TFR Updates9/28/1110/26/1111/22/111/25/129/12/12

Study Sessions4/25/1211/13/122/13/13

1

School Configuration Committee(SCC)

Board Study Session IIIFebruary 13, 2013

(Update VIII)

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.

2

So that … Vision, Mission, Goals…

School Configuration CommitteePurpose

• 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

3

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

4

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

5

1-25-12

Agenda• Review Members and Timelines• Review Tasks• Review Definitions• Review Facts, Assumptions, Considerations and Key

Questions• Costs for Each Option –

• Facilities• Staffing• Extra-curricular• Transportation• Research

• Summary• Way Ahead

6

Committee Membership7

Elem or SecSchool

Affiliation Voting? Group Name First Name Last

Elem Admin Yes Administrator Peggy Ellis

Elem BR Yes Certificated - elem Philip Wetherby

Elem CC Yes Certificated - elem Sheri Shipe

Elem PI Yes Classified - elem Cheri Mlodzik

Elem CV Yes Certificated Tim McNett

Elem EH Yes Certificated - elem Debbie Allensworth

Elem EM Yes Adminstrator - elem Greg Cleven

Elem EM Yes Certificated - elem Denyse Hemmersbach

Elem JP Yes Parent Anne Lunden

Elem SR Yes Adminstrator - elem Julie McKean

Elem EM Yes Parent Scott Woehrman

Sec Admin Yes Administrator Franklyn MacKenzie

Sec CKHS Yes Administrator Steve Coons

Sec CKHS Yes Classified - sec Jo Conner

Sec CKHS Yes Parent Laurie Moore

Sec CKJH Yes Administrator Susan Jung

Elem or SecSchool

Affiliation Voting? Group Name First Name Last

Sec CKJH Yes Classified - Sec Linda Roberts

Sec FVJH Yes Certificated - sec Andy Campbell

Sec FVJH Yes Certificated - sec Jeremy Faxon

Sec FVJH Yes Classified - Sec Carla Yenko

Sec KSS Yes Adminstrator - Sec Jodie Woolf

Sec OHS Yes Adminstrator - Sec Doyle Clouser

Sec OHS Yes Parent John McGannon

Sec RIJH Yes Parent Laura Murray

n/a Admin NO Administrator Jeanne Beckon

n/a Admin NO Administrator David McVicker

n/a Admin NO Administrator Patti Woolf

n/a Admin NO Administrator Sue Corey

n/a n/a NO Bargaining Unit Nate Andrews

n/a n/a NO Bargaining Unit Kari Clithero

n/a n/a NO Bargaining Unit Kirstin Nicholson

n/a Special Ed Yes Administrator Katie Coleman

School Configuration WorkSY 2012‐13

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

Oct 29‐ Facilities

Nov 26‐ Staffing

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

InputMeetings

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

School Configuration “Other” Major Events

2012 20182013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Jackson Park Open

Aug 2014

SilverdaleOpen

Aug 2016

Transp/FS/Warehouse

OpenDec 2017

Capital Projects Levy Phase One (2012‐2016)

Facilities Committee Work 

(Sept 2013‐Jan 2015)

District Event

Community Event

KEY

Technology (CPL)

Repairs Across District (CPL)

SchoolSupportLevy

Feb 2014

CapitalProjectsMeasureFeb 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 S1 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 9 109 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 1716 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 2423 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 3030 30 31

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S1 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 99 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 1616 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 2323 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 2830 31

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S1 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 2510 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 2017 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 S M T W T F S24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 2 3 4 5 6 7 831 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 ConfigurationFour Phases

Phase I Configuration Options K-8

Support Plans

Phase II Cost of Options K-12

Phase III Boundary Options K-12

Phase IV Implementation Options K-12

11

School Configuration TasksDraft Pros and Cons 7-12Data Analysis (costs for each option)Research• CurriculumStaffing• Special ProgramsExtra CurricularTransportationFacilities

• 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

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

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?• Does reconfiguration for all schools need to occur

simultaneously?• Will either option produce potential school closure?

• If the current class sizes (or close to current) continue, most 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?

21

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

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

• The cost of transportation will be completed in the analysis of each configuration

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

updates and preparing for staff and community input opportunities.

24

Scoring Resultswith K-6, 7-12

• Previous scoring

25

ROI

Options and the Facility Impact of HB 2261 and 2776• Potential for State Funded All Day Kindergarten• Potential for K-3 Class Size Reduction• HB 2261 and HB 2776 Implementation Schedule – Not

Later than 2018-19• McCleary Decision• Legislative Authority

• Planning for Multiple Alternatives (HB 2776)• Legislative Actions

• State• Federal

• Local Funding• School Support Levy 2014, Capital Projects 2016

26

27

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)

Board Crite

ria

Maxim

ize Stud

ent 

Achievem

ent Organization -Curriculum

OSPI

Research - Middle School Structure (Transitions)

Staffin

gEfficiency

Staffing

Equity

Program Impact

Extra and Co-Curricular

Return on 

Investmen

t

Facilities

Safety

Transportation and Food Services

Cost Effectiv

e

Board Crite

ria

Maxim

ize Stud

ent 

Achievem

ent

Summary of Costs

Facilities Costs - Summary

28

Option

Current Class Size K‐3 Class Size 17:1

RankCP Added 

Costs/Savings RankCP Added 

Costs/SavingsOption A: K‐6, 7‐8, 9‐12, KSS 7‐12

4 ($1,050,000) 2.93 ($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) 2.06 ($17,800,000) ‐

($43,500,000)*Option F: K‐6, 7‐12 Campus 1 ($50,600,000) 1 ($55,100,000) ‐

($80,800,000)*Current: K‐6, 7‐910‐12, KSS 7‐12 ($300,000) ($3,900,000) ‐

($29,600,000)*

Staffing SummarySummary Worksheet

Option AK‐6, 7‐8, 9‐12 (KSS 7‐12)

Option BK‐5, 6‐8, 9‐12(KSS 6‐12)

Option EK‐6, 7‐12

Option FK‐6, 7‐12Campus

CurrentK‐6, 7‐9, 10‐12 (KSS 7‐12)

$ 1,133,878 Costs $ 56,572  $ 56,572  $ 1,355,760  $ 1,355,760 

Range from top to bottom 

Considerations9th Grade Moves Up

9th Grade Moves Up

All Secondary 7‐12

Secondary Configuration

6th Grade Moves Up

Based on Campus Structure

Rank 3.957 4 1.1174 1.652

4 ‐ Least Expensive32

1 ‐Most Expensive

29

Extra-Curricular2010‐11 Extra‐Curricular Budget Expenditures (including Salary/Benefits, Substitutes, Transportation, Contractual Services, Officials, others)

Option AK‐6, 7‐8, 9‐12 (KSS 7‐12)

Option BK‐5, 6‐8, 9‐12(KSS 6‐12)

Option EK‐6, 7‐12

Option FK‐6, 7‐12 Campus

Current      K‐6, 7‐9, 10‐12

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

Total  1,296,920 1,284,706 1,847,430 1,847,430 1,270,300Program 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 3 4 1.065 1.065

4 ‐ Least Expensive

32

1 ‐Most Expensive

30

Transportation/Food ServiceWarehouse

Option AK-6, 7-8, 9-12

(KSS 7-12)

Option BK-5, 6-8, 9-12

(KSS 6-12)

Option EK-6, 7-12

(all schools)

Option FK-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 NANew Federal Standards for FS 0 0 0 0 0

Number of Kitchens 0 0 0 0 0Central Kitchen and Delivery of Food 0 0 0 0 0

Warehouse 0 0 0 0 0

Rank

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

31

ResearchSummary 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?

32

Works CitedBolser, 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

33

October 24, 2011

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)

Board Crite

ria

Maxim

ize Stud

ent 

Achievem

ent Organization -Curriculum

OSPI

Research - Middle School Structure (Transitions)

Staffin

gEfficiency

Staffing

Equity

Program Impact

Extra and Co-Curricular

Return on 

Investmen

t

Facilities

Safety

Transportation and Food Services

Cost Effectiv

e

Board Crite

ria

Maxim

ize Stud

ent 

Achievem

ent

34

Summary of Costs

34

Rank Options4 - Least cost/

greatest savings3 -2 -1 - Greatest cost/

least savings

Current Class Size 4 3 2 1

Core 24/Reduced K-3 2.93 4 2.06 1

3 4 1.065 1.065

3.957 4 1.1174 1.652

AVERAGE 3.47 3.75 1.57 1.18

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

Additional Data Summary

Small impactMedium impactHigh impact

Key*

Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Current

Description

Resulting Avg Building Size

Increased "Model" cost

Extra‐curricular cost

Added Facility cost

School Closure

Potential Savings

Earliest Implementation DateChange to Long Range Facility Plan

Impact by 2776 and Core 24

Target School Size

Boundary Impact (Parent/Student)Community Impact (grades moved)

Staff Impact (grades moved)

35

Way Ahead• Community and Staff Input March 20, 25, 26

• Board Update April/May

• Superintendent Recommendation June

36