inspire . . . empower . . . nurtureww3.d155.org/DistrictDocuments/CHSD155EfficiencyReport3.1.17.pdfMar 01, 2017 · report would be vetted by the entire organization. Major changes

Community High SchoolDistrict 155

Center for EducationOne South Virginia RoadCrystal Lake, IL 60014

T: (815) 455-8500F: (815) 459-5022

www.d155.org

District 155’s Response to Efficiency Study Report

The following Efficiency Study report provides District 155 and our stakeholders with objective data regarding operational efficiencies throughout the organization. Community High School District 155 is currently experiencing declining enrollment, and this trend is forecast to continue into the foreseeable future. Additionally, given the fiscal condition of the state of Illinois as well as future anticipated District 155 operating deficits, the Board of Education proactively approved the Efficiency Study to be used as a tool for future planning. The board uses many tools like budget projections, population studies, etc. to determine how to effectively govern in the future. The recommendations serve as a guide to the board and does not necessarily mean action will be taken.

In April 2016, the board selected MGT of America to perform an Efficiency Study to analyze and evaluate the operations and facilities of District 155, to identify possible areas of organizational efficiencies, and to make recommendations to the administration and the Board of Education regarding such efficiencies. The negotiated cost of the Efficiency Study was $76,530.

MGT of America began its research in August 2016 by reviewing and verifying fiscal and enrollment projection data. A second phase of review included onsite visits at each of District 155’s buildings to analyze staffing, class scheduling, instructional programs, and operations. Site visits were conducted September 20 - 24, 2016. Since that time, MGT of America has taken that data and incorporated it into a full report, released in February 2017.

It is important to note that the recommendations expressed in the Efficiency Study report are those of an independent consulting group. This study is meant to be used as a guide to help District 155 administration with future planning in an effort to protect the quality educational system we currently have in place.

The independent report by MGT of America includes recommendations regarding:

• Eliminating district and school administrator positions based on 7-10% enrollment decline• Closing district office and Haber Oaks Campus based on 10-20% enrollment decline• Closing Crystal Lake Central High School based on 15-30% enrollment decline

The recommendations listed above are not from the administration and actions advised by this report would be vetted by the entire organization. Major changes within the district that impact students, staff, and taxpayers will be made public prior to any action by the administration and the Board of Education.

inspire . . . empower . . . nurture

www.mgtconsulting.com

EFFICIENCY AND

EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW

COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT #155

Final Report

March 1, 2017

Community High School District #155 February 2017

Efficiency and Effectiveness Review Final Report P a g e | 2

Community High School District #155

Efficiency and Effectiveness Review

February 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION 4

A. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 4

B. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 4

C. REPORT ORGANIZATION ............................................................................... 9

D. SUMMARY OF COMMENDATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. 11

0.0 FINANCIAL AND ENROLLMENT BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY ... 13 0.1 FISCAL ANALYSIS FINDINGS ........................................................................ 13

0.2 ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS FINDINGS ........................................................ 16

0.3 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 20

1.0 EDUCATIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY .................................................................. 22 SECTION SUMMARY............................................................................................... 22

1.1 DISTRICT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 23

I.2 STAFFING .............................................................................................................. 36

2.0 FACILITIES USE AND MANAGEMENT ............................................................... 43 SECTION SUMMARY............................................................................................... 44

2.1 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT .................................................. 45

2.2 PLANS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ...................................................... 46

2.3 MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS .................................................................... 47

2.4 CUSTODIAL OPERATIONS ........................................................................... 50

2.5 ENERGY MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 53

3.0 FACILITIES ASSESSMENTS ...................................................................................... 54 3.1 BUILDING CONDITION ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 54

3.2 EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT ........................................... 55

3.3 COMBINED SCORES ........................................................................................ 57

3.4 FACILITIES ASSESSMENTS CONCLUSIONS ............................................ 58

4.0 CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION ........................................................................... 59 4.1 FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY ............................................................................. 59

4.2 UTILIZATION RATES ....................................................................................... 62

4.3 CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION CONCLUSIONS ................................. 66

5.0 FACILITY FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS .............................................................. 67 5.1 OPERATING COSTS ........................................................................................ 67

6.0 FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM ................................................................................... 71 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 75 APPENDIX A NATIONAL SCHOOL PEER REVIEW DATA ............................... 77

APPENDIX B BASYS REPORTS ..................................................................................... 78



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

MGT wishes to acknowledge the significant effort and support provided by the Community High School District (CHSD) and its staff. Specifically, we appreciate the assistance from Superintendent Dr. Johnnie Thomas and the senior staff of this district, including Jeremy Davis, the CHSD Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations, who served as project director for this work. Dr. Thomas and his administrative staff encouraged open and direct communication about any issues or concerns, gathered documents for review, and made themselves and their departments available to consultants during the on-site week. We also greatly appreciate having the opportunity to meet and interview members of the administration, teaching faculty, staff, and students to understand their unique perspectives about operations in Community High School District #155.

All findings, commendations, and recommendations have been developed by MGT’s consultants based on data and perceptions identified during this study.



INTRODUCTION

This section describes the background and context for the study and includes the methodologies used for the organizational analysis. This section is divided into the following four subsections:

A. Background B. Methodology C. Report Organization D. Summary of Commendations and Recommendations

A. BACKGROUND

The Community High School District #155 (CHSD) contracted with MGT of America Consulting, LLC (MGT) in May of 2016 to conduct an efficiency and effectiveness review for the district. The project was divided into two phases. The first phase of the review was a validation and verification of the district’s fiscal and enrollment projection data. This first phase ensured that MGT and district staff understood and agreed on the data regarding the current and forecasted picture for the district. Data and findings from this phase were presented to the board at a regularly scheduled Budget and Finance Committee meeting in August 2016 and included in this report

The second phase of the project includes additional analyses based on condition and educational suitability assessments of each CHSD campus, a capacity and utilization study of each school’s staffing and class scheduling, as well as operational reviews of the facilities use and management functions, and an analysis of the cost of the food service operations. This second phase included onsite visits by MGT’s content area experts in facilities and operations as well as instructional programs. The goal of this second phase was to understand current staffing, organization, funding, policies/procedures, and operational activities in order to identify areas for improved efficiency and effectiveness that could reduce on-going costs and potentially allow dollars to be reallocated from operational areas to instructional areas or to reduce annual operating costs. The district is most interested in developing a long-range cost savings plan that does not affect instructional delivery and programs for students.

B. METHODOLOGY

To conduct the Phase 1 review, MGT staff gathered financial and policy data from CHSD #155 and available data from state sources. The enrollment analysis was based on current enrollment information provided by the district and available from state sources. In addition, the district provided its most recent enrollment projection reports developed by Kasarda in 2010 and 2015. The goal of this initial analysis was to determine the accuracy of current fiscal and enrollment data and its likelihood of accurately predicting the future enrollment numbers and fiscal status.

0.1 FINANCIAL DATA REVIEW

MGT reviewed all financial data for the last five years. All data were received from the district website or from state-provided documents available online. MGT commends the district’s efforts to provide accessible and comprehensive information to the public and will analyze and compare the transparency in CHSD #155 to other Illinois districts identified as peers during Phase 2 of this project.

INTRODUCTION



0.2 ENROLLMENT DATA REVIEW

The questions regarding district enrollment projections included the following:

What types of enrollment projection methodologies were used to forecast the future enrollment of the school district and its feeder districts?

How do the individual projections (described as Series A, B, and C) align to the actual enrollment of the various schools? Note: The Kasarda Report defines the three series as: (A) the absolute minimum number of students that may be anticipated, (B) the most likely number of students to be expected, and (C) the absolute maximum number of students that can possibly be foreseen.1

How will the variability in the longitudinal data with regard to the various series projections impact the district’s decisions that are related to student enrollment?

MGT examined the Kasarda Reports from 2010 and 2015 and looked at the historical and future enrollment of the elementary feeder districts #26, 46, and 47, as well as CHSD #155 to determine the impacts of the projections to each of the schools within the districts. The models used to calculate the projections included historical fertility rate analysis, housing starts and housing turnover over the past 50+ years and family migration within the districts over the past 20+ years. These methods were used to project enrollment by grade by year for the four districts. The elementary projections were calculated out to school year 2020-21, while CHSD #155 projections were forecast through school year 2025-26.

Furthermore, MGT examined the data provide for these projections to better understand the quality and accuracy of the information. The data were provided by each of the school districts as well as local cities and villages. The data examined originate as far back as 1950 and were current as of 2015 for the 2015 report.

MGT then examined the enrollment projection conclusions so as to familiarize ourselves with the implied outcomes of the report. The conclusions were organized by projection model which illustrated the future enrollment trends of all the districts in the report.

To conduct the Phase 2 review, MGT staff gathered additional financial and policy data from CHSD #155, reviewed staff and student schedules, conducted a desk audit of the district’s recent facility condition analysis, and walked each school with building staff to assess educational suitability. Much of the data were requested and provided in advance, but other information was gathered during the on-site assessment conducted in mid-September 2016. During the on-site week, MGT staff interviewed each building principal and conducted a focus group session with students and another with faculty members that represented various subject areas.

The Phase 2 review was focused on three main areas: educational services, facilities use and management, and food service. The goal was to provide an objective review of the efficiency of these services in the school district and to identify areas of possible savings or efficiency that could be made through changes in program, staffing, policy, or approach.

MGT provided a review team of fiscal and content specialists who conducted both on-and off-site work. In addition, MGT’s project staff included analysts and clerical support. The consultant team worked in CHSD in September 2016, conducting interviews with staff at all levels, visiting schools, reviewing data,

1 Kasarda, John D. Demographic Trends and Enrollment Projections. Updated 2010 and 2015.

INTRODUCTION



and gathering further information. Following the site visit, MGT’s staff have accessed additional information from the district website and other sources.

In addition to using data gathered from Community High School, MGT gathered data from other school districts. MGT worked with the district to identify a group of Illinois districts with similar enrollment and fiscal benchmarks that are also showing equally high-level student success. These districts will serve as peer benchmarks for comparisons throughout this study. Additionally, MGT identified several high school districts from other states that were in similar locations – suburban, but near major metropolitan areas – and were high achieving. The practice of benchmarking is often used to make comparisons between and among school districts. Benchmarking refers to the use of commonly held organizational characteristics in making concrete statistical or descriptive comparisons of organizational systems and processes. It is also a performance measurement tool used in conjunction with improvement initiatives to measure comparative operating performance and identify best practices. Effective benchmarking has proven to be especially valuable to strategic planning initiatives within school districts.

With this in mind, MGT initiated a benchmarking comparison of District #155 to provide a common foundation to compare systems and processes within the district with those other, similar systems. It is important for readers to keep in mind when comparisons are made across districts that some data are not comparable, as different school systems have different operational definitions, and data self-reported by school districts can be subjective. MGT has made every attempt to verify these data. Data are extracted from the individual district/school website, the National Center for Educational Statistics2 website or from the Illinois Department of Education website3 to provide standardized data across school districts. To the degree possible, exhibit information is from the most current, fully-reported data year.

MGT worked with the district to select Illinois school districts to use as peers for comparison with CHSD. The districts were selected based on several factors, including student enrollment, number of schools, student performance, and the district’s capacity for funding and wealth. While MGT did not base recommendations solely on comparison school district findings, we used these analyses to provide insights on where the district stands among its peers. Where appropriate and available, peer district comparisons are included in sections of this report. These five districts will serve as Illinois peer comparisons for CHSD #155 in further sections of this report.

Consolidated HSD 230, Orland Park CHSD #117, Lake Villa Grayslake CHSD 127, Grayslake Lincoln Way CHSD 210, New Lenox McHenry CHSD 156, McHenry

Exhibit B-1 on the following page provides some initial comparisons for each peer school district showing student enrollment, number of schools, poverty level, which is described by the percentage of students who qualify for free or reduced price meals (F/R meals), the district’s actual expenses, the Equalized Assessed Value (EAV) from the state4 which is an indicator of local county wealth and ability to support schools, and the Operating Expense per Pupil. As shown, District #155 is in the middle of the group in terms of size, based on student enrollment. It has the third highest percent of low income families, is third in total actual expense, is fourth in EAV per pupil, is third in operating expense per

2 https://nces.ed.gov/ 3 http://www.isbe.net/ 4 See http://www.isbe.net/EFAC/schedule/testimony/130917/130924-apa-rpt.pdf

INTRODUCTION



pupil, and third in terms of the percent of expenses represented by operating expenses. Clearly, none of these districts is an exact “peer” to CHSD #155. Although they all only serve high school students, several are very small (McHenry, CHSD #117, and Grayslake), and most have higher EAV funding. However, this provides some basis for comparison among these districts and may provide some insight into areas where CHSD #155 could improve efficiency to reduce costs.

EXHIBIT B-1 ILLINOIS PEER COMPARISON DATA - 2015

DISTRICT NAME DISTRICT

ENROLLMENT NO. OF

SCHOOLS

LOW INCOME

%

(F/R)

DISTRICT TOTAL

ACTUAL EXPENSE

EAV PER PUPIL

OPERATING EXPENSE

PER PUPIL

OPERATING FUND BALANCE % OF EXPENSES

Cons HSD 230 7,650 3 25.66% $134,020,820 $544,029 $15,199 51.91%

Lincoln Way CHSD 210

7,027 4 9.61% $105,495,921 $501,623 $13,182 4.24%

McHenry CHSD 156 2,332 2 32.46% $31,324,520 $388,479 $11,789 58.82%

CHSD 117 2,784 2 17.35% $50,983,760 $379,555 $16,649 70.07%

CHSD 155 6,598 4 19.05% $112,360,336 $367,354 $15,530 54.64%

Grayslake CHSD 127 3,031 2 11.68% $56,902,003 $288,776 $16,550 44.23%

Source: CHSD Finance Office. Compiled by MGT of America Consulting, LLC, 2016.

In addition to a comparison of funding and expenses, CHSD asked MGT to ensure that any comparison included information based on student performance. Using this same group of peer districts from Illinois, it is clear that CHSD is providing high quality educational opportunities for students. As shown in Exhibit B-2, the district’s performance based on ACT test scores is above each of the other peer districts.

EXHIBIT B-2 ILLINOIS PEER COMPARISON DATA - 2015

DISTRICT NAME ENROLLMENT NO. SCHOOLS ACT Comp. ACT Eng. ACT

MATH ACT

READING ACT

SCIENCE

Cons HSD 230 7,650 3 21.5 21.1 21.6 21.6 21.3

Lincoln Way CHSD 210 7,027 4 22.8 22.8 22.3 23.1 22.6

McHenry CHSD 156 2,332 2 20.4 19.9 20.4 20.2 20.4

CHSD 117 2,784 2 21.9 21.6 21.9 21.8 22

CHSD 155 6,598 4 22.9 22.8 22.9 22.5 22.8

Grayslake CHSD 127 3,031 2 22.5 22.4 22.5 22.6 22

Source: CHSD Finance Office. Compiled by MGT, 2016.

INTRODUCTION



The national peer group used in this study is more varied than the Illinois peer group. The initial group selected was chosen by high achieving schools in high school districts and included Agua Fria School District in Arizona and Campbell and Fremont High School Districts from California. Each district is suburban, but near large urban areas, each has multiple schools, and all are high achieving. The schools in Fremont and Agua Fria are typically larger than #155 and potentially more complex due to size.

In addition to schools from these high school districts, MGT selected a group of individual high schools from various states, including Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Schools were selected based on enrollment, ranging from 60% of the size of schools in #155 to 140% of the schools in #155. The following national peer schools were selected to compare teaching and administrative staff ratios. Additionally, the districts in which these schools are located were used to compare district administrative staffing ratios.

EXHIBIT B-3 NATIONAL PEER COMPARISON DATA - 2015

DISTRICT SCHOOL NAME STATE STUDENTS* TEACHERS*

Agua Fria Union High School District Agua Fria High AZ 1,725 92

Agua Fria Union High School District Desert Edge High AZ 1,744 80.85

Agua Fria Union High School District Millennium High AZ 2,205 94.51

Agua Fria Union High School District Verrado High AZ 1,855 74.35

Austin ISD LBJ High TX 853 64.23

Bellingham Public Schools Bellingham High WA 1070 44.4

Boston Boston Latin High MA 2439 119

Campbell Union High Boynton High CA 268 16.3

Campbell Union High Branham High CA 1,468 62.45

Campbell Union High Del Mar High CA 1,108 49.95

Campbell Union High Leigh High CA 1,665 73.95

Campbell Union High Prospect High CA 1,343 60.55

Campbell Union High Westmont High CA 1,537 68.85

Dist. 214 Elk Grove High IL 1906 117.22

Eugene 4J Churchill High OR 1,139 47.63

Eugene 4J North Eugene High OR 961 43.74

Fort Worth ISD Arlington Heights High TX 1,831 114.2

Fremont Union High Cupertino High CA 2,168 87.89

Fremont Union High Fremont High CA 1,965 87.88

Fremont Union High Homestead High CA 2,406 94.55

Fremont Union High Lynbrook High CA 1,853 77.82

Fremont Union High Monta Vista High CA 2,357 92.22

Hamilton SE Fishers High IN 2,964 134.14

Minneapolis Roosevelt High MN 884 65.83

Minneapolis Washburn High MN 1,468 72.09

Palo Alto Unified Palo Alto High CA 1,943 115.29

Quincy North Quincy High MA 1,207 87.32

San Diego Unified La Jolla High CA 1,588 59.39

Seattle Public Schools Ballard High WA 1,669 79.2

Source: NCES Data, compiled by MGT, 2016.

INTRODUCTION



Much of the data used in this report for peer comparisons comes from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES)5. NCES is the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education. NCES is located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences. NCES fulfills a Congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report complete statistics on the condition of American education; conduct and publish reports; and review and report on education activities internationally. The data reported on their website are the most currently available that have been analyzed, organized to ensure they are looking at the same data points, and vetted by the state or organization. For this review, the student enrollment, teacher, site, and district administrative numbers are based on SY 2016 data. The financial data are based on FY 2013 data, the most recent year when data are available for comparison.

C. REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report is organized into sections as follows:

Section 0.0: Fiscal and Enrollment Background for Study

Section 1.0: Educational Service Delivery

Section 2.0: Facility Use and Management

Section 3.0: Facility Assessments

Section 4.0: Capacity and Utilization Analysis

Section 5.0: Operating Costs

Section 6.0: Food Service

Section 7.0: Conclusions

Section 0.0 provides important background information regarding the financial status of the district and the data regarding student enrollment projections. These two analyses form the backdrop for the following sections. School districts rely on solid information in both of these areas to maintain and operate facilities, hire and promote staff, and provide programs for students.

Sections 1.0 and 2.0 include the findings, commendations, and recommendations for the operational area reviewed, including:

A description of the current status in the district.

A description of the findings.

MGT’s commendation and/or recommendation for each finding.

Where it can be quantified for the recommendation, a five-year fiscal impact statement detailing costs or savings, stated in 2016-17 dollars.

Sections 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 contain the data gathered from the facility assessments, the analysis of

current facility capacity and utilization, and the report on operating costs for the four high schools.

5 See: http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/search.

http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/search

INTRODUCTION



Section 6.0 provides information about the food service program, comparing the two In-district

programs with the two Out-sourced programs.

Section 7.0 provides a summary and set of conclusions based on all the data. In this section, MGT also

makes recommendations about possible sequence or timing for implementing the various

recommendations identified in earlier sections.

INTRODUCTION



D. SUMMARY OF COMMENDATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following commendations are included in the report:

Commendation 1-A The district has communicated a clear set of student achievement targets and is making and reporting progress on those targets within the community.

Commendation 1-B The district has created a teacher support and supervision structure using Division Leaders that meets many needs.

Commendation 2-A The organization of the maintenance and custodial crews increases efficiency, effectiveness and a positive work culture.

Commendation 2-B CHSD maintains clean schools while staffing custodial positions at or under the best practice.

The following recommendations are included in the report:

Recommendation 1-1 Reduce the number of Division Leaders from six positions and six assistant DLs to four DL with no assistants with the responsibilities of each DL to include revised groups of content areas identified by the district.

Recommendation 1-2 Reduce the staff at the central office in alignment with the reduction in student enrollment.

Recommendation 1-3 Reduce the site administrative staff at one school starting 2017-18 and revise the staffing at all schools based on an enrollment- and program-driven formula to address the needs at each school as enrollment declines.

Recommendation 1-4 Re-open the current contract with the Education Association that expires June 30, 2019, in order to reduce the certificated staff responsibilities to cover non-instructional activities, such as general study halls and lunchroom supervision and replace them with lower cost instructional assistant positions.

Recommendation 2-1 Write and implement a policy requiring the development of a ten-year facility master plan.

Recommendation 2-2 Determine the productivity level of the maintenance workers and then staff the maintenance department at a level to allow the implementation of work order completion goals, a preventive maintenance program, and a pro-active energy management program.

Recommendation 2-3 Establish cleaning supply budgets for all schools.

INTRODUCTION



Recommendation 5-1 Recommendation 6-1

Close and repurpose Crystal Lake Central High School.

Contract with an outside provider for all four food service programs.

The commendations and recommendations are presented to the district for review and consideration. Some recommendations will require additional spending from the district while others provide opportunities for cost savings. There may be issues or considerations that make implementation of some recommendations difficult or impossible. Some issues may warrant community involvement and discussion. These are presented as recommendations for board review and consideration.

F ISCAL IMPACT

The savings, costs, and net savings total for the recommendations are shown below.

RECOMMENDATION YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5

Savings $1,209,823 $5,669,887 $6,164,887 $6,335,216 $6,335,216

Costs $ (75,000-

100,000) $ (136,400) $ (136,400) $ (136,400) $ (136,400)

NET SAVINGS TOTAL $1,109,823 -

$1,134,823 $5,533,487 $6,028,487 $6,198,816 $6,198,816



0.0 FINANCIAL AND ENROLLMENT BACKGROUND FOR THE

STUDY

This section presents the findings of MGT’s research into the district’s current data, as well as the accuracy of the data to describe not only the fiscal status of the district, but also the student enrollment projection calculations that form the basis for most district budgeting.

0.1 FISCAL ANALYSIS FINDINGS

0.1.1 EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS

MGT reviewed the district’s budget for a five-year period from FY 2010-11 through FY 2014-15. We used a combination of financial documents provided directly by the district and from the district’s website. We believed that a five-year budget comparison would allow our firm to analyze the district’s year-over-year expenditures and to study any significant line item increases or decreases.

Generally speaking, most of the line items in the district’s budget expenditures have remained relatively consistent over this period. We will focus this portion of the analysis on the areas that showed significant increases or decreases.

The budget items above in yellow exhibited year-over-year decreases, while the items in green showed overall increases.

The largest single part of the district’s budget is in the Account 1100 line items that cover costs for Regular Programs. For the period analyzed, Regular Program expenditures decreased by 15.95%. In that same period, student enrollment decreased by 6.48%. The number of teachers has also declined as enrollment has dropped. For the upcoming school year, the district has reduced four teachers, in addition to the eight teachers who were released earlier due to continuing enrollment decline.

Some of the decrease shown in Account 1100 was due to reallocations within the district’s budget. For example, in 2013, department chairs were paid from Account 1100, but the district started budgeting those costs in 2014 under Account 2210 due to a reclassification of department chairs as division leaders (administrators).

The reductions in Accounts 1200 and 1250 were due to budget reallocation. In FY14, four division leaders were reallocated within the budget, while in FY 13, the district made an accounting adjustment that moved some salaries to a different line item.

The provision for contingencies (Account 6000) was eliminated in the F14 and F15 budget, probably due to the need to balance budgets during those years. In the FY16 and FY17 budgets, a modest amount has been

0.0 FINANCIAL AND ENROLLMENT BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY



restored to this line item. The District does not recall any reallocation of money from this line item during those two years. The current Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations has indicated that he prefers having that financial cushion, and MGT agrees.

Account 2410 - Office of the Principal Services. The anomalous amount of $4,534,688 shown for FY15 was caused by a decision to lump all of the building budgets for the district’s individual schools into that single line item for budgeting purposes. The actual expenditures in FY15 were similar to prior years ($2.3 million.)

Account 2530 - Facilities Acquisition & Construction Services. This is the district’s budget line for capital projects. Extensive building restoration has occurred over the last few summers, highlighted by $8.2 million of capital expenditures in FY14 and another $17.7 million in FY15. The district has already spent close to $11.5 million in FY16.

Account 2660 - Data Processing Services. This is the line item the district uses to pay for its technology. The large increase in expenditures over this five-year period is consistent with many school districts across the country. In the first year of this analysis, the district did not spend any money on "Non-Capitalized Equipment." However, since then the district has made a significant investment in Chromebooks and additional technological infrastructure improvements. The district spent $1.1 million in FY14 and over $600,000 in FY15 on "Non-Capitalized Equipment.” Roughly 60% of students have access to Chromebooks due to the district’s investments in technology.

According to the district’s Finance and Operations group, the district started trimming discretionary funding in 2014, and has continued that practice over the past several years. There was a 10% discretionary budget cut in FY16 and discretionary funding for FY17 was cut an additional 7%.

The district has made fairly significant budget cuts (between 15-17%) in certain areas, while enrollment has steadily decreased over the past five years by a slower rate (total of 6.48%). If the long-term projections show that enrollment will continue to decline, the challenge will be to meet the district’s fixed cost obligations at each of its four schools, while retaining an adequate teacher workforce. This issue should be explored during Phase 2 and include connections with student enrollment, staffing, and school facilities.




REVENUE ANALYSIS

MGT reviewed the district’s budget for the five-year period from FY 2010-11 through FY 2014-15 to compare the district’s various revenue sources and streams. We used a combination of financial documents provided directly by the district and from the district’s website.

Overall, the district’s revenue has grown by almost 9% over these five years. Revenue has been more volatile in most of the line items, but less so in the large tax areas. While Designated Purposes Levies grew by 6.74%, other subventions such as General State Aid dropped by 3.66%. The overall story shows fairly flat to declining revenues when adjusted for cost of living and other economic factors.

In FY15, 81% of the district’s revenues came from only two sources: Designated Purposes Levies (item 1110-1120) and General State Aid (item 3001). The district’s Tax Levy is not tied to enrollment and is calculated based on a formula for Illinois tax-capped counties (which includes Cook County and all five of its bordering counties.) The Levy can be increased by the 12-month Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for December of the prior year, or 5%, whichever is less. Over the last few years, with low CPI-Us, the district’s tax levy has increased modestly.

It is important to note that this district, like many districts in Illinois, is heavily reliant on its local tax levy. These funds are critical to the financial stability of the district. Districts that reduce their levy have lost




resources forever and cannot get them back. For this district, a reduction in tax levy could leave the district in an unstable or insolvent position into the future when they continue to face increases in required expenditures from utilities, staff contracts, and other fixed costs. Districts should be cautious about reducing local tax levies, even when they have declining enrollments. General State Aid revenues, as described below, address the declining enrollment. Local levies can be used to support the continuing increases based on increased costs.

Conversely, General State Aid revenue, which is the district’s second largest source of income, is tied to enrollment and has an inverse relationship to “local wealth”, as measured by property values within the district. General State Aid was highly volatile during the five-year study period, as shown by the table below.

The volatility of this critical funding source is concerning to say the least. The factors on which this funding source are based are out of the control of the district, and appear difficult to project in a positive way.

0.2 ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS FINDINGS

The models used and described in the Kasarda Report6 for projecting CHSD #155 enrollment are ones often used in education. These models look at the number of annual births over a specific period of time to establish incoming kindergarten class sizes, housing starts and housing turnover as a predictor of students coming into the system from the housing market and family migration (both in and out of the district) to understand the variability associated with the economic impacts of the region, gentrification issues of neighborhoods or regional livability and attractiveness.

MGT reviewed each of the projection methods utilized in the examined the resulting forecasts and, based on the information evaluated, determined that the data reflect an accurate forecast of future enrollments for the district as a whole.

6 Kasarda, John D. Demographic Trends and Enrollment, updated 2010 and 2015.

FY 11

FY 12

FY 13FY 14

FY 15

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

$10,000,000

Item 3001 Funding Levels




As described earlier, the Kasarda report creates three pictures of what enrollment might look like:

(A) the absolute minimum number of students that may be anticipated,

(B) the most likely number of students to be expected, and

(C) the absolute maximum number of students that can possibly be foreseen.



The chart below shows the three (Series A, B, and C) projections district-wide for all four high schools. Included within the chart are data showing the variance between each of the projection years and the actual enrollment, the percentage of difference between actual and projected, and the amount of deviation between the actual and projected. For the district as a whole, Series B shows the closest alignment between the actual enrollment and the projected enrollment.

Combined-District 155 Series Projections

School Year Total A Variance % Diff Deviation B Variance % Diff Deviation C Variance % Diff Deviation

2011-2012 6,943 6,748 195 97.19% -2.81% 6,873 70 98.99% -1.01% 7,005 (62) 100.89% 0.89%

2012-2013 6,846 6,494 352 94.86% -5.14% 6,738 108 98.42% -1.58% 6,992 (146) 102.13% 2.13%

2013-2014 6,694 6,200 494 92.62% -7.38% 6,562 132 98.03% -1.97% 6,928 (234) 103.50% 3.50%

2014-2015 6,598 6,002 596 90.97% -9.03% 6,472 126 98.09% -1.91% 6,942 (344) 105.21% 5.21%

2015-2016 6,493 5,809 684 89.47% -10.53% 6,340 153 97.64% -2.36% 6,874 (381) 105.87% 5.87%

*Note: Feed-8 Data for 2015-2016 is not yet available to us, as it has not yet been reported by Feeder Districts (6th Day Enrollment due 9/4/15 and Fall Housing Due by 10/15/15)

The projections within the report include models for each of the four highs schools: Cary-Grove, Crystal Lake Central, Crystal Lake South, and Prairie. All of the models assumed that the current feeder patterns would likely stay the same and that the numbers of students coming from area parochial schools would remain consistent. The report data concluded that under Series A and B, the high schools would decline in enrollment for the next 10 years. Under Series C, in most years there will be a decline, except for a modest increase in enrollment from 2023 -2025. However, the data also show a significant difference in the total amount of projected students attending in relation to the number of students that actually attended over the last five years.

This assumption would lead to the district using Series B for projecting the future enrollment along with decisions regarding numbers of teaching staff, building capacities and utilization and when considering other impacts to school boundaries and budgets. However, the relationship between the various Series projections and each of the individual schools is unique. For Crystal Lake Central, Series C is the most closely aligned; for Crystal Lake South, Series A is most closely aligned; for Cary-Grove, Series C is best; and for Prairie Ridge, Series A is the most closely aligned. This variability suggest that the district may need to examine each school and use the most closely aligned series projection as a future practice for projecting and evaluating enrollment. Furthermore, the district may want to look at each of the feeder schools in elementary districts #26, 46, and 47 to determine if there is a similar individual relationship between the actual historical enrollment and a particular projection series. It will be helpful to note if both elementary districts and the connected high school have a similarly aligned model. Since each high school and its feeder elementary schools serves a unique community area, it makes sense that there is variation in the projection model or series that best describes that community. MGT will explore this issue further during Phase 2.

The charts below show the three series projections (A, B, and C, as described earlier) for each of the four high schools. Included within the chart are data showing the variance between each of the projection years and the actual enrollment, the percentage of difference between actual and projected, and the amount of deviation between the actual and projected.




Crystal Lake Central Series Projection


2011-2012 1,587 1,510 77 95.15% -4.85% 1,544 43 97.29% -2.71% 1,585 2 99.87% -0.13%

2012-2013 1,571 1,453 118 92.49% -7.51% 1,516 55 96.50% -3.50% 1,590 -19 101.21% 1.21%

2013-2014 1,538 1,395 143 90.70% -9.30% 1,485 53 96.55% -3.45% 1,585 -47 103.06% 3.06%

2014-2015 1,535 1,332 203 86.78% -13.22% 1,441 94 93.88% -6.12% 1,561 -26 101.69% 1.69%

2015-2016 1,540 1,301 239 84.48% -15.52% 1,418 122 92.08% -7.92% 1,545 -5 100.32% 0.32%

Crystal Lake South Series Projection


2011-2012 1,888 1,837 51 97.30% -2.70% 1,868 20 98.94% -1.06% 1,898 -10 100.53% 0.53%

2012-2013 1,854 1,764 90 95.15% -4.85% 1,824 30 98.38% -1.62% 1,881 -27 101.46% 1.46%

2013-2014 1,808 1,702 106 94.14% -5.86% 1,789 19 98.95% -1.05% 1,868 -60 103.32% 3.32%

2014-2015 1,759 1,682 77 95.62% -4.38% 1,792 -33 101.88% 1.88% 1,890 -131 107.45% 7.45%

2015-2016 1,686 1,641 45 97.33% -2.67% 1,762 -76 104.51% 4.51% 1,869 -183 110.85% 10.85%

Cary-Grove Series Projection


2011-2012 1,822 1,744 78 95.72% -4.28% 1,777 45 97.53% -2.47% 1,810 12 99.34% -0.66%

2012-2013 1,846 1,684 162 91.22% -8.78% 1,750 96 94.80% -5.20% 1,817 29 98.43% -1.57%

2013-2014 1,812 1,561 251 86.15% -13.85% 1,662 150 91.72% -8.28% 1,765 47 97.41% -2.59%

2014-2015 1,803 1,474 329 81.75% -18.25% 1,612 191 89.41% -10.59% 1,753 50 97.23% -2.77%

2015-2016 1,787 1,420 367 79.46% -20.54% 1,581 206 88.47% -11.53% 1,749 38 97.87% -2.13%

Prairie Ridge Series Projection


2011-2012 1,646 1,657 -11 99.34% -0.66% 1,684 -38 97.74% -2.26% 1,712 -55 96.14% -3.86%

2012-2013 1,575 1,593 -18 98.87% -1.13% 1,648 -73 95.57% -4.43% 1,704 -111 92.43% -7.57%

2013-2014 1,536 1,542 -6 99.61% -0.39% 1,626 -90 94.46% -5.54% 1,710 -168 89.82% -10.18%

2014-2015 1,501 1,514 -13 99.14% -0.86% 1,627 -126 92.26% -7.74% 1,738 -224 86.36% -13.64%

2015-2016 1,480 1,447 33 102.28% 2.28% 1,579 -99 93.73% -6.27% 1,711 -264 86.50% -13.50%

*Note: 9-12 Data for 2015-2016 is based upon 6th day enrollment figures due 9/4/15



The predictive nature of these models appears to be reliable and accurate and, in the case of the 2010 study, is an excellent guide for the district to use in addressing the issues, findings and conclusions of the report over the next 5 -10 years. However, as previously described, there is a series projection model (A, B, or C) which is more aligned and accurate in predicting the enrollment at each of the schools, as opposed to looking at a single model for all of the schools. The single model method works well at the district level, but does not forecast with the necessary accuracy at the school level.

0.3 CONCLUSIONS

FISCAL REVIEW SUMMARY

MGT conducted a fiscal review of CHSD #155 from both expenditure and revenue perspectives. The goals of the review were to identify any anomalies that were apparent, to identify and highlight any trends in either expenditures or revenues, and to assess stability in the district’s fiscal position.

The review showed that expenditures for Regular Programs and Special Education Programs have significantly declined over the five-year study period. It is apparent that the District has taken steps to reduce expense where possible, especially so in the variable cost areas (e.g., teacher salaries). Most of the other anomalies on the expenditure side were based on redefinition of expenses, or reallocation of costs within the same budget.

The review further substantiated that the district’s two most important funding sources show relatively flat to declining real revenue. The minor funding sources show a decreasing trend as well. While the district’s tax levy is a steady, predictable source of income for the district, the General State Aid year-over-year amounts show extreme volatility, due to declining student enrollment and other local economic factors.

Based on this review, the district’s financial data are accurate and are organized using industry standard financial record keeping.

ENROLLMENT PROJECTION REVIEW SUMMARY

Overall, the Kasarda Enrollment and Demographic Report provides the district with a roadmap to assist in making decisions related to the future enrollment of the CHSD #155. The roadmap is based on historic data from the feeder districts and uses several data sources to model future enrollments. Based on MGT’s review, the data at 5- and 10-year intervals appear to be more accurate than that for 20 years out. This is true of all prediction models: the shorter the interval, the clearer the crystal ball. It may be more beneficial to request a shorter prediction window in the future.

Additionally, MGT suggests that district may want to consider the practice of aligning a specific projection model (Series A, B, or C) to each school for the purpose of analyzing and predicting future enrollment trends. A review of the variance, percentage of difference, and deviation of the models should occur on a regular basis (at least every two years) to ensure the accuracy of the models is not drifting too far from acceptable ranges.

In regards to the most recent 2015 report, the district should consider examining these data in the same fashion as described in the analysis above to ensure that there is not significant variability to the projections as occurred based on the 2010 study.




This section provided an analysis of two background areas – fiscal data and enrollment data. MGT finds that the district’s data in both areas are accurate and reliable. The financial data is credible and accurately predicts the fiscal impact of declining enrollment. The methodology described in the Kasarda enrollment reports is regularly used by other districts and the short-term enrollment projections are accurate and useful for making future decisions. This background analysis did not attempt to examine the connection between enrollment and finance. As is true in most districts, CHSD #155 is greatly dependent on student enrollment to create revenue. Additionally, student enrollment dictates the needed number of teachers and other staff – typically, a variable cost – and, in the long run, enrollment should dictate the number of schools – typically described as a fixed cost. The interdependence of these data – number of students, staffing and operational costs, schedules, schools, and programs – is explored in the further sections of this report.



1.0 EDUCATIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY

A district’s governance structure, staff management, and planning process provide the foundation for effective and efficient education of students. The board and superintendent function as a leadership team to meet student needs. The board sets goals, objectives, and policies for school district operations and approves the plans and funding needed to achieve the district’s goals and objectives. The superintendent manages district operations and recommends the staffing levels and amount of resources necessary to carry out the board goals and directives developed through the planning process.

This section assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of these functions in the Community High School #155 in the following areas:

1.1. District Overview 1.2. Staffing

SECTION SUMMARY

The Community High School District #155 is managed by an appointed superintendent with the assistance of his district leadership team and the staff at the four comprehensive high schools and the alternative school.

The district has developed a strong instructional program based on clearly defined goals. This section focused on the district’s educational program, including central office and school-level staffing. This section includes both commendations and recommendations for change.

Commendations are included regarding:

Commendation 1-A The district has communicated a clear set of student achievement targets and is making and reporting progress on those targets within the community.

Commendation 1-B The district has created a teacher support and supervision structure using Division Leaders that meets many needs.

Recommendations are included regarding:

Recommendation 1-1 Reduce the number of Division Leaders from six positions and six assistant DLs to four DL with no assistants with the responsibilities of each DL to include revised groups of content areas identified by the district.

Recommendation 1-2 Reduce the staff at the central office in alignment with the reduction in student enrollment.

Recommendation 1-3 Reduce the site administrative staff at one school starting 2017-18 and revise the staffing at all schools based on an enrollment-




and program-driven formula to address the needs at each school as enrollment declines.

Recommendation 1-4 Re-open the current contract with the Education Association that expires June 30, 2019, in order to reduce the certificated staff responsibilities to cover non-instructional activities, such as general study halls and lunchroom supervision and replace them with lower cost instructional assistant positions.

1.1 DISTRICT OVERVIEW

Community High School District (CHSD) #155 is located in the rural suburbs of the greater northwest Chicago area. The district is considered primarily suburban/rural within McHenry and Lake Counties. The municipal centers include several villages and the city of Crystal Lake.

I . I . I DEMOGRAPHICS

As shown in Exhibit 1-1a, US Census data from 1950 – 2010 show a growing community with both the number of villages as well as the population in the villages and the city of Crystal Lake expanding.

EXHIBIT 1-1A POPULATION CHANGE IN COMMUNITIES SERVED BY CHSD #155

Source: Kasarda Report, 2010.

COMMUNITY 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Bull Valley 0 0 0 509 574 726 1,077

Cary 943 2,530 4,358 6,640 10,043 15,531 18,271

Crystal Lake 4,832 8,314 14,541 18,590 24,512 38,000 40,743

Fox River Grove 1,313 1,866 2,245 2,515 3,551 4,862 4,854

Lake in the Hills 0 2,046 3,240 5,651 5,866 23,152 28,965

Lakewood 0 635 782 1,254 1,609 2,337 3,811

Oakwood Hills 0 213 476 1,255 1,498 2,194 2,083

Prairie Grove 0 0 229 680 654 960 1,904

TOTAL 7,088 15,604 25,871 37,094 48,307 87,762 101,708




These data are depicted graphically in Exhibit 1-1b, below, making clear the increase in overall population from 1950-2010.

EXHIBIT 1-1B POPULATION CHANGE IN COMMUNITIES SERVED BY CHSD #155

Source: Kasarda Report, 2010. Compiled by MGT, 2016.

Although the population in the surrounding community has grown, the enrollment in CHSD #155 is getting smaller and is expected to continue to shrink for the next ten-year projection period.7 CHSD provides education only to high school students in grades 9-12+ and gets its students from four consolidated districts: Cary Community Consolidated School District #26, Prairie Grove School District #46, Fox River Grove District #3, and Crystal Lake District #47.

The district operates four high schools and an alternative center. Prairie Ridge is the newest school, built in 1997. Crystal Lake Central High School is the oldest school, built in 1924. Prairie Ridge was built as the community’s overall population was growing by 45% and district enrollment was growing. However, as shown in Exhibit 1-2, on the following page, CHSD #155 is no longer growing and neither are any of its feeder districts. Discussions with district staff and community members during the site visit suggest that the population is aging and there are fewer new families with school age children moving into the communities served by these districts.

7See MGT Phase 1 Report. Presented to the CHSD Board. August 2016.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

CHSD Community Population Change1950-2010

Bull Valley Cary Crystal Lake

Fox River Grove Lake in the Hills Lakewood

Oakwood Hills Prairie Grove TOTAL




EXHIBIT 1-2 CHSD #155 ENROLLMENT DATA

Source: Kasarda Report 2015 and IL Department of Education data. Compiled by MGT, 2016.

As shown in the table above, the district is facing declining enrollment, expected to stretch at least over the next ten years. The 2015 projection from Kasarda8 makes clear the continued downward enrollment trends. The report from MGT to the district’s Budget and Finance Committee in August9 makes clear the continued downward financial trends.

I . I .2 EDUCATIONAL GOALS

The district Mission Statement and Goals are:

For each student, we will inspire a love for learning, empower the pursuit of personal aspirations, and nurture a desire to contribute to the world.

The 2009-2015 Comprehensive Plan outlines the following goals:

Maintain academic excellence for all students Provide safe, supportive and nurturing learning environments Employ a knowledgeable and competent workforce Maintain community investment in schools Sustain effective and efficient systems management

8 See: file:///C:/Users/szoller/Downloads/Kasarda_D26_D46_D47_D155_2015.pdf 9 See: file:///C:/Users/szoller/Downloads/20160809MinutesBudgetPlanningFinanceAudit.pdf

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Crystal Lake #47 Prairie Grove#46

Cary Elementary#26

Fox River Grove#3

CHSD #155

CHSD #155 and Feeder Districts

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016




Student performance is a point of pride in CHSD #155. In order to monitor and report student progress, the district has adopted a set of four targets that are regularly found on the walls of offices and classrooms across the district. The four targets include the following:

Improvement of at least six points from the Explore test to the ACT test.

At least 95% of all grades will be C- or higher each semester.

At least 97% of students will graduate with their class and the dropout rate will be 4% or fewer. Attendance will be 97% and chronic truancy rate will not exceed 0.3%

The number of students completing Advanced Placement courses will grow by 5% each year until at least 50% of students complete one or more AP course each year and at least 78% will earn a passing score (3, 4, or 5) on the tests.

FINDING

The CHSD#155 has created a set of student success targets and is making progress on those targets.

Evidence of student success toward achieving these targets was reported by the College Board. The district is one of only 425 districts in the U.S. and Canada named to the 2015 AP Honor Roll for increasing AP participation while maintaining student success rates. Only 15 Illinois school districts were recognized.10

During focus group sessions with teachers, there were many comments about the district’s four targets. There were some concerns about the expectation or pressure on students to take AP classes when they might not be adequately prepared or successful. Not all teachers agreed that AP course-taking was their highest priority, but teachers agreed that the district’s goals were clear and understandable, and that student achievement was improving.

COMMENDATION 1-A:

The district has communicated a clear set of student achievement targets and is making and reporting progress on those targets within the community.

FINDING

The district has moved away from the traditional structure of department chairs that exists in many districts and was in place in CHSD #155 until 2012-13. The current structure provides six Division Leaders (DL) and six assistant DL at each of the high schools.

Previously, the high schools had a chair for each department, even if that department consisted only of that one person. In 2012-13, each high school had 16 department chairs. Each person was responsible for representing that department, but they were not administrative positions. Starting in 2013-14, the district created 6 division leadership (DL) positions. As described, the district moved from having 64

10 CHSD website: w3.d155.org/pages/about.aspx




department chairs (16 in each building) to having 24 division leaders (6 in each building). The current DL positions include several related departments, as shown below:

Humanities – English, art, and performing arts

STEM – math and science

International Studies – social studies and world languages

Career and Industry – all the Career and Technical Education courses

Wellness – Athletics and PE

Special Education – including the range of student needs and English Language Learner program

The DL positions are administrative and staff are required to hold appropriate certification so that they can evaluate teachers in their division. The DL staff also teach at least one course each semester. Some teach more than one course.

The DL positions are administrative and staff require appropriate certification so that they can evaluate teachers in their division. The DL staff also teach at least one course each semester. Some teach more than one course. Each DL position also has an assistant DL. This person has more teaching responsibilities, but also is an administrator who provides evaluation and support to teachers in the division. During interviews with teachers and administrators, MGT heard many very positive comments about this structure. One principal described it as, “The best decision ever.” Some teachers serving in the DL role had mixed reactions, including concerns with being expected to support and supervise staff in subject areas outside their knowledge/background (e.g., the STEM division leader might be a math teacher, but is expected to support the science teachers), and the number of staff under various areas (e.g., the Humanities DL and assistance DL still have more people to support than some other positions). No one suggested going back to the old department chair structure, but there are some areas, including finding ways to support staff, increase collegiality, and continue to improve student success that are of interest for further discussion.

COMMENDATION 1-B:

The district has created a teacher support and supervision structure using Division Leaders that meets many needs.

FINDING

The CHSD #155 has declining enrollment and declining fiscal resources to support student instruction and overall operations, but some staffing levels have not had a commensurate reduction.

As described in MGT’s Phase 1 report presented to the Board in August, General State Aid revenue, which is the district’s second largest source of income, is tied to enrollment and has an inverse relationship to “local wealth”, as measured by property values within the district. General State Aid was highly volatile during the five-year study period, as shown by Exhibit 1-3, on the following page.




EXHIBIT 1-3 GENERAL STATE AID FUNDING LEVELS FY11 – FY15

Source: CHSD #155 data. Compiled by MGT, 2016.

Based on MGT’s earlier review, the district’s two most important funding sources show relatively flat to declining real revenue. The minor funding sources show a decreasing trend as well. While the district’s tax levy is a steady, predictable source of income for the district, the General State Aid year-over-year amounts show extreme volatility, due to declining student enrollment and other local economic factors.

FY 11

FY 12

FY 13FY 14

FY 15

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

$10,000,000




A comparison of CHSD #155 with the Illinois peer group described earlier provides some further insight into revenues available to the district. Exhibit 1-4, below, shows how #155 compares to the other five peer districts identified. It is important to remember that these NCES data are from 2013, but allow important comparisons among the peer districts.

EXHIBIT 1-4 REVENUE COMPARISONS- PEER DISTRICTS

Source: NCES. Compiled by MGT, 2016.

The revenue identified and compared across the peer districts is defined by NCES as follows:

Federal Revenues (District): Includes direct grants-in-aid to schools or agencies, funds distributed through a state or intermediate agency, and revenues in lieu of taxes to compensate a school district for nontaxable federal institutions within a district's boundary.

Local Revenue (District): Include revenues from such sources as local property and non-property taxes, investments, and student activities such as textbook sales, transportation and tuition fees, and food service revenues.

State Revenue (District): Includes both direct funds from state governments and funds in lieu of taxation. Revenues in lieu of taxes are paid to compensate a school district for nontaxable state institutions or facilities within the district's boundary.

14,620 14,788 15,492 18,712 19,135 19,369

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

MCHENRY CHSD156

CHSD 155 LINCOLN WAYCHSD 210

CONS HSD 230 CHSD 117 GRAYSLAKECHSD 127

Total RevenuePer Student

Ave +10% -10%




As shown in Exhibit 1-4, CHSD #155 revenue is below the average and lower than all the other districts, except McHenry #156. By comparison, Exhibit 1-5 shows that CHSD #155 has a higher than average expenditure relative to the peer group.

EXHIBIT 1-5 EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS- PEER DISTRICTS


NCES defines expenditures as follows:

Total Expenditures (District Expenditure): Include current expenditures for public elementary and secondary education, and expenditures for facilities acquisition and construction, replacement equipment, other programs and interest on debt. Transfer payments to other school systems are not included in this total. Transfer payments to state and local governments are included in this total.

10,974 12,675 12,979 14,002 14,204 15,613

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

MCHENRY CHSD156

LINCOLN WAYCHSD 210

CHSD 117 CHSD 155 GRAYSLAKECHSD 127

CONS HSD 230

Total Current ExpendituresPer Student

Ave +10% -10%




In addition to overall expenditure reporting, NCES breaks out several subcategories: instructional, support and administrative. Exhibits 1-5A, 1-5B, and 1-5C show the data for CHSD #155 compared to the peer districts under study. As shown, instructional expenditures per student were higher than average in CHSD #155, student and staff support expenditures per student were more than 10% below the average, and administrative expenditures per student were more than 10% above the average compared to the peer group.

EXHIBIT 1-5A INSTRUCTIONAL EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS- PEER DISTRICTS


6,872 7,313 7,599 7,729 9,363 9,632

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

MCHENRY CHSD156

LINCOLN WAYCHSD 210

GRAYSLAKECHSD 127

CHSD 117 CHSD 155 CONS HSD 230

Instructional ExpendituresPer Student

Ave +10% -10%




EXHIBIT 1-5B STUDENT AND STAFF SUPPORT EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS- PEER DISTRICTS


Exhibit 1-5C compares administrative levels among the Illinois peer districts, as organized and reported by NCES. There are two groups of administrators included in NCES data, as defined below:

District Administrators: Chief executive officers of education agencies, including superintendents, deputies, and assistant superintendents; other persons with districtwide responsibilities, e.g., business managers, administrative assistants, and professional instructional support staff. Excludes supervisors of instructional or student support staff.

School Administrators: Staff whose activities are concerned with directing and managing the operation of a particular school. Category includes principals, assistant principals, and other assistants; and persons who supervise school operations, assign duties to staff members, supervise and maintain the records of the school, and coordinate school instructional activities with those of the education agency, including department chairpersons.

As shown, CHSD #155, exceeds the number of administrators relative to all the Illinois peer districts, except for district #230. Both #155 and #230 are more than 10% higher than the average of the peers.

943 1,272 1,306 1,317

1,719 2,158

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

LINCOLN WAYCHSD 210

CHSD 155 CHSD 117 MCHENRY CHSD156

CONS HSD 230 GRAYSLAKECHSD 127

Student and Staff Support ExpendituresPer Student

Ave +10% -10%




EXHIBIT 1-5C ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS- PEER DISTRICTS


MGT also reviewed the national peer schools using NCES data. Exhibit 1-6 lists all the schools in rank order based on the ratio of students per administrator; Exhibit 1-7 graphically displays the same data. As shown, District #155’s schools have the lowest student to administrator ratios.

EXHIBIT 1-6 NATIONAL PEER GROUP – STUDENTS PER ADMINISTRATOR

DISTRICT SCHOOL NAME STUDENTS

PER ADMINISTRATOR

District #155 Prairie Ridge 136

District #155 Crystal Lake Central 140

Austin ISD LBJ High 142

District #155 Crystal Lake South 160

District #155 Cary-Grove 164

Dist. 214 Elk Grove High 173

Minneapolis Roosevelt High 221

Fort Worth ISD Arlington Heights High 305

Eugene 4J North Eugene High 320

Campbell Union High Leigh High 333

Seattle Public Schools Ballard High 334

Bellingham Public Schools Bellingham High 357

Minneapolis Washburn High 367

Fremont Union High Lynbrook High 371

Eugene 4J Churchill High 380

1,079 1,136 1,332

1,599 1,666 1,718

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

MCHENRY CHSD156

LINCOLN WAYCHSD 210

CHSD 117 GRAYSLAKECHSD 127

CHSD 155 CONS HSD 230

Administration ExpendituresPer Student

Ave +10% -10%




EXHIBIT 1-6 (CONTINUED) NATIONAL PEER GROUP – STUDENTS PER ADMINISTRATOR

DISTRICT SCHOOL NAME STUDENTS

PER ADMINISTRATOR

Palo Alto Unified Palo Alto High 389

Boston Boston Latin High 407

Hamilton SE Fishers High 423

Agua Fria Union High School District

Desert Edge High 436

Agua Fria Union High School District

Verrado High 464

Fremont Union High Monta Vista High 471

San Diego Unified La Jolla High 529

Quincy North Quincy High 604

MEDIAN 345


EXHIBIT 1-7 NATIONAL PEER GROUP - STUDENTS PER ADMINISTRATOR


The range of administrators per school for the national districts reviewed as peers includes the low of Minneapolis Public Schools with an average of 1.14 administrators per school to the high of Austin ISD in Texas with an average of 3.5 administrators per school. These district-wide comparisons are not

136 140 142

160 164

173 221

305 320

333 334

357 367 371

380 389

407 423

436 464 471

529 604

- 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Prairie Ridge

Lbj High

Cary-Grove

Roosevelt High

North Eugene High

Ballard High

Washburn High

Churchill High

Boston Latin High

Desert Edge High

Monta Vista High

North Quincy High




completely fair to #155 or #214, since the others are K-12 and #155 and #214 are high school districts and high schools typically have more administrators per school than do elementary schools.

FINDING

The district has more school-based administrative positions than peer districts.

A review of individual school websites shows that #155 has more administrators at each of their four schools than all other high schools included in this review. District #155 has 11 administrators per school; #214 has 5.75 administrators per school. The major difference appears to be in the use of Division Leaders/Department Chairs as administrators in #155 and #214. In the other districts, they are teachers and do not have administrative duties or at least there are fewer of them. Illinois district #214 in nearby Arlington Heights is an example of fewer Division Leaders. Their 11 schools have 63.3 school administrators and each high school has four Division Leaders, rather than the six plus one assistant DL found in #155 (See Appendix A).

MGT has commended District #155 for its Division Leader structure which appears to have broad-based support from both teachers and administrators. This structure spreads the supervisory and evaluation activities across a larger number of people and provides greater support for teachers by professionals who are typically more knowledgeable in the content area. Reducing the number of DL will place a larger responsibility for support and supervision back onto other administrators. However, facing declining enrollment and declining revenue, the district could reduce costs by reducing the number of Division Leaders to align with the structure in other Illinois districts.

RECOMMENDATION 1-1:

Reduce the number of Division Leaders from six positions and six assistant DLs to four DL with no assistants with the responsibilities of each DL to include revised groups of content areas identified by the district.

F ISCAL IMPACT

The fiscal impact of implementing this recommendation will be the reduction in two administrative DL positions at each school and 6 assistant DL positions at each school. Since DL also teach at least one period, the district may need to adjust teacher FTE to ensure that an adequate teacher staffing ratio is maintained. Any costs of this additional teacher time are not able to be calculated without specific identification of additional time needed.

Projected savings include a reduction of 8 FTE positions for DL (2 positions x 4 schools) and 24 assistant DL positions (6 positions x 4 schools). Since most of the DL positions are held by senior staff with significant experience, the projected savings for one year are based on 12 teachers who are at Step 20 of the MS +60 column = $1,398,708 (8 DL x $116,559 = $932,472). The cost savings for the reduction in assistant DL positions is based on data from the district = $112,351.67 (24 Stipends x $3,895.25 = $103,886 + Benefits = $8,465.67 = $112,351.67). Annual cost savings from this recommendation is $1,044,823.67. The five-year total cost savings are estimated at $5,224,118.


Reduce 2.0 DL and 6 ADL positions at each school.

$1,044,823 $1,044,823 $1,044,823 $1,044,823 $1,044,823




I.2 STAFFING

In order to analyze staffing efficiencies, MGT gathered data about current and previous CHSD #155 staffing patterns for all positions. Exhibit 1-8 provides the FTE data in each staff category in 2010/11 and 2015/16. It shows the FTE change as either a positive (e.g., there are 2 more assistant superintendents in 2016 than in 2011) or a negative change (e.g., there are <2.0>) fewer directors. The chart also shows the percent difference in each staff category. Over this same time period, the district’s enrollment has changed from 7,005 in 2010/11 to 6,493 in 2015/16, a net loss of 7.3% of the student enrollment. It would be unreasonable to expect that district staffing in each category was reduced 7%, however, it is noted that the overall staffing has actually been increased by 7% as shown in the total at the bottom of the exhibit. The largest increases have been to support technology and paraprofessionals. Some other increases (e.g., the Division Leaders) have been offset with reductions in the category where they used to be counted.

These data are presented in order to assist in some analysis and review of district needs both current, and as the district’s enrollment and revenue continue to decline over the ten-year study period.

EXHIBIT 1-8 CHSD #155 STAFFING FTE – 2010/11 TO 2015/16

POSITION 2010/11 2015/16

FTE STAFFING

DIFFERENCE 2010/11 TO

2015/16

STAFFING PERCENT


2015/16

Administration

Superintendent 1.00 1.00 - 0%

Asst. Supt. 1.00 3.00 2.00 67%

District Directors 8.00 6.00 <2.00> -33%

District Coord. 1.00 1.00 - 0%

District TOTAL 11.0 11.0 - 0%

Principals 4.00 4.00 - 0%

Off-Campus Coord. 1.00 1.00 - 0%

Asst. Principals 4.00 4.00 - 0%

Deans 8.00 8.00 - 0%

Student Services Coordinators - 4.00 4.00 100%

Division Leaders - 24.00 24.00 100%

School TOTAL 28.00 56.00 28.00 50%

Certified Teaching Staff

High School Teachers 351.55 329.96 <21.59> -7%

Media Center Specialists 4.00 4.00 - 0%

Special Education Teachers 45.00 48.00 3.00 6%

Psychologists 3.00 5.00 2.00 40%

Counselors 22.00 18.00 <4.00> -22%

Social Workers 9.00 10.00 1.00 10%




EXHIBIT 1-8 (CONTINUED) CHSD #155 STAFFING FTE – 2010/11 TO 2015/16

POSITION 2010/11 2015/16

FTE STAFFING


2015/16

STAFFING PERCENT


2015/16

Certified Teaching Staff

School Nurses 4.00 5.00 1.00 20%

Speech Pathologists 3.00 4.00 1.00 25%

TOTAL 441.55 423.96 <17.59> -4%

Other Supporting Staff

Library Parapro. 11.00 11.00 - 0%

Clerical 52.00 53.00 1.00 2%

Paraprofessionals 66.00 101.00 35.00 35%

Registered Nurse/Health Clerk 1.00 1.00 - 0%

Sub Caller 1.00 1.00 - 0%

Tech. Specialists 2.00 13.00 11.00 85%

Physical Therapists 1.00 - (1.00)

Coll. & Career Cntr 4.00 4.00 - 0%

Custodial 57.00 60.00 3.00 5%

Food Service 21.46 16.75 (4.71) -28%

TOTAL 216.46 260.75 44.29 17%

Grand Total 686.01 740.71 54.70 7%

Source: CHSD #155 data. Compiled by MGT, 2016.

FINDING

The district has not reduced the central office administrative staff in alignment with the reduction in student enrollment.

As described earlier, the district has experienced reduced enrollment of more than 7% and revenue by more than 6% and has enacted some reductions in staffing in some areas, but has actually increased the total employees across the district. Some increases, like the change from department heads to Division Leaders, are actually just shifts from one category to another. Other changes, like the increase of 35 paraprofessionals, reflect the actual addition. Like most school districts, staff costs in CHSD 155 is the highest single expenditure category. Therefore, a reduction in staff is critically important in reducing costs and potentially improving efficiencies.

As shown earlier in Exhibit 1-5C, district administrative staffing per student is higher in CHSD 155 than the peer group. Additionally, as shown in Exhibit 1-8, there have been no reductions in central administrative staffing.

A review of the national peer schools described earlier included an analysis of district administrative positions compared to number of students (enrollment) and number of schools. As described earlier, the selected national group of peer schools align with schools in #155 by size range (smaller by 40% or




larger by 40%), but the districts for these national peer schools vary more widely, ranging from San Diego Unified (SDUSD), CA with 129,779 students in 229 schools to Quincy, MA with 9,229 students in 19 schools. SDUSD has 56 district administrators or .24 FTE/school. District #155 has 9.5 FTE for 4 schools or 2.375 FTE/school. Admittedly, the size of the district matters, but District #214 has 9.0 FTE for 11 schools or .81 FTE/school and Quincy, MA has 13.2 administrative FTE for 19 schools or .69 FTE/school.

RECOMMENDATION 1-2:

Reduce the staff at the central office in alignment with the reduction in student enrollment.

FISCAL IMPACT

The fiscal impact of implementing this recommendation will be the reduction in 1.0 FTE in the central office administrative staffing starting in 2017/18 and potential for reduction of an additional position reduced in 2019/20, or as needed to maintain alignment with expected enrollment and revenue decline. Given the wide-ranging needs of the district, the superintendent should determine the position(s) to be eliminated.

To calculate the cost savings, MGT has used an average of the salaries for assistant superintendent and director central office positions. The annual average salary for a district administrator is approximately $170,329, including benefits. If 1.0 FTE is reduced in 2017/18 and an additional administrative position is eliminated in 2019/20, the five-year cost savings is $1,021,974 ($170,329 x 2 years + $340,658 ($170,329 x 2 positions) x 2 years = $1,021,974).


Reduce 1.0 FTE district administrator in 2017/18; Reduce 1.0 FTE district administrator in 2019/20

0 $170,329 $170,329 $340,658 $340,658

FINDING

The school-level administrative staffing in CHSD #155 has not been reduced relative to the reduction in student enrollment.

Each school has the following staff positions:

Principal 1.0

Vice Principal 1.0

(2) Deans 2.0

Stud Svcs Coordinator 1.0

Athletic Director* 1.0

(5) Div Leaders ** 5.0

Total 11.0

*AD also serves as the DL for Athletics and Wellness/PE.

** DL also teach at least 1 period/semester.




The current enrollment varies among the four high schools from a low of 1,480 at Prairie Ridge to a high of 1,787 at Cary-Grove. This variation creates a range in the ratio of students to administrative FTE of 134: 1 at Prairie Ridge to 162:1 at Cary-Grove.

As reported in the Kasarda report from 2015, school enrollments are projected to continue to decline over the next 10-15 years. Exhibit 1-9 shows the Series B projections from the Kasarda report for each of the district’s high schools. As shown, the enrollment at Cary-Grove High School is projected to decline from 1,798 in 2015/16 to 1,571 in 2020/21 and decline further to 1,383 by 2026/27. This represents a 24% decrease in student population over this ten-year period. This is in addition to the recent decline of more than 7%.

EXHIBIT 1-9 STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS: 2020/21 AND 2026/27

SCHOOLS 2015/16 2020/21 2026/27

Cary-Grove 1,798 1,571 1,383

Crystal Lake Central 1,557 1,368 1,275

Crystal Lake South 1,712 1,497 1,410

Prairie Ridge 1,455 1,253 1,159

TOTAL 6,522 5,689 4,069

PERCENT CHANGE 13% 29%

Source: Kasarda Report, 2010.

RECOMMENDATION 1-3:

Reduce the site administrative staff at one school starting 2017-18 and revise the staffing at all schools based on an enrollment- and program-driven formula to address the needs at each school as enrollment declines.

Given the varying sizes of the schools and different student population and learning needs, the district should consider how to best meet administrative staffing at each site, within a formula that makes the allocations transparent and clear. A sample structure used in other districts includes both enrollment and student demographics or program issues, as shown below.

ENROLLMENT PRINCIPAL VICE-PRINCIPAL DEANS STUD. SERV.

COORD

Larger than 1500 1 1 2 0

1100-1499 1 1 1 0

Fewer than 1099 1 1 0 0

F/R lunch % > 50% 1

Special Ed % > 25% 1

ELL % > 25% 1




FISCAL IMPACT

The district currently staffs each high school with identical administrative FTE and positions, regardless of any enrollment or student demographic differences. This recommendation includes reducing administrative staffing at all schools as enrollment declines over the next 5-10 years and adjusting (and perhaps reducing further) the administrative staffing at schools that have smaller enrollment and/or adjusting the type of support available at a school based on student demographics. For example, if a school has a large ELL population or special education program, that school might have different types of administrators relative to the other schools.

The student enrollment decline to date is approximately 7% and projected to be nearly 30% by 2025/26. The reduction of 1.0 FTE in administrative staff at each school would represent a slightly higher fiscal impact than the current enrollment decline would suggest. Implementing this recommendation will mean the reduction of one to two school-based administrators at each of the four high schools over the next 3-10 years.

The annual average salary for a school-based administrator is approximately $165,000, including benefits. If one administrator is reduced at the smallest school in Year 1 and 1 administrator is reduced at each of the other schools in Year 3, the net cost savings over 5-years would be approximately $2,310,000. (($165,000 x 5 years = $825,000) + ($165,000 x 3 positions x 3 years = $1,485,000) = $2,310,000)), as shown in the table below.


Reduce 1 school-based administrator Y1; Reduce 4 school-based administrators Y3, Y4, and Y5.

$165,000 $165,000 $660,000 $660,000 $660,000

FINDING

The district has just entered into a contract agreement with the Education Association that includes significant payroll increases over the contract duration and maintains the current structure of instructional staffing that provides payment to teachers for supervisory or “study hall” duties in lieu of teaching time.

In CHSD #155, full time teachers teach five periods out of nine periods each day. They are paid for an 8-hour day (480 minutes) that includes the following:

5 periods of 45 minutes for instruction = 225 minutes

2 periods of 45 minutes for preparation = 90 minutes

1 period of 45 minutes for supervision = 45 minutes

8 passing periods of 5 minutes = 40 minutes

1 lunch period = 45 minutes

Before and after-school time = 35 minutes

TOTAL = 480 minutes




In addition, the district’s schedule includes a “late arrival” period every Monday morning that is used for group planning, either by division, department or school-wide. This time enables school staff to focus on the goals of the district described earlier under district Targets. Having time for planning and professional development is critical if a district wants to truly impact student learning and support quality professional development for the teaching faculty. Teachers in District #155 have more professional/planning time than teachers in some other districts. MGT has not seen this schedule implemented before and was unaware of this schedule prior to this study of District #155. We understand that other regional districts have used the 9-period day. Daily and weekly schedules are regular topics for discussion and revision in school districts across the country. In some districts they are topics for contract negotiations. Many middle and high school teachers have 1 planning period per day or two every-other day. Many districts have added “early release” or “late arrival” time to allow the entire faculty to work together for an extended period.

The current contract includes 45 minutes identified as “supervision.” The work teachers do during this period varies – some are supervising the cafeteria, some are monitoring a general study hall, and others are actively supporting and providing remedial instruction and support for students in math and literacy intervention centers. All teachers, regardless of their assigned task, are being paid 1/9th of their salary to conduct these activities

For a beginning teacher at Step 1 of the BS + 0 column, the supervisory period costs the district $5,135. That same supervisory period costs the district $12,951 for a teacher who is at Step 20 of the MS +60 column.11

CHSD #155 could use some combinations of instructional assistants (paraprofessionals) and teachers to support this supervision activity at a lower cost. It is difficult to accurately establish the value of the various activities in this category, but having a certified teacher provide supervision in the cafeteria may not be the best use of highly qualified staff. However, having a certified math or English teacher to support instructional intervention classes might be part of the reason for the high levels of student performance shown in the district.

RECOMMENDATION 1-4:

Re-open the current contract with the Education Association that expires June 30, 2019, to reduce the certificated staff responsibilities to cover non-instructional activities, such as general study halls and lunchroom supervision and replace them with lower cost instructional assistant positions.

FISCAL IMPACT

The fiscal impact of implementing this recommendation will be the cost of adding additional non-certified staff and reducing the teacher contract so that most teachers are paid for five periods, rather than six, unless there is a need for actual instruction. MGT recommends that the district explore the specific needs for support at each school, based on the number of students who need/can benefit from focused intervention compared to the number of periods of supervision that are not based on instruction and renegotiate that portion of the contract.

In addition to this review and possible contract adjustment, the district could create a pay category for this intervention/support structure that is different from the teaching of regular classes. Teaching of regular classes requires daily and long-range planning, requires monitoring and intervention with students and their families, as well as grading and reporting student work and progress. Intervention or support classes require a different level of effort – no planning of lessons, no monitoring or reporting of

11 Professional Negotiation Agreement. 2016-2019.




student work, and (typically) less intervention with students and their families. As important and helpful as this type of work is, it should not be compensated at the same level as teaching a class.

The cost savings from this recommendation cannot be easily computed. There are too many variables, including the number of staff, the types of “supervisory” periods each is assigned, the position of each person on the salary schedule. A starting point would be to determine 1/9th of all teaching salaries in the district. If pay for supervisory periods for all staff was eliminated, this would be the savings. Clearly, the district will have to negotiate any changes to the contract with the district’s teacher union and cost savings would need to be negotiated. Also, clearly, there are some activities that likely need to be maintained using certificated staff, but perhaps at a reduced stipend cost – e.g., instead of paying a teacher 1/9th of their salary to do work that does not include planning, grading, and family interaction, they would be paid some portion of that. Again, contract negotiations would need to be conducted. Finally, there are perhaps some activities that could be turned over to lower-cost paraprofessional staff.

Given these variables, MGT cannot project specific cost savings or expenditures.



2.0 FACILITIES USE AND MANAGEMENT

This section presents the findings, commendations, and recommendations for the facilities use and management functions of Community High School District #155 (CHSD). The sections for Use and Management include:

2.1 Organization and Management 2.2 Plans, Policies and Procedures 2.3 Maintenance Operations 2.4 Custodial Operations 2.5 Energy Management

Facilities use and management includes the planning, construction, maintenance, cleaning, and energy efficient operation of all facilities in the district. More specifically, this area covers the following;

Planning and design of schools based on the educational programs and the facility standards established by the district;

Routinely assessing the maintenance needs of the facilities and implementing maintenance procedures to ensure the proper operation of those facilities;

Oversight of the training of custodians and ordering of cleaning supplies;

Managing energy use to ensure efficient operation of the facilities.

CHSD operates the facilities listed Exhibit 2-1.

EXHIBIT 2-1 COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT #155

DISTRICT FACILITIES 2016-17

FACILITY NAME ACREAGE AREA (GSF)

High Schools

Cary-Grove High School 53.38 260,407

Crystal Lake Central High School 54.09 282,090

Crystal Lake South High School 59.05 325,404

Prairie Ridge High School 132.26 267,396

Haber Oaks Campus 2.80 13,886

Total HS 301.58 1,149,183

Other

District Office 1.06 25,920

Grand Total 302.64 1,175,103

Source: Community High School District #155, 2016.




SECTION SUMMARY

In preparing this section, MGT reviewed documents provided by the district, interviewed district staff directly involved with facility use and management functions, and visited each of the district’s building sites.

The following commendations are included in the section:

Commendation 2-A The organization of the maintenance and custodial crews increases efficiency, effectiveness and a positive work culture.

Commendation 2-B CHSD maintains clean schools while staffing custodial positions at or under the best practice.

The following recommendations are included in the section:

Recommendation 2-1 Write and implement a policy requiring the development of a ten-year facility master plan.

Recommendation 2-2 Determine the productivity level of the maintenance workers and then staff the maintenance department at a level to allow the implementation of work order completion goals, a preventive maintenance program, and a pro-active energy management program.

Recommendation 2-3 Establish cleaning supply budgets for all schools.




2.1 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

The facilities use and management functions for CHSD #155 are organized under the Director of Operations and include planning, design, construction, maintenance, cleaning, and energy management. The organization chart for these functions is presented in Exhibit 2-2.

The Director of Operations is responsible for facilities strategic planning, design and construction management, energy management, and supervises all maintenance and custodial staff. The Director of Operations is also responsible for food service, transportation, and safety and security, which are not the subject of this section.

Each of the four comprehensive high schools have a Building Operations Supervisor (BOS). The BOS oversees the custodial staff and reviews and assigns work orders to the maintenance crew. (Note: The custodial and maintenance staff at Prairie Ridge are also responsible for The Haber Oaks campus.)

There are six maintenance workers, one assigned to each school with two splitting time between two schools. The maintenance workers complete maintenance repairs as assigned and as requested from school staff through the work order system.

Each comprehensive high school has a crew of “day” custodians and “night” custodians. The night-time crew is overseen by a custodial supervisor.

Under the new contract, there will now be one grounds position at each school which will be assigned work such as mowing.


ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR FACILITIES USE AND MANAGEMENT 2016-17





FINDING

The maintenance and custodial staff are organized in an efficient manner.

The maintenance staff are assigned to specific schools to increase efficiency. This organization increases efficiency by allowing the staff to focus on one facility and by eliminating time used to travel to multiple sites. By working at the same school on a regular basis, maintenance workers are known by and know the school staff which helps create a “team” culture and increase accountability.

The custodial staff are organized into a day shift and a night shift. This organization provides custodial staff during the day to attend to more immediate needs, while the night staff can focus on routine cleaning.

COMMENDATION 2-A:

The organization of the maintenance and custodial crews increases efficiency, effectiveness and a positive work culture.

2.2 PLANS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

School buildings should support the educational goals of the district and enhance the educational experience of students. High performing school facilities require effective board policies, data driven and inclusive planning, and clearly defined procedures. The CHSD Board has established policies regarding the use and management of facilities. The board policies include:

Standards for Managing Buildings and Grounds – which requires periodic reports to the Board on maintenance data and projected maintenance needs with a cost analysis.

Standards for Green Cleaning – which requires the establishment of a green cleaning program.

Standards for Facility Construction and Building Programs – which requires an annual report projecting the need for new facilities based on facility needs and enrollment data. The policy establishes broad guidelines or goals for facilities such as energy efficiency and minimal environment impact.

Environmental Quality of Buildings and Grounds – which directs the superintendent to take reasonable measures to protect all building users from risks associated with the use of hazardous materials and pesticides.

FINDING

CHSD does not have a specific policy requiring a long-range facilities master plan.

The Standards for Facility Construction and Building Programs policy does require an annual report, but only requires a comprehensive study on an “as appropriate” basis. In addition, there are no stated guidelines for the comprehensive study.

A comprehensive, long-range facilities master plan would include the following elements:

Analysis of the facility implications of current and future educational programs and delivery methods,

Long-range enrollment projections and implications for attendance zones,




Facility assessments including the site and building condition, educational suitability, and technology readiness,

A capacity and utilization analysis of each school,

Community input on the facility needs and priorities,

Multiple master plan scenarios or strategies to meet the district’s long-range goals,

Long-range plan identifying projects, budgets, schedule and implementation plan.

The lack of a comprehensive long-range facility master plan increases the difficulty of pro-active facility decision making, leading to a delay in realizing needed improvements that will create and maintain 21st Century educational facilities. In addition, the lack of a structured community input process during the planning, robs the district of the opportunity to build public support from community stakeholders. This lack of engagement and support could lead to a lack of funding for implementing needed improvements.

RECOMMENDATION 2-1:

Write and implement a policy requiring the development of a ten-year facility master plan.

A ten-year facility master plan would contain, at least, the elements listed in the finding above and be prepared by an outside consultant(s). The district may be able to assemble the data for some of the master plan elements, but should have an outside consultant manage the master planning process to minimize the additional work load on staff, and to introduce an objective third party into the process. An objective third party consultant can help to build consensus and transparency into a planning process which is typically sensitive and political.

FISCAL IMPACT

The fiscal impact of implementing this recommendation will be the one-time cost of the facility planning consultant fees, which would be approximately $75,000 to $100,000 depending on the level of involvement of the district staff and the scope of work.

2.3 MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS

The maintenance operations of a school district are responsible for maintaining facilities that are safe and provide a supportive learning environment, as defined by the district’s standards for 21st Century schools. Typical standards for today’s schools require appropriate heating, ventilating, cooling, lighting, and acoustical performance throughout the buildings, as well as the effective operation of special equipment in spaces such as food service, gymnasiums, and computer labs.

Routine maintenance tasks are performed by the maintenance crews on an on-going basis in response to work orders submitted by a school’s staff. The Building Operations Supervisor (BOS) at each site reviews the work orders, prioritizes them, and assigns them to the maintenance staff.




Exhibit 2-3 presents a flow chart of the CHSD #155 work order process.


MAINTENANCE WORK ORDER PROCESS 2016-17


FINDING

The CHSD maintenance function is using a simple, straight-forward process to generate maintenance work orders, prioritize and assign the W.O.’s, and to complete and track the W.O.’s.

The district uses a popular work order software program to manage the process, and to track work order completion rates and staff productivity.

FINDING

CHSD staffs the maintenance department well below national averages.

The maintenance department maintains approximately 1,175,102 SF of buildings and 302 acres of land with six maintenance workers. This amounts to approximately 195,850 SF of building for each maintenance worker. According to the 2009 American School and University magazine survey (2009 was the last year this survey was completed), school district maintenance departments maintain, on average, approximately 90,000 SF of building per maintenance worker.

The consequence of staffing maintenance at a low ratio is the accumulation of deferred maintenance. Deferred maintenance leads to higher costs for a building owner as a condition worsens and affects other building systems. In addition, a low staffing ratio prohibits a maintenance department from implementing a proactive preventive maintenance program which also leads to higher long-term maintenance costs.

School staff submits work

order

BOS reviews, prioritizes and assigns W.O.

Maint. Crew completes task(s)

on W.O.

Final W.O. & P.O. submitted to Accounting

Director of Operations review P.O.s required to

complete W.O.

School staff signs off on work completed




A best practice is to staff maintenance crews at a level which allows for a robust preventive maintenance program, where routine maintenance tasks are completed within a given time period, and tasks such as painting are done on a recurring cycle based on the best industry standards.

RECOMMENDATION 2-2:

Determine the productivity level of the maintenance workers and then staff the maintenance department at a level to allow the implementation of work order completion goals, a preventive maintenance program, and a pro-active energy management program.

Before changing the levels of maintenance staffing, the district should implement some productivity standards and determine if the staff is meeting those standards by tracking performance using the work order software. Once standards are established, and current staff productivity is measured, the Director of Operations will be able to recommend the appropriate level of staffing in order to meet work order completion goals and implement a pro-active preventive maintenance program.

Maintenance positions that could be considered in addition to general maintenance include the following;

In-house painter – this could save the district money over using the private sector and would provide staff to meet an on-going maintenance need.

General Maintenance Staff – additional multi-skilled maintenance staff will increase the ability to have a proactive preventive maintenance program.

Energy/Security Manager – would integrate operational activities with facility issues to ensure the buildings are safe and secure. This position would manage IT security systems, key access systems, training for emergency drills and operations. In addition, the position would be responsible for implementing a proactive energy management program. (See Energy Management section.)

FISCAL IMPACT

The fiscal impact of implementing this recommendation will be the cost of adding additional maintenance staff, if that is what is recommended after the productivity analysis is complete. Since the staffing ratio is very low at this time, it is assumed that additional staff will be needed. The fiscal impact is based on adding an additional crew of two maintenance workers.

The annual average salary for a maintenance worker is approximately $68,200, including benefits. If two workers are added, the total annual cost would be approximately $136,400 ($68,200 x 2 = $136,400).


Add two maintenance staff 0 ($136,400) ($136,400) ($136,400) ($136,400)




2.4 CUSTODIAL OPERATIONS

The custodial operations of a school district are responsible for maintaining clean facilities and performing routine tasks necessary for daily operations, such as unlocking the school in the morning. An efficient custodial operation will standardize the cleaning materials and methods used by custodians and ensure all staff are trained in the proper procedures.

CHSD staffs each school with a Building Operations Supervisor (BOS), day custodians, a night shift custodial supervisor and night shift custodians. Exhibit 2-4 displays this staff for the schools.


CUSTODIAL STAFFING 2016-17


FINDING

BCPS maintains clean schools while staffing custodial positions at or below best practice levels.

All members of the consulting team reported that they found schools to be clean no matter what time of day a facility was visited. (Members of the consulting team visited all schools and facilities in the district at least once.) Reports from principals supported these observations.

MGT’s best practice for custodial staffing is the product of more than twenty years of school district reviews and comparison with industry practices. The best practice formula prescribes one custodian per 21,000 SF of facility plus 1.0 FTE in a high school. This formula recognizes the fact that head custodians are often tasked with duties in addition to cleaning. Exhibit 2-5 on the following page shows the custodial staffing levels at CHSD in comparison with this best practice staffing level.





CUSTODIAL STAFFING IN COMPARISON TO BEST PRACTICE 2016-17

SCHOOL GROSS SF

AREA FTE

CUSTODIANS GSF PER

CUSTODIAN MGT BEST PRACTICE

OVER/UNDER BEST PRACTICE

High Schools

Cary-Grove High School 260,407 14.00 18,600 13.4 .6

Crystal Lake Central High School

282,090 13.00 21,699 14.4 -1.4

Crystal Lake South High School

325,404 14.00 23,243 16.5 -2.5

Prairie Ridge High School 267,396 13.00 20,569 13.7 -0.7

Haber Oaks Campus 13,886 0* NA NA NA

Total/Average HS 1,149,183 58.00 78,303 58 -4.0

*Custodians shared with PRHS Source: Community High School District #155, MGT of America Consulting, LLC, 2016.

COMMENDATION 2-B:

CHSD maintains clean schools while staffing custodial positions at or under the best practice.

FINDING

CHSD annually spends approximately $0.17 per gross square foot of building area on custodial supplies. The five schools range from $0.14 to $0.22 per GSF. In previous reviews of school districts, MGT has seen costs range from $0.02 to $0.21 per GSF with a typical average at about $0.10 per GSF. In addition to costs averaging approximately 70% higher than previous reviews, the per school cost varies by almost 50% among the schools.




Exhibit 2-6 details the cost of custodial supplies per SF by school for CHSD. As the data shows, the costs per SF vary significantly and are higher than the typical identified by MGT.


COST OF CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES PER GSF OF BUILDING 2016-17

SCHOOL GROSS SF

AREA

ANNUAL COST OF CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES

COST PER GSF

MGT COST @ $0.10

PER GSF

High Schools

Cary-Grove High School 260,407 $ 56,598 $ 0.22 $ 26,041

Crystal Lake Central High School 282,090 $ 44,902 $ 0.16 $ 28,209

Crystal Lake South High School 325,404 $ 46,574 $ 0.14 $ 32,540

Prairie Ridge High School 267,396 $ 51,773 $ 0.19 $ 26,740

Haber Oaks Campus 13,886 $ 2,066 $ 0.15 $ 1,389

Total/Average HS 1,149,183 $ 201,913 $ 0.17 $ 114,918

Source: Community High School District #155, MGT of America Consulting, LLC, 2016.

RECOMMENDATION 2-3:

Establish cleaning supply budgets for all schools.

By adhering to a cleaning supply budget, costs could be contained and be more consistent among the individual schools. In addition, the BOS at each school should be expected to validate when additional supplies are warranted by unique or different circumstances.

FISCAL IMPACT

The District should establish a target budget for cleaning supplies of $0.10 per square foot, and then establish a delivery schedule for all supplies so that head custodians only need to order on special occasions. The fiscal impact of implementing this recommendation will be an annual savings of approximately $85,000. (Current annual total spent of cleaning supplies – annual total based on target budget = savings. $201,913 - $114,918 = $86,995)


Establish a cleaning supplies budget

$0 $85,000 $85,000 $85,000 $85,000




2.5 ENERGY MANAGEMENT

Effective energy management is a critical strategy in keeping facility operating costs low while maintaining suitable educational environments. Energy efficiency and sustainability are key concepts that are widely accepted as fundamental in the design and operation of 21st Century schools.

CHSD has applied for some energy efficiency grants and has completed some energy performance contracts in-house. In addition, the Director of Operations tracks the use of all utilities and is able to identify irregularities in energy use.

FINDING

CHSD should take a more proactive approach toward energy management.

The addition of an energy/security position to the maintenance staff would enable a more effective energy management program and produce additional savings above the additional staffing costs. Initiatives taken by other districts have included;

Conducting regular energy audits of the schools

Installing time clocks on water heaters, circulation pumps, signage, parking lot lights,

Implementing summer and holiday shut down cycles for HVAC equipment

Removing personal appliances from classrooms

Using cold water-compatible cleaning products

Installing high speed hand dryers

Converting magnetic light ballasts to energy efficient ballasts

Changing out T12 light fixtures with energy efficient T8 fixtures

Installing occupancy sensors in classrooms

Installing solar powered traffic warning lights

Installing energy efficient TPO roofs

Installing recycling dumpsters at all schools

Installed trash compactors at all schools

Installing waterless urinals

While it is not possible to project cost savings from reduced energy costs based on the addition of an energy manager position, the experience of other school districts has shown that this position typically results in additional savings on an on-going basis.



3.0 FACILITIES ASSESSMENTS

This section presents the results of the facility assessments that were conducted by MGT and staff from the Community High School District #155. The assessments conducted by MGT staff utilized BASYS®, MGT’s facility assessment software program. There are two types of assessments reported, building condition and educational suitability. These scores were then weighted to create a combined score for each facility. The sections below explain these concepts in more detail (see Appendix B).

3.1 Building Condition 3.2 Educational Suitability 3.3 Combined Scores 3.4 Facilities Assessments Conclusions

3.1 BUILDING CONDITION ASSESSMENT

The condition assessments of the schools were conducted by staff from FGM Architects. The assessment identified building deficiencies and estimated the cost to repair the deficiencies. MGT staff conducted a desk audit of the data and then used the data from the district’s insurance appraisal of the buildings to calculate a Building Condition Score and a Facility Condition Index (FCI) for each school.

The Building Condition Score is a measure of that portion of the value of the building which is in good condition. The capital needs score (100 minus the condition score) is a measure of the capital needs or deferred maintenance. This score, when presented as a percent, is also referred to as the Facility Condition Index or FCI. For example, a building which has a condition score of 80, has a capital needs score (FCI) of 20 (100 – 80 = 20). A capital needs score of 20 indicates that 20 percent of the value of the building can be reinvested in the building in order to attain a score of 100 and put the building in a “like new” condition. The condition score and resulting calculations do not include the costs of additions, site improvements, improvements for educational suitability, or technology readiness improvements.

The Building Condition scores can be interpreted as shown below;

90+ New or Like New: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition, less than three years old, and only require preventive maintenance.

80-89 Good: The building and/or a majority of its systems are in good condition and only require routine maintenance.

70-79 Fair: The building and/or some of its systems are in fair condition and require minor to moderate repair.

60-69 Poor: The building and/or a significant number of its systems are in poor condition and require major repair, renovation, or replacement.

BELOW 60 Unsatisfactory: The building and/or a majority of its systems should be replaced.




Exhibit 3-1 presents the range of the Building Condition Scores and the FCIs for the schools in the district. As the exhibit shows, there is a range of condition scores, from 78 to 91, with the average condition scores in the “Good” range.


BUILDING CONDITION SCORES

SCHOOL BUILDING

SF BUILDING

VALUE VALUE/SF

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

FCI BUILDING

CONDITION SCORE (1-FCI*100)

Crystal Lake Central High School

279,509 $ 60,962,413 $ 218.11 $ 13,190,169 0.22 78.36

Cary-Grove High School

258,651 $ 58,232,759 $ 225.14 $ 10,050,889 0.17 82.74


245,717 $ 59,000,724 $ 240.12 $ 7,679,609 0.13 86.98

Prairie Ridge High School

261,559 $ 62,656,968 $ 239.55 $ 11,408,921 0.18 81.79

Haber Oaks Campus 13,886 $ 6,497,127 $ 467.89 $ 521,841 0.08 91.97

Total/Average 1,059,322 $247,349,991 $278.16 $ 42,851,429 0.16 84.37

Source: MGT of America Consulting, LLC, 2016.

3.2 EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT

The educational suitability assessment evaluates how well the facility supports the educational program that it houses. Each school receives one suitability score which applies to all the buildings at the facility. The educational suitability of each school was assessed with BASYS® using the following categories:

ENVIRONMENT The overall environment of the schools with respect to creating a safe and positive learning environment.

CIRCULATION Pedestrian/vehicular circulation and the appropriateness of site facilities and signage.

SUPPORT SPACE

The existence of facilities and spaces to support the educational program being offered. These include general classrooms, special learning spaces (e.g. music rooms, libraries, science labs), and support spaces (e.g. administrative offices, counseling offices, reception areas, kitchens, health clinics).

SIZE The adequacy of the size of the program spaces.

LOCATION The appropriateness of adjacencies (e.g., physical education space separated from quiet spaces).

STORAGE & FIXED EQUIPMENT

The appropriateness of utilities, fixed equipment, storage, and room surfaces (e.g. flooring, ceiling materials, and wall coverings).




Suitability scores are interpreted as follows:

90+ Excellent: The facility is designed to provide for and support the educational program offered. It may have a minor suitability issues but overall it meets the needs of the educational program.

80-89 Good: The facility is designed to provide for and support a majority of the educational program offered. It may have minor suitability issues but generally meets the needs of the educational program.

70-79 Fair: The facility has some problems meeting the needs of the educational program and will require remodeling/renovation.

60-69 Poor: The facility has numerous problems meeting the needs of the educational program and needs significant remodeling, additions, or replacement.

BELOW 60 Unsatisfactory: The facility is unsuitable in support of the educational program.

Exhibit 3-2 presents the educational suitability scores by facility. The suitability scores range from 74 to 85. The scores fall within the “Good” to “Fair” range:


SUITABILITY SCORES

SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL

SUITABILITY SCORE

Crystal Lake Central High School 74.23

Cary-Grove High School 74.34

Crystal Lake South High School 85.16

Prairie Ridge High School 76.85

Haber Oaks Campus 84.48

Average 79.01





3.3 COMBINED SCORES

The building condition and educational suitability scores are combined into one score for each school to assist in the task of prioritizing projects. Since the building condition score is a measure of the maintenance needs (e.g. leaky roofs, etc.) and the educational suitability score is a measure of how well the building design and configuration supports the educational program, it is possible to have a high score for one assessment and a low score for another assessment. It is the combined score that attempts to give a comprehensive picture of the conditions that exist at each school and how each school compares relative to the other schools in the district.

To create the combined score, the two scores are averaged. The chart below provides a color-coded depiction of each score band.

Exhibit 3-3 presents all the scores for each facility and the resulting combined score.


COMBINED SCORES – BY SITE

SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL

SUITABILITY SCORE

BUILDING CONDITION SCORE

(1-FCI*100)

COMBINED SCORE

Crystal Lake Central High School 74.23 78.36 76.30

Cary-Grove High School 74.34 82.74 78.54

Crystal Lake South High School 85.16 86.98 86.07

Prairie Ridge High School 76.85 81.79 79.32

Haber Oaks Campus 84.48 91.97 88.22

Average 79.01 84.37 81.69

Source: MGT, 2016.

SCORES DESCRIPTION

> 90 Excellent/Like New

80 - 89.99 Good

70 - 79.99 Fair

60 - 69.99 Poor

< 59.99 Unsatisfactory




3.4 FACILITIES ASSESSMENTS CONCLUSIONS

Building Condition – Overall, CHSD’s facilities are consistently in “Good” condition, which indicates a very balanced approach to the maintenance of the facilities. However, the district has identified over $42 million worth of deferred maintenance needs which should be addressed. If these building deficiencies are not remediated on a timely basis, the cost will only increase.

Educational Suitability – Three of the five schools only scored in the “Fair” range for suitability. In most cases, this would indicate that the schools were not originally designed to meet the needs of today’s educational programs. For instance, current educational programs emphasize flexible teaching and learning activities, such as small group work, individual study, and project-based work. All of these approaches require differentiated space to be effectively implemented. Schools designed in the past, with rigid, self-contained classrooms do not provide the types of space required.

Combined Score – The average Combined Score for all schools is 81. The average is skewed a bit by the Haber Oaks facility which has the highest score and is the smallest building. The combined scores of the other facilities are generally in the “Fair” range, indicating there are significant needs that need to be addressed across the district.

The facility assessments provide the data to prioritize projects based on the overall facility needs of the district. These data, combined with the capacity and utilization analysis, the educational goals and programs, capital improvement budgets, and the district’s school size goals, will be used to make specific recommendations.



4.0 CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION

This section examines and compares the capacity and utilization rates of the Community High School District #155 high schools over the ten-year planning period. There are three sections in the Capacity and Utilization chapter.

4.1 Functional Capacity 4.2 Utilization Rates 4.3 Capacity and Utilization Conclusions

The functional capacity of an educational facility is defined as the number of students the facility can accommodate. More specifically, a school’s capacity is the number of students which can be accommodated given the specific educational programs, the class schedules, the student-teacher ratios, and the size of the rooms. The utilization rate of a facility is calculated by dividing the current or projected enrollment of the educational facility by the capacity. The utilization rate is used to determine if the facility has excess space or if it is lacking sufficient space for the given enrollment.

4.1 FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY

The functional capacity used by MGT is calculated using the Instructional Space Model. This model counts the number of the various types of instructional rooms and multiplies that number by the maximum students-per-room or the loading factor to identify the gross capacity for the school. The gross capacity is then multiplied by a scheduling factor, which takes into account the realities of how the space is used. Typically, not all classrooms are scheduled for every period at a high school. For example, high school students move from room to room and enroll in a variety of courses. As a result, some rooms will sit empty or will be less than fully occupied at any given time. Teacher preparation periods typically also contribute to rooms not being used for instruction at a particular time. However, CHSD #155 has created teacher office/work space to allow greater usage of classrooms.

CHSD utilizes a nine-period day and teachers are provided a work space for planning so that classrooms are available for classes all nine periods. If classrooms were utilized all nine periods, the scheduling factor would be 100%. To determine the actual utilization of classrooms, MGT performed an analysis of classroom use. Exhibit 4-1 on the following page presents the results of that analysis and shows that the utilization of classrooms varies from a low of 55% at Crystal Lake South HS to a high of 75% at Cary-Grove HS. This indicates that either the district is not backfilling the classrooms for a 100% scheduling factor or each school does not need to schedule each room at a 100% rate due to a lack of demand. Consequently, MGT has decided to calculate two capacities of each high school using a 75% and a 100% scheduling factor. This will provide a range of utilization rates depending on how rigorously the district wishes to schedule its classrooms.




EXHIBIT 4-1 COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL #155

CLASSROOM UTILIZATION FOR 2016

SCHOOLS

NO. OF SCHEDULED

PERIODS PER WEEK

NO. OF AVAILABLE

PERIODS PER WEEK

% UTILIZATION

Cary-Grove High School 2,809 3,735 75%

Crystal Lake Central High School 2,427 3,285 74%

Crystal Lake South High School 2,429 4,410 55%

Prairie Ridge High School 2,129 3,060 70%

Grand Total 9,794 14,490 68%


Exhibit 4-2 lists the loading factors and scheduling factors used to calculate the functional capacities.


FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY LOADING FACTORS

INSTRUCTIONAL SPACE MODEL GUIDELINES

Room Type Loading Factor

(Students/Room)

General classroom grades 9-12 30

Alternative general classroom grades 9-12 12

Science (9-12) 25

CTE/Vocational (9-12) 30

Music (9-12) 60

P.E. (9-12) large 50

P.E. (9-12) small 30

Art (9-12) 25

Computer Lab 25

Special Education self-contained 10

Resource (pull-out) 0

Utilization Factor

High Schools 75% / 100%




Exhibit 4-3 shows how the model is used to calculate the functional capacity of a theoretical school.


EXAMPLE OF CAPACITY CALCULATION

ROOM TYPE NUMBER OF

CLASSROOMS X STUDENTS/CLASS

ROOM = CAPACITY

General Classroom (9-12) 47 30 1,410

Science Lab Classes (9-12) 9 25 225

Computer Lab 2 25 50

Art (9-12) 3 25 75

Music (9-12) 4 60 240

CTE/Vocational (9-12) 5 30 150

PE (9-12) 2 50 100

Special Ed - Self Contained (9-12) 2 10 20

Resource (pull-out) (9-12) 3 0 0

Portable Room Count 5 0 0

Gross Capacity (w/o scheduling factor) = 2,270

x High School scheduling factor of 75%

High School Functional Capacity = 1,703

x High School scheduling factor of 100%

High School Functional Capacity = 2,270




Exhibit 4-4 lists the capacities for the CHSD #155 schools as calculated using the Instructional Space Model at a 75% scheduling factor and a 100% scheduling factor, as described earlier. As the exhibit shows, the schools have a total, district-wide capacity ranging from 7,102 to 9,468. Given that the district enrollment is currently below the lower capacity number, the district has excess capacity. There are either/both empty classrooms or rooms that are not being utilized every period of every day.


FUNCTIONAL CAPACITIES

SCHOOLS

CAPACITY @ 75%

SCHEDULING FACTOR

CAPACITY @ 100%

SCHEDULING FACTOR

Cary-Grove HS 1,725 2,300

Crystal Lake Central HS 1,673 2,230

Crystal Lake South HS 2,104 2,805

Prairie Ridge HS 1,519 2,025

Haber Oaks 81 108

DISTRICT TOTAL 7,102 9,468

Source: MGT, 2016.

4.2 UTILIZATION RATES

The effective management of school facilities requires a school’s capacity and enrollment to be aligned. When capacity exceeds enrollment (underutilization), operational costs are higher than necessary and facilities may need to be repurposed or the facilities may need to be removed from inventory. When enrollment exceeds capacity (overutilization), the school may be overcrowded and may require capital expenditures or redistricting (adjustment to attendance boundaries) to alleviate the crowding.

Exhibits 4-5 and 4-6 show the corresponding utilization rates calculated using the two different functional capacities and the current and projected enrollment at each school. The enrollment projection used are the Series B Projections from the Kasarda Report which was prepared for the district and reviewed by MGT. The report contained a Series A, B, and C projections. The Series B projections assumed turnover of existing housing units and future new residential development occur as anticipated through 2020-21.





CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILIZATION RATES 75% SCHEDULING FACTOR

UTILIZATION DESCRIPTION

> 100 Inadequate space

90 - 100 Approaching Inadequate space

80 - 89 Effective space utilization

70 - 79 Approaching Inefficient space utilization

< 60 Inefficient space utilization

SERIES B PROJECTION

2015– 16 (ACTUAL)

2019– 20 2023– 24 2027– 28 2030– 31

Cary-Grove HS

Total 1,798 1,609 1,387 1,421 1,416

Capacity 1,725 1,725 1,725 1,725 1,725

Utilization 104% 93% 80% 82% 82%

Crystal Lake Central HS

Total 1,557 1,398 1,302 1,258 1,260

Capacity 1,673 1,673 1,673 1,673 1,673

Utilization 93% 84% 78% 75% 75%


Total 1,712 1,532 1,444 1,412 1,426

Capacity 2,104 2,104 2,104 2,104 2,104

Utilization 81% 73% 69% 67% 68%


Total 1,455 1,281 1,189 1,142 1,149

Capacity 1,519 1,519 1,519 1,519 1,519

Utilization 96% 84% 78% 75% 76%

Combined High Schools

Total 6,522 5,820 5,322 5,233 5,251

Capacity 7,101 7,101 7,101 7,101 7,101

Utilization 92% 82% 75% 74% 74%

Source: MGT, 2016.





CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILIZATION RATES 100% SCHEDULING FACTOR

SERIES B PROJECTION

2015– 16 (ACTUAL)

2019– 20 2023– 24 2027– 28 2030– 31

Cary-Grove HS

Total 1,798 1,609 1,387 1,421 1,416

Capacity 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300

Utilization 78% 70% 60% 62% 62%

Crystal Lake Central HS

Total 1,557 1,398 1,302 1,258 1,260

Capacity 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230

Utilization 70% 63% 58% 56% 57%


Total 1,712 1,532 1,444 1,412 1,426

Capacity 2,805 2,805 2,805 2,805 2,805

Utilization 61% 55% 51% 50% 51%


Total 1,455 1,281 1,189 1,142 1,149

Capacity 2,025 2,025 2,025 2,025 2,025

Utilization 72% 63% 59% 56% 57%

Combined High Schools

Total 6,522 5,820 5,322 5,233 5,251

Capacity 9,468 9,468 9,468 9,468 9,468

Utilization 69% 61% 56% 55% 55%

Source: MGT, 2016.

As Exhibits 4-5 and 4-6 show, CHSD #155 has excess capacity in its facilities, with the amount of excess capacity varying from approximately 1,800 students to 4,200 students in 2030, depending on the scheduling factor used. Currently the four high schools are either effectively utilized at 92% utilization overall, or significantly underutilized at 69% utilization, again depending on the scheduling factor.




Exhibits 4-7 and 4-8 project the utilization rates using the two different scheduling factors and the same enrollment projections when one school is closed. Each line shows what the resulting utilization rates would be district-wide if that school were closed and the students were distributed to the other three schools.


CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILIZATION RATES WITH THREE SCHOOLS 75% SCHEDULING FACTOR

UTILIZATION IF SCHOOL REPURPOSED

2015– 16 (ACTUAL)

2019– 20 2023– 24 2027– 28 2030– 31

Cary-Grove HS District 121% 108% 99% 97% 98%

Crystal Lake Central HS District 120% 107% 98% 96% 97%

Crystal Lake South HS District 131% 116% 106% 105% 105%

Prairie Ridge HS District 117% 104% 95% 94% 94%

Source: MGT, 2016.


CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILIZATION RATES WITH THREE SCHOOLS 100% SCHEDULING FACTOR

UTILIZATION IF SCHOOL REPURPOSED

2015– 16 (ACTUAL)

2019– 20 2023– 24 2027– 28 2030– 31

Cary-Grove HS District 91% 81% 74% 73% 73%

Crystal Lake Central HS District 90% 80% 74% 72% 73%

Crystal Lake South HS District 98% 87% 80% 79% 79%

Prairie Ridge HS District 88% 78% 72% 70% 71%

Source: MGT, 2016.




4.3 CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION CONCLUSIONS

As the capacity and utilization analysis shows, CHSD #155 will have sufficient capacity to house the current and projected enrollments of its students in three high schools and maintain acceptable utilization rates. The point in time at which the utilization rates become acceptable for having only three high schools depends on how aggressively the district schedules its classrooms. If the district can implement a 100% scheduling factor, it could, from a utilization perspective, consolidate to three high schools beginning next year.

The current average size of the high schools is 1,631 students and is expected to decrease to 1,313 students by 2030. If the district closed one school, the current average size would be 2,174 students and would decrease to 1,750 students by 2030.



5.0 FACILITY FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

This section examines the financial implications of consolidating facilities, or closing one high school in Community High School District #155.

5.1 OPERATING COSTS

When examining the financial implications of closing a school, the first step is to identify the current operating costs. For this type of analysis, the operating costs are the expenditures associated with operating the physical plant, utilities, etc., and the staffing costs associated with operating the building that would not follow the students to another school, e.g. custodians, principal, secretaries, etc. Exhibit 5-1 lists the operating costs identified for this analysis.


OPERATING COST ITEMS

PHYSICAL PLANT COSTS

Electricity

Natural Gas

Water/Sewer

Property Insurance

STAFFING COSTS

Administration

Office/Clerical

Custodial

Maintenance

Source: MGT of America Consulting,

LLC, 2016.

Exhibit 5-2 displays the operating costs for each high school based on actual costs from the 2015-16 school year. Administrative and Office/Support staff include positions that would not be retained if a school were closed or would likely not follow students to a different school.





CURRENT OPERATING COSTS

SCHOOL ANNUAL UTILITY COSTS

ANNUAL PROPERTY

INSURANCE COST

ANNUAL MAINT.

STAFF COST

ANNUAL CUSTODIAL

STAFF COST*

ANNUAL CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES COST

ANNUAL ADMIN.

STAFF COSTS

ANNUAL SUPPORT

STAFF COSTS

TOTAL ANNUAL

OPERATIONAL COSTS

Cary-Grove HS $ 288,419 $ 62,200 $ 102,355 $ 81,175 $ 56,598 $ 1,782,640 $ 1,430,821 $ 4,304,208

Crystal Lake Central HS $ 295,704 $ 63,700 $ 102,355 $ 42,430 $ 44,902 $ 1,780,176 $ 1,375,467 $ 4,204,735

Crystal Lake South HS $ 418,193 $ 73,400 $ 102,355 $ 81,175 $ 46,574 $ 1,706,598 $ 1,321,977 $ 4,250,271

Prairie Ridge HS $ 411,603 $ 60,300 $ 102,355 $ 42,430 $ 51,773 $ 1,672,241 $ 1,449,167 $ 4,289,868

Haber Oaks Campus $ 21,209 $ 3,100 NA NA $ 2,066 $ 145,347 $ 132,838 $ 304,559

Source: Community High School District #155 and MGT of America Consulting, LLC, 2016.

As the exhibit shows, the district could save approximately $4,000,000 per year in operating costs by consolidating from four to three comprehensive high schools. Based on the current utilization of the facilities, this consolidation could be implemented as soon as the 2017 school year, if the district implements a 100% scheduling factor. However, the district will need time to plan the consolidation and may want to time the action so that no student would attend their graduating high school for less than two years. In addition, the district could save approximately $300,000 annually by closing the Haber Oaks Campus and moving that program and the students into one of the other schools. Haber Oaks is a program providing alternative education, meeting the needs of a unique group of students. It could be placed into one of the high schools, but the location and the space in the building would need to be carefully planned to ensure that the students are appropriately housed and supported. Haber Oaks is also a valuable property and in the best condition of all the schools. The facility could be offered for lease or could be sold. Finally, the district could also save annual operating costs by vacating the district office and moving the central administration into a school building. The facility is centrally located and could be offered for lease or sold. Closing Haber Oaks and the district office provides some savings of annual operating costs and still keeps reductions away from most of the students.

Beyond annual operating costs, the district would realize a significant cost avoidance by closing one high school. As described earlier, the district has identified maintenance deficiencies that should be addressed in each facility over the next ten years. The cost avoidance would depend on which




facility was closed and what costs were associated with keeping the facility “moth-balled” or in disposing of it. Exhibit 5-3 shows the amount of deferred maintenance associated with each facility, including the amount associated with remediating educational suitability deficiencies identified through this study.


COST AVOIDANCE

SCHOOL BUILDING

SF BUILDING

VALUE VALUE/SF

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY

DEFICIENCIES

TOTAL PROJECTED FACILITY MAINT./IMPROVEMENT $

Crystal Lake Central High School 279,509 $ 60,962,413 $ 218.11 $ 13,190,169 $ 5,498,505 $ 18,688,673

Cary-Grove High School 258,651 $ 58,232,759 $ 225.14 $ 10,050,889 $ 5,229,884 $ 15,280,773

Crystal Lake South High School 245,717 $ 59,000,724 $ 240.12 $ 7,679,609 $ 3,064,498 $ 10,744,107

Prairie Ridge High School 261,559 $ 62,656,968 $ 239.55 $ 11,408,921 $ 5,076,781 $ 16,485,702

Haber Oaks Campus 13,886 $ 6,497,127 $ 467.89 $ 521,841 $ 352,924 $ 874,764

Source: Community High School District #155 and MGT, 2016.




RECOMMENDATION 5-1:

Close and repurpose Crystal Lake Central High School.

The recommendation to close a school is significant for many reasons and is only put forth to mediate the significant financial consequences the district will likely face due to decreasing enrollment and decreasing revenue. These are community schools and there is significant community connection to all schools, but especially to schools with as long and distinguished a history as Central High School. We acknowledge that this is a recommendation. Implementing this recommendation should only come following careful review by the Board and multiple opportunities for community engagement and discussion.

School districts that have decided to close a school or schools typically provide opportunity for the community to both understand the data that underpin the recommendation and to respond to the recommendation by providing input or feedback. Most districts include public meetings which can be structured to allow each attendee to have an equal voice through the use of electronic “voting” devices. Online surveys allow the community to provide input or feedback without having to attend an event. Some districts have included community-based focus group input from clubs like Rotary or Kiwanis, or other social organizations. These community discussions can assist the board in making a final decision to recommend school closure or can lead to alternative recommendations and decisions.

Crystal Lake Central HS should be closed as soon as the district can accomplish the necessary planning and so that no student attends their graduating high school for less than two years. Closing the school will require redistricting students to spread them across the three remaining schools. District staff should work with the elementary feeder districts to align school boundaries as possible to allow neighborhoods to stay together from elementary through middle and high school.

Central is the oldest school and needs a significant amount of maintenance and renovations to meet 21st Century learning facility standards. Central is also located within the city and may have more opportunities for repurposing than the more suburban schools. Schools in Portland, OR have been repurposed for hotels with restaurants filling the cafeteria spaces and movie theaters placed in the auditorium. Seattle and St. Louis have repurposed schools as condominiums and Kansas City, MO has repurposed schools for senior housing. All of these options should be explored to allow the community to continue to use and value this space.

FISCAL IMPACT

The fiscal impact of this recommendation will be the savings realized by not operating the fourth high school. Based on the analysis done in Section 5.0, the district will save approximately $4,204,735 in annual operating costs by implementing this recommendation. Given the time necessary to plan a school closure, including movement of students and staff, we are showing cost savings beginning in Year 2. The closure may take longer to implement, moving cost savings out to future years. In addition to this cost savings, by closing Central High School, the district could avoid spending $18,688,673, a one- time expenditure based on the costs to improve both the condition and the educational suitability of Central.


Close and repurpose Crystal Lake Central High School

$0 $4,204,735 $4,204,735 $4,204,735 $4,204,735



6.0 FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM

This section reviews the cost of providing food services at the district’s schools. MGT was asked to review the costs/benefits of providing district food services through an in-house structure compared to services using out-sourcing. The district has been operating both types of systems for several years. Two schools have a district-operated program; two schools have a program operated under contract with Sodexho. The district-provided data show that student participation is slightly higher in the two schools served by the district-operated program. As shown in Exhibit 6-1, below, there are 169 fewer students in the In-house program schools, but there were 10,634 more lunches and equivalents served. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to identify the reason(s) why more meals are served in district-operated schools.

EXHIBIT 6-1 MEALS SERVED

IN-HOUSE OUTSOURCED

Average Enrollment 3,022 3,191

Lunches 11,3958 94,841

Equivalent Meals 107,233 115,716

Total Lunches and Equivalents 221,191 210,557

Meals per Student per Day 41.82% 37.71%

Source: CHSD. December 2016 Presentation.

There are several possible reasons why more meals are served in one setting than another, including perceptions about meal quality/appearance, perceptions about staff and facility issues like layout, space availability, and appearance. These analyses are beyond the limited scope of this review and MGT has no data on any of these issues which could inform and provide rationale for the differences. A second data set provides further information about the differences between the In-house and Out-sourced programs. Exhibit 6-2 shows the paid meals at the two types of sites. As shown, Paid Enrollment is higher at the Out-sourced schools, there were more paid lunches and equivalent meals, but the percent of student meals per day is slightly smaller. These data are based on 175 student days.




EXHIBIT 6-2 PAID MEALS

IN-HOUSE OUT-SOURCED

Average Paid Enrollment 2,404 2,775

Paid Lunches 57,700 62,696

Equivalent Meals 107,233 115,716

Total Paid Lunches and Equivalents 164,933 178,412

Paid Meals per Paid Student per Day

39.20% 36.74&


Again, there may be program, food offering, staffing, or facility issues driving these differences that are beyond the scope of this analysis. However, there is nothing in these two data sets to suggest that large numbers of students are NOT participating in the Out-sourced program. In some districts, the students “vote with their feet,” participating – or not participating - in the program for one or more of the reasons outlined earlier. The goal of any food service program is to support the nutritional needs of students in the most effective and efficient manner. If participation numbers are not significantly different under the two models, it is worthwhile for the district to explore other issues surrounding program efficiency, including the cost differences. Fiscal information was provided by the district, including staffing numbers, income, expenditures, and total cost. As shown in Exhibit 6-3, there are differences in how the two program types are staffed. Each school has a site manager, but the In-house program has more FTE than the Out-sourced program.




EXHIBIT 6-3 STAFFING FTE

POSITION IN-HOUSE OUT-SOURCED

Manager FTE 2.0 2.0

Food Service Support Staff FTE 14.25 8.9

Meals Served12 221,191 210,557

Meals Per FTE 13,611 19,317


MGT has included the number of meals served and performed a calculation (meals served divided by FTE) to determine the number of meals served per FTE. As shown, the Out-sourced program with fewer staff, and with fewer meals served, has a higher ratio of meals per FTE than the In-House program. Staffing needs are often a function of the amount of on-site preparation of foods, e.g., baking bread or rolls at the school instead of purchasing them pre-made or creating taco filling from raw ingredients instead of purchasing pre-made canned or frozen taco filling. Taste, cost, and local preference can dictate these decisions. Many people remember being distracted during a math test by the smell of bread or cookies baking and some believe that more students will eat at school when food is prepared on-site. Some school districts have policies requiring the use of locally grown or produced products. There are also many community projects and agencies supporting local or on-site food.12 Such policies would likely require a district to hire more staff to prepare food than districts that purchase pre-packaged, single serving meals. It is outside the scope of this review to determine any programmatic differences between the two programs, but clearly the Out-sourced program is operating with fewer staff and likely lower costs. Exhibit 6-4 provides the information about program costs. As shown, the In-house program produced higher revenues than the Out-sourced program. However, it had higher program expenses – likely from the higher staffing levels described earlier – and produced a deficit of $111,479 compared to the $96,946 revenue from the Out-sourced program. Many school districts expect that enterprise programs – like food service – will operate at no cost to the district. Their goal is to spend district resources on instruction and have food service “pay for itself.” Other districts expect to support the program’s capital expenses for large equipment purchases or replacements, but otherwise expect that food service will operate in the black without any general fund transfers. In CHSD #155, the In-house program appears to be reliant on district general funds for on-going operations.

1212 See http://edibleschoolyard.org/; https://www.facebook.com/JamieOliversKGP/ ; and

http://www.ousd.org/Domain/118

http://edibleschoolyard.org/

https://www.facebook.com/JamieOliversKGP/

http://www.ousd.org/Domain/118




EXHIBIT 6-4 PROGRAM COSTS

IN-HOUSE OUT-SOURCED

Program Revenues $725,710 $679,880

Program Expenses ($803,845) ($616,278)

Commodities ($33,344) $33,344

Surplus/(Deficit) ($111,479) $96,946


FINDING

The In-house food service program requires on-going fiscal support from the general fund; the Out-sourced program generates revenue for the general fund.

Based on the data presented by the district, it appears that there are not substantial differences in student participation between the two programs. The major difference is program cost which appears to be mainly driven by staffing. It is difficult to sustain and continue to operate a program with annual deficits in excess of $111,000 when district revenues are decreasing and there are other demands on revenue. It is even more difficult when similar, but out-sourced programs are actually generating revenue.

RECOMMENDATION 6-1:

Contract with an outside provider for all four food service programs.

As part of the implementation, MGT recommends two additional activities – one to be completed by the district and one the responsibility of the contractor. The district should conduct an annual review of these same data to ensure that program costs and expenditures do not change. Contracts with the provider should carry renewal and cancellation language that allows the district to analyze costs and benefits on a regular basis.

The contractor should be required to conduct regular student input and feedback activities and provide an annual report describing steps they have taken to both gather student input and to adjust services based on that input or feedback.

Savings are to be determined, based on turnover of existing staff.



7.0 CONCLUSIONS

MGT has gathered and analyzed financial, enrollment, staffing, and planning information from the district. Based on that review, it is clear that enrollment is expected to continue to decline, perhaps by as much as 30% over the next ten years. When enrollment declines, revenue declines based on state funding formulas. When revenue declines, districts are faced with difficult decisions in order to answer the question: What expenditures can be reduced and by how much? Most districts make every effort to reduce costs without impacting student learning. Thus, many districts keep teachers and textbooks and even add to technology budgets while they reduce maintenance staff or other non-certified positions.

In CHSD #155, if nothing changes in the community demographics and nothing changes in the Illinois tax code regarding funding for education, the district faces up to 30% loss of students and therefore funding over the next ten years. In an effort to keep any cuts as far away from students as possible, MGT has created a set of recommendations that will reduce administrative costs and could reduce operating costs, including moving the district office into a school and closing Haber Oaks and moving those students into one of the other schools. Those two properties are more viable for lease or sale for other purposes.

Although closing a school is difficult, we are recommending closing Crystal Lake Central HS when enrollment reductions reach a 15 – 30% decline and the three remaining schools have sufficient capacity to absorb the Crystal Lake Central students.

In an effort to help the district sequence the financial adjustments, MGT recommends the following stages. MGT has specifically not identified a year for any given stage, since situations can change over time. The reductions proposed in each phase are based on projected enrollment decreases. The district should continuously monitor enrollment and adjust the timing of each stage accordingly.

STAGE 1: 7-10% enrollment decline

Reduce 1.0 FTE central office administrator

Reduce 1.0 FTE school administrator per school

Reduce 3.0 FTE Division Leaders per school

Open discussions with union regarding the supervision period; adjust as possible

Out-source all four food service programs


Close district office and move administration into one of the schools. Sell or lease property

Close Haber Oaks and move program into one of the schools. Sell or lease property

Reduce additional 1.0 FTE central office administrator

Reduce 1.0 FTE school administrator per school or based on enrollment differentials at the schools


Close Crystal Lake Central High School and redistrict students into the three remaining schools

Repurpose Crystal Lake High School.

District School Name State Students* Teachers*

Student

Teacher

Ratio*

Principal

Count

AP

Count

Dean

Count

Department

chairs Count

Other

administrators

Count

Ath/Act. Dir. Students Per

Administrator

Agua Fria Union High School District Agua Fria High AZ 1,725 92 18.8 1 3 431 Agua Fria Union High School District Desert Edge High AZ 1,744 80.85 21.6 1 3 436 Agua Fria Union High School District Millennium High AZ 2,205 94.51 23.3 1 3 551 Agua Fria Union High School District Verrado High AZ 1,855 74.35 24.9 1 3 464 Austin ISD Lbj High TX 853 64.23 13.3 1 4 1 142 Bellingham Public Schools Bellingham High WA 1070 44.4 24.1 1 2 1 357 Boston Boston Latin High MA 2439 119 20.5 1 5 407 Campbell Union High Boynton High CA 268 16.3 16.4 1 1 134 Campbell Union High Branham High CA 1,468 62.45 23.5 1 3 8 367 Campbell Union High Del Mar High CA 1,108 49.95 22.2 1 3 277

Campbell Union High Leigh High CA 1,665 73.95 22.5 1 4 333 Campbell Union High Prospect High CA 1,343 60.55 22.2 1 2 1 448 Campbell Union High Westmont High CA 1,537 68.85 22.3 1 3 384 Dist. 214 Elk Grove High IL 1906 117.22 16.3 1 4 2 0 4 0 173 District #155 Cary-Grove IL 1803 104.6 17.2 1 1 2 7 164 District #155 Crystal Lake Central IL 1535 89.99 17.1 1 1 2 7 140 District #155 Crystal Lake South IL 1759 98.23 17.9 1 1 2 7 160 District #155 Prairie Ridge IL 1501 84.24 17.8 1 1 2 7 136 Eugene 4J Churchill High OR 1139 47.63 23.9 1 2 1 380 Eugene 4J North Eugene High OR 961 43.74 22.0 1 2 1 320 Fort Worth ISD Arlington Heights High TX 1831 114.2 16.0 1 5 1 305 Fremont Union High Cupertino High CA 2,168 87.89 24.7 1 4 434 Fremont Union High Fremont High CA 1,965 87.88 22.4 1 3 2 328 Fremont Union High Homestead High CA 2,406 94.55 25.4 1 4 2 344 Fremont Union High Lynbrook High CA 1,853 77.82 23.8 1 4 371 Fremont Union High Monta Vista High CA 2,357 92.22 25.6 1 4 471 Hamilton SE Fishers High IN 2964 134.14 22.1 1 3 3 1 423 Minneapolis Roosevelt High MN 884 65.83 13.4 1 1 2 1 221 Minneapolis Washburn High MN 1468 72.09 20.4 1 2 1 1 367 Palo Alto Unified Palo Alto High CA 1943 115.29 16.9 1 4 0 2 389 Quincy North Quincy High MA 1207 87.32 13.8 1 1 2 604 San Diego Unified La Jolla High CA 1588 59.39 26.7 1 2 1 529 Seattle Public Schools Ballard High WA 1669 79.2 21.1 1 3 1 1 334

Appendix A National School Peer Review Data

MGT of America Consulting, LLC. Community High School District #155 Efficiency and Effectiveness Review Final Report

77

lcolley

Typewriter

lcolley

Typewriter

Source: NCES, 2016.

lcolley

Typewriter

Suitability Report - Full

Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500002Site #:

Assessments 2016 CARY-GROVE COMMUNI

Project #:

7947

Site Type: Site Size:Grade Config:

9-12 0.00High

Suitability - HS

Learning Environment

5.00 2.50 50.00 Learning Style VarietyPoor

2.00 1.30 65.00 Interior EnvironmentFair

1.50 0.98 65.00 Exterior EnvironmentFair

General Classrooms

3.90 3.12 80.00 EnvironmentGood

9.75 7.80 80.00 SizeGood

2.93 2.93 100.00 LocationExcel

2.93 2.34 80.00 Storage/Fixed EquipGood

Self-Contained Special Ed


1.33 0.87 65.00 SizeFair

0.40 0.26 65.00 LocationFair

0.40 0.26 65.00 Storage/Fixed EquipFair

Instructional Resource Rooms


2.00 1.60 80.00 SizeGood

0.60 0.48 80.00 LocationGood


Science


2.07 1.35 65.00 SizeFair



Music

0.59 0.30 50.00 EnvironmentPoor

1.48 1.19 80.00 SizeGood



Art

0.67 0.43 65.00 EnvironmentFair

1.66 1.33 80.00 SizeGood



Career Tech Ed


Page 1 of 411/16/2016 3:15:29PM

Appendix B

MGT of America Consulting, LLC. Community High School #155 Final Report

Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500002Site #:


Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High

4.27 2.78 65.00 SizeFair



Computer Labs


0.75 0.60 80.00 SizeGood



P.E.


6.00 3.90 65.00 SizeFair



Performing Arts


0.80 0.64 80.00 SizeGood



Media Center


2.11 1.69 80.00 SizeGood



0.91 0.73 80.00Good Restrooms (Student)

2.61 2.09 80.00Good Administration

0.76 0.61 80.00Good Counseling

0.24 0.19 80.00Good Clinic

0.71 0.71 100.00Excel Staff Lounge-WkRm

4.00 3.20 80.00Good Cafeteria

5.11 3.32 65.00Fair Food Service and Prep

0.50 0.40 80.00Good Custodial and Maintenance

Outside

1.00 0.50 50.00 Vehicular TrafficPoor

0.98 0.78 80.00 Pedestrian TrafficGood

2.11 1.69 80.00 ParkingGood

2.77 2.21 80.00 Athletic Courts and FieldsGood

Safety and Security

0.85 0.68 80.00 FencingGood

1.00 0.65 65.00 Signage & Way FindingFair

3.00 1.95 65.00 Ease of SupervisionFair

0.50 0.50 100.00 Controlled EntrancesExcel

100.00 74.34 74.34Total For Site:

Comments

Page 2 of 411/16/2016 3:15:29PM

Appendix B


Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500002Site #:


Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High

Suitability - HS->Learning Environment-->Learning Style Variety

The facility does not support differentiated instruction with spaces for small groups, individual and project work.

Suitability - HS->Learning Environment-->Interior Environment

Most of the facility lacks air conditioning and some classrooms lack natural lighting.

Suitability - HS->Learning Environment-->Exterior Environment

There are no outdoor learning labs.

Suitability - HS->General Classrooms-->Size

The classrooms average about 900 SF.

Suitability - HS->Self-Contained Special Ed-->Size

The self-contained special education classrooms are small

Suitability - HS->Self-Contained Special Ed-->Location

The self-contained special education classrooms are not centrally located.

Suitability - HS->Self-Contained Special Ed-->Storage/Fixed Equip

storage for OT/PT equipment is lacking.

Suitability - HS->Science-->Size

The science room average about 990 SF.

Suitability - HS->Science-->Storage/Fixed Equip

The chemistry labs are well equipped, but the other science rooms have old, worn cabinetry.

Suitability - HS->Music-->Environment

The music rooms lack sufficient acoustical treatment, high ceilings, and are not aesthetically finished.

Suitability - HS->Music-->Storage/Fixed Equip

The music rooms lack sufficient instrument storage and a sink.

Suitability - HS->Art-->Environment

The art rooms lack air conditioning and sufficient natural lighting.

Suitability - HS->Career Tech Ed-->Environment

The drafting/electronic room lacks natural lighting.

Suitability - HS->Career Tech Ed-->Size

The CTE rooms lack sufficient size.

Suitability - HS->Career Tech Ed-->Storage/Fixed Equip

Some equipment is old and worn. There is a lack of tools in the shops.

Suitability - HS->Computer Labs-->Location

The computer labs are not close to the classrooms.

Suitability - HS->P.E.-->Environment

The PE spaces lack air conditioning.

Suitability - HS->P.E.-->Size

The large PE spaces are small for 5 sections of 40 students.

Suitability - HS->P.E.-->Storage/Fixed Equip

The amount of storage is fair and the lockers are in poor condition.

Suitability - HS->Food Service and Prep

The kitchen lacks air conditioning.

Suitability - HS->Outside-->Vehicular Traffic

The parent drop off lanes conflict with the buses. The student parking lot has poor exiting flow.

Page 3 of 411/16/2016 3:15:29PM

Appendix B


Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500002Site #:


Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High

Suitability - HS->Outside-->Athletic Courts and Fields

The bleacher lack sufficient capacity.

Suitability - HS->Safety and Security-->Signage & Way Finding

The facility lacks way finding signage.

Suitability - HS->Safety and Security-->Ease of Supervision

The building configuration does not support easy supervision.

Page 4 of 411/16/2016 3:15:29PM

Appendix B



Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500001Site #:

Assessments 2016 CRYSTAL LAKE CENTR

Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High

Suitability - HS


5.00 3.25 65.00 Learning Style VarietyFair

2.00 1.30 65.00 Interior EnvironmentFair


General Classrooms


9.75 6.34 65.00 SizeFair





1.33 0.87 65.00 SizeFair





2.00 1.60 80.00 SizeGood



Science


2.07 1.66 80.00 SizeGood



Music


1.48 1.19 80.00 SizeGood



Art


1.66 0.83 50.00 SizePoor



Career Tech Ed


Page 1 of 411/16/2016 3:16:06PM

Appendix B


Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500001Site #:


Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High

4.27 2.78 65.00 SizeFair



Computer Labs


0.75 0.60 80.00 SizeGood



P.E.


6.00 4.80 80.00 SizeGood



Performing Arts


0.80 0.64 80.00 SizeGood



Media Center


2.11 1.69 80.00 SizeGood




2.61 2.09 80.00Good Administration


0.24 0.19 80.00Good Clinic


4.00 2.60 65.00Fair Cafeteria



Outside

1.00 0.50 50.00 Vehicular TrafficPoor




Safety and Security


1.00 0.80 80.00 Signage & Way FindingGood

3.00 1.95 65.00 Ease of SupervisionFair


100.00 74.23 74.23Total For Site:

Comments

Page 2 of 411/16/2016 3:16:06PM

Appendix B


Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500001Site #:


Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High


The facility configuration does not support differentiated teaching and learning, however teachers are moveable

furniture to create flexible environments.

Suitability - HS->Learning Environment-->Interior Environment

The building is only partially air conditioned.


The facility does not have any outdoor learning labs but does have courtyards and an outdoor Art deck.

Suitability - HS->General Classrooms-->Environment

The general classroom environments are mixed with some classrooms being updated and with air conditioning and

some not.


The classrooms average less than 800 SF.

Suitability - HS->General Classrooms-->Storage/Fixed Equip

Some classrooms lack sufficient outlets.

Suitability - HS->Self-Contained Special Ed-->Environment

The SPED classrooms lack A/C. The Life Skills classroom is poorly configured.

Suitability - HS->Self-Contained Special Ed-->Size

The Life Skills Program has small rooms.

Suitability - HS->Instructional Resource Rooms-->Environment

The Resource Rooms lack A/C.

Suitability - HS->Science-->Environment

There are five science labs that have been updated and in excellent condition.

Suitability - HS->Music-->Storage/Fixed Equip

The music room lacks storage for student backpacks. The backpacks are left on the floor outside the classroom

creating a potential exiting problem

Suitability - HS->Art-->Size

The art rooms are too small, many students were working on projects on the hall floor.

Suitability - HS->Career Tech Ed-->Size

The childcare room is small for the program.

Suitability - HS->Performing Arts-->Size

The dressing area and the shop are on one space.

Suitability - HS->Media Center-->Storage/Fixed Equip

The media center lacks flexible furniture.

Suitability - HS->Clinic

Clinic has space for two cots and is a bit small for the number of students served.

Suitability - HS->Cafeteria

The cafeteria lacks A/C and is a bit tired from an aesthetics point of view.


The kitchen is small but contains all required spaces. The loading dock is remote from the kitchen.

Suitability - HS->Outside-->Vehicular Traffic

One of the three parent drop-off areas conflicts with bus traffic. The front drop off area lacks capacity. The buses

exit the site at the same point as student traffic causing conflicts.

Page 3 of 411/16/2016 3:16:06PM

Appendix B


Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500001Site #:


Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High

Suitability - HS->Outside-->Parking

Parking is minimally sufficient.


The building configuration does not facilitate visual supervision, the facility could benefit by more lighting and security

cameras.

Page 4 of 411/16/2016 3:16:06PM

Appendix B



Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500003Site #:

Assessments 2016 CRYSTAL LAKE SOUTH H

Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High

Suitability - HS



2.00 2.00 100.00 Interior EnvironmentExcel


General Classrooms


9.75 6.34 65.00 SizeFair





1.33 1.07 80.00 SizeGood





2.00 1.60 80.00 SizeGood



Science


2.07 2.07 100.00 SizeExcel


0.62 0.62 100.00 Storage/Fixed EquipExcel

Music


1.48 1.19 80.00 SizeGood



Art


1.66 1.08 65.00 SizeFair



Career Tech Ed


Page 1 of 311/16/2016 3:16:37PM

Appendix B


Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500003Site #:


Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High

4.27 4.27 100.00 SizeExcel



Computer Labs


0.75 0.60 80.00 SizeGood



P.E.


6.00 6.00 100.00 SizeExcel



Performing Arts


0.80 0.80 100.00 SizeExcel



Media Center

0.84 0.84 100.00 EnvironmentExcel

2.11 2.11 100.00 SizeExcel




2.61 2.61 100.00Excel Administration

0.76 0.76 100.00Excel Counseling

0.24 0.24 100.00Excel Clinic



5.11 5.11 100.00Excel Food Service and Prep

0.50 0.50 100.00Excel Custodial and Maintenance

Outside

1.00 0.80 80.00 Vehicular TrafficGood




Safety and Security


1.00 1.00 100.00 Signage & Way FindingExcel

3.00 2.40 80.00 Ease of SupervisionGood


100.00 85.16 85.16Total For Site:

Comments

Page 2 of 311/16/2016 3:16:37PM

Appendix B


Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500003Site #:


Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High


The facility does not support differentiated instruction with spaces for small groups, individual and project work.


There are no outdoor learning labs although there are courtyards for informal learning and socializing.


The classrooms average about 700 SF.

Suitability - HS->Art-->Size

The Art rooms average 900 SF.

Suitability - HS->Art-->Storage/Fixed Equip

The Art Room lacks a separate kiln room.

Suitability - HS->Performing Arts-->Environment

The stage is not ADA accessible from the audience.

Suitability - HS->Performing Arts-->Size

Seating capacity is 720.

Page 3 of 311/16/2016 3:16:37PM

Appendix B



Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

County:

Region:

Rating

Site #:

Assessments 2016 Harbor Oaks Alternative S

Project #:

7947


0.00High

Suitability - HS


5.00 3.25 65.00 Learning Style VarietyFair

2.00 2.00 100.00 Interior EnvironmentExcel


General Classrooms


9.75 9.75 100.00 SizeExcel




0.00 0.00 0.00 Environment(N/A)

0.00 0.00 0.00 Size(N/A)

0.00 0.00 0.00 Location(N/A)

0.00 0.00 0.00 Storage/Fixed Equip(N/A)



2.00 2.00 100.00 SizeExcel



Science


2.07 2.07 100.00 SizeExcel



Music


0.00 0.00 0.00 Size(N/A)

0.00 0.00 0.00 Location(N/A)


Art


1.66 1.66 100.00 SizeExcel



Career Tech Ed


Page 1 of 311/16/2016 3:16:59PM

Appendix B


Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

County:

Region:

Rating

Site #:


Project #:

7947


0.00High

0.00 0.00 0.00 Size(N/A)

0.00 0.00 0.00 Location(N/A)


Computer Labs


0.00 0.00 0.00 Size(N/A)

0.00 0.00 0.00 Location(N/A)


P.E.


6.00 3.00 50.00 SizePoor


1.80 0.90 50.00 Storage/Fixed EquipPoor

Performing Arts


0.00 0.00 0.00 Size(N/A)

0.00 0.00 0.00 Location(N/A)


Media Center


0.00 0.00 0.00 Size(N/A)

0.00 0.00 0.00 Location(N/A)





0.24 0.00 0.00Unsat Clinic

0.71 0.57 80.00Good Staff Lounge-WkRm


0.00 0.00 0.00(N/A) Food Service and Prep


Outside



2.11 2.11 100.00 ParkingExcel

0.00 0.00 0.00 Athletic Courts and Fields(N/A)

Safety and Security


1.00 0.65 65.00 Signage & Way FindingFair

3.00 3.00 100.00 Ease of SupervisionExcel


70.63 59.67 84.48Total For Site:

Comments

Page 2 of 311/16/2016 3:16:59PM

Appendix B


Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

County:

Region:

Rating

Site #:


Project #:

7947


0.00High


The small class sizes and numerous resource rooms allow for individualization. This would not be true if class sizes

were larger.



Suitability - HS->General Classrooms-->Storage/Fixed Equip

There needs to be lockers for all the students.

Suitability - HS->Science-->Storage/Fixed Equip

The general classroom/science room lacks sufficient cabinetry.

Suitability - HS->Art-->Storage/Fixed Equip

The combination art/cafeteria lacks cabinetry for project storage.


The P.E./Activity room is undersized.

Suitability - HS->P.E.-->Storage/Fixed Equip

The P.E. room lacks sufficient storage.

Suitability - HS->Clinic

There is no clinic, the nurse must be called from another school.

Suitability - HS->Safety and Security-->Fencing

There is no fencing but it is not an issue.

Suitability - HS->Safety and Security-->Signage & Way Finding

The facility lacks way finding signage.

Page 3 of 311/16/2016 3:16:59PM

Appendix B



Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500004Site #:

Assessments 2016 PRAIRIE RIDGE HS

Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High

Suitability - HS



2.00 1.60 80.00 Interior EnvironmentGood


General Classrooms


9.75 6.34 65.00 SizeFair





1.33 1.07 80.00 SizeGood





2.00 1.60 80.00 SizeGood



Science


2.07 1.35 65.00 SizeFair



Music


1.48 1.19 80.00 SizeGood



Art


1.66 1.66 100.00 SizeExcel



Career Tech Ed


Page 1 of 311/16/2016 3:17:28PM

Appendix B


Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500004Site #:


Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High

4.27 3.42 80.00 SizeGood



Computer Labs


0.75 0.60 80.00 SizeGood



P.E.


6.00 4.80 80.00 SizeGood



Performing Arts


0.80 0.64 80.00 SizeGood



Media Center


2.11 1.69 80.00 SizeGood



0.91 0.91 100.00Excel Restrooms (Student)


0.76 0.76 100.00Excel Counseling

0.24 0.24 100.00Excel Clinic

0.71 0.57 80.00Good Staff Lounge-WkRm




Outside


0.98 0.64 65.00 Pedestrian TrafficFair



Safety and Security


1.00 0.80 80.00 Signage & Way FindingGood

3.00 2.40 80.00 Ease of SupervisionGood


100.00 76.85 76.85Total For Site:

Comments

Page 2 of 311/16/2016 3:17:28PM

Appendix B


Project:Site:

Suitability

Possible

Score

Score

Percent

Score

MCHENRYCounty:

155Region:

Rating

4406315500004Site #:


Project #:

7947


9-12 0.00High


The facility configuration does not support differentiated teaching and learning styles.




general classrooms are approximately 720 SF.

Suitability - HS->Science-->Size

The science rooms average approximately 960 SF.

Suitability - HS->Career Tech Ed-->Environment

There is no ventilation system for staining in the woods classroom.

Suitability - HS->Career Tech Ed-->Location

There is no adjacent delivery area for the woods classroom.

Suitability - HS->Career Tech Ed-->Storage/Fixed Equip

There is a lack of storage in the woods classroom.

Suitability - HS->Computer Labs-->Location

The computer labs are not located near the classrooms.


The lockers rooms are small for the school size.

Suitability - HS->Performing Arts-->Location

There is no access to public restrooms if the rest of the school is made inaccessible during performances.

Suitability - HS->Media Center-->Environment

The media center has a low ceiling for the room size.

Suitability - HS->Media Center-->Location

The media center is not centrally located to the majority of the classrooms.


The kitchen lacks an adjacent delivery dock.

Suitability - HS->Outside-->Pedestrian Traffic

Pedestrians must cross car traffic.

Suitability - HS->Outside-->Athletic Courts and Fields

Bleachers lack sufficient capacity.


There is not sufficient exterior lighting.

Page 3 of 311/16/2016 3:17:28PM

Appendix B
