Cefpi power point presentation revised
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Cefpi power point presentation revised

on

  • 374 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
374
Views on SlideShare
360
Embed Views
14

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

2 Embeds 14

http://www.massschoolbuildings.org 10
http://msba.manufaxure.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Good morning and thank you for being here. I’m very excited to have the opportunity to present the findings of the MSBA’s 2010 Needs Survey. I’m joined today by First Deputy Treasurer and MSBA Executive Director Katherine Craven. NEXT SLIDE
  • We have a lot of information to cover this morning, so I will try to move through it as quickly as possible. I’ll try to save some time at the end for questions. You also have my email address in your handout and you should feel free to contact me if you have any questions. We are going to begin this morning with an overview of the Massachusetts School Building Authority. For that, I am going to turn things over to Director Craven
  • The MSBA was created in 2004 to reform the former school building assistance program that had been administered by the Department of Education. The program was financially unsustainable. There was a large backlog of projects and about $11 Billion in unfunded promises to cities and towns for school projects.
  • The MSBA has a dedicated revenue stream. We receive one penny of the 6.25 cent sales tax. We have a small staff relative to the number of projects that we manage and our overhead costs are minimal. We are careful to limit our project approvals to those we can afford and we anticipate that we will fund a capital program of $2.5 billion over the next few years.
  • Reimbursement Rates are determined by reference to a statutory formula that gives ever community a base rate of 31% to which are added three Ability to Pay Factors. Property Values and Median Income as compared to statewide averages and Percentage of Students in Federal Free/Reduced Lunch Maximum reimbursement rate is 80% Districts may also be eligible for certain discretionary incentive points for things such as: NEXT SLIDE
  • Since 2004, the MSBA has made over $7.6 Billion in payments to cities, towns and regional school districts. We inherited 428 Waiting List Projects from the former program and we have made tremendous progress in moving those forward. We’ve completed 767 out of 789 backlogged audits. Those audits have saved over $1.1 billion in costs and $2.9 Billion in avoided local interest We created and implemented the ProPay system which allows municipalities to be reimbursed for project costs while they are incurred. Under the former program, cities, towns and regional school districts often had to wait years to get their first payments.
  • The former program operated on a first come, first served basis. The MSBA prioritizes projects based on greatest need and urgency and places heavy emphasis on planning and study. We work with districts to confirm problems and to identify solutions that are financially prudent while still addressing their educational program needs. The MSBA has established a Designer Selection Panel for projects valued at more than $5 million. It’s a 15-member panel that includes 3 representatives from the school district whose project is being considered. Districts locally procure their OPM for projects valued at more than $1.5 million and the MSBA reviews that selection. The MSBA has developed standard OPM and Designer contracts to ensure that everyone who works on an MSBA-funded project understands what the roles, responsibilities and rights of the parties are. All of our financial commitments to cities, towns and districts are memorialized in standard Agreements.
  • Districts who would like to be considered for funding must submit a Statement of Interest, which is simply a clear and concise statement of the problems at the school facilities in the district. SOI’s may be submitted electronically during a time period designated by the MSBA. The most recent window for submitting SOI’s closed in January. In FY2008, the first year the MSBA began accepting SOI’s, we received 423. The number of new SOI’s has dropped dramatically since then. And during our most recent SOI window, we received only 31 new requests for funding.
  • We currently have 338 projects in the capital pipeline, including repairs, renovations, new construction and Green Repair Projects
  • The MSBA launched the Model School program in 2008 in an effort to identify successful, recently constructed high school designs. We have since expanded the program to include elementary schools, middle schools and schools with more specialized grade configurations. In order to be considered as a model, the school design must be efficient, easy to maintain, incorporate sustainable elements and have flexibility in the educational spaces. The primary benefits of using a model school are 1) You can shorten the design time and get shovels in the ground much more quickly. This has been particularly advantageous during the last couple of years when the bidding climate has been so competitive; 2) Districts have the advantage of using a proven design that school administrators and educators like. They are able to tour the school and really get a sense of how it would work on a day-to-day basis. Districts must be invited to participate in the Model School Program and they are eligible for up to 5 additional reimbursement points.
  • Prior to the Initial Needs Survey in 2005, there was no centralized database of school facility condition information in the Commonwealth. That survey provided us with the baseline data for more than 1,800 public schools. Assisted the MSBA in understanding the general level of need in the state and also allowed us to see how the needs of an individual school fit within the statewide spectrum. No school is granted or denied funding based solely on the findings of the Needs Survey. It is just one in a number of factors, including SOI, more detailed facilities studies and the availability of funding that is used to determine eligibility for MSBA grants.
  • The MSBA conducted a competitive procurement in early 2010 and selected STV, Inc., an architectural firm with offices in Boston, to assist us in planning and conducting the Needs Survey. As you can imagine, it took quite a bit of planning to ensure that the data was collected efficiently, consistently and accurately. We used the 2005 Needs Survey and the questionnaire we used at that time as the starting point. We then updated and refined it to capture a broader range of information. Our IT staff developed data input applications and also created a custom database for uploading and storing our information long term. During the initial survey, we used retired Superintendents and educators to conduct the survey. This time we decided to work with design and engineering professionals with knowledge of educational facilities and building systems to perform the on-site assessments of the schools.
  • A lot of time and thought went into ensuring that we had the right processes and controls in place so that we would have confidence in the accuracy of our data. The first step to consistency and accuracy was training. Along with STV, Inc. we held a week-long training session for assessors including both classroom and on-the-job training at seven schools of various ages and conditions. Every assessor was given a detailed training manual that he/she used throughout the assessment phase and we conducted weekly meetings to address issues that arose during the week.
  • Our data input applications contained high percentages of required fields to eliminate inadvertent omissions of data. We employed a multi-tiered quality review process. Assessors were required to collect data using a paper questionnaire and then use either the Web or Windows app to upload the data into our database within 24 hours of collection. Working with STV and Magellan, Inc. we reviewed 100% of the paper questionnaires against the database to identify and correct inconsistencies. Assessors also uploaded their paper forms and school floor plans to the database and those serve as reference documents for us. If there were any questions, the assessor would get an email and would have to correct or clarify the information. We also developed queries to identify data that fell outside established norms. After the assessments were complete we randomly reviewed 20% of all the school reports and conducted follow-up site visits at about a dozen or so schools. Finally, we gave every superintendent an opportunity to review the factual data that we collected for accuracy.
  • The Initial Needs Survey in 2005 gave each school a single score for building systems condition. We retained that rating for this survey, but also added an evaluation of the general physical environment – how well a school’s physical elements support teaching and learning – and a rating for space utilization – how space utilization at an individual school compares with statewide norms.
  • To generate the building systems score, assessors evaluated the conditions of 7 site and 18 building systems. The Building Systems Condition Rating is based on a 1 to 4 scale with 1 being the best and 4 being the poorest.
  • The General Physical Environment Rating is also based on a 1 to 4 scale and was calculated by evaluating specific physical elements, the most important of which were access to daylight, open floor plans and average classroom size.
  • We looked at traditional criteria such as GSF per student and students per classroom as well as the number and percentage of non-traditional or temporary classrooms to generate a space utilization rating. Each school received an average, below average or above average rating.
  • Enrollment in Massachusetts has declined by 2.8% from its peek in 2003 and 1.6% since the 2005 Needs Survey. Every region of the state has been affected, but Central and Western Mass saw the largest declines. Southeastern Mass, the Cape and Islands were also hard hit. Both the MSBA and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education predict enrollment will continue to drop for the foreseeable future. More than 80 public schools have closed in the last 5 years, including 7 since July 2010. There are approximately 150 district-owned school buildings that are no longer being used as schools. Some have been shuttered due to age and condition, but a subset of this number have closed due to lack of enrollment.
  • Despite the fact that enrollment has been declining, the decade between 2000 and 2010 saw an unprecedented construction boom. Nearly 70 million GSF of school facility space was built new or renovated during that period. That figure represents 40% of the total GSF in the state. The boom includes funded under both the former program and those in the MSBA’s Capital Pipeline
  • Prior to 2000, construction activity averaged about 38 million square feet per decade with one notable exception in the 1980’s when two recessions and the adoption of Proposition 2 ½ limited the ability of cities and towns to make capital improvements.
  • Not surprisingly, given the level of construction and renovation at schools across the Commonwealth over the last decade, school buildings are in good condition. 84% received the top scores for building conditions; 97 percent received top scores for general physical environment and 92% have at least adequate space to support their educational program and enrollment.
  • An additional 244 schools were rated a 3. 10 of the schools that received a 4 and 63 of those that received a 3 have already been invited into our Capital Pipeline.
  • 97% of our schools received a rating of 1 or 2 for General Physical Environment, meaning that the school’s overall physical environment is good and is conducive to learning and teaching. Only 27 schools, which includes many of the 23 that received a 4 for building conditions, were rated a 4 while another 30 received a 3.
  • Nearly a quarter of schools was deemed to be oversized for their current enrollment and educational program while less than 8.0% may be inadequately sized. There are certainly pockets of growth in Massachusetts and the MSBA.
  • As we did our evaluation of building systems, we collected a little extra data for these four building systems, primarily because these are the systems for which Districts are most likely to request repairs. The Green Repair Program that we talked about in the very early part of the presentation is addressing many of the deficiencies we identified during the Needs Survey.
  • In order to be eligible for MSBA funding, districts have to meet certain maintenance criteria. Districts also have the opportunity to earn up to 2 incentive points if they can demonstrate that they have exhibited best practices for routine and capital maintenance.
  • The Needs Survey is not intended to be an in depth review of maintenance practices.
  • 14 of the 23 schools that received the poorest building conditions score received a Below Average Maintenance rating in either routine or capital maintenance.
  • This number does not include the more than 1300 unused classrooms we just spoke about.
  • The MSBA collected information about the number of specialized classrooms that were available at every school in the Commonwealth.
  • During the needs survey, we also collected data on the availability of essential core spaces, including gyms…
  • Generally speaking, students have access to essential core spaces. The vast majority of schools have the score spaces they need for their grade level.
  • I know I’ve thrown a lot of information at you this morning, but this information is just a fraction of the data that we collected during our survey of more than 1750 schools across the Commonwealth. I’ll leave you with these three main points. The MSBA is committed to working with our private sector partners, including designers and OPMS and to collaborating with municipalities and regional school districts…

Cefpi power point presentation revised Cefpi power point presentation revised Presentation Transcript

  • 2010 Needs Survey CEFPI Northeast Region Conference Katherine Craven Executive Director Steven Grossman Chairman, State Treasurer Massachusetts School Building Authority www.MassSchoolBuildings.org April 29, 2011
  • Agenda
    • The Massachusetts School Building Authority
      • Introduction and Overview
      • Accomplishments and Vision
    • Needs Survey
      • Overview and Purpose
      • Planning Quality Assurance/Quality Control
      • Scoring Methodology
    • Summary of Findings
    • Questions
  • The MSBA Who We Are and What We Do
  • Who We Are
      • An Independent Public Authority
      • Created by the Legislature in 2004 to manage, plan and create a financially sustainable school building construction and renovation grant program.
      • Seven-member Board of Directors
        • Chaired by State Treasurer Steven Grossman
        • Secretary of Administration and Finance
        • Commissioner of Education
        • Four members appointed by the Treasurer
          • Professional educators
          • Design and construction industry professionals
  • MSBA Funding
    • The Commonwealth has dedicated 1 cent of the statewide 6.25 cent sales tax (not including meals) to the MSBA
    • The MSBA has a relatively small staff and overhead; administrative costs represent less than 1% of annual budget
    • MSBA will never promise funds they can’t deliver. Program tailored to meet available resources
    • MSBA will fund a capital program of $2.5 billion over the next few years
  • MSBA Dedicated Sales Tax 1 Cent of Statewide Sales Tax Old Program Prior Grants Inherited: $5.1B Paid-to-Date: $2.6B Old Program Waiting List Inherited: $5.5B Paid-to-Date: $4.6B New Program Committed: $1.4B Paid-to-Date: $301M
  • Reimbursement Rates
    • Every Community starts at a Base Rate of 31%
    • Added to the 31% Base Rate are three (3) Ability to Pay Factors:
      • Equalized Property Values (Source: DOR)
      • Median Income Comparison (Source: DOR)
      • Percentage of Students in Federal Free/Reduced Lunch (Source: DESE)
    • Maximum Reimbursement Rate is 80%
    • After calculating the Base Rate and Ability to Pay Factors, the MSBA may, in its sole discretion, add Incentive Points
  • Reimbursement Rates-Incentive Points
    • Maintenance – range from 0% to 2% based on performance of Maintenance Best Practices
    • Construction Manager at Risk (CM-at-Risk) – up to 1%
    • Newly-formed Regional School Districts – up to 6%
    • Renovation/Reuse of existing facility- range up to 5% based on a sliding scale of the percentage of space renovated versus new construction
    • Overlay zoning
      • MGL c. 40R or 40S – up to 1%
      • 100 or 50% of units 1, 2 & 3 family structures – up to 5%
    • Green School Program – up to 2%
    • Model School Program – up to 5%
  • Significant Accomplishments
    • Accelerated over $7.6B in payments to cities, towns and regional school districts
    • Moved stalled projects and funded them
      • 414 out of 428 Waiting List Projects have received a payment or have been completely paid off.
      • Only 2 still have not started; other projects were removed by the community
    • Massive Cost Reconciliations
      • Completed 767 out of 789 backlogged audits
      • Saved the taxpayers of Massachusetts over $1.1 billion
      • Generated over $2.9B in avoided local interest costs
    • Created and implemented a “pay-as-you build” Progress Payment & Audit system
      • Provides municipalities with much needed cash flow as projects are built
      • Reduces the amount of debt a city, town or regional school district needs to issue
  • Significant Accomplishments - Continued
    • The new program prioritizes projects based on need and urgency and places heavy emphasis on planning, study and designing to realistic budgets
    • The MSBA works in collaboration with cities, towns and regional school districts to confirm problems and identify educationally sound and financially prudent solutions
    • The Designer Selection and Owner’s Project Manager Approval Panels encourage accountability
    • The MSBA developed standard OPM and Designer contracts to clearly delineate roles and responsibilities and to protect the rights of the districts
    • Standard Feasibility Study, Project Scope and Budget, and Project Funding Agreements memorialize the MSBA’s financial commitment to districts
  • Statement of Interest (SOI)
    • Collecting problems rather than solutions
    • FY 2008 – Received 432 SOI from 163 districts and made over 400 visits to more than 140 districts as part of review and due diligence
    • Recent trend – Districts asking for repairs, not new buildings
  • Building With Us Scope Definition PEAK
  • Model School Program
    • Effectively adapts and re-uses the design of successful, recently constructed schools
    • Schools are efficient in design, easy to maintain, incorporate sustainable design elements and are flexible in educational programming spaces
    • Districts get shovels in the ground far more quickly than when utilizing standard design process
    • Able to take advantage of competitive bidding climate
    • Estimated savings of approximately $58M on high school projects in Norwood, Tewksbury, Plymouth, Natick and Hampden-Wilbraham
    • Districts invited into the Model School Program are eligible for up to 5% additional reimbursement
  • Green Repair Program
    • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provides the MSBA with a limited time opportunity to issue Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCBs)
    • Eligible scope limited to Roofs, Windows and Boilers in buildings that are otherwise physically and educationally sound
    • Grants awarded on a competitive basis
    • Reimbursement rates set at the statutory base rate with no incentive points
    • Rare opportunity to address multiple projects in a single community
    • MSBA has moved 173 Green Repair Projects into the Capital Pipeline
  • The Needs Survey Overview and Purpose
  • What is the Needs Survey?
    • The Needs Survey is a statewide assessment of the general conditions at all public K-12 educational facilities that may be eligible for funding from the MSBA
      • Early Childhood Centers
      • Elementary, Middle and High Schools
      • Vocational Technical Schools
      • Agricultural Schools
      • Horace Mann Charter Schools
    • The Needs Survey does not include an evaluation of:
      • Head Starts or other federally-funded schools
      • Commonwealth Charter Schools
      • Institutional Schools
      • Private special education schools
  • Why conduct the Needs Survey?
    • The MSBA is required by statute (M.G.L. c. 70B) to conduct periodic surveys of cities, towns and regional school districts to determine the need for school construction and renovation
    • The Initial Needs Survey - 2005
      • Created the first centralized database of school facility condition information in the Commonwealth
      • Established baseline data for more than 1,800 public K-12 schools
      • Assisted the MSBA in understanding how the needs of individual schools fit within the statewide spectrum of need and urgency
    • The findings are considered along with other factors, including SOI, senior studies and availability of funding, to determine eligibility for MSBA grants
  • The Needs Survey Planning and Implementation
  • Planning
      • Intensive Planning
        • Reviewed 2005 Needs Survey
        • Updated and refined questionnaire
        • Developed web and software applications and custom database
        • Identified independent design and engineering professionals to conduct survey
        • Compiled preliminary list of schools
        • Developed comprehensive plan for communicating with municipal, district and school personnel about the Needs Survey
  • Quality Assurance & Quality Control
    • Training
      • Week-long training session for assessors including classroom and field training to ensure that data was collected consistently and accurately
      • Written training manual used throughout assessment phase as a guideline for evaluating building conditions
      • Weekly meetings with assessors to address issues that arose during site visits
  • QA/QC Procedures
      • Web and software applications were developed to contain a high percentage of required fields.
      • Multi-tiered quality review process
        • Level I
          • Assessors collected data on a paper form, then uploaded the information into the database within 24 hours of collection
          • Paper forms and floor plans uploaded to the database
          • Reviewed 100% of paper questionnaires vs. electronic database to identify and correct inconsistencies
          • Developed queries to identify data that fell outside established norms
        • Level II
          • Sampled 20% of school reports
          • Conducted follow-up site visits to verify accuracy of data
        • Superintendent Review
  • Site Visits
    • 13-week Assessment Phase
    • Coordinated visits through Superintendent’s office
    • Each site visit included:
      • 30-minute interview with school principal and maintenance/custodial staff to gather detailed information about the building and building systems
      • Review of the floor plan and annotation of classroom usage
      • Tour of the school to view typical classrooms, science labs, core spaces, mechanical rooms and main electrical panels
      • Walk around the grounds
  • The Needs Survey Scoring Methodology
  • Three Primary Metrics
    • Each school in the Needs Survey was assigned a rating in three categories
      • Building Systems Conditions
        • Most Analogous to the 2005 Needs Survey rating
        • 1 to 4 scale (1-Good; 4-Poor)
      • General Physical Environment
        • Reflects how well a school’s physical elements support teaching and learning
        • 1 to 4 scale (1-Good; 4-Poor)
      • Space Utilization
        • Evaluation of how space utilization at an individual school compares with statewide norms
  • Building Systems – Ratings
    • The MSBA evaluated 7 site and 18 building systems such as roofs, windows, HVAC, lighting, electrical systems and playgrounds to generate an overall building systems conditions rating
    Major Renovation or Replacement The building is in poor condition and a possible candidate for major renovation or replacement 4 Poor Moderate to Major Renovation The building is in fair to poor condition and some building systems may need to be repaired or replaced. 3   Minor to Moderate Renovation The building is in generally good condition, however a few building systems may need attention 2   General Maintenance The building is in good condition with few or no building systems needing attention 1 Good Potential Future Action Description Rating Scale
  • General Physical Environment – Ratings The MSBA analyzed physical elements including daylighting, floor plans, classroom size and location, availability of core spaces and specialized classrooms, accessibility and permanent vs. temporary spaces to determine how well the physical environment supports teaching and learning. The school’s overall environment is poor and many conditions present obstacles to learning and teaching. 4 Poor The school’s general physical environment is not good and several conditions make negatively affect learning and teaching. 3   The school’s general physical environment is good, but a few conditions may make learning and teaching less than ideal. 2   The school’s general physical environment is good and is conducive to learning and teaching. 1 Good Description Rating Scale
  • Space Utilization – Ratings This rating is calculated using: GSF per student, students per classroom, classroom size, number of lunch seatings, number and percentage of temporary or non-traditional classrooms, and whether corridors are used for storage and breakout spaces. School facilities may not be adequately sized for the current enrollment and educational program. Above Average High Utilization School facilities appear to be adequately sized for the current enrollment and educational program. Average Average Utilization School Facilities may exceed the size necessary to house the current enrollment and educational program. Below Average Low Utilization Description Rating Scale
  • The Needs Survey Statewide School Facilities and Findings
  • Buildings and Square Footage
    • There are 1,757 schools, composed of 1,831 school-related permanent buildings and totaling 173,366,462 GSF.
      • 60 fewer schools than in 2005
    • The schools serve 927,252 students in 329 school districts
      • An additional 28,311 students are enrolled in schools that are not eligible for MSBA funding
    • About 1% of the state’s 62,397 classrooms are in temporary spaces
  • Enrollment
    • Enrollment declined by 2.8% statewide from its peek in 2003
    • No region of the state has been unaffected
    • MSBA and DESE predict that enrollment will continue to decline for the near future
    • More than 80 public schools have closed since the 2005 Needs Survey
      • 7 have closed since the Needs Survey visits were concluded in July 2010
      • Districts cited lack of enrollment as a factor in 50% of closings
    • Approximately 150 buildings are no longer being used as public schools
  • Massachusetts K-12 Enrollment * 2003 was the peak enrollment year.
  • Enrollment – Closed Schools
  • School Construction Boom
    • Between 2000 and 2010, nearly 70 million GSF of school facility space was built new or renovated.
    • About 40% of school GSF has been built new or renovated since 2000
    • Includes projects funded under the former school building assistance program and new projects in the MSBA Capital Pipeline
  • Construction Activity by Decade
  • Summary of Conditions
    • Massachusetts school facilities are generally in good condition and provide a good physical environment for learning.
    • 84% received top scores for building conditions
    • 97% received top scores for general physical environment
    • 92% have adequate space to support their educational program and enrollment
  • Buildings Systems - Findings
    • 84.3% of public schools received a rating of 1 or 2, meaning that their site and building systems are in generally good condition.
    • Less than 1.5%, 23 schools, received a rating of 4, meaning that they are in poor condition.
  • General Environment - Findings
    • 97% of schools received a rating of 1 or 2, meaning that the school has a generally good environment for learning and teaching
    • Only 1.5%, 27 schools, have a rating of 4, while 30 schools received a 3
    Number of Schools with each General Environment Score
  • Space Utilization - Findings
    • Nearly 24% of schools are oversized for their current enrollment and educational program
    • Less than 8.0% of schools may be inadequately sized
  • The Needs Survey Building Systems Conditions
  • Roofs, Windows, HVAC and Boilers
    • Most requested repairs
    • Collected additional information about these four systems
      • Age of oldest portion of the system
      • Type of system (PVC Roof, e.g.)
      • Date and scope of the last significant repair or replacement
    • Green Repair Program addresses many of the deficiencies identified in these systems
  • Maintenance
    • Districts must demonstrate that they have met certain maintenance criteria based on industry best practices as a prerequisite to MSBA funding
    • The MSBA may award up to 2 incentive reimbursement points if it determines, in its sole discretion, that a city, town or regional school district has exhibited best practices for routine and capital maintenance
  • Maintenance - Ratings
    • The 2010 Needs Survey included a general evaluation of maintenance in three areas:
      • General Cleanliness
      • Routine Systems Maintenance
      • Capital Repair
    • Maintenance in each category was rated as average, above average or below average based on the observations of assessors, conditions of building systems and information provided by the district
    • More detailed examination of maintenance practices is conducted by the MSBA for districts who have requested funding
  • Maintenance – Results
    • The vast majority of schools have average maintenance practices.
    • Maintenance Matters
      • The average Building Systems Score of all schools is 1.63.
      • Schools with above average Capital and Routine Maintenance scores have an average Building Condition Score of 1.20.
      • Schools with below average Capital and Routine Maintenance scores have an average Building Condition Score of 2.67.
  • Maintenance Ratings
  • The Needs Survey Space Utilization
  • Space Utilization
    • One out of every five schools is oversized for its current population
    • More than 1,300 classroom spaces are no longer being used for public education.
      • Equivalent to 19 empty schools
      • More than 1 million square feet
      • Approximately 2% of total classroom space
    • Only 6% of the schools have more than 10% of their classrooms in temporary spaces
  • Addressing Space Utilization Issues
    • MSBA has worked with designers and educators to develop space guidelines for classroom and core spaces that are educationally appropriate and fiscally responsible
    • MSBA space allowances for GSF are based on a sliding scale that takes into account grades served and enrollment
    • MSBA has developed a free, web-based enrollment projection tool
      • Establishing an accurate enrollment projection is one of the first steps in the MSBA’s process
      • Standard enrollment methodology has avoided over $74.5 million in construction costs
  • The Needs Survey Classrooms and Core Spaces
  • Classrooms - Overview
    • There are 62,397 classrooms in use across the Commonwealth.
    • The vast majority – 51,689 – are general classrooms
    • The average number of classrooms per school ranges from 15 at early childhood centers to 66 at the high school level.
  • Specialized Classrooms
    • Science Labs
    • Science Demonstration Classrooms
    • Art
    • Music
    • Special Education
  • Science Classrooms
    • Science classrooms account for the largest percentage of specialty classrooms and represent 6.5% of the total number of classrooms in the state.
      • 1,055 Science Demonstration Classrooms
      • 4,061 Science Labs
    • 90% of all Middle Schools, Middle/High Schools and High Schools have dedicated science space
  • Art and Music
    • There are 1,924 Art rooms and 1,739 Music rooms in the state.
    • 78% of all schools have at least one art room, while 69% have at least one dedicated music room.
      • Auditoriums are often used to conduct music classes in schools that do not have dedicated music rooms.
    • 385 schools, 22%, have Art or Music “On a Cart”
  • Special Education
    • Most schools use a combination of inclusive classrooms and self-contained special education spaces to teach students with special needs
    • 248 of 329 school districts belong to one or more special education collaboratives that allow multiple districts to pool resources to address the needs of students who require the highest levels of care
    • Public schools have dedicated 277 classrooms for use by collaboratives
  • Core Spaces
    • Gyms
    • Library/Media Centers
    • Cafeterias
    • Auditoriums
  • Core Spaces - Findings
    • The vast majority of schools have the core spaces they need for their grade level
      • 86% have a library/media center
      • 77% have one or more gyms
      • 86% maintain a cafeteria
      • 35% have an auditorium
      • 10% use a multipurpose room for one or more of these uses
    • Schools that lack these facilities typically share with an adjacent school or have access to community resources
  • The Needs Survey Technology
  • Technology
    • Schools use a variety of approaches to integrate technology into the classroom.
      • 78% have dedicated computer labs
      • Laptops on a cart
      • Computer banks in library/media centers
      • Interactive white boards
    • 83.8% of schools have computers for student use in all or most of their classrooms
    • 96% have access to the Internet
      • More than one-quarter of those schools are completely wireless
  • Technology - Challenges
    • Assessors identified only 76 schools whose technology systems may require significant upgrades
      • These schools have an average age of 65 years
      • One-third also received very poor ratings for their electrical capacity and distribution systems
  • Technology – MSBA Support
    • The MSBA encourages districts to develop Technology Plans based on the State’s technology standards
    • The MSBA works with districts on approved projects to ensure that project scope supports the technology piece of the district’s desired educational program
    • The MSBA’s grant program includes a per student allowance of $1,200 to offset the costs of technology equipment for approved construction and renovation projects
  • The Needs Survey Conclusion
  • Conclusion
    • Massachusetts school buildings are in good condition and provide good physical environments for learning
    • Enrollment is declining and there is no evidence of widespread overcrowding
    • The MSBA is committed to collaborating with cities, towns and regional schools to develop solutions to school building deficiencies that are financially sound, appropriately sized and support the delivery of a 21 st Century curriculum
  • Questions? Contact: Katherine Craven Executive Director Steven Grossman Chairman, State Treasurer Massachusetts School Building Authority www.MassSchoolBuildings.org February 24, 2010 Jim Daiute Government Affairs Liaison 617-720-4466 [email_address]