Decision‐Making 

Abby Raphael, Chair, Arlington School Board

Patrick K. Murphy, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools

Arlington Public Schools

• 21,845 students • Schools

– 22 elementary

– 5 middle– 4 high– Several alternative programs

• School Board– 5 members elected at‐large

Our students

9.6% Asian11.0% African American27.8% Hispanic46.5% White

Advantages of Matrix• Defines Values• Provides a framework• Fosters collaboration and consensus• Provides clarity and understanding• Establishes rationale• Ensures transparency• Helps staff understand Board’s direction  

Development of matrix

• Discussions between Board and staff• Work session to develop criteria

Matrix in Action

• Sustainable energy alternatives

• Foreign Language in Elementary School

• Capacity planning

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ALTERNATIVES FOR NEW WAKEFIELD HIGH SCHOOL

• Five Values • Evaluation Criteria

CARBON FOOTPRINT 

Does this approach effectively produce environmental benefits?

VISIBILITY

Does this approach effectively demonstrate environmental stewardship?

EDUCATIONAL VALUE 

Does this approach benefit or contribute to student learning? 

FIRST COST 

Does this approach represent sufficient value from a first‐cost perspective?

Life‐cycle cost 

Does this approach represent sufficient value from a life‐cycle cost? 

Geothermal

Geothermal

Geothermal

Geothermal

Geothermal

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT

FIRST COST

LIFE-CYCLE COST

• Infinite energy source• Reduces carbon footprint• Reduces reliance on outside sources

• Demonstrates use of a renewable source

• Competitive with base system• Positions APS for global change

• Relatively high cost

• Can contribute to science curriculum• Students can track fluid temps, seasonal differences, and long-term ground temps

Solar HW

Solar HW

Solar HW

Solar HW

Solar HW

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT

FIRST COST

LIFE-CYCLE COST

• Converts energy from sun• Reduces carbon footprint• Reduces reliance on outside sources

• Demonstrates use of a renewable source• Highly visible

• Favorable life cycle cost•Positions APS for global change

• Low first cost

• Can contribute to science curriculum• Students can track sun angles, solar days and performance of system

Green Roof

Green Roof

Green Roof

Green Roof

Green Roof

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT

FIRST COST

LIFE-CYCLE COST

• No significant advantage over base system

• Highly visible alternative

• No measurable life-cycle benefit

• Significant first cost with undetermined pay-back or cost benefit

• Can contribute to science curriculum

PV 2.5%

PV 2.5%

PV 2.5%

PV 2.5%

PV 2.5%

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT

FIRST COST

LIFE-CYCLE COST

•Converts energy from sun• Reduces carbon footprint• Reduces reliance on outside sources

• Demonstrates use of a renewable source• Highly visible

• Higher than base system• Positions APS for global change

• Reasonable first cost

• Can contribute to science curriculum• Students can track sun angles, solar days and performance of system

PV 7.5%

PV 7.5%

PV 7.5%

PV 7.5%

PV 7.5%

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT

FIRST COST

LIFE-CYCLE COST

• Converts energy from sun• Reduces carbon footprint• Reduces reliance on outside sources

• Demonstrates use of a renewable source• Highly visible

• Higher life-cycle cost

• Relatively high cost

• Can contribute to science curriculum• Students can track sun angles, solar days and performance of system

Energy and Environmental Design AlternativesDecision Tree

Green Roof

Green Roof

Green Roof

Green Roof

PV 2.5%

PV 2.5%

PV 2.5%

PV 2.5%

PV 7.5%

PV 7.5%

PV 7.5%

PV 7.5%

APS designs new facilities to include many features that are environmentally friendly and conserve energy. How do individual and collective values drive the decision for additional features?

Does this approach benefit or contribute to student learning? (Educational value)

Does this approach effectively produce environmental benefits? (Carbon footprint)

Does this approach effectively demonstrate environmental stewardship? (Visibility)

Does this approach represent sufficient value to you from a first-cost perspective? (First cost)

Solar HW

Solar HW

Solar HW

Solar HW

Geothermal

Geothermal

Geothermal

Geothermal

Green Roof PV 2.5% PV 7.5%Does this approach represent sufficient value to you from a life-cycle cost? (Life-cycle cost)Geothermal Solar HW

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Geothermal  • Solar Hot Water • Photovoltaic 2.5%

FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (FLES)

• Previously introduced into 6 of 22 schools• Aspired to expand to other schools• Desired to end “early release Wednesdays”• Budgetary constraints• Process needed to determine importance of

expansion in light of budget limitations

FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (FLES)

SCHOOL BOARD GOAL

All Arlington Public School students should be proficient in at least two languages upon graduation and should have access to world language proficiency programs regardless of school of attendance.

• Four Values • Evaluation Criteria

ALIGNMENT

Aligns with APS Strategic Plan and School Board Vision, Mission, and Priorities (Student Success / Achievement and Elimination of Gaps)

22

EFFICACY of IMPLEMENTATION

Meets FLES program goals of novice-mid to novice-high levels for student language proficiency as detailed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)

23

ACCOUNTABLIITY

Meets APS policy requirements for teacher planning time and budget planning factors (staffing)

24

POTENTIAL LONG‐TERM BENEFITS FOR STUDENTS

Affords students strong access to future participation and success in world languages at the secondary level and college and career readiness

25

26

SUMMARY

Value StandardsCriteria

Exceeds Meets Does Not Meet

Alignment 

Aligns with APS Strategic Plan and School Board Vision, Mission, and Priorities (student success and achievement and elimination of gaps)

Efficacy of Implementation

Meets FLES program goals of novice‐mid to novice‐high levels for student language proficiency as detailed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)

Accountability Meets APS policy requirements for  teacher planning time and planning factors (staffing)

Potential Long‐Term Benefits for Students

Affords students with strong access to future participation and success in world languages at the secondary level and for college and career readiness

Value StandardsCriteria

Exceeds Meets Does Not Meet

Alignment 

Aligns with APS Strategic Plan and School Board Vision, Mission, and Priorities (student success and achievement and elimination of gaps)

Efficacy of Implementation

Meets FLES program goals of novice‐mid to novice‐high levels for student language proficiency as detailed by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)

Accountability Meets APS policy requirements for  teacher planning time and planning factors (staffing)

Potential Long‐Term Benefits for Students

Affords students with strong access to future participation and success in world languages at the secondary level and for college and career readiness

SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATION: Expand FLES program to 4 elementary schools in first year, and continue to expand in future years

CAPACITY PLANNING

Capital Improvement Planning (CIP) using optimization model to address increasing capacity needs 

The Challenge

• Increasing enrollment• Space for modular classrooms nearing maximum• Need for 3400 additional seats by 2016 

OPTIMIZATION MODEL

• Provides a process and software tools for:– Evaluating capital solutions– Based on Board‐created criteria

– Develops a long‐range plan based on $$$ available

• Creates a transparent and structured process for complex decision‐making

30

WHAT IS AN OPTIMIZATION MODEL?

• Group decision‐making process using a software solution and a proven and robust methodology

• Method for quickly collecting and synthesizing qualitative and quantitative information from multiple sources and stakeholders for prioritization and/or resource allocation decisions

• Approach for quantifying and making explicit subjectivity that is part of all decision‐making in order to use experience and judgment more effectively

A decision-support solution provides . . .

33

BENEFITS OF OPTIMIZATION MODEL  

• Enables clear articulation of strategy and alignment of solutions to objectives and values

• Provides decision‐makers with scenarios around different funding strategies

• Rapidly adapts to changes in priorities and funding circumstances should they arise

CAPACITY PLANNING PROCESS

Initial steps

• Criteria Development  Identify criteria/values for evaluating capacity planning solutions

• Develop Solutions Catalogue  Collect potential capacity‐ planning options and develop a catalogue of potential solutions

In July the APS board completed the Pairwise Process to prioritize the criteria

Actual outcome of the July 2011 Pairwise Comparison process prioritized list of criteria

37

CAPACITY PLANNING PROCESS (cont’d)

• Data Collection and Analysis Conduct investigations, analysis and feasibility studies of theprioritized solutions

• Rank Capacity Planning Solutions Leverage a collaborative process to rank solutions for inclusion in the Capital Improvement Plan

Review capacity generation and funding scenarios

• Superintendent presents CIP to the Board 

School Board members rate each of the identified solutions across all of the criteria

34

This results in a priority of solutions with dynamic sensitivity that enables analysis before proceeding to the final step

Using cost variables and priority value scores the optimizer recommends funding strategies to address capacity and cost considerations

QUESTIONS

Decision‐Making 

Abby Raphael, Chair, Arlington School Board

Patrick K. Murphy, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools