Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Option
1A
Utilization Rates: Caveats:
Synopsis: 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 • Significant reorganization of the district
‐Choice or neighborhood? CBHS is choice, King/Presumpscot are not.
• K‐12 Expeditionary Learning School (combines Presumpscot, King and ‐Both options have challenges for the remaining schools
Grouping Utilization Rate for this Option
Casco Bay programming at a single physical location‐‐ presumably ‐Would transportation be provided?
Deering) target = 85%
• 6‐9 and K‐12 buildings are very large and serve a wide developmental
• Remaining 10‐12 grade students at another HS location (presumably PHS) Elementary 68% range
• 2 ‐ 6‐9 Schools (~800 students each, if 100 per grade at k‐12) ta rget = 70% • Transition away from middle school design to a mixed elementary/junior
• PAE moves to CBHS Middle 73% high school model
• CO moves to open MS (with Bayside) • 3 school option minimizes savings
target = 90%
• Potentially closes 1 MS and 1 ES, (CO, PAE relocate) • Implications for freshman athletics
High School 75‐98%
• PAE off peninsula may present access challenges
target = 90%
Block Diagram: EL School (all at DHS) 116%
or target = 85%
Opportunities:
Central Office at Casco EL School (Longfellow K‐2)74%
PAE at Casco Bay Bay
a nd target = 90%
AE • Leverage district positives of EL education
EL School (DHS 3‐12) 89% • Combination of PAE and PATHS presents programming opportunities
12 Relocating administration building to a school location improves space
Bayside Learning Comm. & Central Office
Portland SHS •
Expenditionary Learing School at Deering
11 and parking options
Bayside Learning Comm. at Casco Bay
10 Staff Utilization:
9 King JHS Lincoln JHS Moore JHS
8 Teachers (Low Teachers (High Admin
7 School Students Estimate) Estimate) Staff
Option 1A’s Measurement Against the Benchmarks:
6 K‐12 EL 1300 +0.00 +0.00 +0
5 10‐12 Senior High 1307 ‐3.31 ‐10.01 +1
Building Closed
2
Cliff Island
1
Reiche
Lyseth
Rowe
K
PK
Operating Costs:
Baseline Option 1A ∆
Category Totals Totals Savings
Educational Programming by Grade Level Grouping: Staffing Costs $ 64,590,248 $ 65,752,422 $ (1,162,173)
Utilities $ 1,792,379 $ 1,768,426 $ 23,953
Grouping Grade Levels Program Delivery Supplies $ 858,717 $ 929,187 $ (70,470)
Elementary PK‐5 Traditional fixed‐section, student‐centered schedule Debt/Lease $ 661,000 $ 481,000 $ 180,000
Middle 6‐8 Fixed sections in teams, student‐centered schedule Totals $ 67,902,344 $ 68,931,035 $ (1,028,690)
9 Period scheduling, subject‐centered
High School 9‐12 Period scheduling, subject‐centered
10‐12 Period scheduling, subject‐centered
EL School K‐12 Mixed ‐ all of the above
Portland Public Schools | Facilities Study Thomas & Williamson | Davis Demographics 2019
Compendium of Reconfiguration Options
Option
1B
Synopsis:
Portland HS a nd ta rget = 90%
11 • Leverage district positives of EL education
10 EL School (DHS 3‐12) 89% • Combination of PAE and PATHS presents programming opportunities
Bayside Learning Comm. at King
2
Cliff Island
1
Reiche
Rowe
K
Totals 5442 ‐3.31 ‐17.08 ‐2
PK
Operation Costs:
Baseline Option 1B ∆
Category Totals Totals Savings
Educational Programming by Grade Level Grouping: Staffing Costs $ 64,590,248 $ 62,694,924 $ 1,895,324
Utilities $ 1,792,379 $ 1,468,291 $ 324,088
Grouping Grade Levels Program Delivery
Supplies $ 858,717 $ 745,587 $ 113,130
Debt/Lease $ 661,000 $ 259,000 $ 402,000
Elementary PK‐5 Traditional fixed‐section, student‐centered schedule
Middle 6 Fixed sections, student‐centered schedule 30% Staff Contingency $ (568,597)
7‐9 Period scheduling, subject‐centered 20% Non‐Staff Contingency $ (167,844)
High School 10‐12 Period scheduling, subject‐centered Totals $ 67,902,344 $ 65,167,802 $ 1,998,101
EL School K‐12 Mixed ‐ all of the above
Portland Public Schools | Facilities Study Thomas & Williamson | Davis Demographics 2019
Compendium of Reconfiguration Options
Option
2
Utilization Rates:
Synopsis: 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Caveats:
• One 10‐12 High School (CBHS remains as a 9‐12) building (~1200
students) Grouping Utilization Rate for this Option
• Additional transitions for most students (5, 7, 10 v current 6, 9)
• One 7‐9 MS (at other HS site) (~1400 students) ta rget = 85%
• Would need to figure out CBHS future– would some students leave 7‐
• 2 5‐6 buildings (presumably at MS) ~500 each Elementary (PK‐4) 68% * 9 building to attend 9‐12 school?
• Elementary PK‐4 ta rget = 85% • CBHS would be only HS choice in the district
• Potentially closes 1 elementary (remove 500 5th graders); requires re‐ Elementary (5‐6) 75% • Reduces efficiency of elementary schools
districting elementary ta rget = 70% • Freshman sports
• CO/PAE relocate to closed MS
Junior High School 87‐105%
Opportunities:
ta rget = 90%
Block Diagram:
High School (10‐12) 75‐98%
ta rget = 90% • Opens room for PK expansion in elementary schools
Central Office at MS#3
PAE at MS#3 CBHS (9‐12) 68%
AE
12 Portland SHS Casco Bay HS ' * ' if no closures
11
10 Staff Utilization:
9 Deering JHS
Bayside Learning Community
2
Cliff Island
30% Staff Contingency $ (1,053,156)
Riverton
East End
1
Reiche
Lyseth
20% Non‐Staff Contingency $ (82,119)
Rowe
K
PK Totals $ 67,902,344 $ 63,981,228 $ 2,785,841
Operating Costs:
Baseline Option 2 ∆
Educational Programming by Grade Level Grouping: Category Totals Totals Savings
Portland Public Schools | Facilities Study Thomas & Williamson | Davis Demographics 2019
Compendium of Reconfiguration Options
Option
3
Utilization Rates: • Additional transitions for most students (6, 8, 10 v current 6, 9)
• Would need to figure out CBHS future– would some students leave 8‐
Synopsis: 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 9 building to attend 9‐12 school?
• CBHS would be only HS choice in the district
• One 10‐12 High School (CBHS remains as a 9‐12) building (~1200 • Freshman sports
students) Grouping Utilization Rate for this Option
• One 8‐9 MS (at other HS site) (~1000 students) ta rget = 85% Opportunities:
• 2 6‐7 buildings (presumably at MS) ~500 each Elementary (PK‐5) 78%
• Elementary remains the same or is redistricted for evening out
ta rget = 85% • 8‐9 transport by METRO
enrollment, includes PK to the extent possible
• Closes PAE, CO CO/PAE relocate to closed MS with Bayside Middle 75%
ta rget = 90%
Block Diagram: Junior High School 69‐96%
ta rget = 90%
Central Office at MS#3 High School (10‐12) 75‐98%
PAE at MS#3
AE ta rget = 90%
CBHS (9‐12) 68%
Bayside Learning Comm. & Central Office
12 Portland SHS Casco Bay HS
11 Staff Utilization:
10 Bayside Learning Community at MS#3
9 Deering JHS Teachers (Low Teachers (High Admin
8 School Students Estimate) Estimate) Staff
7 MS#1 MS#2 10‐12 Senior High 1307 ‐3.31 ‐10.01 +1
6 8‐9 Junior High 906 ‐3.28 ‐12.23 ‐6
5 6‐7 Middle School 1039 +0.00 +0.00 +4
Building Closed
3
Presumpscot
Longfellow
2
Cliff Island
Riverton
East End
1 Operating Costs:
Reiche
Lyseth
Rowe
K
PK Baseline Option 3 ∆
Category Totals Totals Savings
Staffing Costs $ 64,590,248 $ 63,916,019 $ 674,229
Utilities $ 1,792,379 $ 1,792,379 $ ‐
Educational Programming by Grade Level Grouping:
Supplies $ 858,717 $ 896,532 $ (37,815)
Grouping Grade Levels Program Delivery
Debt/Lease $ 661,000 $ 259,000 $ 402,000
Elementary PK‐5 Traditional fixed‐section, student‐centered schedule 30% Staff Contingency $ (202,269)
Middle 6‐7 Fixed sections in teams, student‐centered schedule
20% Non‐Staff Contingency $ (72,837)
Junior HS 8‐9 Period scheduling, subject‐centered
Senior HS 10‐12 Period scheduling, subject‐centered Totals $ 67,902,344 $ 66,863,930 $ 763,309
EL (CBHS) 9‐12 Period scheduling, subject‐centered
Caveats:
Portland Public Schools | Facilities Study Thomas & Williamson | Davis Demographics 2019
Compendium of Reconfiguration Options
Option
4
Utilization Rates: Caveats:
Synopsis: 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 • Changes long‐held traditions for neighborhoods attending certain
school buildings
• Elementary grade clusters 4‐ K‐2, 4‐ 3‐5 • Creates another grade level transition
Grouping Utilization Rate for this Option
• This option combines the K‐5 elementary schools as follows: ta rget = 85% Opportunities:
• Rowe (Primary) + Longfellow (Intermediate) Primary 78%
ta rget = 85% • Results in a staff reduction due to a higher number of sections per
• East End (Primary) + Reiche (Intermediate) grade level at each school
Intermediate 86%
• Ocean Ave (Primary) + Presumpscot (Intermediate) ta rget = 70% • Allows facilities to focus on specialized program associated with the
primary and intermediate levels
Middle 51%
• Lyseth (Primary) + Riverton (Intermediate)
ta rget = 90%
High School 55%
Block Diagram:
Central Office at Staff Utilization:
PAE at Cathedral Bayside
AE
12 Portland HS Deering HS Casco Bay
11 HS
10
9
Bayside Learning Community
2
Cliff Island
East End
1 Ocean
Rowe Lyseth
K Avenue
PK
Operating Costs:
Educational Programming by Grade Level Grouping:
Baseline Option 4 ∆
Category Totals Totals Savings
Grouping Grade Levels Program Delivery
Staffing Costs $ 64,590,248 $ 63,135,107 $ 1,455,141
Compendium of Reconfiguration Options
Benchmarks
Benchmark 1 – Increases Student to Teacher Ratio: the EL program. Accordingly, in this instance, there is low acuity because the
specialized spaces are not compatible with the program. Conversely, utilizing
Under this benchmark, we considered the ratio of all regular ed students to all Deering as a Junior High School provides sharper acuity in that the variety of
regular ed teachers. Increasing the student to teacher ratio results in a lower specialized spaces supports the program of the Junior High grade levels
overall staffing cost. effectively.
Benchmark 2 – Provides a Higher Average Class Size: Benchmark 7 – Minimize Disruption
Under this benchmark, we are rating options higher where there are more This benchmark provides higher scores to options with less impact resulting
sections running at a higher class size. Statistically speaking, we favor a higher from shifts in grade level configurations, districting boundaries, programs and
average with a lower standard deviation. This allows the school to run at a curriculum changes, etc.
higher loading rate more consistently.
Benchmark 8 – Reduced Reliance of Leased Spaces
Benchmark 3 – Higher Facility Utilization Rate:
Under this benchmark, we provide a higher score for options which move
This benchmark provides a higher rating where the student loading divided by operations currently in leased space into other owned buildings. This
the gross capacity results in the highest percentage and where the percent provides opportunity to 1) combine operations within a building and lower
utilized based on the student periods scheduled is closest to the Target the operating cost, 2) eliminates the lease cost, and 3) allows for the potential
Utilization Rate. sale of a building.
Benchmark 4 – Sustainable Operation Potential
This benchmark provides a higher score for options where some or all of the
facilities can operate consistently within their Target Loading Ranges because
the fluctuations in enrollment are absorbed by the available capacity per
grade level – generally because there are a higher number of sections per
grade level. The split primary/intermediate design in Option 4 demonstrates
that having more sections per grade level in a facility enables the total student
load to be divided by a higher number, thus delivering a more consistent class
size near the Target Class Size.
Benchmark 5 – Cost Savings Potential
Cost savings are generated primarily through two means: 1) initial cost savings
through closures or reduced lease costs and 2) through reduced staffing costs.
This benchmark provides a higher score to options with lower costs (higher
cost savings) achieved through either of these means. Higher scores are also
given where the available utilization versions (A‐D) make additional cost
savings available.
Benchmark 6 – Facility to Program Acuity
This benchmark provides higher scores where the offerings provided by the
facilities (in the form of adequate types of spaces and an adequate quantity of
those types of spaces) properly support the needs of the program. One
example of this benchmark can be seen with the moving of the K‐12 EL to the
Deering Facility. There are several specialized spaces within the Deering
Facility (gymnasiums, choral rooms, band rooms, etc.) which are not used by
Portland Public Schools | Facilities Study Thomas & Williamson | Davis Demographics 2019