CMAS: PARCC New state assessment scores arriving by new year New - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
cmas parcc
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

CMAS: PARCC New state assessment scores arriving by new year New - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 05, 2023 194 likes •821 views

CMAS: PARCC New state assessment scores arriving by new year New assessment to measure mastery of new state academic standards. The new test scores cannot be compared to old results. Student test scores may be lower than previous state

slide-1
SLIDE 1
slide-2
SLIDE 2

CMAS: PARCC

New state assessment scores arriving by new year

  • New assessment to measure mastery of new state

academic standards.

  • The new test scores cannot be compared to old results.
  • Student test scores may be lower than previous state

test scores – which can be seen across all levels, including other students, districts and states.

  • Lower scores don’t mean students aren’t progressing;

they just mean we’ve raised the expectations for our students.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

TCAP Math Reading Writing 2013

  • 1.2%
  • 4.5%
  • 6.3%

2014

  • 1.8%
  • 3.7%
  • 5.5%

TCAP vs PARCC Gaps

Gap between Adams 12 and State in % of students Meeting Expectations

PARCC* Math English Language Arts/Literacy 2015

  • 2.2%
  • 4.3%

*Data only included where comparable assessments were given in Adams 12 and the State

slide-4
SLIDE 4

New Score Sheets

  • Separate score sheet

for English Language Arts and for Math

  • Overview

performance rating and specific skillset breakdowns

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Further Information

www.adams12.org/cmas

slide-6
SLIDE 6

How do you feel about the holiday season?

  • A. I love this time of

year!

  • B. Still have too much

shopping to do.

  • C. If I hear Jingle Bells
  • ne more time…
  • D. Bah humbug.

6

4% 4% 16% 76%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

A. B. C. D.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

What do you think about the new PARCC scores coming out?

  • A. I understand and am

interested to see results.

  • B. I’m still a bit confused on

what these scores mean.

  • C. The whole deal is
  • verwhelming and

confusing

  • D. What is PARCC?

7

4% 17% 26% 52%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

A. B. C. D.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

What i is the Tota tal Replacem emen ent Value o

  • f Distri

rict Facilities if w we d e do

  • no provi

vide d deferr rred m maintenance?

  • A. $100 million
  • B. $250 million
  • C. $750 million
  • D. $1 Billion

8

65% 35% 0% 0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

A. B. C. D.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

In 2004, Adams 12 had 136 mobile

  • classrooms. How many do we have now?
  • A. 164
  • B. 127
  • C. 101
  • D. 88

9

4% 8% 8% 81%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

A. B. C. D.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

District Planning

Matt Schaefer

slide-11
SLIDE 11

The 5-Year Planning Process

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Goal

Student Population Shifts

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Federal Heights Enrollment

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Purpose

Space Constraints

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Purpose

Space Surplus

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Timeline

October Update new development data

Anthem Neighborhood 3 (Filing no. 20)

Units 392 Original filing called for 222 (revised in summer 2014) Estimated units built per month 5-6 Student Yield Estimates: Estimated build out (yrs) 6.5 ES 0.4 Estimated start date Summer 2016 MS 0.14 Estimated first delivery Fall 2017 HS 0.19 Estimated Student Yield Total Yield 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 ES 157 20 50 70 89 89 89 89 89 89 MS 55 5 15 25 31 31 31 31 31 31 HS 74 10 20 30 42 42 42 42 42 42

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Timeline

October Update capacity data based

  • n current

space use

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Timeline

Mid-November October count finalized

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Timeline

Mid-November 5-year planning projections

FEDERAL HEIGHTS ES 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 K 121 101 108 95 100 100 100 100 100 1 113 85 98 122 95 100 100 100 100 2 108 119 84 102 124 97 102 102 102 3 101 92 112 90 103 124 97 102 102 4 109 78 93 103 84 96 116 90 95 5 102 100 86 96 104 85 97 117 91 Total 654 575 581 608 610 602 611 611 590 Change From Previous 15

  • 79

6 27 2

  • 9

10

  • 21
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Timeline

January/February Internal Planning Committee School visits

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Timeline

January 31 1-year budget projections final

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Timeline

February 28 Programs and Modular Classrooms

  • expansions
  • closures
  • relocations
slide-22
SLIDE 22

Build Out Planning

slide-23
SLIDE 23
slide-24
SLIDE 24

What is it? General guide to grow th in the district

slide-25
SLIDE 25

What is it?

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Purpose?

Where w ill w e need new schools?

slide-27
SLIDE 27

How often? Every 2-5 years?

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Last plan? Summer 2014

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Findings?

Early Childhood Education Open 2-3 centers Goal: Serve 100% of at-risk students & offer tuition program

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Findings?

ES 29 current

(+3 magnet)

32 @ build

  • ut

(+3 magnet)

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Findings?

MS 7 current

(+3 magnet)

7 build out

(one w ith addition to increase capacity) (+3 magnet)

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Findings?

HS 5 current 5 at build

  • ut
slide-33
SLIDE 33

Findings?

K-8s as potential alternative to new elementary schools & middle school addition

K-8

2 current (magnets) 4 at build out (2 magnet, 2 boundary)

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Findings?

Career Technical Ed. (CTE) Expand Offerings Open 2 nd Center

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Findings?

Charter Schools

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Next plan’s focus

Determine middle school space needs in north Do w e need two additional K-8s? One additional K-8? Or a new middle school?

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Next plan’s focus

Determine need and general location for elementary school #35 (the last new ES currently planned)

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Current Capacity Stress Points

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Elementary Schools

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Elementary Schools Meridian

Capacity: 576 (768) Enrollment: 770

Mobile Classrooms: 2008 (6)

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Elementary Schools Coyote Ridge

Capacity: 432 (552) Enrollment: 551

Mobile Classrooms: 2008 (4)

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Elementary Schools Arapahoe Ridge Cotton Creek

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Elementary Schools

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Elementary Schools Arapahoe Ridge

Capacity: 432 (600) Enrollment: 643

Mobile Classrooms: 1998 (6), 2008 (2)

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Elementary Schools Cotton Creek

Capacity: 576 (696) Enrollment: 610

Mobile Classrooms: 1984 (2), 1992 (4), 2007 (2)

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Middle Schools

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Middle Schools Rocky Top

Capacity: 1,250 (1,400) Enrollment: 1,358

Mobile Classrooms: 2015 (4)

slide-48
SLIDE 48

High Schools Legacy

slide-49
SLIDE 49

High Schools Legacy

Capacity: 2,000 (2,200) Enrollment: 2,220

Mobile Classrooms: 2014 (4)

slide-50
SLIDE 50

2004 136 2013 72

Mobile Classrooms

2015 88

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Facility Life-Cycle Needs

Art Dawson

slide-52
SLIDE 52

52

Facility Life-cycle Needs

5 – High Schools

10 – Middle Schools / K-8

9 – Auxiliary Buildings 3 – Sports Complexes 1 - ECE

31 – Elementary Schools

Adams 12 Overview: 36,000 students

slide-53
SLIDE 53

53

Facility Life-cycle Needs Adams 12 Overview: 800 Acres of Education

School Buildings 81 Acres Playgrounds 44 Acres Driveways 31 Acres Walkways 54 Acres Play Fields 202 Acres Landscaping 141 Acres Parking 104 Acres Unused Land 141 Acres

slide-54
SLIDE 54

54

Facility Life-cycle Needs Adams 12 Overview: 4.8 Million Sq. Ft.

790,857 1,052,047 1,165,618 423,545 1,069,815 287,620

1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Gross Square Feet Age of Facilities (yr)

slide-55
SLIDE 55

55

Facility Life-cycle Needs

“Deferred Maintenance”

  • The cost of replacing all building components that have

reached or exceeded their expected service life

  • The current Deferred Maintenance need for

the district is $91 million

  • Total Replacement Value of District Facilities = $1.0B
slide-56
SLIDE 56

56

Facility Life-cycle Needs

How do we determine Deferred Maintenance?

  • Enterprise Application, MARS
  • Whitestone Research / CB Richard Ellis
  • Costing and Forecasting Support by Jacobs Engineering
  • ~250,000 Bldg. Components in the database
  • Each is assigned an expected Service Life
  • When Service Life is over, component becomes Deferred
  • If a component remains Deferred for too long, a Degradation Cost is

added to its replacement cost

  • Building Components are categorized according to ASTM

Standard E1557-09 - aka Uniformat II

slide-57
SLIDE 57

57

Facility Life-cycle Needs

Deferred Maintenance Examples Substructure

  • Bldg. Shell
  • Bldg. Interiors
  • Bldg. Services

Eqp & Furnish. Special Const.

  • Bldg. Sitework
  • Foundations
  • Basements
  • Excavation
  • Floors
  • Ext. Walls
  • Ext. Windows
  • Ext. Doors
  • Roofs
  • Floor Finishes
  • Int. Walls
  • Partitions
  • Int. Doors
  • Stairs
  • Ceilings
  • Fittings
  • HVAC
  • Plumbing
  • Electrical
  • Fire Protect.
  • Conveying
  • FF&E
  • Nutrition Eqp
  • Library Eqp
  • IT Equip.
  • Playgrounds
  • Bleachers
  • Ext. Sheds
  • Vaults
  • Abatement
  • Storg. Tanks
  • Paving
  • Sidewalks
  • Playfields
  • Landscaping
  • Site Water
  • Site Electricity
  • Security
slide-58
SLIDE 58

58

Facility Life-cycle Needs

$0 $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Adams 12 School District - Deferred Maintenance

Substructure

  • Bldg. Shell
  • Bldg. Interiors
  • Bldg. Services
  • Equip. & Furnishings

Special Const.

  • Bldg. Sitework
slide-59
SLIDE 59
slide-60
SLIDE 60

If forced to rank a district priority for next year, which issue would you choose?

  • A. Capacity and new

school needs

  • B. Facility life-cycle and

deferred maintenance needs.

60

55% 45%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

A. B.

slide-61
SLIDE 61

What value drove your decision

  • n the last question?
  • A. Equity
  • B. Safety
  • C. Innovation
  • D. Fiscal Responsibility
  • E. Positive Learning

Environments

61

43% 24% 10% 19% 5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

A. B. C. D. E.

slide-62
SLIDE 62