M IDDLETOWN P UBLIC S CHOOLS Facilities Utilization Study Presented - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

MIDDLETOWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Facilities Utilization Study Presented November 17, 2009

Project Team

• Jim LaPosta – Principal-in-Charge
• Greg Smolley – Project Manager
• Barbara Hubbard
• Jeff Ellio
• Peter Lippman
• Julie Norris
• Arturo Arroyo
• Bey Quintana
• Doug Roberts
• Jeff Beatrice
• Sco Celella
• Jack Butkus

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Report Focus Four areas of concern became the focus of our effort

• Disparity regarding enrollments and capacity amongst the

elementary schools

• Socioeconomic diversity issues at the elementary school level
• Aendance boundaries for the elementary schools
• Lingering feelings that the 6th grade academy is creating student

hardship

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Project Timeline

January February March April May June July August September October November Project start Building visits E.S. Outreach E.S. Outreach Teacher Outreach Public

• utreach

M.S. Outreach BOE

• utreach;

School capacity analysis Interim Report School Diversity Analysis Transportation Analysis Collection

• f SY 2009
• 2010 data

Development

• f Options

Presentation

• f Report

Collection of background information Physical conditions

• bservations

Background information review March 25 – Moody March 26 – Macdonough E.S. Outreach April 22 – Spencer Teacher Outreach – April 22 Public Outreach April 27 – Wilson Public Outreach April 30 - Snow M.S. Take- home survey BOE Outreach May 12

• Nov. 17

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Outreach and Visioning

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Elementary School Outreach

• Three sessions held – 2 in March, 1 in April
• Moody, Macdonough, & Spencer hosted meetings
• Participation ranged from 35 to over 100
• 152 questionnaires returned
• Three distinct but overlapping areas of research

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Elementary School Outreach

• 93% were Middletown residents
• 75% of participants were between 31 & 50 years old
• 89% have children in the MPS system
• 76% say they are happy with the Middletown Public Schools

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Elementary School Outreach Session 1 -The School as a Place of Learning Individual Results

• Class size – 76%
• Location / travel time
• School size
• Classroom / types
• Grade Configuration
• Arts Programs
• Technology
• Physical Education
• Non-school amenities

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Group Results

• Class size – 95%
• Location / travel time
• School size
• Classroom / types
• Technology
• Arts Programs
• Physical Education
• Grade Configuration
• Non-school amenities

Elementary School Outreach Session 2 -The School as a Municipal Asset Individual Results

• Indoor Environmental Quality – 47%
• Location
• Sustainable Design
• Tax Impact
• Cost to Build
• Symbol / Identity
• Cost to Operate
• Number of Buildings
• Age of Buildings

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Group Results

• Indoor Environmental Quality – 47%
• Location
• Sustainable Design
• Tax Impact
• Cost to Operate
• Cost to Build
• Number of Buildings
• Symbol / Identity
• Age of Buildings

Elementary School Outreach Session 3 -The School as a Community Asset Individual Results

• Location – 63%
• Pre-school / Head Start
• Aer School Programs
• Health Center
• Community Partnerships
• Daycare
• Community Info Centers
• Parent / Adult Education
• Public Use

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Group Results

• Location – 68%
• Aer School Programs
• Pre-school / Head Start
• Daycare
• Community Partnerships
• Health Center
• Community Info Centers
• Parent / Adult Education
• Public Use

Elementary School Teachers Outreach

• April 22nd – Spencer Elementary School
• 35 Participants

Educational Strong Points

– Interaction between students and teachers – Seings that have flexibility and intellectual stimulation – Reasonable student/teacher ratios

Physical environment concerns

– Indoor environmental quality – Physical aributes of the classroom – Continuation or enhancement of small class sizes – Provide multiple learning opportunities

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

General Public Outreach

• Two sessions held – both in April
• Woodrow Wilson & Snow hosted meetings
• Participation at each session was about 36 people
• 61 questionnaires returned
• Four distinct but overlapping areas of research

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

General Public Outreach

• 85% were between the ages of 31 and 50
• 95% lived in the City
• 93% have children
• 88% of the children aend Middletown Public Schools
• 83% report they are satisfied with the school system

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

General Public Outreach Session 1 – Considerations for the School

• Community Schools - very important to 77% of the respondents
• Bus travel times of 15 – 30 minutes - acceptable to 48%
• Times of less than 15 minutes were preferred by 40%
• Racial integration - very important to 28%
• somewhat important to 25%
• important to 23%
• Community Services - very important to 51%
• School sizes

– 49% preferred 240 – 300 students – 21% preferred 360 – 450 students

• Class sizes of 16 – 20 students were preferred by 66%

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

General Public Outreach Session 2 – Three questions related to school types

• Grade configuration

– 39% preferred K – 5, 6 – 8, & 9 – 12 – 33% selected K – 5, 6, 7 - 8, & 9 – 12

• A school of choice option

– 39% felt it was not very important to the district – 45% split equally between very important, somewhat important, and important

• Pre-school program

– Felt to be very important by 43% of the respondents

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

General Public Outreach Session 3 – The school as a community asset and non-school functions

• Community Amenities

– Very important or Important to 68%

• Daycare

– Very Important or Somewhat important to 36%

• Pre & Post School Activities

– Very important to 50%

• On-site Health Care

– Very important or important to 46% – Somewhat unimportant or not very important to30%

• Educational parity between schools

– Very Important or Somewhat Important to 59%

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

General Public Outreach Session 4 – How well people know the City

• 85% travel around the city by car and find it easy to navigate
• 82% say they don’t use public transportation
• 48% feel that Route 91 is the western border of the City
• 52% feel Route 66 is the easiest east/west route in the City
• Most know the City best when in their own neighborhood
• 82% agree that there are a number of unique neighborhoods in

the City

• 41% feel there is not enough interaction between the

neighborhoods

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

General Public Outreach

General Comments Does Well: Needs to do Beer:

The arts and music programs Communicating with the public Interaction with Wesleyan The Middle School Curriculum Elementary school Parity Educational opportunities

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Board of Education Outreach

• Held May 12th
• A one hour session
• Looked at questions dealing with:

– parity between schools – indoor environmental quality – diversity within the district – grade configurations

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Board of Education Outreach

• Strongly in favor of technology in the classrooms
• Split on the need for separate spaces for some programs
• Strong support for sustainable design
• Strong support for indoor environmental quality
• Split on costs and need for some IEQ items
• Agreement on the need to address diversity
• Division on potential ways to address the issue
• No majority regarding the middle school configuration

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Building Use and Capacity

Building Use / Capacity Analysis Concerns:

• Disparity regarding enrollments and capacity amongst the

elementary schools Steps taken:

• Established number and size of existing areas used for teaching
• Gathered comparative data
• Reviewed potential options within each school
• Determine capacities if changes are implemented

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Building Use/Capacity Analysis

EXISTING FACILITY DATA Grade configuration Date of construction Gross square foot area Net educational square foot area Net non- educational square foot area Net non-school square foot area Circulation / mechanical / non-usable area Bielefield Pre-K– 5 1954 51402 27,651 2,372 21,379 Farm Hill K – 5 1990 52343 22,852 5,495 1,500 22,496 Lawrence K – 5 1972 50000 27,350 5,787 16,863 MacDonough K – 5 1925 41348 15,529 3,570 2,120 20,129 Moody K – 5 1964 45934 28,660 3,800 13,474 Snow Pre-K – 5 1955 65571 19,840 7,460 4280 33,991 Spencer K – 5 1951 48534 25,000 2,732 760 20,042 Wesley K – 5 1972 51434 25,552 5,460 20,422

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Building Use/Capacity Analysis

Location Square footage of Classroom Number of Students Remarks

Georgia 660 Net square footage Jefferson, Colorado 900 24 Las Vegas, Nevada 850 30 Los Angeles 960 25 Massachuses 950 25 Milwaukee, WI 900 25 Missouri 900 25 New York City 750 24 New York State 900 25 North Carolina 1000 24 Phoenix, AZ 900 28 Rhode Island 950 25

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Building Use/Capacity Analysis

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

ROOM DESCRIPTION Pre-K * Kindergarten* Classroom* Classroom* Classroom* Classroom* Bielefield NA 3 @ 1368 sq  5 @ 868 sq  3 @ 768 sq  2 @ 900 sq  6 @ 980 sq  Farm Hill NA 3 @ 884 sq  6 @ 780 sq  8 @ 750 sq  Lawrence NA 4 @ 900 sq  10 @ 900 sq  5 @ 1,000 sq  MacDonough NA 2 @ 720 sq  3 @ 720 sq  5 @ 704 sq  Moody NA 5 @ 900 sq  2 @ 780 sq  12 @ 900 sq  Snow 4 @ 900 sq  2@ 780 sq  4 @ 900 sq  12 @ 780 sq  Spencer NA 4 @ 960 sq  9 @ 832 sq  6 @ 784 sq  Wesley NA 3 @ 840 sq  4 @ 700 sq  11 @ 672 sq 

Building Use/Capacity Analysis

ROOM DESCRIPTION Art* Music* Band* Library* Gymnasium* Cafeteria* Computer * Bielefield 1 @ 768 sq  1 @ 832 sq  1 @ 868 sq  1 @ 692 sq  1 @ 2,035 sq  1 @ 2,940 sq  1 @ 288 sq  Farm Hill 1 @ 780 sq  1 @ 780 sq  1 @ 780 sq  1 @ 3,000 sq  1 @ 2,700 sq  1 @ 2,296 sq  1 @ 760 sq  Lawrence 1 @ 900 sq  1 @ 850 sq  1 @ 450 sq  1 @ 1,800 sq  1 @ 2,750 sq  1 @ 2,500 sq  1 @ 500 sq  MacDonough 1 @ 704 sq  1 @ 720 sq  1 @ 720 sq  1 @ 1,080 sq  1 @ 3,575 sq  1 @ 1,610 sq  1 @ 720 sq  Moody 1 @ 900 sq  1 @ 900 sq  1 @ 900 sq  1 @ 1,800 sq  1 @ 2,500 sq  1 @ 3,000 sq  1 @ 900 sq  Snow 1 @ 1,170 sq  1 @ 400 sq  1 @ 750 sq  1 @ 1,600 sq  1 @ 3,200 sq  1 @ 2,400 sq  1 @ 780 sq  Spencer 1 @ 960 sq  1 @ 960 sq  1 @ 832 sq  1 @ 1,200 sq  1 @ 2,800 sq  1 @ 2,500 sq  1 @ 676 sq  Wesley 1 @ 900 sq  1 @ 916 sq  1 @ 916 sq  1 @ 2,046 sq  1 @ 3,224 sq  1 @ 2,912 sq  1 @ 672 sq 

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Building Use/Capacity Analysis

ROOM DESCRIPTION Administration Nurse Work room Staff room EIST Stage Auditorium Bielefield 834 sq  450 sq  1 @144 sq  1 @ 320 sq  400 sq  Farm Hill 1,120 sq  375 sq  1 @ 360 sq  1 @ 360 sq  400 sq  Lawrence 1,080 sq  360 sq . 1 @ 500 sq  1 @ 72 sq  MacDonough 1,050 sq  300 sq  1 @ 720 sq  1 @ 500 sq  1 @ 400 sq  Moody 2,000 sq  550 sq  1 @ 300 sq  1 @ 450 sq  1 @ 450 sq  700 sq Snow 1,500 sq  500 sq  2 @ 280 sq  2 @ 560 sq  1,000 sq  2,200 sq  Spencer 672 sq  300 sq  1 @ 300 sq  1 @ 320 sq  1 @ 340 sq  400 sq  Wesley 1,364 sq  300 sq  1 @ 448 sq  tbd2 806 sq 

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Building Use/Capacity Analysis

ROOM DESCRIPTION Student Support Services Family Resource Center Child Care Non-school Programs Bielefield 640 sq  1 @ 384 sq  Farm Hill 1 @ 760 sq  Lawrence 3,275 sq  1 @ 500 sq  MacDonough 600 sq  1 @ 700 sq  1 @ 720 sq  None1 Moody 800 sq  Snow 300 sq  1 @ 780 sq  Spencer 700 sq  1 @ 760 sq  (Autism Program) Wesley 3,198 sq  1 @ 450 sq 

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Building Use/Capacity Analysis

PROPOSED FACILITY ACCOMMODATIONS Grade Configuration Summary of Changes Bielefield K – 5 Relocate Pre-K to Snow; Retask 2x Pre-K to Classroom &Band Farm Hill K – 5 Lawrence K – 5 MacDonough K – 5 Relocate independent spec. ed. program offsite, Retask 3x Classroom to Music, Band & Computer Moody K – 5 Retask2x Classroom to Band & Computer; Retask 1x Classroom split to EIST, Staffroom Snow Pre-K – 5 Consolidate Pre-K from Bielefield; Retask 3x Classrooms to 2x Pre-Ks & Computer Spencer K – 5 Retask1x Classroom to Band Wesley K – 5 Provide additional staff support space tbd

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Building Use/Capacity Analysis

CAPACITIES K – 5 Classrooms Students per K – 5 Capacity Pre-K Classrooms AM Students PM Students Pre-K Capacity Total Capacity Bielefield 19 20 380 380 Farm Hill 17 20 340 340 Lawrence 19 20 380 380 MacDonough 10 20 200 200 Moody 19 20 380 380 Snow 16 20 320 6 10 10 120 440 Spencer 19 20 380 380 Wesley 18 20 360 360 137 2,740 6 2,860 Note: The capacities listed in this chart reflect the potential facilities changes shown on the Proposed Facilities Accommodations chart

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Building Use / Capacity Analysis Conclusions:

• Enrollments mostly match the desired school size
• The allocation of learning spaces is inconsistent
• The range of school sizes could be a cause of concern
• Capacity exists even with changes to the use of some rooms

Options:

• Establish a common program for areas used for teaching
• Move Pre-K to Snow
• Change the use of some rooms
• Provide adequate support spaces in all schools

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Elementary School Aendance Boundaries

School Aendance Boundaries Analysis Concerns:

• Disjointed aendance boundaries
• Excessive transportation costs
• Students aending schools outside of their community

Steps taken:

• Reviewed current school capacities
• Reviewed current aendance boundaries
• Examined student housing locations
• Examined student locations by ethnicity
• Researched resident’s familiarity with the City

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

School Aendance Boundaries Analysis

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

School Aendance Boundaries Analysis

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

School Aendance Boundaries Analysis

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

School Aendance Boundaries Analysis

ENROLLMENT

• Oct. 2009 Enrollment

Proposed Change Proposed Enrollment Bielefield 322 35 357 Farm Hill 307 11 318 Lawrence 362 18 380 MacDonough 213 15 228 Moody 437

• 52

385 Snow 353 30 383 Spencer 379

• 16

363 Wesley 374

• 41

333 2747 2747

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

School Aendance Boundaries Analysis

UTILIZATION

• Oct. 2009

Enrollment Capacity

• Oct. 2009 Utilization

Proposed Enrollment Capacity Proposed Utilization Bielefield 322 322 380 380 0.85 0.85 357 357 380 380 0.94 0.94 Farm Hill 307 307 340 340 0.90 0.90 318 318 340 340 0.94 0.94 Lawrence 362 362 380 380 0.95 0.95 380 380 380 380 1.00 1.00 MacDonough 213 213 200 200 1.07 1.07 228 228 200 200 1.14 1.14 Moody 437 437 380 380 1.15 1.15 385 385 380 380 1.01 1.01 Snow 353 353 440 440 0.80 0.80 383 383 440 440 0.87 0.87 Spencer 379 379 380 380 1.00 1.00 363 363 380 380 0.96 0.96 Wesley 37 374 4 360 360 1.04 1.04 333 333 360 360 0.93 0.93 27 2747 47 2860 2860 0.96 0.96 27 2747 47 2860 2860 0.96 0.96

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

School Aendance Boundaries Analysis Conclusions:

• Aendance boundaries don’t reflect current demographics
• Many children are travelling to schools outside of their

neighborhood

• Transportation costs could likely be reduced
• Changes to boundaries will exacerbate diversity issues
• Changes to boundaries will cause concern for parents
• Sibling aendance issues will arise
• Cut off grade for changes will need to be established

Options:

• Establish new aendance boundaries

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Diversity in the Elementary Schools

School Diversity Analysis Concerns:

• Unbalanced minority aendance in Elementary Schools
• Students aending schools outside of their community
• District on notice from the State of Connecticut

Steps taken:

• Considered current school capacities
• Reviewed current aendance boundaries
• Explored potential changes to existing schools
• Reviewed CT statute
• Researched approaches of other districts

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

School Diversity Analysis

2009-2010 RACIAL SURVEY - SYSTEM SUMMARY

OC OCTOBER 1, 2009 OBER 1, 2009

From: Middletown Public Schools (083) Date Completed: 11/03/2009 School Code Grade Amer Indian Asian Amer Black White Hisp/Latino All Pupils Total

• tal

Minority Minority Male Fem Male Fem Male Fem Male Fem Male Fem Male Fem Students Students % % Bielefield 02 PK-5 1 8 8 41 43 98 83 24 16 172 150 322 322 43.79% 43.79% Deal 90 PK-5 5 2 5 4 14 2 16 16 68.75% 68.75% Farm Hill 05 K-5 1 7 6 39 15 104 93 21 21 172 135 307 307 35.83% 35.83% Keigwin 15 6 10 7 47 48 99 89 34 35 190 179 369 369 49.05% 49.05% Lawrence 13 K-5 1 27 31 38 38 99 75 15 22 179 167 346 346 49.71% 49.71% Macdonough 09 K-5 1 3 40 42 35 33 26 31 102 109 211 211 67.77% 67.77% Moody 12 K-5 2 1 12 14 34 37 144 123 42 28 234 203 437 437 38.90% 38.90% Snow 11 PK-5 14 15 46 47 95 99 15 21 170 182 352 352 44.89% 44.89% Spencer 01 K-5 5 16 42 41 113 116 27 19 187 192 379 379 39.58% 39.58% Wesley 14 K-5 1 1 8 11 39 47 125 101 22 17 195 177 372 372 39.25% 39.25% Wilson 54 7-8 1 2 17 13 94 97 220 201 52 47 384 360 744 44 43.41% 43.41% MHS 62 9-12 3 4 35 27 174 167 386 387 70 70 668 655 1323 1323 41.57% 41.57% SYSTEM TOTAL 9 9 144 151 639 624 1523 1400 352 327 2667 2511 5178 43.55% Race Percentages 0.35% 5.70% 24.39% 56.45% 13.11% 100.00%

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

School Diversity Analysis

POTENTIAL 2010/2011 RACIAL SURVEY –ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY

BA BASED ON OC SED ON OCTOBER 1, 2009 DIS OBER 1, 2009 DISTRIC TRICT D DATA A

From: JCJ Architecture Date Completed: 11/06/2009 School Code Grade Amer Indian Asian Amer Black White Hisp/Latino All Pupils Total

• tal

Minority Minority Male Fem Male Fem Male Fem Male Fem Male Fem Male Fem Students Students % % Bielefield 02 PK-5 1 8 11 51 61 123 97 30 22 213 191 404 404 45.54% 45.54% Deal 90 PK-5 5 2 5 4 14 2 16 16 68.75% 68.75% Farm Hill 05 K-5 1 7 4 45 22 87 86 23 24 163 136 299 299 42.14% 42.14% Keigwin 15 6 10 7 47 48 99 89 34 35 190 179 369 369 49.05% 49.05% Lawrence 13 K-5 1 27 35 46 44 110 86 22 21 205 187 392 392 50.00% 50.00% Macdonough 09 K-5 1 1 39 38 27 28 40 43 107 110 217 217 74.65% 4.65% Moody 12 K-5 1 1 12 13 18 21 140 119 22 13 193 167 360 360 28.06% 28.06% Snow 11 PK-5 13 15 46 51 88 85 18 21 165 172 337 337 48.66% 48.66% Spencer 01 K-5 6 13 42 42 112 109 19 19 179 183 362 362 38.95% 38.95% Wesley 14 K-5 1 1 9 12 32 31 126 113 18 12 186 169 355 355 32.68% 32.68% Wilson 54 7-8 1 2 17 13 94 97 220 201 52 47 384 360 744 44 43.41% 43.41% MHS 62 9-12 3 4 35 27 174 167 386 387 70 70 668 655 1323 1323 41.57% 41.57% SYSTEM TOTAL 9 9 144 151 639 624 1523 1400 352 327 2667 2511 5178 43.55% Race Percentages 0.35% 5.70% 24.39% 56.45% 13.11% 100.00%

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

School Diversity Analysis Conclusions:

• Previous aempts at balancing relied on transportation
• Issue is primarily north of Route 66
• Changes to aendance boundaries will increase diversity issues
• The North End community is central to any resolution

Options:

• Open enrollment at the Elementary School grades
• For the entire District
• Only north of Route 66
• Expand Macdonough
• Close Macdonough
• Establish an Intra-district magnet school

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Sixth Grade Academy

Sixth Grade Academy Concerns:

• Deficiencies in facilities
• Travel distance negatively impacting student performance
• Dissatisfaction with grade configuration

Steps taken:

• Visited facilities
• Reviewed facilities information
• Conducted outreach survey

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

5th – 8th Grade Take-home Survey

• A voluntary, blind result, take-home survey
• Distributed at all elementary schools, Keigwin, & Wilson
• Intended to give understanding of the issues
• Designed to elicit subjective feedback from respondents
• Information was collected from principals, administrators,

teachers, parents, and students in grades 5 through 8

• Over 1,000 people responded to the surveys
• More than 55 teachers and principals
• Over 260 parents
• 850 students

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

5th – 8th Grade Take-home Survey Teachers within each group agreed:

• Overall rated schools as average or beer than average
• Overall rated classrooms as average or beer than average
• Work in a variety of ways with the students
• Best elements are the classroom space and learning

environment

• Would like: HVAC, larger classrooms, and ability to do more

group work

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

5th – 8th Grade Take-home Survey Parents agreed:

• Between 53% and 90 % of students take the bus to school
• Bus travel time doesn’t appear to impact student readiness
• Rate schools and classrooms as average or beer than average
• Believe that teachers work with entire class and direct the

activities that occur in the classroom

• Like best the classroom space, learning environment, and

technology

• Would like HVAC that works
• They would create a school with technology

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

5th – 8th Grade Take-home Survey Students show:

• Over 64% of students indicated that they take the bus to school
• Bus travel time does not appear to impact school readiness
• Rate schools and classrooms as average or beer than average
• Indicated that they learn in variety of ways
• Like best about Classroom: technology, learning environment,

and space

• Like Best about School: Gym
• Would like HVAC that works

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

Sixth Grade Academy Conclusions:

• Most respondents are satisfied with the facilities
• Travel distance isn’t cited as a major concern
• Transition from elementary school not cited as a concern
• Many concerns regarding the physical conditions
• Concerns over indoor environmental quality

Options:

• Develop a plan to address physical plant needs
• Continue efforts to maintain IEQ
• Explore curriculum and administrative concerns

Middletown Public Schools Facilities Utilization Study

MIDDLETOWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Facilities Utilization Study Presented November 17, 2009