Williams County Education Project Envisioning Collaborative - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Williams County Education Project

Envisioning Collaborative Opportunities

Introductions

• Dr. David Flowers
• Dr. Jeff Schatz
• District individuals

Wil illi liams Co County K1 K12 Educatio ion Projec ject In Init itia ial l Proje ject Meetin ings Agenda

I. Introductions—Dr. David Flowers, Dr. Jeff Schatz II. Project Overview

• III. Areas of Study and Contractors

I. Enrollment and Demographics—Rob Swarts, RSP and Associates II. Facilities—JLG Architects

• III. Finance—Mark Lemer and Brent Bogar
• IV. Curriculum/Student Opportunity—Dr. Jeff Lind
• IV. Engagement

I. SWOT Analysis Questions II. Public Engagement—Survey Questions

V. Time Line

• VI. Questions/Discussion

Overall Purpose of the Project (Vision)

• Provide data, information and analysis that informs and possibly compels a

collaborative process which results in commitments to strategies to create PreK-12 educational solutions and conditions that support:

• A high quality of life for Williams County residents
• Attraction, retention and support of a quality workforce
• Affordable and sustainable housing
• Equitable access for all students to safe schools where students’ social, emotional

and physical health are supported

• Equitable access for all families to quality educational opportunities
• Equitable fiscal burden among districts
• Educational facilities equipped to support 21st Century education
• A shared vision that will be supported and sustained at the polls

DF

Overall Project Scope/Stages

Charge: Engage group of key, representative stakeholders in a collaborative strategic planning process which results specific strategies to achieve mutually desired ends, and a commitment to move those strategies forward through policies, legislative advocacy, voter referendums, etc. Phase 3: Collaborative Strategic Planning Process Charge: Compile a comprehensive analysis, based on the gathered data and information and including key findings,

• bservations and

areas for potential collaborative solutions. Present the report to the key stakeholder group Phase 2: Data Analysis and Reporting Charge: Gather and assemble data and information regarding the current status of inputs affecting

• verall community

wellbeing and positioning for successful future across multiple related domains Phase 1: Environmental Scan/Data Gathering

Desired Results

• A high quality of life for Williams

County residents

• Attraction, retention and support of a

quality workforce

• Affordable and sustainable housing
• Equitable access for all students to safe

schools where students’ social, emotional and physical health are supported

• Equitable access for all families to

quality educational opportunities

• Equitable fiscal burden among districts
• Educational facilities equipped to

support 21st Century education

• A shared vision that will be supported

and sustained at the polls

DF

Overall “Charge 1”

• Gather and assemble data and information regarding the current status of inputs affecting overall

community wellbeing and positioning for a successful future across multiple related domains, including:

• Existing school district(s)’ assets and challenges in the areas of:
• Demographics : enrollment, where students live relative to where they are assigned vs where they attend; residential property

demographics—developed zones; occupancy analysis; approved future development zones

• Facility Assets and Utilization: Facility age, condition, current utilization, capacity, challenges, needs, existence of

makeshift/short term solutions to overcrowding (modular classrooms; rented space); deferred maintenance issues.

• Student opportunity: Access to guaranteed, viable curriculum re general curriculum; supports for individualized of

personalized learning; special education; advanced placement or dual credit opportunities; access to Career and Technical Education coursework; and co/extra curriculum offerings.

• Budget/Finance/Taxation: An overview of state and local funding responsibilities; district taxable valuation; expenditure per

pupil; per pupil payment from the state; mil levy information, by district; comparisons of amount of money raised by 1 mil; translation of mils into dollars for property tax per $100,000 of home value; comparisons to similar districts in the state; level

• f bonded indebtedness by district; existence of any current/ongoing capital improvement projects; history of levy attempts;

sample model for projecting operational costs for new school(s).

• Components of a communication packet and strategies to educate the public and key stakeholders including

policymakers and legislators.

DF

Overall “Charge 2”

• Compile a comprehensive analysis, based on the gathered data and

information and including key findings, observations and areas for potential collaborative solutions.

• Present the report to the key stakeholder group

DF

“Buckets” Assigned to Contractor/Subcontractors

SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT AND DEMOGRAPHICS

Facility Assets and Utilization

BUDGET/FINANCE/ TAXATION CURRICULUM/ STUDENT OPPORTUNITY

Enrollment, where students live relative to where they are assigned vs where they attend; residential property demographics—developed zones; occupancy analysis; approved future development zones, etc. Facility age, current utilization, capacity, challenges, needs, existence of makeshift/short term solutions to overcrowding

(modular classrooms; rented space); deferred maintenance issues.

Budget/Finance/Taxation: An overview of state and local funding responsibilities; district taxable valuation; expenditure per pupil; per pupil payment from the state; mil levy information, by district; comparisons of amount of money raised by 1 mil; translation of mils into dollars for property tax per $100,000 of home value; comparisons to similar districts in the state; level of bonded indebtedness by district; existence of any current/ongoing capital improvement projects; history of levy attempts; sample model for projecting

• perational costs for new school(s).

Access to guaranteed, viable curriculum re general curriculum; supports for individualized or personalized learning; special education; advanced placement or dual credit opportunities; access to Career and Technical Education coursework; and co/extra curriculum

• fferings.

Subcontractor: RSP &Associates Sub-contractor: JLG Architects Sub-contractors: Mark Lemer; Brent Bogar/AE2S

Sub-contractor: Dr. Jeff Lind

JS/DF

Project Management Components and Process—Phase 2

Compile and Present Report

Contractor(s) review and analyze data and information from phase 1 gathering, which will be appended or referenced in the overall report Determine a format and assemble the report, including key observations relative to patterns, relationships, incongruities, surprises, potential

• pportunities, etc. elicited by the data; and finally a list of

recommendations for exploration should key stakeholders take the process to a 3rd phase. At a time convenient for the contractor(s) and the key stakeholder group, present the report synthesized in presentation software; in writing in an executive summary; and in a comprehensive format including appendixes/all of the data gathered in phase 1 and referenced in the report.

JS

Overall “Charge 3”

• This phase would occur if/when stakeholder entities would agree that the data,

information and potential strategies identified in the “Stage 2” report were promising enough to compel a commitment from these stakeholder groups to seriously engage in this third phase which might create solutions to mutually identified challenges.

• Engage group of key, representative stakeholders in a collaborative strategic planning

process which results specific strategies to achieve mutually desired ends, and a commitment to move those strategies forward through policies, legislative advocacy, voter referendums, etc.

• The strategic plan would have traditional components, collaboratively developed,

possibly including:

• Mission
• Vision
• Environmental Scan (data and information from “charge 1”
• Values/beliefs
• Goals
• Strategies

DF

Actions—Stage 1 and 2 of Project Persons/Entities Engaged or Responsible Timeline

• 1. Contractor(s) communicate commitment to engage to Williams County

David Flowers with possible co- engagement by Jeff Schatz, and Helen Askim By Oct 18, 2019

• 2. Collaboration/negotiation of contract terms and parameters

David Flowers, with Helen Askim By Oct 25, 2019

• 3. Refinement of deliverables and key questions to be answered in the phase 1 and phase

2 project. David Flowers, Helen Askim By Nov 1

• 4. Drafting of sub-contract data, information, questions, format for reporting, etc. in

categories of: Demographics; Finance; Facilities; and Student Opportunities David Flowers, Helen Askim By Nov 1

• 5. Identification of, and contracting with sub- contractors, including provision to each of

the scope of work and questions to be answered and data/information, format for reporting and timeline for reporting David Flowers, possible division

• f labors with Jeff Schatz

By Nov 15

• 6. Face-to-face meeting with individual superintendents/board presidents stakeholder

group to outline scope of the project, answer questions, secure commitment to engagement and cooperation with the project process. Meeting of contractor/subcontractors with County staff to finalize scope of work/timeline David Flowers, Jeff Schatz By Nov 30

• 7. Initial survey of each individual district superintendents (survey questions based on a

traditional SWOT analysis); they would be encouraged to involve their boards. David Flowers, Jeff Schatz By Dec 15

• 8. Sub-contractors gather data/assemble individual reports, with

monitoring/support/coordination from David Flowers/Jeff Schatz Sub-contractors, David Flowers, Jeff Schatz By Jan 15

• 9. Contractor(s) analyze data, assemble comprehensive report and appendices, form
• bservations, suggestions, recommendations, potential scenarios for exploration, etc.

Sub-contractors, David Flowers, Jeff Schatz By Feb 15

• 10. Contractor(s) present the written report and as needed/requested to stakeholder

group(s) David Flowers, Jeff Schatz By March 15

DF

DRAF DRAFT--

• -SUBCONTRACTOR

R DATA/INFORM RMATION TO BE E GATHER ERED/PREP EPORTS, QUE QUESTIONS TO BE E AN ANSWERED IN DATA/INFORMATION GATHER ERED AN AND IN RE REPORT

• 1. SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT AND

DEMOGRAPHICS (FOR 6 WILLIAMS CO. DISTRICTS)--RSP

• 2. FACILITY ASSETS AND UTILIZATION--JLG
• 3. BUDGET/FINANCE/ TAXATION – Mark

Lemer

• 4. CURRICULUM/ STUDENT

OPPORTUNITY—Jeff Lind

• 1. Current and projected future enrollment (5

year projections)

• 1. What are the current facility assets across

the 6 districts in Williams County? (When built/added on; condition; evidence of deferred maintenance.) 1. Overview of each district relative to common finance metrics used by business

• managers. (assessed values; mill levies;

local/state funding sources, etc.)

• 1. Status of each district relative to AdvancED

process/standards (areas of need, areas of commendation, etc.)

• 2. Projected residential growth by district—

forecast of needed K-12 space—hot spots

• 2. What are the enrollment capacities and

current utilization of the facilities? (Will need consensus on a capacity standard based on a preferred class size.)

• 2. Analysis/summary of tax liability in Western

ND vs statewide

• 2. Status of each district relative to students
• pportunities for: Dual Credit; Advanced

Placement Career/Tech Ed offerings, etc.)

• 3. Analysis of where students attend vs.

where they are “assigned” by residency in a district.

• 3. What are the greatest facility wants/needs

by district?

• 3. History of referendum attempts; any future

strategic plans/facility plans to build on/ construct new? (Coordinate with JLG)

• 3. Status of each district relative to special

education services

• 4. Analysis of where students attend HS

(grades 9-12) vs. where they live.

• 4. Optimal locations for potential new school

facilities (coordinate with Mark Lemer): building repair vs replacement costs; transportation impacts of current and potential new locations

• 4. Analysis of funding options available to

districts in state: Non-property tax sources? Cross-district cost sharing for cap. Projects Clarification of Joint Taxing Dist authority

• 4. Status of each district relative to co-

curricular and extra curricular opportunities

• 5. Capacity analysis (coordinate with JLG/

Subcontractor 2 Capacity analysis (coordinate with RSP/ Subcontractor 1

• 5. Analysis/summary of education funding

bills/changes in 2019 session and impact on Williams Co districts

• 5. Status of each district relative to student

support services and safety (counseling, nurses, social workers, SROs, etc.)

• 6. Impact of open/closed enrollment options
• n district capacities
• 6. Analysis/summary of ACTUAL impacts from

modified school district boundaries

• 6. Identification of collaborative opportunities

for sharing cross-district resources that other districts in the state may utilize. 7. DF/JS

Fiscal Wksht 1: Student Counts; Taxable Valuation; Fund Balances; Average Costs

Variable 2018-19 Williston 1 Williams Co 8 Eight Mile 6 Grenora 99 Nesson 2 Tioga 15 Total Enrollment Total Ave. Daily Membership Taxable Valuation Taxable Value Per Pupil Average Cost of Education Per Pupil Average Total Cost Per Pupil Provide comparisons to similar size districts in other parts of the state

Fiscal Worksheet 2: Mill Levies

Variable 2018-19 Williston 1 Williams Co 8 Eight Mile 6 Grenora 99 Nesson 2 Tioga 15 General Fund High School Tuition Miscellaneous Levy Building Fund & Special Assessment Levy Sinking & Interest Levy Other Total District Mill Levy Total City or Township Levy Total County Levy Total Levy for District Residents Translation—Tax in dollars on $100,000 of assessed value Provide comparisons to similar size districts in other parts of the state

Fiscal Worksheet 3: General Fund Revenue

Variable 2018-19 Williston 1 Williams Co 8 Eight Mile 6 Grenora 99 Nesson 2 Tioga 15 Local Revenue County Revenue State Revenue Federal Revenue Other Revenue Total Revenue Provide comparisons to similar size districts in other parts of the state

Fiscal Worksheet 4: General Fund Expenditure

Variable 2018-19 Williston 1 Williams Co 8 Eight Mile 6 Grenora 99 Nesson 2 Tioga 15 Salary and Benefits Teachers Salary and Benefits Support Other Instructional Expenditures School Administration General Administration Operation & Maintenance of Plant Student Transportation All Other Expenditures Total Expenditures Provide comparisons to similar size districts in other parts of the state

Fiscal Questions/Issues to Provide in Narrative

• 1. Other than the traditional funding revenue mechanisms/sources being utilized by

Williams County districts, what other sources of revenue are available and being utilized in North Dakota Districts?

• 2. What creative uses of sharing resources or sharing costs are being utilized by Williams

County districts, and are there ones that other districts in the state are using that Williams County should explore? (Joint purchasing; virtual CTE opportunities; sharing facilities; sharing staff; REC management of/provision of services; etc.)

• 3. What fiscal impacts have there been from changes in district boundaries and/or

changes in open enrollment policies?

• 4. What are the impacts on Williams County districts from funding bills/changes from 2019

Legislative Assembly?

• 5. What would be the impact on taxation of land exchanges/district dissolutions, etc.?
• 6. How are the districts serving special needs students (single district operation or special

education coop), and what financial impacts has the service model produced?

Draft Demographics/Enrollment Data Worksheet

Williston 1 Williams Co 8 Eight Mile 6 Grenora 99 Nesson 2 Tioga 15

• 1. Current and projected future enrollment

(5 year projections)

• 2. Projected residential growth by

district—forecast of needed K-12 space— hot spots

• 3. Analysis of where students attend vs.

where they are “assigned” by residency in a district.

• 4. Analysis of where students attend HS

(grades 9-12) vs. where they live.

• 5. Capacity analysis (coordinate with JLG/

Subcontractor 2)

• 6. Impact of open/closed enrollment
• ptions on district capacities
• 7. Ave Home/rental/apartment costs

(data from . . . . Hennessey)

• 8. Tuition agreements

Community Information and Engagement Opportunities

Initiatio n

• “Kickoff” County Commission Meeting
• Press Conference/News Releases

Input

• District Input—SWOT Analysis
• Community Engagement Survey

Report

• Report-Out to Stakeholders
• Potential next steps

DF/JS

Each Dis istric ict Wil ill l Co Comple lete an In Init itia ial l SWOT Analy lysis is Su Survey

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Helpful Harmful Internal External

SWOT Analy lysis is Su Survey

STRENGTHS Strengths are internal factors which represent the things your organization/school district does well. Strengths are factors where you have full control

• ver and may include: programs, facilities,

equipment resources, skilled employees, location, etc. WEAKNESSES Weaknesses are internal factors which hinder your

• progress. They inhibit your school

district/organization from functioning effectively. Identifying weaknesses highlights areas where improvements can be made. OPPORTUNITIES Opportunities are external factors which when considered could help your school district/organization enhance overall effectiveness. By identifying possible external opportunities, the school district/organization can be proactive in their approach to communicating and collaborating with external resources. THREATS Threats are external factors which can negatively impact your school district or organizations. These external factors may include economic markets, funding, lack of resources, human resource shortages, etc. DF/JS

Sa Sample le SWOT Analy lysis is Su Survey Questio ions

STRENGTHS 1. Please identify two factors you would characterize as strengths of your school district. 2. What are you most proud of about your school district? 3. What makes your district better than others? 4. What are two things you would not want to see change? WEAKNESSES 1. What areas do you wish could be improved about your school district? 2. What resources are you lacking that could make the district even better? 3. Are there internal operational issues that impact the district’s ability to do all you want to accomplish? 4. Are there any things you believe need to change about your district? OPPORTUNITIES 1. What opportunities for collaborating with other districts or entities would you like to explore or learn about? 2. What external or creative funding sources might the district be interested in? 3. What external changes are happening that may offer positive opportunities? THREATS 1. What external trends or changes that you cannot control are you most worried about having an impact

• n your district?

2. What possibly negative perspectives might community stakeholders have about the district, if any? 3. Have there been any setbacks for your district from community or area partners?

Internal External DF/JS

Community Engagement Survey

• Survey Link distributed via:
• County Website
• School Districts’ Websites,

newsletters, etc.

• Publication/distribution of

survey link via media outlets

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SURVEY

Demographic Information

QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION