Fremont Unified School DistrictBoard Report March 28, 2012B&F 7

1

Major Themes

Theme 1: Support for Fremont Unified School District

Theme 2: Facilities have a long list of needs

Theme 3: EQUITY! EQUITY! EQUITY!

Theme 4: Technology is lacking

Theme 5: the long-range facility plan needs to be inclusive

2

Themes from stakeholder input:

Facilities Assessment Scores

Building Condition Scores

90+New or Like New: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition, less than one year old, and only require preventive maintenance.

80-89 Good: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance.

65-79 Fair: The building and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor to moderate repair.

50-64 Poor: The building and/or a significant number of its systems are in poor condition and require major repair or renovation.

Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The building and/or a majority of its systems should be considered for replacement.

4

This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the building conditions.

Building Condition Score Range

Site TypeBuilding Condition

Score Range

Low High

Elementary Schools 72.85 87.74

Middle Schools 75.48 79.40

High Schools 65.79 79.35

Other Facilities 55.00 85.08

90+ Excellent

80-89 Good

65-79 Fair

50-64 Poor

Below 50 Unsatisfactory

5

This slide shows the resulting range of building condition scores for Fremont schools.

Suitability Scores

90+Excellent: The facility is designed to provide for and support a majority of the educational program offered. It may have a minor suitability issues but overall it meets the needs of the educational program.

80-89Good: The facility is designed to provide for and support the educational program offered. It may have minor suitability issues but generally meets the needs of the educational program.

65-79 Fair: The facility has some problems meeting the needs of the educational program and may require some remodeling.

50-64 Poor: The facility has numerous problems meeting the needs of the educational program and needs significant remodeling or additions.

Below 50 Unsatisfactory: The facility is unsuitable in many areas of the educational program.

6

This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the educational suitability.

Suitability Score Range

Site TypeSuitability

Score Range

Low High

Elementary Schools 55.07 74.88

Middle Schools 60.33 77.36

High Schools 58.03 71.79

Other Facilities 41.98 97.53

90+ Excellent

80-89 Good

65-79 Fair

50-64 Poor

Below 50 Unsatisfactory

7

This slide shows the resulting range of educational suitability scores for Fremont schools.

Site Scores

90+New or Like New: The site and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition, less than one year old, and only require preventive maintenance.

80-89 Good: The site and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance.

65-79 Fair: The site and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor to moderate repair.

50-64 Poor: The site and/or a significant number of its systems are in poor condition and require major repair or renovation.

Below 50

Unsatisfactory: The site and/or a majority of its systems should be considered for replacement.

8

This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate the site conditions.

Site Scores Range

Site TypeSite Assessment Score

RangeLow High

Elementary Schools 53.64 89.10

Middle Schools 51.45 81.25

High Schools 56.61 80.20

Other Facilities 65.18 90.00

90+ Excellent

80-89 Good

65-79 Fair

50-64 Poor

Below 50 Unsatisfactory

9

This slide shows the resulting range of site condition scores for Fremont schools.

Technology Scores

90+ Excellent: The facility has excellent infrastructure to support information technology.

80-89 Good: The facility has the infrastructure to support information technology.

65-79 Fair: The facility lacking in some infrastructure to support information technology.

50-64 Poor: The facility is lacking significant infrastructure to support information technology.

Below 50

Unsatisfactory: The facility has little or no infrastructure to support information technology.

10

This slide shows the scoring matrix used to evaluate technology readiness.

Technology Scores Range

Site TypeTechnology Readiness Score

Range

Low High

Elementary Schools 35.70 79.10

Middle Schools 45.80 76.70

High Schools 53.40 89.20

Other Facilities 38.25 100.00

90+ Excellent

80-89 Good

65-79 Fair

50-64 Poor

Below 50 Unsatisfactory

11

This slide shows the resulting range of technology readiness scores for Fremont schools.

Combined ScoresSite Name Building Condition

ScoreSuitability

ScoreSite Condition

ScoreTech. Readiness

ScoreCombined Score

40/30/10/20

Elementary SchoolsArdenwood ES 76.63 73.02 60.65 39.95 66.61 Azevada ES 75.50 67.90 72.90 73.20 72.50 Blacow ES 72.85 62.27 72.51 44.85 64.04 Brier ES 77.86 62.09 68.20 51.60 66.91 Brookvale ES 76.11 71.20 67.16 35.85 65.69 Cabrillo ES 77.45 58.95 67.85 44.95 64.44 Chadbourne ES 80.35 73.77 74.49 47.55 71.23 Durham ES 77.30 70.35 75.04 58.30 71.19 Forest Park ES 78.16 74.88 68.47 64.90 73.55 Glenmoor ES 78.07 61.80 64.73 62.50 68.74 Gomes ES 87.74 61.47 78.72 75.00 76.41 Green ES 78.71 57.16 76.85 61.60 68.64 Grimmer ES 76.41 64.46 89.10 35.70 65.95 Hirsch ES 77.33 63.34 80.79 58.30 69.67 Leitch ES 78.82 74.10 80.41 79.10 77.62 Maloney ES 78.17 62.92 82.06 48.25 68.00 Mattos ES 73.91 61.36 67.85 57.40 66.24 Millard ES 77.28 55.07 80.90 51.60 65.85 Mission San Jose ES 79.16 65.02 77.61 69.90 72.91 Mission Valley ES 77.70 56.46 76.56 45.80 64.83 Niles ES 84.27 56.72 78.38 46.70 67.90 Oliveira ES 73.69 59.33 81.51 45.85 64.60 Parkmont ES 80.93 63.59 53.64 41.70 65.15 Patterson ES 78.30 63.87 74.86 64.90 70.95 Vallejo Mill ES 75.63 62.48 74.78 49.90 66.46 Warm Springs ES 78.50 55.46 79.26 49.90 65.94 Warwick ES 77.34 71.90 67.57 51.60 69.59 Weibel ES 80.02 69.71 81.09 53.20 71.67

Elementary School Average 78.01 64.31 74.07 53.93 68.69

12

Combined Score (continued)Site Name Building Condition

ScoreSuitability

ScoreSite Condition

ScoreTech.

ReadinessScore

Combined Score 40/30/10/20

Junior High SchoolsCenterville JrHS 76.38 71.73 70.93 76.70 74.50 Hopkins JrHS 79.40 67.35 75.85 51.60 69.87 Horner JrHS 77.95 60.33 51.45 45.80 63.58 Thornton JrHS 78.54 77.36 66.61 54.20 72.12 Walters JrHS 75.48 75.92 81.25 61.70 73.43

Junior High School Average 77.55 70.54 69.22 58.00 70.70 High Schools

American HS 74.37 63.92 80.20 53.40 67.63 Irvington HS 75.41 65.17 75.59 89.20 75.12 Kennedy HS 79.35 58.03 66.80 81.70 72.17 Mission San Jose HS 77.84 59.37 72.29 59.30 68.04 Washington HS 77.69 71.79 56.61 78.40 73.95 Robertson HS 65.79 69.35 74.79 56.70 65.94

High School Average 75.07 64.61 71.05 69.78 70.47Other Facilities

Corporation Yard 76.33 N/A 72.76 38.25 N/A Ed Center 55.00 N/A 90.00 51.89 N/A Fremont Adult School 83.07 69.73 70.18 51.70 71.50 Glankler Preschool 79.64 41.98 69.98 59.10 63.27 Marshall 85.08 51.59 77.35 N/A N/A Regional Occupational Program 75.50 97.53 65.18 100.00 85.98 Tak Fudenna Stadium 75.44 N/A 69.87 N/A N/A

Other Facilities Average 75.72 65.21 73.62 60.19 73.58

District Average 77.23 65.16 73.08 57.27 69.53

13

Estimated Budget

School Type 100%

Elementary $213,789,000

Junior High $73,712,000

High School $225,923,000

Other Facilities $54,508,000

Total $567,932,000

14

Based on the Facilities Needs Assessment, in order to address 100% of the needs identified in the report, the estimated required budget would be $567,932,000.

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary

Millard Elementary School Scores

Building Condition Score 77.28 Fair

Suitability Score 55.07 Poor

Site Condition 80.90 Good

Technology Readiness 51.60 Poor

Combined Score 65.85 Fair

15

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary

16

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary

17

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary

18

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary

19

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary

20

Comments from Millard Elementary - Technology Readiness assessment done January 2012

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary Site Plan

22

Sample Campus: Millard Elementary

Long-range planning process for each site Review Scoring Data with Site Administrator and stakeholders Validate results Prioritize needs Develop project descriptions Develop campus masterplan

Compile District-wide Plan Review potential categories of projects Develop category descriptions Prioritize needs Develop bond ballot language

21

Next Steps

Present final report

- March 28, 2012 Conduct meetings with schools to review their detailed reports

- March 2012 to June 2012 Present timeline and tasks for community engagement

- April 2012 Assemble committee for establishing priorities - April 2012 Present recommended list of priorities to the Board

- June 2012

24