thoughts on that content
Guiding questions will help to facilitate conversation with community
Subcommittee members at each station along with administration
RSP team members will float between all five stations
All three meetings will have the same information presented and discussed

A survey (English and Spanish) will be made available at each meeting and online
Results will be made available when completed by K-12 Insight
Listen. . .Listen. . .Listen
30

Schedule
Public Input Meetings:
December 13, 2016 - Kennedy High School Cafeteria 6:30-8:00 pm
December 14, 2016 - Washington High School Cafeteria 6:30-8:00 pm
December 15, 2016 - Jefferson High School band room 6:30-8:00 pm

Committee Meetings:
January 10, 2017 District Office 6:00-8:00 pm

31

NOTES
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

32