Operating Budget Overview - Howard County Council

Operating Budget Overview

H O W A R D C O U N T Y P U B L I C S C H O O L S Y S T E MMichael J. Martirano, Ed.D., Interim Superintendent

• The Operating Budget Request for FY 2019 is $906.8 million. – The recurring amount requested from the County is $583.2 million, which is at the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) level, a $10.2 million increase over FY2018.

– There is an additional request for County funding for $11.4 million in one-time costs needed for FY2019. – There is also a $50.5 million request to address the Health Fund deficit accrued during FY2017 and FY2018. º Understanding that this cannot be done in one year, HCPSS will work with the County to develop a multi-year plan to eliminate the accrued $50.5 million debt.

Increased Class Size by 1 Student, Grades 1–12 $5.6M

Elimination of the World Language program for Pre-k-Grade 6 $2.4M

Reduction in Utilities $2.0M

Central Office Reorganization $2.0M

Additional State Revenue $1.7M

Reduction of 24.0 FTE Pooled, Teachers and Para Positions $1.5M

Reductions to Academics Supplies and Contracted Services $1.0M

Additional Health Fund Rebate Revenue $1.0M

Reduction in Kick-Off Expenses for the Technology Plan $0.7M

Reduction in Take-Home Vehicle Expenses $0.3M

Removal of the Middle School Sports Pilot $0.3M

Reduction in Operations Wages, Supplies and Contracted Services $0.2M

BOE Lawyer and Budget Analyst/Internal Auditor & Travel $0.2M

Reduction of 2.0 Special Education Teachers $0.2M

Reduction in Central Office Supplies and Contracted Services $0.1M

Total Reductions $19.2M

Transfer to Health Fund $19.2M

Differences Between Superintendent’s Recommended Budget and Board’s Budget Request

• The Board of Education approved 19.2 million in reductions within the Superintendent’s Recommended Budget to fully fund the required contribution for health care costs. In total, the Board of Education requests $62 million over the MOE. – The Board has made the restoration of the cut to class sizes its number one priority should additional funding be appropriated.

Prepared for the CC/BOE Quarterly Meeting – March 29, 2018

Howard County Public School SystemRatio and Upper Limit Increase of 1 student in every grade (except Kdg)FY 2019 Budget Worksession

Program and position type Current Ratio and Upper

Limit

Proposed Ratio and

Upper Limit

SUPT BUDGETED

FTE

New Requested

FTE

Savings (FTEs) $ Salary Reduction

$ FICA Reduction

$ Pension Reduction

Total Saving

Program 3030 High School StaffingTeachers 1.4:28 and 33 1.4:29 and 34 923.4 896.1 (27.3) (1,665,300) (127,395.45) (74,438.91) (1,867,134)

Program 3020 Middle School StaffingTeachers 1:21 1:22 659.0 632.0 (27.0) (1,647,000) (125,995.50) (73,620.90) (1,846,616)

Program 3010 Elementary StaffingTeachers 1-2 1:20 and 25 1:21 and 26 (1,705,000) (130,432.50) (76,213.50) (1,911,646) Teacher 3-5 1:26 and 31 1:27 and 32Total (85.3) (5,017,300) (383,823) (224,273) (5,625,397)

Level Current Ratio Current Upper Limit

New Ratio New Upper Limit

FTE Change

High Schools 1.4:28 33 1.4:29 34 (27.3)Middle Schools 1:21 1:22 (27.0)Elementary School 1-2 1:20 25 1:21 26Elementary School 3-5 1:26 31 1:27 32Total (85.3)

903.0 872.0 (31.0)

(31.0)

Howard County Public School SystemRequestor: Jessica FeldmarkRequested: March 29, 2018County Council RequestUpdated with 2018-19 Data on 4/30/18

Targeted Ratios

Upper range of students Actuals

Targeted Ratios


Targeted Ratios


Targeted Ratios


Targeted Ratios


Targeted Ratios


Kindergarten 22:1 24 20.8 22:1 24 20.4 22:1 24 20.6 22:1 24 20.8 22:1 24 20.0 22:1 24 TBD Grades 1 & 2 19:1 24 19.4 19:1 24 19.9 19:1 24 20.2 20 to 1 25 20.9 20 to 1 25 20.7 21 to 1 26 TBD Grades 3, 4, & 5 25:1 30 24.1 25:1 30 24.4 25:1 30 25.1 26 to 1 31 25.1 26 to 1 31 24.5 27 to 1 32 TBD Grades 6, 7, & 8 20.5:1 21.9 20.5:1 19.8 21:1 21.5 21:1 22.4 21:1 22.7 22:1 TBD Grades 9, 10, 11, & 12 27:1.4 33 23.4 27:1.4 33 23.2 28:1.4 33 23.6 28:1.4 33 23.8 28:1.4 33 24.3 29:1.4 34 TBD

The actual class sizes above are the averages and classes by school and grade can increase up to the upper range.

2018 - 20192013 - 2014 2014 - 2015 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018

Howard County Public School SystemElementary School Class Size Average broken down by school

Elementary School Kindergarten Grades 1 & 2 Grades 3, 4, & 5 Kindergarten Grades 1 & 2 Grades 3, 4, & 5 Kindergarten Grades 1 & 2 Grades 3, 4, & 5 Kindergarten Grades 1 & 2 Grades 3, 4, & 5 Kindergarten Grades 1 & 2 Grades 3, 4, & 5Atholton 16.7 18.6 22.9 20.0 18.7 19.7 24 19.7 23.7 21.5 21.7 25.1 18.8 19.9 24.8 Bellows Spring 20 17.7 24.5 23.6 19.4 25.1 21.7 19.3 24.6 20.4 21.1 25.9 20.7 22.7 25.7 Bollman Bridge 19 18.9 26.7 19.7 19.5 24.1 22.6 19.6 23.9 19.7 21.9 23.6 20.3 20.4 22.2 Bryant Woods 16 18.2 22.6 19.7 18.2 21.1 18 20.0 20.3 22.3 20.4 21.1 22.7 19.6 19.7 Bushy Park 19.8 20.0 25.1 18.3 20.6 26.9 21.5 19.2 26.1 17.0 20.8 28.0 21.3 21.3 25.0 Centennial Lane 22.0 18.5 24.4 20.4 19.2 23.3 20.6 20.0 25.9 19.8 22.1 26.5 22.6 22.3 27.3 Clarksville 20.7 20.7 25.0 18.0 21.9 25.5 16.3 22.0 23.3 22.0 20.9 23.8 22.0 18.8 25.6 Clemens Crossing 19.3 19.9 25.2 17.0 20.8 25.9 21.5 18.9 26.0 19.2 21.9 24.1 20.6 20.7 21.9 Cradlerock 19.2 19.3 21.4 18.0 19.4 24.2 23.0 19.4 23.6 19.8 20.5 26.2 21.3 19.5 25.3 Dayton Oaks 20.8 18.7 25.2 20.3 21.2 25.5 19.5 20.1 26.9 23.3 21.3 26.1 21.3 21.7 24.6 Deep Run 21.3 19.8 22.9 24.0 21.7 24.5 19.7 22.2 26.2 21.0 19.7 25.6 20.8 22.0 24.6 Ducketts Lane 20.3 20.6 22.6 20.7 20.9 26.8 22.7 21.8 24.8 21.7 20.9 25.3 20.4 20.6 26.5 Elkridge 19.3 19.0 25.9 20.0 19.3 24.8 20.0 20.0 24.8 21.8 21.8 26.7 19.9 20.8 24.8 Forest Ridge 24.0 19.8 24.9 21.2 19.0 25.3 21.0 20.0 27.2 21.8 21.7 25.4 18.8 18.7 25.0 Fulton 20.4 18.0 25.5 20.8 20.5 23.7 24.0 20.4 26.2 20.9 21.3 26.7 21.6 21.1 25.3 Gorman Crossing 21.2 18.5 23.5 20.4 19.3 22.4 22.3 20.2 26.5 20.2 21.7 27.0 20.9 20.7 26.8 Guilford 18.5 20.5 23.5 22.5 20.0 25.8 17.3 20.0 25.5 20.7 18.9 20.8 20.7 22.2 19.7 Hammond 23.0 20.1 24.2 21.8 21.2 26.0 19.8 20.3 27.1 20.8 22.0 26.4 18.0 21.9 24.4 Hollifield Station 22.2 18.8 25.2 20.2 19.0 25.4 21.2 19.8 25.0 20.0 20.9 27.8 22.7 20.6 25.9 Ilchester 21.8 20.6 24.5 19.4 20.2 25.5 19.4 18.9 24.7 21.5 20.8 25.9 21.0 21.9 25.8 Jeffers Hill 19.3 18.8 25.3 19.0 19.3 23.8 21.0 19.6 24.8 20.0 21.0 26.1 16.7 21.1 25.7 Laurel Woods 20.0 19.9 21.9 21.3 22.4 25.2 19.5 21.0 25.9 21.0 19.9 25.4 19.2 21.8 25.2 Lisbon 22.3 18.5 22.2 22.3 21.0 23.9 20.0 18.9 23.8 21.7 20.8 26.2 22.0 23.0 25.5 Longfellow 23.3 19.6 23.8 22.3 18.6 24.9 21.3 18.1 24.4 18.3 20.4 24.9 18.0 20.5 24.0 Manor Woods 19.8 20.6 23.3 21.0 18.7 24.3 23.0 19.5 25.9 24.0 20.8 27.4 22.5 20.3 26.4 Northfield 19.6 20.3 25.4 19.8 18.6 23.0 20.8 22.1 26.5 21.2 22.7 25.1 21.4 19.8 26.9 Phelps Luck 21.3 18.3 21.8 21.3 19.3 22.5 22.8 21.6 26.9 20.0 23.0 23.6 16.2 19.1 21.7 Pointers Run 20.2 20.5 25.5 22.6 20.0 26.4 18.8 19.9 25.2 21.2 21.2 26.5 19.8 21.0 26.2 Rockburn 20.6 18.7 24.6 18.6 19.2 25.8 20.6 20.1 25.8 22.2 21.3 26.2 19.4 20.3 27.3 Running Brook 21.0 20.8 23.7 19.0 19.8 22.7 18.8 20.9 22.0 17.0 20.3 19.9 18.8 19.4 20.6 St. John's Lane 23.4 19.9 26.9 23.0 19.2 25.2 21.2 21.0 27.1 20.8 22.2 25.5 21.4 20.8 24.9 Stevens Forest 19.0 19.3 21.4 19.7 20.1 22.9 20.0 19.7 22.9 21.0 18.1 18.8 15.3 17.0 17.4 Swansfield 20.0 19.8 24.1 21.0 20.6 23.3 20.2 22.2 25.6 22.8 22.8 23.9 19.8 21.8 23.9 Talbott Springs 21.3 17.8 22.0 18.3 18.7 23.3 18.0 19.3 24.2 20.3 18.4 24.5 19.3 20.1 24.9 Thunder Hill 19.5 20.1 21.4 20.2 20.7 21.9 19.8 20.0 23.3 19.8 19.7 25.2 20.3 20.6 24.8 Triadelphia Ridge 19.5 20.9 24.3 23.0 19.0 24.5 20.3 19.7 27.0 23.0 20.4 25.8 23.3 18.6 26.4 Veterans 21.5 18.8 26.1 19.3 21.6 24.5 22.4 20.1 24.8 21.0 20.2 26.6 18.1 21.9 25.5 Waterloo 21.4 17.9 25.4 20.0 19.8 26.0 21.0 20.6 25.6 19.8 19.4 23.2 19.0 20.8 25.6 Waverly 19.2 19.2 25.3 20.0 19.3 24.9 21.8 20.2 27.7 20.2 23.1 25.2 19.6 22.3 23.5 West Friendship 21.5 18.1 25.8 17.5 16.9 25.2 18.3 21.3 24.1 22.5 17.4 25.9 16.5 19.3 23.3 Worthington 19.8 20.4 24.2 19.8 21.1 26.1 19.0 21.1 24.2 20.7 20.1 25.5 18.0 21.3 24.6 Average 20.8 19.4 24.1 20.4 19.8 24.4 20.5 20.2 25.1 20.8 20.8 25.1 20.0 20.7 24.5

2013 - 2014 2014 - 2015 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 -2018

Howard County Public School SystemMiddle School Class Size Average broken down by school

2013 - 2014 2014 - 2015 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 -2018Middle School Grades 6, 7, & 8 Grades 6, 7, & 8 Grades 6, 7, & 8 Grades 6, 7, & 8 Grades 6, 7, & 8

Bonnie Branch 22.1 20.9 22.6 22.5 22.5 Burleigh Manor 22.4 21.8 23.4 23.2 24.6 Clarksville 22.5 21.9 21.7 22.8 23.3 Dunloggin 22.2 21.4 23.5 22.6 23.1 Elkridge Landing 23.4 22.3 24.4 23.5 22.7 Ellicott Mills 22.9 21.9 23.2 24.1 23.2 Folly Quarter 22.3 21.7 23.7 24.0 22.9 Glenwood 22.5 21.5 22.5 21.8 22.5 Hammond 22.1 23.8 23.4 23.1 22.8 Harper's Choice 21.1 19.3 20.1 20.2 21.0 Lake Elkhorn 19.3 18.9 20.4 20.5 20.6 Lime Kiln 22.7 21.7 24.1 23.0 24.0 Mayfield Woods 22.0 20.6 22.3 21.7 23.0 Mount View 24.5 22.4 24.8 24.5 24.1 Murray Hill 22.1 19.0 20.2 22.0 22.2 Oakland Mills 17.7 17.9 21.1 20.7 21.0 Patapsco 22.8 20.9 22.8 23.4 24.0 Patuxent Valley 19.8 18.5 21.2 21.5 22.0 Thomas Viaduct n/a 20.5 20.4 21.2 22.0 Wilde Lake 20.0 19.3 21.4 21.6 21.5 Averages 21.8 19.8 21.5 22.4 22.7

Howard County Public School SystemHigh School Class Size Average broken down by school

2013 - 2014 2014 - 2015 2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 -2018High School Grades 9, 10, 11, & 12 Grades 9, 10, 11, & 12 Grades 9, 10, 11, & 12 Grades 9, 10, 11, & 12 Grades 9, 10, 11, & 12

Atholton 24.2 24.2 24.4 23.6 25.2 Centennial 25.0 24.4 24.4 24.7 26.1 Glenelg 23.6 23.4 24.2 24.1 24.1 Hammond 21.6 22.2 22.0 22.9 22.9 Howard 23.6 24.0 24.8 25.3 24.8 Long Reach 23.0 22.4 22.2 22.0 22.6 Marriotts Ridge 24.8 23.2 24.4 25.3 25.8 Mt. Hebron 23.4 24.0 24.6 24.1 23.8 Oakland Mills 21.2 21.4 21.4 21.7 22.9 Reservoir 23.8 23.4 24.4 23.8 24.2 River Hill 24.6 24.0 24.2 25.6 26.3 Wilde Lake 21.8 22.0 22.0 21.7 22.6 Averages 23.4 23.2 23.6 23.7 24.3

Howard County Public School SystemClass Size Reduction - Impact by SchoolFY 2019 Budget Worksession

Elementary School FTE

ReductionAtholton ES 0.0Bellows Spring ES 2.0Bollman Bridge ES 1.0Bryant Woods ES 0.0Bushy Park ES 2.0Centennial Lane ES 1.0Clarksville ES 0.0Clemens Crossing ES 0.0Cradlerock ES 1.0Dayton 1.0Deep Run ES 3.0DLES 1.0Elkridge ES 0.0Forest Ridge ES 1.0Fulton ES 2.0Gorman Crossing ES 1.0Guilford ES 0.0Hammond ES 1.0Hanover Hill ES 0.0Hollifield Station ES 0.0Ilchester ES 0.0Jeffers Hill ES 0.0Laurel Woods ES 1.0Lisbon ES 0.0Longfellow ES 0.0Manor Woods ES 0.0Northfield ES 1.0Phelps Luck ES 1.0Pointers Run ES 1.0Rockburn ES 2.0Running Brook ES 0.0St Johns Lane ES 1.0Stevens Forest ES 0.0Swansfield ES 1.0Talbott Springs ES 0.0Thunder Hill ES 0.0Triadelphia Ridge ES 0.0Veterans 3.0Waterloo ES 0.0Waverly ES 1.0West Friendship ES 1.0Worthington ES 1.0Total 31.0

Howard County Public School SystemClass Size Reduction - Impact by SchoolFY 2019 Budget Worksession

High SchoolFTE

ReductionAHS 2.6CHS 2.9GHS 2.1HAHS 2.3HOHS 3.4LRHS 3.1MRHS 2.4MTHS 2.8OMHS 2.0REHS 2.8RHHS 2.1WLHS 2.3Total 30.8

Reduced Program 3030 staffing by 27.3 FTEs, leaving 3.5 positions due touncertainy around requirements for digital edcuation staffing and JumpStart.

Middle SchoolsFTE

ReductionBBMS 1.0BMMS 2.0CMS 1.0DMS 2.0ELMS 2.0EMMS 2.0FQMS 1.0GMS 1.0HMS 1.0HCMS 1.0LEMS 1.0LKMS 1.0MWMS 1.0MVMS 2.0MHMS 2.0OMMS 1.0PMS 2.0PVMS 1.0TVMS 1.0WLMS 1.0Total 27.0

REPORT

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTY MEETING AGENDA ITEM

TITLE: Class Size Report 2017-2018 DATE: December 19, 2017

PRESENTER(S): Frank V. Eastham, Jr., Chief School Management and Instructional Leadership Officer

Marcia L. Leonard, Community Superintendent, Area 1 Theo L. Cramer, Community Superintendent, Area 2

Patrick J. Saunderson, Community Superintendent, Area 3

OVERVIEW: The Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) is committed to ensuring that each classroom has a class size that supports the academic performance of students. This report reviews data at the system level and by school to determine if expectations for class size are being met. The report reviews the staffing process and provides class size data for the current school year. RECOMMENDATION/FUTURE DIRECTION: Staff will continue to monitor class size to ensure that schools have adequate staffing for instructional programs.

Submitted by: Approval/Concurrence:

Frank V. Eastham, Jr. Chief School Management and Instructional Leadership Officer

Michael J. Martirano, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent

Marcia L. Leonard Community Superintendent, Area 1

Karalee Turner-Little Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Affairs

Theo L. Cramer, Ed.D Community Superintendent, Area 2

Helen A. Nixon, Ed.D Chief Human Resource & Leadership Development Officer

Patrick J. Saunderson Community Superintendent, Area 3

2

Overview of the Staffing Process The Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) is committed to ensuring that each classroom has a class size that supports the academic performance of students. Staffing is a year-long process starting in the prior year. In September, the Office of School Planning provides the Budget Office with the enrollment projections used to build the upcoming budget. Using the enrollment projections and staffing formulas, the Division of School Management and Instructional Leadership provides all instructional departments and community superintendents with the number of staff positions needed for the upcoming budget. Pool positions are included within the budget and are allocated to schools whose population increases warrant additional staffing. Differentiated staffing positions are also included within the budget to provide additional resources to schools with greater needs. These positions ensure that class sizes are maintained at appropriate levels throughout the staffing process. In February, the Office of School Planning provides updated enrollment projections to the Division of School Management and Instructional Leadership. The Division of School Management and Instructional Leadership uses these projections and current enrollment to determine the number of positions each school will receive and provides this information to schools in late February. In March, the community superintendents meet with each principal to review the proposed use of staffing allocations. Throughout the spring and summer the Division of School Management and Instructional Leadership closely monitors school enrollment and adjusts staffing as needed. In August and September, the Division of School Management and Instructional Leadership meets weekly to review the enrollment of each school to determine if schools are staffed appropriately. Once the school year begins for students every effort is made to avoid reducing staff in order to minimize disruption to students and school programs. The official enrollment count is taken for each school on September 30.

3

Elementary School Class Size

2017-2018

The data for elementary class size reflect the average number of students in each classroom by individual school as of September 30, 2017. Classroom refers to the grouping in which students spend the majority of their day. Reading and mathematics groupings in many schools have lower average numbers of students than homeroom classes because schools often use intervention teachers and others to provide instruction in these subject areas. These teachers may include reading specialists, Title I teachers, gifted and talented resource teachers, teachers provided through differentiated staffing, and other teachers not assigned to a regular classroom. Elementary enrollment projections are used to determine the number of classroom teachers assigned to a school. The teacher to student ratio varies by grade level and is listed below: • Kindergarten ratio is 1:22 with an upper range of 24 students • Grades 1 and 2 ratio is 1:20 with an upper range of 25 students • Grades 3, 4, and 5 ratio is 1:26 with an upper range of 31 students Class sizes in elementary schools have remained relatively constant from year to year. Schools sometimes make one class smaller or larger than another to accommodate the size of a given classroom or the particular needs of the children in a given grade. The average class size by grade of all elementary schools, comparing last year’s numbers to this year’s numbers, is as follows: Grade 2016-2017 2017-2018

Kindergarten: 20.8 20.0 Grade 1: 20.8 20.3 Grade 2: 20.9 21.0 Grade 3: 24.6 24.3 Grade 4: 25.0 24.8 Grade 5: 25.7 24.4

The following tables provide additional details related to elementary class sizes:

Table E-1 Comparative Class Size Data Kindergarten, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 Table E-2 Comparative Class Size Data Grades 1 and 2, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 Table E-3 Comparative Class Size Data Grades 3, 4, and 5, 2016-2017, 2017-2018

4

CHART E-1 COMPARATIVE CLASS SIZE DATA

KINDERGARTEN

* Title I/Differentiated staffing is used to reduce class size ratios and/or provide targeted support.

^ Additional staffing was added after 9/30/2017. Ratio has been updated to reflect this change.

16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18Atholton 4 4 21.5 18.8Bellows Spring 5 7 20.4 20.7Bollman Bridge* 6 4 19.7 20.3Bryant Woods* 3 3 22.3 22.7Bushy Park 4 4 17.0 21.3Centennial Lane 5 5 19.8 22.6Clarksville 2 3 22.0 22.0Clemens Crossing 5 5 19.2 20.6Cradlerock * 4 3 19.8 21.3Dayton Oaks 4 4 23.3 21.3Deep Run* 6 6 21.0 20.8Ducketts Lane 6 8 21.7 20.4Elkridge 6 7 21.8 19.9Forest Ridge 5 5 21.8 18.8Fulton 7 7 20.9 21.6Gorman Crossing 5 7 20.2 20.9Guilford* 3 3 20.7 20.7Hammond 5 5 20.8 18.0Hollifield Station 7 6 20.0 22.7Ilchester 4 4 21.5 21.0Jeffers Hill 4 3 20.0 16.7Laurel Woods*^ 4 5 21.0 19.2Lisbon 3 3 21.7 22.0Longfellow* 3 4 18.3 18.0Manor Woods 5 4 24.0 22.5Northfield 5 5 21.2 21.4Phelps Luck* 5 5 20.0 16.2Pointers Run 5 5 21.2 19.8Rockburn 5 5 22.2 19.4Running Brook* 4 4 17.0 18.8St. John's Lane 5 5 20.8 21.4Stevens Forest* 3 4 21.0 15.3Swansfield*^ 4 5 22.8 19.8Talbott Springs* 4 4 20.3 19.3Thunder Hill 4 4 19.8 20.3Triadelphia Ridge 3 3 23.0 23.3Veterans 7 7 21.0 18.1Waterloo 4 5 19.8 19.0Waverly 5 5 20.2 19.6West Friendship 2 2 22.5 16.5Worthington 3 4 20.7 18.0Total Number of Classes 183.0 191.0Comparative Class Sizes 20.8 20.0

School

KindergartenTotal Number of Classes

KindergartenComparative Class Size in

Kindergarten

5

CHART E-2 COMPARATIVE CLASS SIZE DATA

GRADE 1 AND 2 CLASS SIZE RANGE 20-25


^ Additional staffing was added after 9/30/2017. Ratio has been updated to reflect this change. ‡ At least one class is held in a portable.

16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18Atholton 4 4 19.3 19.8 3 4 24.0 20.0Bellows Spring 6 5 20.3 23.6 5 6 21.8 21.8Bollman Bridge* 5 6 22.0 19.5 5 5 21.8 21.2Bryant Woods* 3 4 19.7 18.3 3 3 21.0 21.0Bushy Park 5 4 20.2 20.5 4 5 21.3 22.0Centennial Lane 5 5 22.2 22.6 6 6 22.0 22.0Clarksville 3 3 18.7 17.0 3 3 23.0 20.7Clemens Crossing 4 5 23.0 20.4 4 4 20.8 21.0Cradlerock * 3 4 21.7 20.8 4 4 19.3 18.3Dayton Oaks 4 5 21.0 19.8 5 4 21.6 23.5Deep Run* 6 6 19.7 21.3 7 5 19.7 22.6Ducketts Lane 7 7 20.1 19.4 7 7 21.7 21.9Elkridge^ 6 8 21.8 20.0 6 6 21.8 21.5Forest Ridge 6 6 21.0 18.2 5 6 22.4 19.2Fulton 6 7 21.8 22.4 6 7 20.7 19.7Gorman Crossing 4 6 22.0 20.7 6 5 21.3 20.8Guilford* 4 3 17.3 22.3 4 3 20.5 22.0Hammond 5 5 20.6 23.2 5 5 23.4 20.6Hollifield Station 7 7 19.0 20.7 5 7 22.8 20.6Ilchester 5 4 20.6 22.8 5 5 21.0 21.0Jeffers Hill 3 4 22.0 21.3 4 3 20.0 21.0Laurel Woods* 4 4 21.0 20.0 5 4 18.8 23.5Lisbon 3 3 21.0 23.3 4 3 20.5 22.7Longfellow* 3 3 22.3 19.0 4 3 18.5 22.0Manor Woods 5 7 20.8 19.9 6 6 20.7 20.7Northfield 5 6 22.2 19.8 5 6 23.2 19.8Phelps Luck* 4 5 23.0 19.6 4 5 23.0 18.6Pointers Run 5 6 21.6 19.5 6 5 20.7 22.4Rockburn 5 6 21.8 18.5 5 5 20.8 22.0Running Brook* 4 4 19.0 18.0 4 4 21.5 20.8St. John's Lane‡ 5 5 23.0 21.2 6 6‡ 21.3 20.3Stevens Forest* 4 4 17.5 16.5 3 4 18.7 17.5Swansfield* 5 4 22.2 22.8 4 5 23.3 20.8Talbott Springs* 4 4 19.8 19.3 4 4 17.0 21.0Thunder Hill 4 4 20.0 19.8 5 4 19.4 21.5Triadelphia Ridge 4 4 21.5 17.8 5 5 19.2 19.4Veterans 8 7 20.0 22.4 7 7 20.3 21.4Waterloo 5 4 20.0 19.3 4 5 18.8 22.4Waverly 5 5 23.0 22.4 5 6 23.2 22.2West Friendship 3 3 18.7 17.3 3 3 16.0 21.3Worthington 4 3 18.8 22.7 4 4 21.3 20.0

Total Number of Classes 190 199 195 197Comparative Class Sizes 20.8 20.3 20.9 21.0

School

Classroom Grade 1 Classroom Grade 2

Total Number of Classes Grade 1

Comparative Class Size Grade 1

Total Number of Classes Grade 2

Comparative Class Size Grade 2

6

TABLE E-3

COMPARATIVE CLASS SIZE DATA GRADE 3, 4, AND 5

CLASS SIZE RANGE 26-31


^ Additional staffing was added after 9/30/2017. Ratio has been updated to reflect this change. ‡ At least one class is held in a portable.

16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18Atholton‡ 3 3 22.7 23.3 3 3 27.0 23.3 2 3‡ 25.5 27.7Bellows Spring^ 5 4 24.2 27.0 4 5 26.3 26.6 4 5 27.3 23.4Bollman Bridge* 5 5 22.2 21.6 5 5 23.4 22.8 4 5 25.3 22.2Bryant Woods*‡ 3 4 20.3 16.8 3 3‡ 22.7 20.0 3 3‡ 20.3 22.3Bushy Park 4 4 25.5 22.0 4 4 29.0 28.5 4 5 29.5 24.4Centennial Lane‡ 5 5 24.4 27.6 5 5 27.2 25.6 5 5‡ 27.8 28.8Clarksville 3 3 24.3 25.7 4 3 22.0 27.0 4 4 25.0 24.0Clemens Crossing‡ 4 4 21.5 21.5 3 4‡ 27.7 22.5 4 4 23.0 21.8Cradlerock* 3 3 28.7 27.7 3 4 24.7 22.0 3 3 25.3 26.3Dayton Oaks 4 5 26.5 22.4 5 4 23.4 28.3 4 5 28.3 23.0Deep Run* 5 6 25.2 22.5 5 5 24.4 27.2 4 5 27.3 24.2Ducketts Lane‡ 6 6 25.7 26.2 5‡ 6 24.6 27.3 5 5 25.6 26.0Elkridge 5 6 27.8 24.2 5 6 25.0 24.2 6 5 27.2 26.2Forest Ridge 5 5 24.0 23.4 5 5 28.4 24.4 4 5 23.8 27.2Fulton 5 5 27.0 27.8 6 6 24.0 22.7 5 6 29.0 25.3Gorman Crossing 5 5 24.8 27.8 4 5 27.5 28.8 4 5 28.8 23.8Guilford* 3 4 23.0 18.8 4 3 20.0 22.7 4 4 19.5 17.8Hammond^ 4 5 26.3 25.2 4 4 27.3 24.3 4 5 25.5 23.8Hollifield Station 5 5 26.6 24.6 4 5 28.0 28.6 4 5 28.8 24.6Ilchester 4 4 26.8 26.5 5 4 24.4 26.5 5 5 26.4 24.4Jeffers Hill 3 3 24.7 26.3 3 3 27.0 24.7 3 3 26.7 26.0Laurel Woods* 4 4 26.5 23.8 4 4 23.8 27.5 3 4 26.0 24.3Lisbon 3 3 29.0 27.0 3 4 25.3 21.5 3 3 24.3 28.0Longfellow* 3 3 24.3 24.7 3 3 24.3 23.7 3 3 26.0 23.7Manor Woods 5 5 29.0 28.4 5 6 27.6 26.3 5 6 25.6 24.3Northfield‡ 5 5 25.4 25.8 5 5‡ 25.0 26.8 5 5 25.0 28.2Phelps Luck* 4 4 22.3 21.3 5 4 22.4 20.5 4 5 26.0 23.4Pointers Run 5 5 28.0 25.6 5 5 23.6 28.6 5 5 27.8 24.4Rockburn 4 4 26.3 27.8 4 4 26.5 27.5 4 4 25.8 26.8Running Brook* 4 4 20.0 20.0 4 4 17.5 18.0 4 3 22.3 23.7St. John's Lane‡ 4 5 28.0 26.4 5 5‡ 22.6 24.4 5 5‡ 26.0 23.8Stevens Forest* 4 3 17.8 19.3 4 4‡ 18.3 15.5 3 4 20.3 17.5Swansfield* 5 4 21.6 24.0 4 4 24.3 26.8 4 5 25.8 20.8Talbott Springs*‡ 3 3 23.7 23.3 3 3‡ 24.0 24.0 3 3‡ 25.7 27.3Thunder Hill 4 4 25.0 24.8 4 4 26.8 24.3 4 4 23.8 25.3Triadelphia Ridge 4 4 24.3 25.5 4 4 25.3 27.3 4 4 27.8 26.5Veterans 6 6 25.0 24.0 5 6 26.2 25.8 5 5 28.6 26.6Waterloo 5 3 22.2 26.3 4 4 21.8 26.5 4 4 25.5 24.0Waverly 5 5‡ 23.2 23.6 4 5 27.8 24.0 6 5 24.5 22.8West Friendship 3 2 21.3 26.0 2 3 30.0 23.3 2 3 26.5 20.7Worthington 4 4 24.3 21.0 4 4 26.8 25.5 4 4 25.5 27.3Total Number of Classes 173 174 165 177 165 179Comparative Class Sizes 24.6 24.3 25.0 24.8 25.7 24.4

Classroom Grade 3 Classroom Grade 4 Classrrom Grade 5

SchoolTotal Number of

Classes Grade 3Comparative Class

Size Grade 3Total Number of


Size Grade 4Total Number of


Size Grade 5

7

TABLE E-4 COMPARATIVE CLASS SIZE DATA

BY TEACHER

‡ Class is held in a portable.

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5Students Students Students Students Students Students

Atholton ESHomeroom 19 20 21 24 23 27‡

Homeroom 19 20 20 23 24 28‡

Homeroom 18 21 19 23 23 28‡

Homeroom 19 18 20Bellows Springs ES

Homeroom 20 24 22 27 26 24Homeroom 20 23 22 26 27 18Homeroom 22 23 23 27 26 23Homeroom 19 24 20 28 28 26Homeroom 22 24 22 26 26Homeroom 20 22Homeroom 22

Bollman Bridge ESHomeroom 19 19 21 22 23 21Homeroom 21 19 19 22 23 23Homeroom 20 21 23 20 23 23Homeroom 21 19 21 22 22 22Homeroom 20 22 22 23 22Homeroom 19

Bryant Woods ESHomeroom 22 17 20 13 20‡ 24Homeroom 23 18 20 17 19‡ 19Homeroom 23 19 23 22 21‡ 24‡

Homeroom 19 15Bushy Park ES

Homeroom 21 21 21 22 29 23Homeroom 22 21 22 21 30 24Homeroom 21 21 22 22 26 25Homeroom 21 19 23 23 29 26Homeroom 22 24

Centennial Lane ESHomeroom 21 20 20 28 27 30‡

Homeroom 22 24 23 26 26 27Homeroom 24 24 23 29 27 27Homeroom 22 24 23 29 22 30Homeroom 24 21 20 26 26 30Homeroom 23

Clarksville ESHomeroom 21 17 22 25 27 24Homeroom 23 16 19 26 28 23Homeroom 22 18 21 26 26 25Homeroom 24

Clemens Crossing ESHomeroom 20 19 22 22 24 21Homeroom 21 19 21 21 21 20Homeroom 20 20 20 22 24 23Homeroom 21 22 21 21 21‡ 23Homeroom 21 22

8


BY TEACHER



Cradlerock ESHomeroom 21 21 21 27 22 25Homeroom 21 21 17 28 21 28Homeroom 22 20 17 28 22 26Homeroom 21 18 23

Dayton Oaks ESHomeroom 22 21 23 23 29 23Homeroom 21 19 24 22 29 23Homeroom 22 19 24 22 28 23Homeroom 20 21 23 22 27 23Homeroom 19 23 23

Deep Run ESHomeroom 20 21 22 22 28 22Homeroom 21 22 22 23 27 26Homeroom 22 22 24 22 24 22Homeroom 19 20 22 23 29 25Homeroom 23 22 23 23 28 26Homeroom 20 21 22Homeroom

Ducketts Lane ESHomeroom 17 19 21 26 28‡ 25Homeroom 21 21 24 24 25‡ 28Homeroom 22 20 24 30 29‡ 25Homeroom 20 19 23 26 28‡ 27Homeroom 20 20 21 23 25‡ 25Homeroom 20 17 21 28 29‡

Homeroom 22 20 19Homeroom 21Elkridge ESHomeroom 21 20 21 25 24 25Homeroom 20 21 21 27 27 28Homeroom 21 19 23 24 19 27Homeroom 19 18 21 26 23 25Homeroom 21 23 22 25 25 26Homeroom 21 19 21 18 27Homeroom 16 21Homeroom 19

Forest Ridge ESHomeroom 19 17 16 25 24 28Homeroom 19 19 19 24 23 26Homeroom 20 18 20 24 26 27Homeroom 19 18 20 21 24 27Homeroom 17 19 21 23 25 28Homeroom 18 19Fulton ESHomeroom 20 24 21 30 23 26Homeroom 21 23 20 27 22 27Homeroom 21 24 20 27 22 24Homeroom 21 23 18 27 22 24Homeroom 22 23 17 28 24 26Homeroom 24 23 20 23 25Homeroom 22 17 22

9

TABLE E-4

COMPARATIVE CLASS SIZE DATA BY TEACHER



Gorman Crossing ESHomeroom 22 18 21 28 29 25Homeroom 22 21 20 28 29 24Homeroom 20 21 21 28 29 24Homeroom 19 21 21 28 28 23Homeroom 21 22 21 27 29 23Homeroom 21 21Homeroom 21Guilford ESHomeroom 21 22 23 19 23 19Homeroom 21 22 24 20 23 17‡

Homeroom 20 23 19 18 22 18Homeroom 18 17‡

Hammond ESHomeroom 19 23 20 25 25 28Homeroom 18 24 22 25 24 29Homeroom 17 23 21 26 24 31Homeroom 18 23 21 25 24 31Homeroom 18 23 19 25

Hollifield Station ESHomeroom 22 20 21 23 30 25Homeroom 23 21 22 26 30 25Homeroom 22 21 20 25 29 25Homeroom 23 20 19 26 24 26Homeroom 23 21 19 23 30 22Homeroom 23 21 22Homeroom 21 21

Ilchester ESHomeroom 21 22 22 28 26 25Homeroom 22 24 22 25 28 25Homeroom 19 24 19 27 26 22Homeroom 22 21 21 26 26 25Homeroom 21 25

Jeffers Hill ESHomeroom 17 22 21 26 25 26Homeroom 17 21 21 28 25 26Homeroom 16 20 21 25 24 26Homeroom 22

Laurel Woods ESHomeroom 20 22 24 24 27 24Homeroom 19 20 24 23 28 22Homeroom 20 18 23 25 28 24Homeroom 21 20 23 23 27 27Homeroom 22Lisbon ESHomeroom 22 23 23 26 21 28Homeroom 22 23 22 27 22 28Homeroom 22 24 23 28 20 28Homeroom 23

10

TABLE E-4




Longfellow ESHomeroom 17 19 21 25 23 24Homeroom 19 19 21 24 25 24Homeroom 18 19 24 25 23 23Homeroom 18

Manor Woods ESHomeroom 23 18 20 28 28 24Homeroom 22 19 22 28 25 25Homeroom 22 20 21 29 25 25Homeroom 23 19 21 28 27 24Homeroom 22 21 29 24 24Homeroom 22 19 29 24Homeroom 19

Northfield ESHomeroom 21 19 20 25 28 29Homeroom 21 19 20 26 24 27Homeroom 20 20 20 26 28 28Homeroom 22 20 20 26 27‡ 30Homeroom 23 21 18 26 27 27Homeroom 20 21

Phelps Luck ESHomeroom 17 18 17 23 20 23Homeroom 17 21 18 20 21 24Homeroom 15 22 20 21 20 22Homeroom 16 17 18 21 21 24Homeroom 16 20 20 24

Pointers Run ESHomeroom 21 21 23 23 29 21Homeroom 20 20 23 25 29 25Homeroom 20 19 22 27 29 24Homeroom 19 19 22 27 29 27Homeroom 19 20 22 26 27 25Homeroom 18

Rockburn ESHomeroom 18 18 22 27 27 24Homeroom 20 20 21 28 26 27Homeroom 20 17 23 28 28 29Homeroom 20 19 22 28 29 27Homeroom 19 19 22Homeroom 18

Running Brook ESHomeroom 18 18 24 20 18 25Homeroom 19 20 19 20 19 23Homeroom 19 16 21 22 16 23Homeroom 19 18 19 18 19

St. John's Lane ESHomeroom 20 21 19‡ 27 25 25Homeroom 22 21 20 27 24 25Homeroom 19 21 21 26 23‡ 21Homeroom 23 21 20 26 25 23Homeroom 23 22 21 26 25 25‡

Homeroom 21

11


BY TEACHER



Stevens Forest ESHomeroom 16 16 17 19 15‡ 18Homeroom 16 18 16 19 16‡ 16Homeroom 15 15 19 20 15‡ 20Homeroom 14 17 18 16‡ 16

Swansfield ESHomeroom 20 23 22 22 27 18Homeroom 21 23 22 27 27 24Homeroom 20 22 20 20 30 24Homeroom 18 23 20 27 23 20Homeroom 20 20 18

Talbott Springs ESHomeroom 19 18 18 24 23‡ 27‡

Homeroom 20 22 22 23 22‡ 26‡

Homeroom 19 19 22 23 27‡ 29‡

Homeroom 19 18 22Thunder Hill ES

Homeroom 21 18 22 27 25 26Homeroom 21 17 21 22 24 25Homeroom 18 22 22 25 23 26Homeroom 21 22 21 25 25 24Homeroom

Triadelphia Ridge ESHomeroom 23 17 19 25 27 27Homeroom 22 18 17 26 28 26Homeroom 22 18 21 25 27 26Homeroom 18 20 26 27 27Homeroom 20

Veterans ESHomeroom 18 20 20 25 26 28Homeroom 19 23 22 24 26 25Homeroom 17 22 22 25 25 26Homeroom 19 22 20 24 27 26Homeroom 18 24 21 23 26 28Homeroom 18 23 23 23 25Homeroom 18 23 22Homeroom

Waterloo ESHomeroom 19 19 22 28 26 26Homeroom 19 19 23 27 28 27Homeroom 19 19 22 24 25 22Homeroom 19 20 22 27 21Homeroom 19 23Waverly ESHomeroom 19 22 23 23‡ 20 28Homeroom 18 22 23 25‡ 30 20Homeroom 21 22 24 24‡ 30 29Homeroom 19 23 22 23‡ 18 18Homeroom 21 23 20 23‡ 22 19Homeroom 21

12

TABLE E-4




West Friendship ESHomeroom 17 16 21 26 24 21Homeroom 16 18 22 26 22 20Homeroom 18 21 24 21

Worthington ESHomeroom 18 24 21 21 27 27Homeroom 18 22 19 21 25 29Homeroom 18 22 21 19 24 27Homeroom 18 19 23 26 26

13

Middle School Class Size

2017-2018

The data for middle school class size reflect the average number of students in each classroom by individual school as of September 30, 2017. The data for middle school class size reflect the average class size in the core subjects of language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, and world languages. Middle school enrollment projections determine the number of classroom teachers assigned to a school. Currently in middle schools, the teacher to student ratio is 1:21.

Average core class size remains consistent across middle schools, with school averages ranging from 20.6 to 24.6 with a countywide average of 22.7. • Average class size in World Language is 23.1 • Average class size in Language Arts is 22.2 • Average class size in Social Studies is 23.0 • Average class size in Science is 23.5 • Average class size in Math is 21.4

Overall the average class size in all core subjects is 22.7.

Table M-1, Comparative Class Size Data Middle Schools, presents class size data in five core areas.

• A comparison of class size by academic area for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. • A comparison of average class size by school for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. • A comparison of countywide class size by academic area for 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.

Table M-2, Comparative Class Size Data Middle Schools, presents class size data in six non-core

areas.

• A comparison of class size for related arts areas by school for 2017-2018.

Table M-3, Classes with More than 33 Students District wide, there are four core classes and two non-core classes containing more than 33 students. The core classes are a section of Spanish at Glenwood Middle School, a section of Science II GT at Hammond Middle School, and two sections of French at Mount View Middle School. The non-core classes are two sections of MS G/T Research at Clarksville Middle School. All classes were increased due to an unavoidable scheduling conflict. Prior to approval, alternatives were examined and student impact assessed.

14

CHART M-1 COMPARATIVE CLASS SIZE DATA

MIDDLE SCHOOLS

16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18Bonnie Branch 21.7 22.2 22.9 23.8 23.7 23.8 23.6 23.7 20.8 19.2 22.5 22.5Burleigh Manor 23.1 23.1 22.7 23.1 24.0 25.3 24.8 27.0 21.4 24.8 23.2 24.6Clarksville 23.7 24.6 23.3 24.0 23.3 24.0 21.5 22.1 22.3 22.1 22.8 23.3Dunloggin 24.0 25.3 23.8 23.1 22.1 22.5 22.1 22.5 21.1 22.1 22.6 23.1Elkridge Landing 22.0 21.9 24.6 22.7 23.2 22.9 23.2 22.9 24.6 23.3 23.5 22.7Ellicott Mills 25.4 23.0 22.6 23.9 24.8 22.9 24.3 24.2 23.5 21.9 24.1 23.2Folly Quarter 25.4 23.5 22.4 22.7 24.6 22.8 24.6 22.8 22.8 23.0 24.0 22.9Glenwood 22.0 23.6 21.4 21.3 22.5 23.6 23.5 23.6 19.5 20.3 21.8 22.5Hammond 23.0 22.5 22.7 21.2 24.6 23.1 23.6 25.2 21.8 21.9 23.1 22.8Harper's Choice 24.3 24.9 19.4 19.6 18.9 19.8 19.6 21.2 18.7 19.5 20.2 21.0Lake Elkhorn 20.6 22.4 19.4 18.0 21.2 21.8 21.2 21.9 20.2 18.7 20.5 20.6Lime Kiln 22.8 23.3 23.0 23.4 24.0 25.1 23.3 25.2 22.0 23.2 23.0 24.0Mayfield Woods 21.9 23.1 21.9 22.7 22.0 23.6 22.0 23.8 20.4 21.9 21.7 23.0Mount View 23.9 24.1 22.4 23.1 26.3 23.3 26.3 27.2 23.5 22.9 24.5 24.1Murray Hill 24.7 23.3 21.5 23.2 20.8 21.4 23.0 22.1 20.0 21.1 22.0 22.2Oakland Mills 18.9 17.8 21.9 21.1 22.2 23.8 22.2 23.8 18.3 18.6 20.7 21.0Patapsco 26.4 26.4 22.6 23.4 22.7 23.4 22.8 23.5 22.5 23.1 23.4 24.0Patuxent Valley 21.7 23.4 22.6 21.0 21.3 22.8 22.0 22.0 19.8 20.9 21.5 22.0Thomas Viaduct 21.6 22.7 21.5 21.3 21.1 23.0 21.1 23.0 20.8 20.0 21.2 22.0Wilde Lake 20.6 21.5 22.0 21.6 22.2 21.8 22.2 23.4 21.1 19.0 21.6 21.5HCPSS Average Class Size 22.9 23.1 22.2 22.2 22.8 23.0 22.8 23.5 21.2 21.4 22.4 22.7

Math School Averages Middle School Core Subjects

School World Language Language Arts Social Studies Science

15

CHART M-2 COMPARATIVE CLASS SIZE DATA

MIDDLE SCHOOLS

ART FACS Health General Music Physical Education Tech Ed17-18 17-18 17-18 17-18 17-18 17-18

Bonnie Branch 23.1 20.9 25.6 23.6 25.6 21.9Burleigh Manor 21.1 24.9 25.2 19.9 27.0 21.2Clarksville 19.6 21.1 25.1 19.4 24.1 19.4Dunloggin 18.4 18.4 22.4 18.6 21.1 16.5Elkridge Landing 24.6 24.9 18.9 24.4 23.5 29.1Ellicott Mills 22.9 24.7 25.1 22.0 23.7 22.5Folly Quarter 23.7 24.0 27.5 19.8 27.5 23.7Glenwood 17.1 18.5 24.7 22.6 25.0 15.7Hammond 21.7 21.9 19.8 26.2 23.2 18.3Harper's Choice 19.0 22.8 23.6 24.1 23.9 18.2Lake Elkhorn 17.0 23.9 27.4 23.8 27.4 20.4Lime Kiln 22.3 26.9 22.7 24.6 30.5 22.0Mayfield Woods 24.2 27.4 25.4 21.0 19.4 22.0Mount View 19.2 25.3 20.4 19.8 27.2 21.9Murray Hill 22.4 21.7 21.8 25.8 29.2 18.2Oakland Mills 16.6 15.9 23.7 20.6 23.6 20.4Patapsco 22.4 22.3 24.3 24.8 24.3 22.4Patuxent Valley 16.4 20.9 21.5 23.5 27.2 18.4Thomas Viaduct 19.4 24.4 24.5 20.9 26.5 21.3Wilde Lake 19.0 20.6 23.3 20.3 22.7 18.5

HCPSS Average Class Size 20.5 22.5 23.6 22.3 25.1 20.6

School Middle School Related Arts Subjects

16

CHART M-3

CLASSES OVER 33

Core Classes Non-Core Classes School 2017-2018 2017-2018

Bonnie Branch 0 0 Burleigh Manor 0 0 Clarksville 0 2 Dunloggin 0 0 Elkridge Landing 0 0 Ellicott Mills 0 0 Folly Quarter 0 0 Glenwood 1 0 Hammond 1 0 Harper's Choice 0 0 Lake Elkhorn 0 0 Lime Kiln 0 0 Mayfield Woods 0 0 Mount View 2 0 Murray Hill 0 0 Oakland Mills 0 0 Patapsco 0 0 Patuxent Valley 0 0 Thomas Viaduct 0 0 Wilde Lake 0 0TOTAL 4 2

17

High School Class Size

2017-2018

The data for high school class size reflect the average number of students in each classroom by individual school as of September 30, 2017. The data for high-school class size reflect the class size in the academic areas of English 9 and 10, Algebra I, Geometry and Algebra II, core classes over 33, and comparative data for core academic courses. High school enrollment projections determine the number of classroom teachers assigned to a school. The high school teacher to student ratio is 1.4:28. The priority of smaller class sizes in assessed classes and in ninth grade English and Mathematics classes continues to be maintained. This priority, as well as an effective staffing process, has resulted in well-balanced class sizes in core curriculum classes in all of our high schools. Tables H-1, Class Size – English 9, H-2, Class Size – English 10, and H-3, Class Size – Mathematics present the following: 1. Average class size for English 9 is 24.3 2. Average class size for English 10 is 24.0 3. Average class size for Algebra I, Geometry and Algebra II is 24.1 Table H-4, Classes with More than 33 Students District wide, there are two core classes and one non-core class containing more than 33 students. The core classes are a section of English 11 – AP at Centennial High School and a section of Calculus - AP at Glenelg High School. The non-core class is a section of SAT Prep Course at Mt. Hebron High School. All classes were increased to 34 students due to an unavoidable scheduling conflict. Prior to approval, alternatives were examined and student impact assessed. Table H-5, Comparative High School Class Size Data by Core Curricular Areas

The application of the high school staffing process has enabled HCPSS to maintain a consistent class size in all core curricular areas, while maintaining class sizes at or below 33 students. The Division of School Management and Instructional Leadership continues to provide differentiated staffing to meet the unique needs of schools and the intensive support needed for students striving to meet graduation requirements.

18

CHART H-1 CLASS SIZE – ENGLISH 9

Course NumberSchool No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N Avg

Atholton 3 72 24.0 6 153 25.5 5 137 27.4 14 362 25.9

Centennial 3 68 22.7 6 184 30.7 4 111 27.8 2 66 33 15 429 28.6

Glenelg 4 86 21.5 5 113 22.6 3 82 27.3 12 281 23.4Hammond 9 178 19.8 4 98 24.5 3 74 24.7 16 350 21.9Howard 9 191 21.2 7 179 25.6 5 114 22.8 21 484 23.0Long Reach 11 232 21.1 4 105 26.3 4 80 20.0 19 417 21.9Marriotts Ridge 3 68 22.7 5 130 26.0 6 152 25.3 14 350 25.0Mt. Hebron 5 110 22.0 4 123 30.8 4 128 32.0 13 361 27.8Oakland Mills 4 119 29.8 4 80 20.0 4 94 23.5 12 293 24.4Reservoir 6 129 21.5 6 173 28.8 5 132 26.4 17 434 25.5River Hill 2 51 25.5 5 125 25.0 3 98 32.7 10 274 27.4Wilde Lake 9 163 18.1 5 114 22.8 3 67 22.3 17 344 20.2TOTAL 68 1467 21.6 61 1577 25.9 49 1269 25.9 2 66 33.0 180 4379 24.3

English 9English 9 English Honors 9 GT

Humanities I GT(English)

AllLA-401-1 LA-402-1 LA-403-1 LA-830-1

19

CHART H-2

CLASS SIZE - ENGLISH 10

Course NumberSchool No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N Avg

Atholton 4 75 18.8 7 191 27.3 4 105 26.3 15 371 24.7Centennial 3 61 20.3 6 181 30.2 4 113 28.3 2 61 30.5 15 416 27.7Glenelg 5 96 19.2 6 144 24.0 3 80 26.7 14 320 22.9Hammond 6 122 20.3 6 131 21.8 2 65 32.5 14 318 22.7Howard 8 178 22.3 7 180 25.7 6 158 26.3 21 516 24.6Long Reach 9 181 20.1 5 115 23.0 4 115 28.8 18 411 22.8Marriotts Ridge 3 57 19.0 4 124 31.0 6 160 26.7 13 341 26.2Mt. Hebron 4 71 17.8 8 204 25.5 5 124 24.8 17 399 23.5Oakland Mills 5 106 21.2 4 91 22.8 5 112 22.4 14 309 22.1Reservoir 4 79 19.8 5 109 21.8 5 140 28.0 14 328 23.4River Hill 2 42 21.0 4 93 23.3 5 149 29.8 11 284 25.8Wilde Lake 6 125 20.8 5 114 22.8 3 68 22.7 14 307 21.9TOTAL 59 1193 20.2 67 1677 25.0 52 1389 26.7 2 61 30.5 180 4320 24.0

English 10English 10 English 10

LA-501-1

HumanitiesAllHonors GT

LA-831-1LA-502-1 LA-503-1

20

CHART H-3 CLASS SIZE – MATHEMATICS

School No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N Avg No. Sec N AvgAtholton 5 127 25.4 5 132 26.4 3 70 23.3 8 204 25.5 6 177 29.5 27 710 26.3Centennial 6 131 21.8 6 150 25.0 4 88 22.0 8 223 27.9 7 198 28.3 31 790 25.5Glenelg 6 114 19.0 5 137 27.4 2 59 29.5 4 104 26.0 6 181 30.2 23 595 25.9Hammond 14 281 20.1 9 194 21.6 2 47 23.5 9 166 18.4 5 145 29.0 39 833 21.4Howard 10 219 21.9 9 207 23.0 4 105 26.3 10 246 24.6 8 227 28.4 41 1004 24.5Long Reach 15 328 21.9 9 213 23.7 5 109 21.8 11 238 21.6 7 197 28.1 47 1085 23.1Marriotts Ridge 5 115 23.0 5 105 21.0 3 75 25.0 5 113 22.6 7 198 28.3 25 606 24.2Mt. Hebron 9 185 20.6 8 179 22.4 2 48 24.0 9 226 25.1 7 208 29.7 35 846 24.2Oakland Mills 10 227 22.7 7 149 21.3 3 79 26.3 8 196 24.5 5 134 26.8 33 785 23.8Reservoir 10 221 22.1 8 187 23.4 4 118 29.5 11 254 23.1 6 176 29.3 39 956 24.5River Hill 3 86 28.7 4 89 22.3 2 58 29.0 4 111 27.8 6 163 27.2 19 507 26.7Wilde Lake 11 247 22.5 11 214 19.5 2 40 20.0 11 261 23.7 4 98 24.5 39 860 22.1TOTAL 104 2281 21.9 86 1956 22.7 36 896 24.9 98 2342 23.9 74 2102 28.4 398 9577 24.1

All

MA-463-1

Algebra II GT

Course Number MA-401-1 MA-431-1 MA-433-1 MA-461-1

Algebra I Geometry GTGeometry Algebra II

21

CHART H-4

CLASSES OVER 33

* Does not include music and dance classes.

Core Classes Non-Core Classes *School 2017-2018 2017-2018

Atholton 0 0 Centennial 1 0 Glenelg 1 0 Hammond 0 0 Howard 0 0 Long Reach 0 0 Marriotts Ridge 0 0 Mt. Hebron 0 1 Oakland Mills 0 0 Reservoir 0 0 River Hill 0 0 Wilde Lake 0 0TOTAL 2 1

22

CHART H-5

COMPARATIVE HIGH SCHOOL CLASS SIZE DATA BY CORE CURRICULAR AREAS

CoursesSchool 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18 16-17 17-18

Atholton 24.2 24.4 21.1 25.0 23.3 26.2 23.8 25.3 25.6 25.1Centennial 25.5 27.5 23.0 23.1 23.7 25.9 25.8 26.5 25.6 27.4Glenelg 23.2 23.9 22.9 23.4 24.4 25.3 23.9 21.6 26.1 26.3Hammond 24.2 23.5 20.5 23.9 24.5 21.5 20.5 22.3 24.7 23.2Howard 25.0 25.1 25.4 23.4 25.5 25.7 25.8 24.7 25.1 24.9Long Reach 21.3 22.9 21.4 21.8 21.2 23.0 22.6 23.6 23.5 22.0Marriotts Ridge 26.2 25.3 24.4 25.8 24.3 26.0 25.8 25.3 25.8 26.6Mt. Hebron 22.7 25.0 23.6 21.1 24.6 25.1 24.4 23.6 25.1 24.2Oakland Mills 20.7 22.0 20.5 22.8 21.1 21.8 22.0 24.0 24.2 23.9Reservoir 21.8 25.0 23.3 23.8 24.8 24.4 24.3 23.8 24.6 24.0River Hill 22.5 27.0 25.8 25.5 27.0 27.9 25.9 26.1 26.8 24.8Wilde Lake 20.0 22.5 23.2 22.9 21.8 22.5 21.1 22.4 22.0 22.9TOTAL 23.1 24.5 22.9 23.5 23.8 24.6 23.8 24.1 24.9 24.6

English World Language Mathematics Science Social Studies

10910 Clarksville Pike Ellicott City, MD 21042 410-313-6600

Staffing Formulas 2017–2018

i

Table of Contents

Staffing by Level

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STAFFING ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................ 2 TEACHERS – CLASSROOM ............................................................................................... 2 TEACHERS – OTHER Art ............................................................................................................................... 2 Media ......................................................................................................................... 2 Instructional Technology ............................................................................................ 3 Music – Band .............................................................................................................. 3 Music – Strings ........................................................................................................... 3 Music – Vocal ............................................................................................................. 3 Physical Education ...................................................................................................... 3 Special Education K-5 ................................................................................................. 4 Reading Specialists ..................................................................................................... 4 ESOL ............................................................................................................................ 4 Gifted and Talented ................................................................................................... 5 School Counselors ...................................................................................................... 5 SUPPORT – PARAEDUCATORS Instructional Grades 1–5 ............................................................................................ 5 Kindergarten............................................................................................................... 5 Prekindergarten ......................................................................................................... 5 ESOL ............................................................................................................................ 5 Media ......................................................................................................................... 6 Regional Early Childhood Center ............................................................................... 6 Special Education K-5 ................................................................................................. 6 SUPPORT – HEALTH ASSISTANT/NURSE Health Assistant ......................................................................................................... 6 Registered Nurse ........................................................................................................ 6 SUPPORT – SECRETARIES Principal’s Secretary ................................................................................................... 6 Teachers’ Secretary .................................................................................................... 6 ADDITIONAL STAFF POSITIONS Alternative Education ................................................................................................. 7 Mathematics Support ................................................................................................ 7 Prekindergarten ......................................................................................................... 7 Reading Recovery ....................................................................................................... 7 Reading Support ........................................................................................................ 7


ii

Differentiated Staffing ............................................................................................... 7 Title I Staffing ............................................................................................................. 7 World Language ......................................................................................................... 7

MIDDLE SCHOOL STAFFING ADMINISTRATION ........................................................................................................... 8 TEACHERS – CLASSROOM ................................................................................................ 8 TEACHERS – OTHER Media .......................................................................................................................... 8 Reading ........................................................................................................................ 8 Reading Specialists ...................................................................................................... 8 Music – Band ............................................................................................................... 8 Music – Strings ............................................................................................................ 8 Music – Vocal .............................................................................................................. 8 ESOL ............................................................................................................................. 9 Gifted and Talented .................................................................................................... 9 School Counselors ....................................................................................................... 9 Special Education ........................................................................................................ 9 SUPPORT – PARAEDUCATORS ESOL ............................................................................................................................. 9 Math ............................................................................................................................ 9 Media .......................................................................................................................... 9 Special Education ........................................................................................................ 10 SUPPORT – HEALTH ASSISTANT/NURSE Health Assistant .......................................................................................................... 10 Registered Nurse ......................................................................................................... 10 SUPPORT – SECRETARIES Principal’s Secretary .................................................................................................... 10 Teachers’ Secretary ..................................................................................................... 10 Guidance Secretary ..................................................................................................... 10 Data Clerk .................................................................................................................... 10 ADDITIONAL STAFF POSITIONS Alternative Education .................................................................................................. 11 Mathematics Instructional Support ............................................................................ 11 World Language .......................................................................................................... 11 Differentiated Staffing ................................................................................................ 11 Special Education ........................................................................................................ 11 Instructional Technology ............................................................................................. 11


iii

HIGH SCHOOL STAFFING ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................ 12 TEACHERS – CLASSROOM ................................................................................................ 12 TEACHERS – OTHER Media ......................................................................................................................... 12 Music – Band .............................................................................................................. 12 Music – Strings ........................................................................................................... 12 ESOL ............................................................................................................................ 13 Gifted and Talented ................................................................................................... 13 School Counselors ...................................................................................................... 13 Special Education ....................................................................................................... 13 SUPPORT – PARAEDUCATORS ESOL ............................................................................................................................ 14 Instructional ............................................................................................................... 14 Media ......................................................................................................................... 14 Science ........................................................................................................................ 14 Special Education ....................................................................................................... 14 SUPPORT – HEALTH ASSISTANT/NURSE Health Assistant.......................................................................................................... 14 Registered Nurse ........................................................................................................ 14 SUPPORT – SECRETARIES Principal’s Secretary ................................................................................................... 14 Teachers’ Secretary .................................................................................................... 14 Guidance Secretary .................................................................................................... 15 Registrar ..................................................................................................................... 15 Bookkeeper ................................................................................................................ 15 Data Clerk ................................................................................................................... 15 ADDITIONAL STAFF POSITIONS Advanced Placement .................................................................................................. 15 Alternative Education ................................................................................................. 15 Applications and Research Laboratory ...................................................................... 15 Athletics and Activities Manager ............................................................................... 15 Career Research and Development ........................................................................... 15 Co-Teaching Intervention Model ............................................................................... 15 Differentiated Staff .................................................................................................... 16 Instructional Team Leaders ........................................................................................ 16 JROTC .......................................................................................................................... 16 Mathematics Instructional Support ........................................................................... 16 Security Assistant ....................................................................................................... 16 Teen Parenting ........................................................................................................... 17 Rouse Theatre ............................................................................................................ 17 Work Study ................................................................................................................. 17


iv

Staffing by Position Type

OTHER STAFFING ADMINISTRATION STAFFING .......................................................................................... 19 Elementary ................................................................................................................. 19 Middle ........................................................................................................................ 19 High ............................................................................................................................ 19 CLASSROOM TEACHER STAFFING .................................................................................. 19 Elementary ................................................................................................................. 19 Middle ........................................................................................................................ 19 High ............................................................................................................................ 19 ART ................................................................................................................................... 20 ENGLISH ........................................................................................................................... 20 ESOL ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL ..................................................................... 20 ESOL HIGH SCHOOL ......................................................................................................... 21 SUPPORT STAFF – PARAEDUCATORS .............................................................................. 21 GIFTED AND TALENTED ................................................................................................... 21 MATHEMATICS ................................................................................................................ 22 MEDIA .............................................................................................................................. 22 MUSIC............................................................................................................................... 23 PHYSICAL EDUCATION .................................................................................................... 24 PREKINDERGARTEN ........................................................................................................ 24 SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST ................................................................................................. 25 PUPIL PERSONNEL .......................................................................................................... 26 READING ......................................................................................................................... 26 SCHOOL COUNSELORS .................................................................................................... 27 SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICES ............................................................................................. 27 SCIENCE ........................................................................................................................... 28 SPECIAL EDUCATION EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES ................................................. 29 SPECIAL EDUCATION K-12 .............................................................................................. 30 RELATED SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 33 INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................... 34 WORLD LANGUAGE ........................................................................................................ 35 SPECIAL EDUCATION EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES ..................................... Appendix 1


1


2

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STAFFING

ADMINISTRATION Position FTE School Principal 1.0 Per School Assistant Principal 1.0 Per School Additional AP staffing will be considered for enrollment approaching 750.

TEACHERS – CLASSROOM Position FTE Student Ratio Prekindergarten Full Day 1.0 20 Prekindergarten Half Day 0.5 20 In co-taught RECC preschool classrooms, one 0.5 teacher for 7 or more income eligible students. Kindergarten Teachers 1.0 22 Grades 1–2 1.0 20 Grades 3–5 1.0 26

TEACHERS – OTHER *Add ED program classroom positions to determine ratio for Art, Music, PE and Media. ART* – ratio 1:25 Grades 1–5 plus Kindergarten and Full Day Pre-K positions

FTE Number of Classroom Teachers

Teacher 1.0 21 or fewer Teacher 1.4 22–27 Teacher 1.6 28–32 Teacher 2.0 33–42 Teacher 2.4 43 or more MEDIA SPECIALISTS* – ratio 1:25 Grades 1–5 plus Kindergarten and Full Day Pre-K positions


Specialist 1.0 23 or fewer Specialist 1.4 24–26 Specialist 1.5 27–28 Specialist 1.6 29–35 Specialist 2.0 36–47 Specialist 2.5 48–54 Specialist 3.0 55–59


3

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY FTE Number of Classroom Teachers

Teacher 1.0 21 or fewer Teacher 1.4 22–27 Teacher 1.6 28–32 Teacher 2.0 33–42 Teacher 2.4 43 or more Teacher 1.0 Schools with Elementary

World Language

MUSIC – BAND (may be itinerant) FTE Number of Students Teacher 0.5 1–99 Teacher 1.0 100–175 Teacher 1.5 176 or more

MUSIC – STRINGS (may be itinerant) FTE Number of Students Teacher 0.5 1–139 Teacher 1.0 140–215 Teacher 1.5 216 or more

MUSIC – VOCAL* - ratio 1:25 Grades 1–5 plus Kindergarten and Full Day Pre-K positions


Teacher 1.0 21 or fewer Teacher 1.4 22–27 Teacher 1.6 28–32 Teacher 2.0 33–42 Teacher 2.4 43 or more

PHYSICAL EDUCATION* – ratio 1:25 Grades 1–5 plus Kindergarten and Full Day Pre-K positions


Teacher 1.0 14 or fewer Teacher 1.4 15–18 Teacher 1.6 19–22 Teacher 2.0 23–28 Teacher 2.4 29–35 Teacher 2.6 36 or more


4

SPECIAL EDUCATION* FTE No. of IEP Instructional Hours

Teacher 2.0 Fewer than 120 Teacher 3.0 120-479 Teacher 4.0 480-599 Teacher 5.0 600-719 Teacher 6.0 720-839 Teacher 7.0 840-959 Teacher 8.0 960-1079 Teacher 9.0 1080 or more * Additional differentiated staffing is provided on a case by case basis

READING SPECIALIST FTE School Specialist 1.0 Per School READING SPECIALIST ADDITIONAL FTE Number of students

approaching reading expectations*

Specialist 0.5 150-200 Specialist 1.0 201-275 Specialist 1.5 276 or more *Students approaching reading expectations include students performing below grade level, students scoring in the 20th percentile or lower on MAP and students scoring 1 on PARCC. Positions are provided as funding permits.

READING RECOVERY As funding permits, 0.5 teaching position is given for every two first grade classrooms in schools with the highest percentage of students below grade level in reading or performing poorly on reading assessments.

ESOL FTE Number of ESOL

Students Teacher 0.5 10-20 Teacher 1.0 21-40 Teacher 1.5 41-60 Teacher 2.0 61-80 Teacher 2.5 81-100 Teacher 3.0 101-120 Teacher 3.5 121-140 Teacher 4.0 141-160 Teacher 4.5 161-180 Teacher 5.0 181-200


5

GIFTED AND TALENTED FTE Number of Students* Teacher 1.5 400 or fewer Teacher 2.0 401 or more Additional 0.5 position per school for more than 65 students eligible for G/T Math *Based on projected students Grades 2-5 SCHOOL COUNSELORS FTE School School Counselors 1.0 Per School Additional Counselor staffing will be considered for schools with projected enrollment approaching 750.

SUPPORT – PARAEDUCATORS INSTRUCTIONAL GRADES 1–5 ratio 1:25 FTE Number of Classroom

Teachers Paraeducator 4.0 1–12 Paraeducator 5.0 13–27 Paraeducator 6.0 28–40 Paraeducator 7.0 41 or more

KINDERGARTEN FTE Number of

Kindergarten Teachers Paraeducator 1.0 2 or fewer Paraeducator 1.5 3 and 4 Paraeducator 2.0 5 Paraeducator 2.5 6 Paraeducator 3.0 7 Paraeducator 3.5 8 PREKINDERGARTEN HALF DAY FTE Number of Students Paraeducator 0.5 20 PREKINDERGARTEN FULL DAY FTE Number of Students Paraeducator 1.0 20

ESOL FTE Number of ESOL

Students Paraeducator 0.5 25-50 Paraeducator 1.0 51-75 Paraeducator 1.5 76-100 Paraeducator 2.0 101-125 Paraeducator 2.5 126-150 Paraeducator 3.0 151-175 Paraeducator 3.5 176-200


6

MEDIA FTE School Paraeducator 1.0 Per School SPECIAL EDUCATION FTE Number of IEP

Instructional Hours Paraeducator 3.0 Fewer than 420 Paraeducator 4.0 420-539 Paraeducator 5.0 540-659 Paraeducator 6.0 660-779 Paraeducator 7.0 780-899 Paraeducator 8.0 900-1019 Paraeducator 9.0 1020 or more

SUPPORT – HEALTH ASSISTANT/NURSE HEALTH ROOM FTE School

Health Assistant 1.0 Per TeleHealth and High

Acuity School

Registered Nurse 1.0 Per TeleHealth and High

Acuity School

Registered Nurse 1.0 Per 2 cluster model

schools

Health Assistant 1.0 Per 2 schools with full time registered nurse

SUPPORT – SECRETARIES PRINCIPAL’S SECRETARY FTE School Secretary 1.0 Per School

TEACHERS’ SECRETARY FTE FTE Certificated Staff Secretary 1.0 1–34 Secretary 1.5 35–52 Secretary 2.0 53–70 Secretary 2.5 71–87 Secretary 3.0 88–105 Secretary 3.5 106 or more


7

ADDITIONAL STAFF POSITIONS ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION FTE Schools Teacher 13.0 As Assigned MATHEMATICS SUPPORT FTE Number of Schools Teacher 22.0 As Assigned PREKINDERGARTEN FTE Number of Schools Teacher 7.0 Full-Day As Assigned Teacher 18.0 Half-Day As Assigned READING RECOVERY FTE Number of Schools Teacher 16.0 As Assigned READING SUPPORT FTE Number of Schools Teacher 22.0 As Assigned DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING FTE Elementary School Teacher 2.0 Bollman Bridge Teacher 2.0 Bryant Woods Teacher 2.0 Guilford Teacher 2.0 Laurel Woods Teacher 2.0 Longfellow Teacher 2.0 Phelps Luck Teacher 2.0 Running Brook Teacher 2.0 Stevens Forest Teacher 1.5 Deep Run Teacher 1.5 Swansfield Teacher 1.0 Cradlerock Teacher 1.0 Talbott Springs TITLE I STAFFING FTE School Teacher 35.0 Distributed among 12

schools based on school needs.

WORLD LANGUAGE FTE Elementary School Teacher 3.0 Bryant Woods Teacher 6.0 Ducketts Lane Teacher 4.0 Laurel Woods Teacher 5.0 Phelps Luck Teacher 3.0 Running Brook Teacher 3.0 Stevens Forest Teacher 4.0 Talbott Springs Teacher 5.0 Waverly


8

MIDDLE SCHOOL STAFFING

ADMINISTRATION Position FTE Number of Students Principal 1.0 Per School Assistant Principal 1.0 Per School Additional AP staffing will be considered for enrollment approaching 750.

TEACHERS – CLASSROOM Teachers FTE Number of Students Grades 6–8 Teachers 1.0 Per 21* Intervention positions 38.0 Based on Needs *Does not include planning time for teachers, so actual class sizes are larger. This also funds all related-arts classes. TEACHERS – OTHER MEDIA FTE School Media Specialist 1.0 Per School

READING FTE Students

Below Grade Level Reading Specialist 1.0 0–85 Reading Specialist 1.5 86–125 Reading Specialist 2.0 126 or more Additional 0.5 position for schools with FARMs greater than 25%

READING MODULES FTE School Teacher 1.0 Per School

MUSIC – BAND FTE Students Teacher 1.0 75–175 Teacher 1.5 176 or more Additional staffing may be considered if the number of students participating in band approaches 210. MUSIC – STRINGS FTE Students Teacher 0.5 119 or fewer Teacher 1.0 120–174 Teacher 1.5 175 or more MUSIC – VOCAL FTE School Teacher From Basic Staffing


9

ESOL FTE Number of ESOL Students

Itinerant Teacher for up to five schools 1.0 1–8 Teacher 0.5 9–15 Teacher 1.0 16–25 Teacher 1.5 26–40 Teacher 2.0 41–55

GIFTED AND TALENTED FTE School Resource Teacher 1.0 Per School Classroom Teacher 2.0 Per School

SCHOOL COUNSELORS FTE Number of Students School Counselors 2.0 0–749 Additional staffing considered for projected enrollment approaching 750

SPECIAL EDUCATION* FTE Number of IEP Instructional Hours

Teacher 2.0 140 or fewer Teacher 3.0 140-559 Teacher 4.0 560-699 Teacher 5.0 700-839 Teacher 6.0 840-979 Teacher 7.0 980-1119 Teacher 8.0 1120-1259 Teacher 9.0 1260 or more *Additional differentiated staffing is provided on a case by case basis

SUPPORT – PARAEDUCATORS ESOL FTE Number of ESOL

Students Paraeducator 0.5 10–15 Paraeducator 1.0 16 or more

MATH FTE School Paraeducator 16.0 Per School

MEDIA FTE School Paraeducator 1.0 Per School


10

SPECIAL EDUCATION FTE Number of IEP Instructional Hours

Paraeducator 3.0 489 or fewer Paraeducator 4.0 490-629 Paraeducator 5.0 630-769 Paraeducator 6.0 770-909 Paraeducator 7.0 910-1049 Paraeducator 8.0 1050-1189 Paraeducator 9.0 1190-1329

SUPPORT – HEALTH ASSISTANT/NURSE HEALTH ROOM FTE School Health Assistant 1.0 Per School Registered Nurse 1.0 Per TeleHealth and High

Acuity School Registered Nurse 1.0 Per 2 cluster model

schools Health Assistant 1.0 Per 2 schools with full

time registered nurse

SUPPORT – SECRETARIES/CLERKS PRINCIPAL’S SECRETARY FTE School Secretary 1.0 Per School

TEACHERS’ SECRETARY* FTE FTE Certificated Staff Secretary 1.0 1–34 Secretary 1.5 35–52 Secretary 2.0 53–70 Secretary 2.5 71–87 Secretary 3.0 88–105 Secretary 3.5 106 or more *Note: Guidance Counselors are not counted in middle school teacher secretaries’ formula.

GUIDANCE SECRETARY FTE School Secretary 1.0 Per School

DATA CLERK FTE School Data Clerk 1.0 Per School


11

ADDITIONAL STAFF POSITIONS ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION FTE School Teacher 10.0 As Assigned MATH INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT FTE School Teacher 1.0 Bonnie Branch Teacher 1.0 Elkridge Landing Teacher 1.0 Harper’s Choice Teacher 1.0 Hammond Teacher 1.0 Lake Elkhorn Teacher 1.0 Mayfield Woods Teacher 1.0 Murray Hill Teacher 1.0 Oakland Mills Teacher 1.0 Patuxent Valley Teacher 1.0 Thomas Viaduct Teacher 1.0 Wilde Lake WORLD LANGUAGE FTE Enrollment

Teacher 28.9 Distributed based on

Enrollment DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING FTE School Teacher 2.0 Harper’s Choice Teacher 2.0 Lake Elkhorn Teacher 2.0 Wilde Lake Teacher 1.0 Bonnie Branch Teacher 1.0 Hammond Teacher 1.0 Murray Hill Teacher 1.0 Oakland Mills Teacher 1.0 Patuxent Valley Teacher 1.0 Thomas Viaduct SPECIAL EDUCATION NON INSTRUCTIONAL TEAM LEADERS

FTE School

Teacher 1.0 Clarksville Teacher 1.0 Harper’s Choice Teacher 1.0 Lake Elkhorn Teacher 1.0 Patuxent Valley INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY FTE School Teacher 1.0 Elkridge Landing Teacher 1.0 Lime Kiln Teacher 1.0 Mount View Middle Teacher 1.0 Thomas Viaduct


12

HIGH SCHOOL STAFFING

ADMINISTRATION Position FTE Number of

Students/School Principal 1.0 Per School Assistant Principal 3.0 Per School Differentiated Staff Additional Position 1.0 Hammond Differentiated Staff Additional Position 2.0 Howard Differentiated Staff Additional Position 2.0 Long Reach Differentiated Staff Additional Position 1.0 Oakland Mills Differentiated Staff Additional Position 1.0 Reservoir Differentiated Staff Additional Position 1.0 Wilde Lake

TEACHERS – CLASSROOM CLASSROOM TEACHERS FTE Number of Students

Teacher 1.0

Per 28.0 + 0.4 per teacher for

planning Principals need to notify, in writing, the appropriate Community Superintendent of capped classes that exceed an enrollment of 33 students. SCHOOL-BASED CAREER ACADEMIES FTE School

Teacher 4.0 Distributed based on

needs of school TEACHERS – OTHER MEDIA FTE School Media Specialist 2.0 Per School

Media Specialist 1.0 Applications and

Research Laboratory Media Specialist 1.0 Homewood MUSIC – BAND FTE School Teacher 0.5 Per School

MUSIC – STRINGS FTE School Teacher 0.5 Per School


13

ESOL FTE Number of ESOL Students

Teacher 0.5 1–7 Teacher 1.0 8–15 Teacher 1.5 16–25 Teacher 2.0 26–35 Teacher 2.5 36–45 Teacher 3.0 46–55 Teacher 3.5 56–65 Teacher 4.0 66–75

GIFTED AND TALENTED FTE School Resource Teacher 1.0 Per School

SCHOOL COUNSELORS FTE Number of Projected

Students School Counselors 4.0 Per School School Counselors 5.0 1,250 or more School Counselors 6.0 1,500 or more School Counselors 7.0 1,750 or more SPECIAL EDUCATION FTE Number of IEP

Instructional Hours Teacher 3.0 160 or fewer Teacher 4.0 161-839 Teacher 5.0 840-1019 Teacher 6.0 1020-1199 Teacher 7.0 1200-1379 Teacher 8.0 1380-1559 Teacher 9.0 1560-1739 Teacher 10.0 1740-1919 Teacher 11.0 1920-2099 Teacher 12.0 2100-2279 Teacher 13.0 2280 or above


14

SUPPORT – PARAEDUCATORS ESOL FTE Number of ESOL

Students Paraeducator 0.5 16 or fewer Paraeducator 1.0 16–50 Paraeducator 1.5 51–75 Paraeducator 2.0 76–100 Paraeducator 3.0 101–125 Paraeducator 4.0 126–150

INSTRUCTIONAL FTE School Paraeducator 1.0 Per School MEDIA FTE School Paraeducator 1.0 Per School SCIENCE FTE School Paraeducator 1.0 Per School SPECIAL EDUCATION FTE Number of IEP

Instructional Hours Paraeducator 4.0 749 or fewer Paraeducator 5.0 750-929 Paraeducator 6.0 930-1109 Paraeducator 7.0 1110 or above

SUPPORT – HEALTH ASSISTANT/NURSE HEALTH ROOM FTE School Health Assistant 1.0 Per School CLUSTER MODEL SCHOOLS FTE School Registered Nurse 1.0 Per School

SUPPORT – SECRETARIES/REGISTRARS/BOOKEEPERS/CLERKS PRINCIPAL’S SECRETARY FTE School Secretary 1.0 Per School TEACHERS’ SECRETARY* FTE FTE Certificated Staff Secretary 1.0 1–34 Secretary 1.5 35–52 Secretary 2.0 53–70 Secretary 2.5 71–87 Secretary 3.0 88–105 Secretary 3.5 106 or more *Note: Guidance Counselors are not counted in middle school teacher secretaries’ formula.


15

GUIDANCE SECRETARY FTE School Secretary 1.0 Per School REGISTRAR FTE Number of Students Registrar 1.0 1,299 or fewer Registrar 1.5 1,300 or more BOOKKEEPER FTE School Bookkeeper 1.0 Per School DATA CLERK FTE School Data Clerk 1.0 Per School Data Clerk 0.5 Homewood

ADDITIONAL STAFF POSITIONS ADVANCED PLACEMENT FTE School

Teacher 19.0 Distributed among 12

High Schools

ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION FTE School Teacher 8.0 As Assigned

APPLICATIONS AND RESEARCH LABORATORY FTE School Teacher 25.0 ARL

ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES MANAGER FTE School Manager 1.0 Per School CAREER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FTE School Teacher 14.5 Distributed among 12

High Schools and Homewood

CO-TEACHING INTERVENTION MODEL FTE School Math Teacher 11.0 Distributed Among:

Hammond Howard

Long Reach Mt. Hebron

Oakland Mills Reservoir

Wilde Lake

English Teacher 7.0


16

DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING FTE School Teacher 2.0 Long Reach Teacher 2.0 Wilde Lake Teacher 1.5 Hammond Teacher 1.5 Reservoir Teacher 1.0 Oakland Mills

INSTRUCTIONAL TEAM LEADERS FTE School Team Leader 1.8 Per 12 High Schools Stipend for Instructional Team Leaders in Guidance

JROTC FTE Enrollment Teacher 3.0 Atholton Teacher 2.0 Howard Teacher 2.0 Oakland Mills MATH INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT TEACHERS (MIST) FTE School Teacher 1.0 Hammond Teacher 1.0 Long Reach Teacher 1.0 Oakland Mills Teacher 1.0 Reservoir Teacher 1.0 Wilde Lake

READING FTE School Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Atholton Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Centennial Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Glenelg Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Howard Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Marriotts Ridge Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Mount Hebron Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Reservoir Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 River Hill Strategic Reading Teacher 1.0 Oakland Mills Strategic Reading Teacher 1.5 Hammond Strategic Reading Teacher 1.5 Wilde Lake Strategic Reading Teacher 2.0 Long Reach SECURITY ASSISTANTS FTE School

Security Assistant 14.0

Distributed among 12 High Schools, ARL, and

Homewood


17

TEEN PARENTING FTE School Teacher 1.0 Wilde Lake

ROUSE THEATRE FTE School Theatre 1.4 Wilde Lake

WORK STUDY FTE School

Teacher 13.0

Distributed among 12 High Schools, Cedar

Lane, and Homewood


18


19

OTHER STAFFING

ADMINISTRATION STAFFING Position FTE Number of Students ELEMENTARY Principal 1.0 Per School Assistant Principal 1.0 Per School Additional AP staffing will be considered for enrollment approaching 750. MIDDLE Principal 1.0 Per School Assistant Principal 1.0 Per School Additional AP staffing will be considered for enrollment approaching 750. HIGH Principal 1.0 Per School Assistant Principal 3.0 Per School Differentiated Staffing Additional Position 1.0 Hammond Differentiated Staffing Additional Position 2.0 Howard Differentiated Staffing Additional Position 2.0 Long Reach Differentiated Staffing Additional Position 1.0 Oakland Mills Differentiated Staffing Additional Position 1.0 Reservoir Differentiated Staffing Additional Position 1.0 Wilde Lake

CLASSROOM TEACHER STAFFING FTE Number of Students ELEMENTARY Kindergarten 1.0 22 Grades 1–2 1.0 20 Grades 3–5 1.0 26 MIDDLE Grades 6–8 1.0 21* *Does not include planning time for teachers, so actual class sizes are larger. This also funds all related-arts classes. Intervention positions 38.0 Based on Needs HIGH Grades 9–12 1.0 28.0 Planning 0.4 Per Teacher


20

ART LEVEL FTE Number of Classroom

Teachers ELEMENTARY* - ratio 1:25 Grades 1–5 plus Kindergarten and Full Day Pre-K positions Teacher 1.0 21 or fewer Teacher 1.4 22–27 Teacher 1.6 28–32 Teacher 2.0 33–42 Teacher 2.4 43 or more *Add ED program classroom positions to determine ratio for Art, Music, PE and Media. MIDDLE From Basic Staffing HIGH From Basic Staffing

ENGLISH LEVEL FTE LEVEL English Co-teaching Intervention Model 7.0 High Schools

ESOL ELEMENTARY FTE Number of ESOL

Students Teacher 0.5 10–20 Teacher 1.0 21–40 Teacher 1.5 41–60 Teacher 2.0 61–80 Teacher 2.5 81–100 Teacher 3.0 101–120 Teacher 3.5 121–140 Teacher 4.0 141–160 Teacher 4.5 161–180 Teacher 5.0 181–200 MIDDLE FTE Number of ESOL

Students Teacher 1.0

itinerant 1–8

Teacher 0.5 9–15 Teacher 1.0 16–25 Teacher 1.5 26–40 Teacher 2.0 41–55


21

HIGH FTE Number of ESOL Students

Teacher 1.0 8–15 Teacher 1.5 16–25 Teacher 2.0 26–35 Teacher 2.5 36–45 Teacher 3.0 46–55 Teacher 3.5 56–65 Teacher 4.0 66–75

ESOL – PARAEDUCATORS * ELEMENTARY FTE Number of ESOL

Students Paraeducator 0.5 25–50 Paraeducator 1.0 51–75 Paraeducator 1.5 76–100 Paraeducator 2.0 101–125 Paraeducator 2.5 126–150 Paraeducator 3.0 151–175 Paraeducator 3.5 176–200 MIDDLE FTE Number of ESOL

Students Paraeducator 0.5 10–15 Paraeducator 1.0 16 or more HIGH FTE Number of ESOL

Students Paraeducator 1.0 16 or fewer Paraeducator 1.0 16–50 Paraeducator 1.5 51–75 Paraeducator 2.0 76–100 Paraeducator 3.0 101–125 Paraeducator 4.0 126–150 *Additional support staff may be assigned based on student needs. GIFTED AND TALENTED ELEMENTARY FTE Number of Students Teacher 1.5 400 or fewer Teacher 2.0 401 or more Additional 0.5 position per school for more than 65 students eligible for G/T Math

MIDDLE FTE School Resource Teacher 1.0 Per School Classroom Teacher 2.0 Per School


22

HIGH FTE School Resource Teacher 1.0 Per School

MATHEMATICS ELEMENTARY FTE By Level Math Support Teacher 22.0 Elementary School MIDDLE FTE By Level Math Instructional Support Teacher 11.0 Middle School HIGH FTE By Level Math Co-Teaching Intervention Model 11.0 High School Math Instructional Support Teacher 5.0 High School

MEDIA ELEMENTARY - ratio 1:25 Grades 1–5 plus Kindergarten positions


Media Specialist 1.0 23 or fewer Media Specialist 1.4 24–26 Media Specialist 1.5 27–28 Media Specialist 1.6 29–35 Media Specialist 2.0 36–47 Media Specialist 2.5 48–54 Media Specialist 3.0 55 or more ELEMENTARY FTE School Paraeducator 1.0 Per School MIDDLE FTE School Media Specialist 1.0 Per School Paraeducator 1.0 Per School HIGH FTE School Media Specialist 2.0 Per School Paraeducator 1.0 Per School SPECIAL SCHOOLS FTE School

Media Specialist 1.0 Applications & Research Lab

Media Specialist 1.0 Homewood


23

MUSIC ELEMENTARY FTE Number of Students BAND (may be itinerant) Teacher 0.5 1–99 Teacher 1.0 100-175 Teacher 1.5 176 or more STRINGS (may be itinerant) Teacher 0.5 1–139 Teacher 1.0 140–215 Teacher 1.5 216 or more ELEMENTARY FTE Number of Classroom

Teachers VOCAL* - ratio 1:25 Grades 1–5 plus Kindergarten and Full Day Pre-K positions Teacher 1.0 21 or fewer Teacher 1.4 22–27 Teacher 1.6 28–32 Teacher 2.0 33–42 Teacher 2.4 43 or more *Add ED program classroom positions to determine ratio for Art, Music, PE and Media. MIDDLE BAND FTE Number of Students Teacher 1.0 75–175 Teacher 1.5 176 or more STRNGS FTE Number of Students Teacher 0.5 119 or fewer Teacher 1.0 120–175 Teacher 1.5 176 or more VOCAL MUSIC Teacher From Basic Staffing

HIGH FTE School BAND 0.5 Per School STRNGS 0.5 Per School VOCAL MUSIC From Basic Staffing


24

PHYSICAL EDUCATION ELEMENTARY* Ratio 1:25 Grades 1–5 plus Kindergarten and Full Day Pre-K positions


Teacher 1.0 14 or fewer Teacher 1.4 15–18 Teacher 1.6 19–22 Teacher 2.0 23–28 Teacher 2.4 29–35 Teacher 2.6 36 or more *Add ED program classroom positions to determine ratio for Art, Music, PE and Media. MIDDLE FTE School Minimum one female and one male teacher From Basic Staffing HIGH FTE School Minimum one female and one male teacher From Basic Staffing

PREKINDERGARTEN FTE Number of Students Teacher – Prekindergarten Full Day 1.0 Per every 20 Teacher – Prekindergarten Half Day 0.5 Per every 20 Paraeducator – Prekindergarten Full Day 1.0 Per every 20 Paraeducator – Prekindergarten Half Day 0.5 Per every 20 In co-taught RECC preschool classrooms, one 0.5 teacher for 7 or more income eligible students.


25

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST FTE School ELEMENTARY School Psychologist 0.4–0.5 Per School MIDDLE School Psychologist 0.5 Per School HIGH School Psychologist 0.4 Per every 20

SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS FTE Systemwide Regional Early Childhood Center (RECC) School Psychologist 0.1-0.4 Systemwide Regional Early Beginnings Cluster (EB) School Psychologist 0.2 Systemwide Multiple Intense Needs (MINC) School Psychologist 0.1 Systemwide Local and Regional Academic Life Skills (ALS) School Psychologist 0.1–0.2 Systemwide Local and Regional Emotionally Disturbed (ED) School Psychologist 0.2–0.4 Systemwide ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS FTE Number of Students MIDDLE – Large Enrollment School Psychologist 0.1 750 or more HIGH – Large Enrollment School Psychologist 0.1–0.4 Targeted Schools* *Upon Approval of Superintendent


26

PUPIL PERSONNEL FTE School Pupil Personnel Worker 1.0 Per 2–5 Schools

READING ELEMENTARY FTE School Reading Specialist 1.0 Per School ELEMENTARY FTE Number of Students

Below Grade Level Reading Specialist 0.5 150–200 Reading Specialist 1.0 201–275 Reading Specialist 1.5 276 or more Additional 0.5 based on number of BGL readers, students scoring 20th percentile or lower on MAP and scoring 1 on PARCC, as funding permits. Reading Support 22.0 Elementary Level Reading Recovery - As funding permits, 0.5 teaching position for every two first grade classrooms in schools with the highest percentage of students below grade level in reading or performing poorly on reading assessments.

MIDDLE FTE Number of Students Below Grade Level

Reading Specialist 1.0 85 or fewer Reading Specialist 1.5 86–125 Reading Specialist 2.0 125 or more Additional 0.5 position for schools with FARMs greater than 25% FTE School Reading Modules Teacher 1.0 Per School HIGH FTE School Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Atholton Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Centennial Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Glenelg Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Howard Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Marriotts Ridge Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Mount Hebron Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 Reservoir Strategic Reading Teacher 0.5 River Hill Strategic Reading Teacher 1.0 Oakland Mills Strategic Reading Teacher 1.5 Wilde Lake Strategic Reading Teacher 1.5 Hammond Strategic Reading Teacher 2.0 Long Reach


27

SCHOOL COUNSELORS

FTE School/Number of

Students ELEMENTARY School Counselor 1.0 Per School Additional counselor staffing will be considered for schools with projected enrollment approaching 750 MIDDLE School Counselors 2.0 Per School Additional staffing considered for projected enrollment approaching 750 HIGH School Counselors 4.0 Per School School Counselors 5.0 1,250 or more School Counselors 6.0 1,500 or more School Counselors 6.0 1,750 or more SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICES FTE School ELEMENTARY

Health Assistant 1.0 Per TeleHealth and High Acuity School

Registered Nurse 1.0 Per TeleHealth and High Acuity School

Health Assistant 1.0 Per 2 Schools with full time Registered Nurse

Registered Nurse 1.0 Per 2 Cluster Model Schools

MIDDLE Health Assistant 1.0 Per School

Registered Nurse 1.0 Per TeleHealth and High Acuity School


Health Assistant 1.0 Per 2 schools with full time Registered Nurse

HIGH Health Assistant 1.0 Per School

Registered Nurse 1.0 Per School

SPECIAL SCHOOLS Health Assistant 1.0 ARL and Homewood


Registered Nurse 5.0 Cedar Lane School


28

SCIENCE FTE School HIGH Paraeducator 1.0 Per School


29

SPECIAL EDUCATION EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES RECC INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES FTE Per EARLY BEGINNINGS INFANTS AND TODDLERS Teacher/Service Provider 1.0 Per 10–14 families Paraeducator 0.5 Per regional cluster PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS PRESCHOOL (4 x ½ days a week) Teacher 0.5 Per 10 Children with

IEPs and typically developing peers Paraeducator 0.5

PREKINDERGARTEN (co-taught) FTE Per

Teacher 0.5

Per 1-7 children with IEPs and income eligible

children. PREKINDERGARTEN (Full Day) FTE Per

Teacher 0.5

Per 1-7 children with IEPs and income eligible

children. MULTIPLE INTENSE NEEDS CLASSROOM (MINC) MINC – FIRST LEARNER Teacher 1.0 Per 7 Children with IEPs

and 5-7 typically developing peers (1-2

student assistant and/or temporary employees

as determined necessary) Paraeducator 1.0

MINC – PRESCHOOL Teacher 1.0 Per 6–7 Children with

IEPs and 6 typically developing peers (1–2

student assistant and/or temporary employees

as determined necessary) Paraeducator 1.0-2.0

MINC – EARLY LEARNER Teacher 1.0 Per 6–7 children with

IEPs and 6–7 typically developing peers (2-3

student assistant and/or temporary employees Paraeducator 1.0-2.0


30

as determined necessary)

PALS

Teacher 1.0

Per 10-18 children with IEPs served in

community settings. (Contracted support as

needed) SPECIAL EDUCATION K-12 ELEMENTARY SPECIAL EDUCATION FTE No. of IEP Instructional

Hours Teacher 2.0 Fewer than 120 Teacher 3.0 120-479 Teacher 4.0 480-599 Teacher 5.0 600-719 Teacher 6.0 720-839 Teacher 7.0 840-959 Teacher 8.0 960-1079 Teacher 9.0 1080 or more MIDDLE SPECIAL EDUCATION FTE No. of IEP Instructional

Hours Teacher 2.0 Fewer than 140 Teacher 3.0 140-559 Teacher 4.0 560-699 Teacher 5.0 700-839 Teacher 6.0 840-979 Teacher 7.0 980-1119 Teacher 8.0 1120-1259 Teacher 9.0 1260 or more HIGH SPECIAL EDUCATION FTE No. of IEP Instructional

Hours Teacher 3.0 Fewer than 160 Teacher 4.0 160-839 Teacher 5.0 840-1019 Teacher 6.0 1020-1199 Teacher 7.0 1200-1379 Teacher 8.0 1380-1559 Teacher 9.0 1560-1739 Teacher 10.0 1740-1919 Teacher 11.0 1920-2099 Teacher 12.0 2100-2279


31

Teacher 13.0 2280 or more ELEMENTARY SPECIAL EDUCATION FTE No. of IEP Instructional

Hours Paraeducator 3.0 Fewer than 420 Paraeducator 4.0 420-539 Paraeducator 5.0 540-659 Paraeducator 6.0 660-779 Paraeducator 7.0 780-899 Paraeducator 8.0 900-1019 Paraeducator 9.0 1020 or more MIDDLE SPECIAL EDUCATION FTE No. of IEP Instructional

Hours Paraeducator 3.0 Fewer than 490 Paraeducator 4.0 490-629 Paraeducator 5.0 630-769 Paraeducator 6.0 770-909 Paraeducator 7.0 910-1049 Paraeducator 8.0 1050-1189 Paraeducator 9.0 1190 or more HIGH SPECIAL EDUCATION FTE No. of IEP Instructional

Hours Paraeducator 4.0 Fewer than 750 Paraeducator 5.0 750-929 Paraeducator 6.0 930-1109 Paraeducator 7.0 1110 or more REGIONAL ACADEMIC LIFE SKILLS FTE Students Teacher 1.0 Per 7–9 Students Paraeducator 2.0 REGIONAL EMOTIONAL DISABILITIES (ED) FTE Students Teacher 2.0 Per 6–8 students. One

additional teacher and/or paraeducator for

more than 8 students will be considered.

Paraeducator 2.0 Crisis Position 1.0

REGIONAL HEARING IMPARED FTE Students Teacher 1.0 Per 4–6 Students PRIMARY LEARNER PROGRAM FTE Students Teacher 1.0 Per 4–5 Students

(Maintaining a 1:1 ratio Instructional Staff to

Students)

Paraeducator 4.0


32

UPPER LEARNER PROGRAM FTE Students Teacher 1.0 Per 4–5 Students

(Maintaining a 1:1 ratio Instructional Staff to

Students)

Paraeducator 4.0

CORNERSTONE PROGRAM FTE Students Teacher 1.0 Up to 5 Students per

Class Paraeducator Ratio of 1:1 to Students BRIDGES PROGRAM FTE Students Teacher 1.0 Per 7 Students Paraeducator 1.0 CEDAR LANE SCHOOL FTE Students Teacher 1.0 Per 6 Students Paraeducator 2.0


33

RELATED SERVICES FTE Per EARLY BEGINNINGS – RECC Speech Language Pathologist 2.0–3.0 Per Regional Cluster MINC–RECC Speech Language Pathologist 0.4 Per Class PRESCHOOL – RECC Speech Language Pathologist 0.3 Per Special Ed Teacher KINDERGARTEN Speech Language Pathologist 0.2 Per Special Ed Teacher ACADEMIC LIFE SKILLS Speech Language Pathologist 0.1 Per ALS class ELEMENTARY SCHOOL-BASED PROGRAMS Speech Language Pathologist 1.0 Per 49–54 Direct IEP

Hours SECONDARY SCHOOL-BASED PROGRAMS Speech Language Pathologist 1.0 Per 54–60 Direct IEP

Hours Additional allocations of differentiated staffing positions are given for high need students. PHYSICAL THERAPY Physical Therapist 1.0 Per 21 hours direct

service to students OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY Occupational Therapist 1.0 Per 21 hours direct

service to students VISION SERVICES Position 1.0 Per 21 hours direct

service to students HEARING SERVICES Position 1.0 Per 21 hours direct

service to students ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION Position 1.0 Per 21 hours direct

service to students TRANSITION SERVICES FTE School Work Study Teacher 12.0 Distributed among 12

High Schools, Cedar Lane, and Homewood


34

Transition Program @ HCC FTE Students Teacher 3.0 Per 30 Students Paraeducator 3.0 Project Search FTE Students Teacher 1.0 Per 10-12 Students Paraeducator 1.0 Student Assistant 1.0

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ELEMENTARY FTE Schools with

Classroom Teachers Teachers 1.0 21 or fewer Teachers 1.4 22–27 Teachers 1.6 28–32 Teachers 2.0 33–42 Teachers 2.4 43 or more Teachers 1.0 Schools with Elementary

World Language MIDDLE FTE Schools

Teachers 1.0 Elkridge Landing Teachers 1.0 Lime Kiln Teachers 1.0 Mount View Teachers 1.0 Thomas Viaduct


35

WORLD LANGUAGE ELEMENTARY FTE Classroom Teachers Teacher 33.0 World Language (includes Kindergarten and full-day Pre–K) 3.0 22 or fewer 4.0 23–28 5.0 33–42 6.0 42 or more MIDDLE FTE School Teachers for Expansion of World Language

28.9 Allocated based on

course requests.

Appendix 1

HCPSSS

Health Fund Recovery Plan

1. Fully fund the Health Fund. o This has been accomplished in the FY 2019 Board of Education Requested Budget.

2. Look for FY 2018 savings and transfer them to Fixed Charges through the Categorical Transfer Request process.

o The Categorical Transfer has been submitted transferring $1.9m to the Health Fund. If further savings are realized, there will be an amended request made.

3. Scrutinize future budgets to assure HCPSS is running lean but effective programs. 4. Partner with the County in FY 2020 budget and beyond to receive additional funding over a four-

year period to pay down the anticipated $50.5 million deficit.

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23Budgeted 67.3 78.1 78.1 81.2 93.1 93.7 103.9 113.4 112.3 115.5 126.1 108.4 137.9 160.4 170.3 181 198.2Actual 62.9 68.9 81.2 87.7 82.9 99 107.7 112.9 123.6 133.6 131.7 136.7 137.9 147.8 157.7 168.4 185.5

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

In M

illio

ns

Health Fund FY07-FY23 Budget vs Actual

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23Fund Balance 12 21 18 11.5 21.6 16.3 12.5 13 1.6 -16.5 -22.2 -50.5 -50.5 -37.9 -25.3 -12.7 -

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

In M

illio

ns

Health Fund FY07-FY23 Fund Balance

Division of Operations FY 2019 Capital Projects

April 27, 2018 Section 1: Capital Budget

Page Content 2 FY 19 Capital Budget Comparison of BOE Requested and County Executive Proposed4 Correspondence from Shaunetia Gray, MSDE to Betsy Zentz, School Construction,

dated January 10th, 2018. 5 Questions from Craig Glendenning, Howard County regarding BOE FY 19 Capital

questions and response 9 Auditor Capital Budget Questions & Answers 10 Correspondence from Joan Schaefer, Maryland Public School Construction Program

to Scott Washington, School Construction dated November 9, 2017 13 Correspondence from Bruce Gist, Capital Planning and Operations to Joan Schaefer

Maryland Public School Construction, dated November 27, 2017 14 Response to Ms. Joan Schaefer Maryland Public School Construction from Scott

Washington, dated November 2017 17 Board Memorandum on Capital Budget Update dated April 16, 2018

Section 2: Talbott Springs Elementary School

Page Content 22 Board Report on Talbott Springs Elementary School Feasibility Study August 17,

2017 36 Correspondence from Fred Mason MSDE School Facilities to Scott Washington

School Construction dated December 8, 2017 regarding TSES replacement feasibility study locally funded

38 February 8, 2018 correspondence from Bruce Gist Capital Planning and Operations to Fred Mason MSDE School Facilities regarding reconsideration of designee recommendation

40 Board Report on Talbott Springs Elementary School Schematic Design Report dated February 8, 2018

48 Board Memorandum on Talbott Springs Elementary School Replacement-Feasibility Study, March 2, 2018

49 Board Memorandum April 5, 2018 on Talbott Springs Elementary School Project Planning Timeline

53 Correspondence to BOE and County Council from Anissa Brown Dennis responding to Council request of Talbott Springs documents

67 Correspondence from Fred Mason, MSDE School Facilities to Bruce Gist, Capital Planning and Operations, dated April 25, 2018

70 Superintendent’s Remarks – Board Meeting on Tuesday, April 10, 2018 Section 3: Hammond High School

Page Content 74 Board Memorandum January 23, 2018 on Hammond High School-Proposed

Timeline Change of Addition/Renovation

11

jbubenko

Typewritten Text

Section 1: FY 2019 Capital Budget

jbubenko

Typewritten Text

jbubenko

Typewritten Text

BO

E R

eque

sted

3/5

/18

Cou

nty

Exec

utiv

e Pr

opos

ed 4

/1/1

8

Proj

ect

Tota

l FY

2019

Tota

l FY

2019

Diff

eren

ce to

Tot

al

FY19

Req

uest

Proj

ect I

mpa

ctW

aver

ly E

S R

enov

atio

n/Ph

ase

II Ad

ditio

n4,

000

4,00

0

-

N

ew E

S #4

28,

132

8,13

2

-

Talb

ott S

prin

gs E

S R

epla

cem

ent S

choo

l or

Ren

ovat

ion/

Addi

tion

8,15

6

2,

600

(5,5

56)

Rea

ligns

cas

h flo

ws

in th

e ou

t yea

rs a

nd d

elay

s oc

cupa

ncy

from

Aug

ust

2021

to A

ugus

t 202

3. C

hang

es p

roje

ct s

cope

to R

enov

atio

n/Ad

ditio

n.

New

HS

#13

6,73

2

6,

732

-

Ham

mon

d H

S R

enov

atio

n/Ad

ditio

n6,

000

4,00

0

(2

,000

)

R

ealig

ns c

ash

flow

s in

the

out y

ears

Syst

emic

Ren

ovat

ions

/Mod

erni

zatio

ns28

,655

24

,055

(4

,600

)

Red

uces

AR

L M

aint

enan

ce ($

1.4M

), Em

erge

ncy

Res

erve

($2.

0M),

and

a po

rtion

of I

EQ p

roje

ct re

pairs

($2.

3M).

Incr

ease

Hig

h Sc

hool

Sec

urity

M

easu

res

($1.

1M).

Roo

fing

Proj

ects

12,5

00

12,5

00

-

Play

grou

nd E

quip

men

t-

-

-

Rel

ocat

able

Cla

ssro

oms

2,50

0

1,

800

(700

)

Red

uces

fund

ing

requ

est b

y $7

00K

Site

Acq

uisi

tion

& C

onst

ruct

ion

Res

erve

-

-

-

Tech

nolo

gy2,

750

2,75

0

-

Sc

hool

Par

king

Lot

Exp

ansi

ons

-

-

-

Plan

ning

and

Des

ign

300

10

0

(200

)

Red

uces

fund

ing

requ

est b

y $2

00K

Barri

er F

ree

-

-

-

SUB

TOTA

L79

,725

66

,669

(1

3,05

6)

Wild

e La

ke M

S R

epla

cem

ent

-

(2

,000

)

(2,0

00)

Util

izes

a p

ortio

n of

sur

plus

from

WLM

S fo

r WVE

S an

d N

ew E

S #4

2Pa

tuxe

nt V

alle

y M

S R

enov

atio

n-

(1,0

00)

(1

,000

)

U

tiliz

es a

por

tion

of s

urpl

us fr

om P

VMS

for T

SES

TOTA

LS79

,725

$

63

,669

$

(1

6,05

6)$

FY19

Cap

ital B

udge

tC

ompa

rison

of B

OE

Req

uest

ed a

nd C

ount

y Ex

ecut

ive

Prop

osed

(In T

hous

ands

)

22

Project Occupancy FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028Talbott Springs ES Replacement School Aug 2021 18,250 12,218 2,000 - - - - - - New HS #13 Aug 2023 25,315 25,415 25,515 25,115 15,972 - - - - Hammond HS Renovation/Addition Aug 2023 18,695 18,795 18,895 19,995 15,147 - - - - New ES #43 Aug 2023 6,000 11,500 15,215 17,927 8,000 - - - - Dunloggin MS Renovation/Addition Aug 2024 - 2,000 10,694 12,671 9,534 4,000 - - - Ellicott Mills MS Addition Aug 2024 - - - 1,000 6,415 1,000 - - - Oakland Mills MS Renovation Aug 2026 - - - - 9,003 14,404 10,603 2,000 - Clarksville ES Addition Aug 2026 - - - - 2,000 7,000 1,000 - - New ES #44 Aug 2027 - - - - 5,705 15,881 21,175 15,881 - MS/HS Career Development Center Aug 2028 - - - - 11,232 22,566 30,850 31,686 22,566 New ES #45 Aug 2029 - - - - - - 5,705 15,881 21,175

Systemic Renovations/Modernizations 15,650 17,644 18,007 18,841 18,298 17,598 17,000 18,000 20,000 Roofing Projects 5,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 0Playground Equipment 250 250 250 250 250 500 500 500 500 0Relocatable Classrooms 2,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Site Acquisition & Construction Reserve - - - - - 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Technology 5,500 5,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 School Parking Lot Expansions - - - - - 600 600 600 600 Planning and Design 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Barrier Free 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

TOTALS 97,660$ 96,322$ 105,076$ 106,299$ 112,056$ 100,049$ 103,933$ 101,048$ 81,341$

Project Occupancy FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028Talbott Springs ES Renovation/Addition Aug 2023 14,250 14,218 6,550 - - - - - - New HS #13 Aug 2023 25,315 25,415 25,515 25,115 15,972 - - - - Hammond HS Renovation/Addition Aug 2023 20,695 18,795 18,895 19,995 15,147 - - - - New ES #43 Aug 2023 6,000 11,500 15,215 17,927 8,000 - - - - Dunloggin MS Renovation/Addition Aug 2024 - 2,000 10,694 12,671 9,534 4,000 - - - Ellicott Mills MS Addition Aug 2024 - - - 1,000 6,415 1,000 - - - Oakland Mills MS Renovation Aug 2026 - - - - 9,003 14,404 10,603 2,000 - Clarksville ES Addition Aug 2026 - - - - 2,000 7,000 1,000 - - New ES #44 Aug 2027 - - - - 5,705 15,881 21,175 15,881 - MS/HS Career Development Center Aug 2028 - - - - 11,232 22,566 30,850 31,686 22,566 New ES #45 Aug 2029 - - - - - - 5,705 15,881 21,175


TOTALS 99,960$ 100,422$ 108,626$ 106,299$ 112,056$ 100,049$ 103,933$ 101,048$ 81,341$

Difference 2,300$ 4,100$ 3,550$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Talbott Springs ES Realigns cash flows in the out years and delays occupancy from August 2021 to August 2023as a Renovation/Addition

Hammond HS Renovation/Addition Pushes $2M of cash flow to 2020

Systemic Renovations/Modernizations Reduces ARL Maintenance ($1.4M), Emergency Reserve ($2.0M), and a portion of IEQ project repairs ($2.3M) in FY19and pushes cash flows to the out years. Increases High School Security Measures ($1.1) in FY19 and reduces by $1.0M in FY20

Relocatable Classrooms Pushes $700K of cash flow to 2020

Planning and Design Pushes $100K of cash flow to 2020 and 2021

FY19 Capital Budget

April 1, 2018County Executive Proposed (In Thousands)

(In Thousands)

Comparison of BOE Requested and County Executive Proposed

FY 2020-2028 Long-Range Master Plan

FY 2020-2028 Long-Range Master PlanBoard of Education's Requested March 5, 2018

33

BOE FY19 Budget Capital Questions

For the following projects, please provide:

1. What is the outstanding balance of funding in these projects?

2. What is the purpose for no FY19 request and the new system project in FY19?

E0980 ‐ FY2004 System Renovations

E0993 – FY2004 Relocatable Classrooms

E0994 – FY2004 Roofing Program

E0995 – Site Acquisition

E1012 – FY2008 School Parking Lot Expansions

E1021 – FY2011 Technology

Please see the remaining balance chart below:

There would have been FY19 requests or higher requests for all of the above projects had there not

been a known funding constraint and capacity projects taking the priority in the request. Ongoing

project numbers are refreshed approximately every ten years. All of the projects receiving new

numbers are almost 10 years or older.

E1028 – New ES #42:

3. What is the status?

On the exterior of the site, topsoil and sod are being installed. On the interior of the school, audio/visual

systems, visual display board and ceiling tile installations are substantially complete on the first floor.

Lighting controls and carpet installations continue in this area as well. Above ceiling punchlists are

substantially complete on the second floor. Ceiling tile and carpet installations are in progress in this

area as well. Wood flooring in the gymnasium, along with testing and startup of mechanical equipment

continues.

4. How much funding is available?

HCPSS is requesting $8.1M to complete contractor obligations in construction, retention, punch list

items, FF&E, commissioning, etc. How much, if any, surplus available in this project will be known after

all expenses are encumbered by winter of 2018.

PROJECT TITLE Project #County Balance

State Deferred Balance

Unspent State Budget

ObligationsUnavailable FY18 State

Budget

Project Commitments

Remaining Balance

SYSTEMIC RENOVATIONS 0980 9,459,259 3,485,105 15,940,000 2,740,750 15,940,000 10,203,614 (0)$

RELOCATABLE CLASSROOMS 0993 1,474,363 - - 8,362 - 1,466,002 (0)$

ROOFING PROJECTS 0994 661,857 - 441,455 1,103,312 - - -$

SITE ACQUISITION/CONSTRUCTION RESERVE 0995 1,209,081 3,177 - 560,737 - 651,520 0$

SCHOOL PARKING LOT EXPANSIONS 1012 619,606 - - - - 350,000 269,606$

TECHNOLOGY 1021 3,115,705 - - - - 3,115,705 0$

Howard County Public School System - School Construction FundCapital Project Balances as of 3/31/18

55

E1036 – Oakland Mills MS Reno:

5. Has planning been performed using Systemic Reno funding?

No, the $2.3M has been held in the Systemic Renovations project since it was appropriated in FY15. This

project has been deferred for several years due to the need for capacity projects and budgetary

constraints. At this point, the $2.3M is needed to supplement IEQ and emergency projects. By the time

planning for OMHS Renovation actually takes place, the project will need re‐estimated and planning

funds will also be re‐estimated and requested at that time.

E1030 – Deep Run ES:

6. Can this project be closed?

No, we are still receiving retention requisitions and invoices for this project.

7. Is there any available bonds?

Of the approximately $1.6M remaining in this project, approximately $450K is currently encumbered,

$500K will be used to complete the project, and $600K will be used for the FY19 Capital Overhead

Allocation budgeted in the Operating Fund.

E1043 – Swansfield ES:

8. What is the status?

Punchlists, commissioning, and contract close‐out is continuing for this project.

9. How much funding is available?

How much, if any, surplus available in this project will be known after all expenses are encumbered by

fall of 2018.

E1038 – Planning & Design:

10. What will be effect of the Executive’s funding reduction?

There will be less funds available to appropriately plan and conduct feasibility studies on

upcoming/potential projects.

E1043 – Talbott Springs ES:

11. Please provide a copy of the feasibility study.

Provided by email on 4/3/18.

12. Why is this no longer a replacement school?

The County Executive, Superintendent, and School Board Chair came to a preliminary consensus to plan

for the project as a renovation/addition instead of a replacement pending a decision on the appeal the

school system filed with the State. The BOE would still have to vote to officially change the scope of the

project.

66

13. What is the current status with the IAC?

At this time, State Local Planning has not been granted for this project. The IAC is proposing to

participate in the project as a renovation only. This proposal has been appealed and is awaiting a

response, if any. If the direction of the BOE is still to proceed with the project as a replacement, HCPSS

will re‐request the project as a replacement in the FY 2020 State budget cycle.

E1044 – 2019 Systemic Renovations:

14. Please explain the addition of vehicle purchases in the project description.

The addition of vehicle purchases to the project was to allow an alternative source of funding for

vehicles used in systemic type projects included but not limited to dump truck, which would be used by

grounds services.

15. Please provide a revised FY19 BOE request reflecting the $4.6 million reduction by the Exec.

The $4.6M in reductions to FY19 subprojects in the Systemic Renovations project by the County

Executive’s version is a net effect of the following:

16. Does reduced appropriation include the additional $1.1 million provided for school security

measures?

Yes, please see the chart above.

E1045 – 2019 Relocatable Classrooms:

17. What will be effect of the Executive’s funding reduction?

The FY 2020 request for Relocatable Classrooms will increase by the reduction ($700K) in FY19 for a total

request of $3.2M in FY20. These funds are imperative to provide capacity due to enrollment growth.

The funding will be used to purchase 15 relocatable classrooms, demolish 6, and to relocate a 9 spot

relocatable to Fulton ES. These efforts will effects 8 schools at all levels.

ARL - HVAC Program Fall 2018 (200,000) ReductionARL - Agriculture Program Fall 2018 (200,000) ReductionApplications and Research Lab Maintenance (1,000,000) ReductionIndoor Environmental Quality Project Repairs (2,300,000) ReductionHigh School Security Measures 1,100,000 AdditionEmergency Reserve (2,000,000) Reduction

(4,600,000) Net Reductions

77

E1046 – 2019 Roofing:

18. Please provide a project schedule.

Planned roof replacements for the next five years is as follows:

IAC Funding:

19. The Exec’s budget has $2,789,000 in Systemic and $5,954,000 in Roofing. Is this accurate?

Yes, this is accurate.

Year of Request

Local & StateSchool Location

FY 2019 Harper's Choice MS

FY 2019 Atholton ES

FY 2019 Long Reach HS

FY 2019 Fulton ES

FY 2020 Murray Hill MS

FY 2020 Triadelphia Ridge ES

FY 2021 None Planned

FY 2022 Reservoir HS

FY 2022 TBD

FY 2023 None Planned

88

November 9, 2017

Mr. Scott Washington Director of School Construction Howard County Public Schools 10910 Route 108 Ellicott City, MD 21042 RE: Issues with FY 2019 Capital Improvement Program Submittals Dear Mr. Washington: Thank you for meeting with us and presenting the Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) FY 2019 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) requests. The following issues were identified at our meeting on October 26, 2017, or in subsequent discussions with the Designees, as items that require verification, additional comment or follow-up. General Submission Issues: 1. The deadline for submission of CIP revisions and your local government assurance of CIP support

is November 27, 2017. The Interagency Committee on School Construction (IAC) heard the first round of staff recommendations at its meeting on November 8, 2017. The all-day IAC appeals hearing will be held on December 7, 2017.

2. Revise and resubmit IAC/PSCP Form 102.1 Request for Approval of Planning and IAC/PSCP Form 102.2 Request for Approval of Funding to reflect the FY 2019 State Cost Share Percentage of 55 percent.

3. Revise and resubmit IAC/PSCP Form 102.4 Summary of Current and Future Project Requests to reflect any revisions to funding or planning requests. Individual projects and total project costs shown on Form 102.4 should correspond to the projects and the costs shown on IAC/PSCP Form 102.2 Request for Approval of Funding and IAC/PSCP Form 102.3 Future Project Request. If discrepancies are found between Form 102.4 and other forms, the costs and schedule provided in Forms 102.1, 102.2 and 102.3 will be used.

4. There are projects in this Capital Improvement Program request that are subject to the COMAR 23.03.02.29 Emergency Shelter Compliance Process, but are not yet entered into SharePoint. Please refer to the Administrative Procedures Guide Section 106 - Emergency Shelter Compliance Procedures as your guide through this process. Early contact with MEMA is recommended so that the electrical power requirements can be incorporated at the beginning of the design process.

Project Specific Submission Issues: Priority #1 - Harpers Choice Middle - Roof (Funding Request)

• Please provide the most recent roof inspection report.

1010

Priority #2 - Atholton Elementary - Roof (Funding Request)


Priority #3 - Long Reach High - Building Envelope (Funding Request) • Please consider requesting that the architect of record investigate whether the window

leakage is due to improper detail and/or improper installation. Priority #4 - Fulton Elementary - Roof (Funding Request)

• No issue Priority #5 - Glenwood Middle - Building Envelope (Funding Request)

• Please resubmit the floor plan with a legend for the color coding. Priority #6 - Talbott Springs Elementary - Replacement (Planning Request)

• Revise and resubmit IAC/PSCP Form 102.1 Request for Approval of Planning to address the following issues: o Please confirm bid date and occupancy date. o Under Enrollment Projections, confirm all adjacent school shown and indicate in the form if

any should not be considered in the calculation of available capacity and why. Clarify if HCPSS considers Route 29 a boundary that should not be crossed for elementary school redistricting, such as for Running Brook Elementary.

• On a separate table, provide projected enrollment for the Elementary Regional Language Immersion Program and the area from which the program is drawing.

• Coordinate with Jillian Storms of the School Facilities Branch to provide any additional information needed to support the Feasibility Study submitted on 9/13/2017.

• See General Submission Issues #4.

Priority #7 - New High School #13 - New (Planning Request) • Please review the requirements for School Site Approval in the Administrative Procedures

Guide Section 104, particularly with reference to scheduling a site visit with officials from the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP), and submission of the site to the State Clearinghouse. Mr. Michael Bayer at (410) 767-7179 is available to discuss any questions you have on the site approval process.


Please respond to the issues stated above as soon as possible but no later than November 27, 2017. Responses should be directed to the attention of Ms. Arabia Davis at this address. Submit eight (8) copies on colored paper of all revised submission documents marking them as “Revised” and showing a revised date. Please contact Ms. Davis at (410) 767-2153 if you have any questions. Thank you for your ongoing cooperation with the CIP review process. Sincerely,

Joan Schaefer Deputy Director Maryland Public School Construction Program

1111

cc: Mr. Robert A. Gorrell, Executive Director, PSCP Ms. Arabia Davis, Funding Programs Manager, PSCP Ms. Kim Spivey, Manager of Fiscal Services, PSCP Mr. Fred Mason, III, Chief, School Facilities Branch, MSDE Mr. Michael Bayer, Manager, Infrastructure and Development, MDP Mr. Mahmood Yahyai, Acting Program Manager, DGS Ms. Cassandra Viscarra, Program Support Administrator, PSCP

1212

1

Jennifer Bubenko

From: Bruce GistSent: Monday, November 27, 2017 12:48 PMTo: Joan Schaefer ([email protected])Cc: Michael Martirano; Anissa Brown Dennis; [email protected]; Betsy Zentz;

Gina Petrick; Jennifer Bubenko; Renee Kamen; Daniel Lubeley; Scott Washington; Herb Savje; Olivia Claus

Subject: FW: 2019 CIP Appeals

Ms. Schaefer – The Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) will be appealing the following projects and amounts: Long Reach HS – Building Envelope $2,713,027 Fulton ES – Roof $ 831,000 Glenwood – Building Envelope $ 789,000 Talbott Springs ES - LP New HS #13 LP TOTAL $4,333,027 These amounts are based on the calculation of 55% at 2.5% contingency of eligible costs. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or Betsy Zentz @ 410-313-6753 Bruce Gist | Executive Director Capital Planning and Operations Howard County Public School System direct 410.313.6798 mobile 410.365.0248 School Planning - School Construction - Use of School Facilities Transportation - Food and Nutrition Services

1313

STATE OF MARYLAND

PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 200 W. BALTIMORE STREET

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 410-767-0617

ROBERT A. GORRELL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

LARRY HOGAN INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION KAREN SALMON, Ph.D. GOVERNOR CHAIRPERSON

November 9, 2017



Noted.


See enclosed.


See enclosed.

1414

Mr. Scott Washington November 9, 2017 Page 2

4. There are projects in this Capital Improvement Program request that are subject to the COMAR 23.03.02.29 Emergency Shelter Compliance Process, but are not yet entered into SharePoint. Please refer to the Administrative Procedures Guide Section 106 - Emergency Shelter Compliance Procedures as your guide through this process. Early contact with MEMA is recommended so that the electrical power requirements can be incorporated at the beginning of the design process. MEMA will be contacted before projects move into the design development phase.


Please provide the most recent roof inspection report. See enclosed.


Please provide the most recent roof inspection report.

See enclosed.

Priority #3 - Long Reach High - Building Envelope (Funding Request) Please consider requesting that the architect of record investigate whether the window

leakage is due to improper detail and/or improper installation.

Noted, will consider. Priority #4 - Fulton Elementary - Roof (Funding Request)

No issue Priority #5 - Glenwood Middle - Building Envelope (Funding Request)

Please resubmit the floor plan with a legend for the color coding.

See enclosed. Priority #6 - Talbott Springs Elementary - Replacement (Planning Request)

Revise and resubmit IAC/PSCP Form 102.1 Request for Approval of Planning to address the following issues: o Please confirm bid date and occupancy date.

Confirmed.

o Under Enrollment Projections, confirm all adjacent school shown and indicate in the form if any should not be considered in the calculation of available capacity and why. Clarify if HCPSS considers Route 29 a boundary that should not be crossed for elementary school redistricting, such as for Running Brook Elementary. All adjacent schools should be considered. HCPSS currently has attendance areas that cross Route 29.

1515


On a separate table, provide projected enrollment for the Elementary Regional Language Immersion Program and the area from which the program is drawing.

The ERLI Program discussions are in very preliminary stages. It is not known at this time where the program(s) will be located nor the projected enrollment.

Coordinate with Jillian Storms of the School Facilities Branch to provide any additional information needed to support the Feasibility Study submitted on 9/13/2017.

Will coordinate.

See General Submission Issues #4.

See Issues #4 response above. Priority #7 - New High School #13 - New (Planning Request)

Please review the requirements for School Site Approval in the Administrative Procedures Guide Section 104, particularly with reference to scheduling a site visit with officials from the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP), and submission of the site to the State Clearinghouse. Mr. Michael Bayer at (410) 767-7179 is available to discuss any questions you have on the site approval process.

Maryland Department of Planning staff visited potential sites on November 9th.


See Issues #4 response above. Please respond to the issues stated above as soon as possible but no later than November 27, 2017. Responses should be directed to the attention of Ms. Arabia Davis at this address. Submit eight (8) copies on colored paper of all revised submission documents marking them as “Revised” and showing a revised date. Please contact Ms. Davis at (410) 767-2153 if you have any questions. Thank you for your ongoing cooperation with the CIP review process. Sincerely,

Joan Schaefer Deputy Director Maryland Public School Construction Program cc: Mr. Robert A. Gorrell, Executive Director, PSCP Ms. Arabia Davis, Funding Programs Manager, PSCP Ms. Kim Spivey, Manager of Fiscal Services, PSCP Mr. Fred Mason, III, Chief, School Facilities Branch, MSDE Mr. Michael Bayer, Manager, Infrastructure and Development, MDP Mr. Mahmood Yahyai, Acting Program Manager, DGS Ms. Cassandra Viscarra, Program Support Administrator, PSCP

1616

10910 Clarksville Pike • Ellicott City, MD 21042 • 410-313-6600 • www.hcpss.org

April 16, 2018 MEMORANDUM To: Members of the Board of Education From: Michael J. Martirano, Ed.D Interim Superintendent Subject: Capital Budget Update The purpose of this memorandum is to update you on the following capital budget projects which includes Talbott Springs ES, HS #13, Hammond HS. In addition, a timeline for the remaining steps of the capital budget is also provided. Talbott Springs ES:

• On April 11, 2018, the Designees’ met to discuss reconsideration of their decision to support a renovation versus replacement school. As of today, staff has not received an official response.

• Despite Dr. Ball’s social media post that was brought to our attention regarding “outstanding concerns they [IAC] had for the Talbott Springs,” staff as of this date has received no further request for information following the reconsideration letter sent by staff on February 8, 2018.

• Design of a replacement school is on hold, pending the Designees’ response. • Budget consideration: The County Executive proposed budget reduces the FY 2019

budget request by $6 million for this project. The completion date is SY 2023 under the renovation/addition scenario. The Board’s Requested budget requests funding a replacement school with a SY 2021 opening.

HS #13:

• On April 13, 2018, staff met with County Government, which included Howard County Recreation and Parks, Howard County Department of Public Works (DPW) and Howard County DPW Real Estate Services Division to discuss the timeline for the Mission Road property ownership transfer. The timely transfer of this property is critical to the SY 2023 opening.

• On April 13, 2018, staff submitted a request for IAC approval of site acquisition. • Schematic Design has commenced. • Budget consideration: The County Executive supports this Board request. The timeline

for the delivery of HS #13 is SY 2023.

17

http://www.hcpss.org/

Page Two Capital Project Update April 16, 2018 Hammond HS:

• The Hammond HS project was accelerated at the March 5, 2018, Board’s Budget Work Session.

• Planning and design will begin July 1, 2018, pending adoption of Board’s budget. • Budget consideration: The County Executive reduced the project’s appropriation by $2

million. The timeline for delivery of the Hammond HS is SY 2023. Process/Timeline for capital budget funding:

• On March 5, 2018, the Board Requested budget is $79.725 million. • On March 29, 2018, the County Executive’s proposed school capital budget is $63.669

million, plus a $3 million “plus/minus funding adjustment” from Wilde Lake MS ($2M), and Patuxent Valley MS ($1M); as well as $1.1 million county contribution for the high school security measures for a total of $66.669 million.

• Attached is a comparison between the Board’s Requested and County Executive Proposed budgets.

• On April 23, 2018, the County Executive presents his proposed budget to County Council. The presentation is 4:30 p.m. County Council will then begin consideration of the County Executive’s proposed budget and the Board’s Requested budget at this time.

• On April 25, 2018, the County Council will hold a public hearing on the Board’s Operating and Capital budgets. The hearing starts at 7:00 p.m.

• On April 30, 2018, the County Council scheduled a work session on the Board’s Operating and Capital Budgets. This work session is scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. Additional work sessions may follow. County Council can choose to reinstate the Board’s Requested budgets.

• Typically, the State of Maryland 100% CIP planning and funding approval letter is received during the second week in May; however, we recently received notice that the April 26, 2018 IAC meeting has been rescheduled to May 8, 2018.

• On May 31, 2018, the County Council is anticipated to adopt their FY 2019 Operating and Capital Budgets. The Board will subsequently adopt its FY 2019 Operating and Capital budgets after Council approval.

The Division of Operations staff will continue updating the Board as new information becomes available. If you have any questions, please contact Anissa Brown Dennis at 410-313-5654. Enclosure Copy to: Executive Staff Board of Education Office

18

BO

E R

eque

sted

3/5

/18

Cou

nty

Exec

utiv

e Pr

opos

ed 4

/1/1

8

Proj

ect

Tota

l FY

2019

Tota

l FY

2019

Diff

eren

ce to

Tot

al

FY19

Req

uest

Proj

ect I

mpa

ctW

aver

ly E

S R

enov

atio

n/Ph

ase

II Ad

ditio

n4,

000

4,00

0

-

N

ew E

S #4

28,

132

8,13

2

-

Talb

ott S

prin

gs E

S R

epla

cem

ent S

choo

l or

Ren

ovat

ion/

Addi

tion

8,15

6

2,

600

(5,5

56)

Rea

ligns

cas

h flo

ws

in th

e ou

t yea

rs a

nd d

elay

s oc

cupa

ncy

from

Aug

ust

2021

to A

ugus

t 202

3. C

hang

es p

roje

ct s

cope

to R

enov

atio

n/Ad

ditio

n.

New

HS

#13

6,73

2

6,

732

-

Ham

mon

d H

S R

enov

atio

n/Ad

ditio

n6,

000

4,00

0

(2

,000

)

R

ealig

ns c

ash

flow

s in

the

out y

ears

Syst

emic

Ren

ovat

ions

/Mod

erni

zatio

ns28

,655

24

,055

(4

,600

)

Red

uces

AR

L M

aint

enan

ce ($

1.4M

), Em

erge

ncy

Res

erve

($2.

0M),

and

a po

rtion

of I

EQ p

roje

ct re

pairs

($2.

3M).

Incr

ease

Hig

h Sc

hool

Sec

urity

M

easu

res

($1.

1M).

Roo

fing

Proj

ects

12,5

00

12,5

00

-

Play

grou

nd E

quip

men

t-

-

-

Rel

ocat

able

Cla

ssro

oms

2,50

0

1,

800

(700

)

Red

uces

fund

ing

requ

est b

y $7

00K

Site

Acq

uisi

tion

& C

onst

ruct

ion

Res

erve

-

-

-

Tech

nolo

gy2,

750

2,75

0

-

Sc

hool

Par

king

Lot

Exp

ansi

ons

-

-

-

Plan

ning

and

Des

ign

300

10

0

(200

)

Red

uces

fund

ing

requ

est b

y $2

00K

Barri

er F

ree

-

-

-

SUB

TOTA

L79

,725

66

,669

(1

3,05

6)

Wild

e La

ke M

S R

epla

cem

ent

-

(2

,000

)

(2,0

00)

Util

izes

a p

ortio

n of

sur

plus

from

WLM

S fo

r WVE

S an

d N

ew E

S #4

2Pa

tuxe

nt V

alle

y M

S R

enov

atio

n-

(1,0

00)

(1

,000

)

U

tiliz

es a

por

tion

of s

urpl

us fr

om P

VMS

for T

SES

TOTA

LS79

,725

$

63

,669

$

(1

6,05

6)$

FY19

Cap

ital B

udge

tC

ompa

rison

of B

OE

Req

uest

ed a

nd C

ount

y Ex

ecut

ive

Prop

osed

(In T

hous

ands

)

1919

Project Occupancy FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028Talbott Springs ES Replacement School Aug 2021 18,250 12,218 2,000 - - - - - - New HS #13 Aug 2023 25,315 25,415 25,515 25,115 15,972 - - - - Hammond HS Renovation/Addition Aug 2023 18,695 18,795 18,895 19,995 15,147 - - - - New ES #43 Aug 2023 6,000 11,500 15,215 17,927 8,000 - - - - Dunloggin MS Renovation/Addition Aug 2024 - 2,000 10,694 12,671 9,534 4,000 - - - Ellicott Mills MS Addition Aug 2024 - - - 1,000 6,415 1,000 - - - Oakland Mills MS Renovation Aug 2026 - - - - 9,003 14,404 10,603 2,000 - Clarksville ES Addition Aug 2026 - - - - 2,000 7,000 1,000 - - New ES #44 Aug 2027 - - - - 5,705 15,881 21,175 15,881 - MS/HS Career Development Center Aug 2028 - - - - 11,232 22,566 30,850 31,686 22,566 New ES #45 Aug 2029 - - - - - - 5,705 15,881 21,175


TOTALS 97,660$ 96,322$ 105,076$ 106,299$ 112,056$ 100,049$ 103,933$ 101,048$ 81,341$

Project Occupancy FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028Talbott Springs ES Renovation/Addition Aug 2023 14,250 14,218 6,550 - - - - - - New HS #13 Aug 2023 25,315 25,415 25,515 25,115 15,972 - - - - Hammond HS Renovation/Addition Aug 2023 20,695 18,795 18,895 19,995 15,147 - - - - New ES #43 Aug 2023 6,000 11,500 15,215 17,927 8,000 - - - - Dunloggin MS Renovation/Addition Aug 2024 - 2,000 10,694 12,671 9,534 4,000 - - - Ellicott Mills MS Addition Aug 2024 - - - 1,000 6,415 1,000 - - - Oakland Mills MS Renovation Aug 2026 - - - - 9,003 14,404 10,603 2,000 - Clarksville ES Addition Aug 2026 - - - - 2,000 7,000 1,000 - - New ES #44 Aug 2027 - - - - 5,705 15,881 21,175 15,881 - MS/HS Career Development Center Aug 2028 - - - - 11,232 22,566 30,850 31,686 22,566 New ES #45 Aug 2029 - - - - - - 5,705 15,881 21,175


TOTALS 99,960$ 100,422$ 108,626$ 106,299$ 112,056$ 100,049$ 103,933$ 101,048$ 81,341$

Difference 2,300$ 4,100$ 3,550$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Talbott Springs ES Realigns cash flows in the out years and delays occupancy from August 2021 to August 2023as a Renovation/Addition

Hammond HS Renovation/Addition Pushes $2M of cash flow to 2020

Systemic Renovations/Modernizations Reduces ARL Maintenance ($1.4M), Emergency Reserve ($2.0M), and a portion of IEQ project repairs ($2.3M) in FY19and pushes cash flows to the out years. Increases High School Security Measures ($1.1) in FY19 and reduces by $1.0M in FY20

Relocatable Classrooms Pushes $700K of cash flow to 2020

Planning and Design Pushes $100K of cash flow to 2020 and 2021

FY19 Capital Budget

April 1, 2018County Executive Proposed (In Thousands)

(In Thousands)

Comparison of BOE Requested and County Executive Proposed

FY 2020-2028 Long-Range Master Plan

FY 2020-2028 Long-Range Master PlanBoard of Education's Requested March 5, 2018

2020

2121

jbubenko

Typewritten Text

Section 2: Talbott Springs ES

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTYMEETING AGENDA ITEM

TITLE: Talbott Springs Elementary School Feasibility Study DATE: August 17, 2017

PRESENTER(S): Scott Washington, Director, School Construction

Robyn Toth, Principal, TCA Architects

OVERVIEW:The attached feasibility study describes various scenarios to address the systemic and programmatic needs at Talbott Springs Elementary School. Talbott Springs Elementary School is a one-story building that opened in 1973 with an open classroom design. The school has had two additions and one minor renovation in 2000, 2008, and 2013 respectively.

Talbott Springs Elementary School specifically serves the Town of Columbia. Due to the programmatic needs of the school, the various systemic needs of the building, and the need to educate every student through the lens of equity, we have investigated three options for the project including a limited renovation and addition, major renovation and addition, and a replacement school.

Based on the age of the existing building, its numerous systemic needs, the necessary site improvements, and potentially lower local funding contribution, a replacement school is recommended. Similar to the new Wilde Lake Middle School project, a replacement school can be built on the Talbott Springs Elementary School site.

It should be noted that per request a net zero aspect was investigated for the replacement school. However, with no grant funding available this option is not recommended. The school will achieve LEED Silver certification.

RECOMMENDATION/FUTURE DIRECTION:Approve recommendation to proceed with planning for a replacement school, pending approval of the Interagency Committee on School Construction.

SUBMITTED BY: APPROVAL/CONCURRENCE:Scott W. WashingtonDirector School Construction

Michael J. Martirano, Ed.D.Interim Superintendent

Bruce GistExecutive DirectorCapital Planning and

Anissa Brown DennisChief Operating Officer

ACTION

2222

tcaarchitects.com tca architects • School Project 1tcaarchitects.com tca architects • School Project 1

Feasibility StudyTalbott Springs Elementary School

Howard County Public School SystemBoard of Education

17 August 2017

2661 Riva Road • Suite 120 • Annapolis, Maryland 21401 • 301.261.8700tca-architects.com

2323

Feasibility Studyfor

Talbott Springs Elementary School

FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTY:

Chairman Cynthia L. Vaillancourt

Vice Chairman Bess Altwerger, Ed. D.

Members Kirsten Coombs Christina Delmont-Small Mavis Ellis Sandra H. French

Ananta HejeebuAnna Selbrede (Student)

Interim Superintendent of Schools Dr. Michael J. Martirano.

Executive Director Capital Planning and Operations Bruce Gist

Director School Construction Scott W. Washington

17 August 2017

2424

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Design Team ................................................................................................................. 4 Project Introduction .................................................................................................... 5 Project Background and Methodology .................................................................... 6 Overview of Schemes ................................................................................................. 7 Design Goals .............................................................................................................. 8 Scheme 1 - Light Renovations to Existing School ..................................................... 9 Scheme 2 - Major Renovations and Additions to Existing School .......................... 10 Scheme 3 - New Replacement School .................................................................... 11 Feasibility Study Recommendation .......................................................................... 13 EXISTING CONDITIONS Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 15 Existing Site Plan ........................................................................................................... 16 Existing Floor Plan ........................................................................................................ 17 Existing Site Assessment .............................................................................................. 18 Existing Building Assessment ....................................................................................... 19 Analysis of Existing Room Sizes .................................................................................... 21 Existing Building Space Analysis ................................................................................. 22 Existing System Assessments ……………………….……………………………………… 25 SCHEME 1 LIGHT RENOVATIONS TO EXISTING SCHOOL Summary ..................................................................................................................... 43 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................ 44 Floor Plan ..................................................................................................................... 45 Analysis of Scheme 1 Room Sizes .............................................................................. 46 Space Analysis .............................................................................................................. 47 Design Narratives ……………………………………………………………….…………. 50 Sustainable ‘Green’ Design Goals .......................................................................... 61 Detailed Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 62 SCHEME 2 MAJOR RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SCHOOL Summary ..................................................................................................................... 63 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................ 64 Floor Plan ..................................................................................................................... 65 Analysis of Scheme 2 Room Sizes .............................................................................. 66 Space Analysis .............................................................................................................. 67 Design Narratives …………………………………………………………………….……. 70 Sustainable ‘Green’ Design Goals .......................................................................... 80 Detailed Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 81 SCHEME 3 NEW REPLACEMENT SCHOOL Summary ..................................................................................................................... 83 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................ 84 Conceptual Site Phasing Diagrams .......................................................................... 85 Floor Plans ..................................................................................................................... 86 Space Analysis .............................................................................................................. 88 Design Narratives …………………………………………………………………….……. 91 Sustainable ‘Green’ Design Goals .......................................................................... 108 Detailed Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 109 APPENDIX NEW NET ZERO ENERGY SCHOOL Summary ..................................................................................................................... A1

SPECIALIZING IN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY DESIGN 32525

tca architects

TALBOTT SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Design Team ARCHITECT TCA Architects, LLC Annapolis, MD

CIVIL ENGINEER Fisher, Collins & Carter, Inc. Ellicott City, MD

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER Morabito Consultants Glencoe, MD

MECHANICAL /

ELECTRICAL /

PLUMBING ENGINEERS James Posey and Associates Baltimore, MD

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

CONSULTANT Educational Systems Planning Annapolis, MD

FOOD SERVICE

CONSULTANT Nyikos Associates, Inc. Gaithersburg, MD

CONSTRUCTION

MANAGER MBP Columbia, MD

42626

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Introduction

PROJECT SUMMARY Current Student Population: 478 Students Existing Building Square Footage: 54,089 GSF * * does not include the ten existing portable classrooms

Existing Building Height: One Story Construction Classification: Type 2B Use Group: Educational

CONSTRUCTION BUDGET Current Construction Budget: $ 21,350,000 * * excludes A/E design fees, CM fees, related costs, FF&E and project contingency

PROJECT SCHEDULE Selection of Feasibility Study Scheme: August 2017 Design Notice-to-Proceed: September 2017 Completed Schematic Design Phase: December 2017 Completed Design Development Phase: April 2018 Completed Construction Documents: September 2018 Permits Received: November 2018 Out for Bids: November 2018 Bid Opening: December 2018 Start Construction: November 2018 Substantial Completion: Scheme 1 August 2020 (for site and building) Scheme 2 June 2021 Scheme 3 * June 2021

* New School will be Occupied for Scheme 3: December 2020


tca architects


Project Background

The existing Talbott Springs Elementary School is a one-story building that opened in 1973 and was 46,186 sf. In 2000, a 6,374 sf addition was constructed to provide a separate gymnasium and an art room. In 2008 a 1,529 sf kindergarten addition was constructed which increased the school to its current size of 54,089 sf (not including the ten portable classrooms currently on site). In 2013, the open space plan was renovated to partition off teaching spaces with low partition walls, but no doors. Additional construction has been done over the years to further partition the existing building.

The school currently has 478 students.

This feasibility study illustrates three schemes:

Scheme 1 - Light Renovations to Existing School

Scheme 2 - Major Renovations and Additions to Existing School

Scheme 3 - New Replacement School

Note: Scheme 2 and Scheme 3 will accommodate an increased student capacity for Talbott Springs Elementary School.

Methodology

The existing school has been evaluated by the design team to determine the existing condition of the facility and to understand operational concerns of the school staff. The goal of Scheme 1 is to improve the existing facility using the HCPSS “Guidelines Manual for Renovations and Modernizations of Existing Schools”. The goal of Scheme 2 is to improve the existing facility as shown in Scheme 1 as well as providing a new addition which will provide the existing school with all the educational spaces listed in the 2010 educational specifications for elementary schools, though modified for the smaller 500 student capacity of Talbott Springs Elementary School. Scheme 3 illustrates a new replacement school, which is a modified version of Elementary School No.42 to respond to the smaller 500 student capacity of Talbott Springs Elementary School. Under this direction, all existing teaching stations remain in the renovated areas for Scheme 1 and Scheme 2 will meet the minimum size of 660 square feet with a goal of providing 750 square feet at each teaching station for Grades 1-5 and minimum size of 750 square feet for Kindergarten classrooms. All new construction shown in Scheme 2 will provide teaching stations which will comply with the current elementary school educational specifications. All spaces in the replacement school will meet the current elementary school educational specifications. The information presented in this report is based on the following:

• Analysis of the existing Talbott Springs Elementary School. The design team conducted a thorough visual evaluation of the existing building.

• Review of existing construction documents for the original building and the 2000 and 2008 additions as provided by the HCPSS.

• Analysis of existing site features including, but not limited to, the utilities, site access, playfields and the Columbia Association’s non-credited open space requirements.

• Development of one renovation scheme which requires the existing portable classrooms to remain on site, one renovation and addition scheme that meets the current elementary school program, and one scheme showing the feasibility of a constructing a new building which would be a modified version of the two-story prototype elementary school.

62828

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview of Schemes

Scheme 1 - Light Renovations to Existing School Area of Existing Building 54,089 gsf

Construction Duration (occupied) ± 18 months

LEED certification level ‘Certified’

Building Cost $ 8,338,957 Site Cost $ 51,985 Demolition Cost $ 112,862 Phased Construction Cost $ 275,479 Total Construction Cost $ 8,779,283

Scheme 2 - Major Renovations and Additions to Existing School Area of Existing Building 54,089 gsf Area of New Addition ± 33,581 gsf Total Area ± 87,670,gsf



Building Cost $22,253,869 Site Cost $ 606,675 Demolition Cost $ 331,969 Phased Construction Cost $ 459,131 Total Construction Cost $23,651,644

Scheme 3 - New Replacement School Area of First Floor 57,425 gsf Area of Second Floor 33,786 gsf Total Area 91,211 gsf

Construction Duration ± 27 months

LEED certification level ‘Silver’

Building Cost $23,820,203 Site Cost $ 2,497,177 Demolition Cost $ 607,864 Phased Construction Cost $ 202,621 Total Construction Cost $27,127,865


tca architects


Design Goals

• Ensure that the building is fully accessible and meets the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines.

• Provide new looped corridors for better accessibility.

• Increase the amount of natural daylighting and exterior views in occupied spaces.

• Investigate the feasibility of renovating the existing building to meet the needs of the latest HCPSS elementary school educational program, life safety code and building codes in comparison to constructing the HCPSS elementary school prototype design as a new replacement school.

• Improve security of the school by providing a controlled main entrance with a new vestibule that provides direct access to the main office.

• Provide stormwater management facilities for all new construction on site.

• Minimize impact to school operations during construction by maintaining existing building infrastructure, thereby minimizing costs.

• Improve vehicular circulation on-site by separating the bus drop-off/pick-up area from the car drop-off/pick - up area.

• Ensure the safety and comfort of all students, faculty, school staff and visitors.

• ‘Green School’ construction improvements will be designed to conserve energy, water and materials, thus reducing negative impacts on human health and the environment. It is a goal for this project to achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification by the United States Green Building Council.

83030

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Scheme 1 Light Renovations to Existing School

Total Area of Renovation 54,089 gsf



Building Cost $ 8,338,957 Site Cost $ 51,985 Demolition Cost $ 112,862 Phased Construction Cost $ 275,479 Total Construction Cost $ 8,779,283

Note: Phased Construction Costs include both the cost of providing additional portable classrooms and the cost of temporary construction.

Scheme 1 Design Attributes:

• Majority of full height walls will remain.

• Minimal amount of existing partial height drywall partitions will be extended to become full height walls. Classrooms will become fully enclosed and will receive new finishes, cabinetry, doors, data, electrical and mechanical systems to meet current HCPSS design standards.

• Many of the existing classroom locations will not allow for windows and views to the outside. Solartubes will provide natural daylight where feasible with the existing roof structure. This scheme will not be able to meet the requirements of the LEED credit for views.

• Existing building circulation will be improved by creating looped circulation in each of the instructional wings.

• Existing kitchen will be renovated to meet current HCPSS standards for food service.

• Mechanical, electrical and data systems will be upgraded.

• Ten existing portable classrooms will remain at the end of this project to accommodate the current student capacity.

• An estimated five additional portable classrooms will need to be moved onto this site temporarily to accommodate the students during the phased occupied construction of the existing school.

• School will not have access to the paved play area for duration of construction (±18 months) due to the additional portable classrooms.

• The following spaces from the current HCPSS elementary school program do not exist in the existing building and will not be provided at the end of this project: testing area, restrooms within the kindergarten classrooms, gifted and talented classrooms, technology resource room, media production room, mini-auditorium, ensemble room, special education classroom and resource rooms, second teaching station for physical education.

• Site amenities will remain the same as the existing conditions after construction.

• Construction project will be designed to receive USGBC certification at LEED ‘Certified’ level.


tca architects


Scheme 2 Major Renovations and Additions to Existing School

Area of Light Renovation 10,000 gsfArea of Light Renovation 44,089 gsfArea of New Addition ± 33,581 gsf Total Area ± 87,670,gsf


LEED certification level ‘Certified’Building Cost $22,253,869Site Cost $ 606,675 Demolition Cost $ 331,969 Phased Construction Cost $ 459,131Total Construction Cost $23,651,644

Note: Phased Construction Costs include both the cost of relocating the existing portable classrooms and the cost of temporary construction.


• Existing partial height drywall partitions will be removed along with many of the existing masonry construction. Classrooms will become fully enclosed and will receive new finishes, cabinetry, doors, data, electrical and mechanical systems to meet current HCPSS design standards.

• Many of the classrooms will have windows or views to the outside. Solatubes will be provided for natural daylight where feasible with the roof structure. This scheme will not be able to meet the requirements of the LEED credit for views.

• Existing building circulation will be improved by creating looped circulation in each of the instructional wings.

• A new administrative suite will be located in a small addition in front of the school to provide a new security vestibule and better supervision of the main entrance.

• Early Childhood classrooms, mini-auditorium, auxiliary gym, special education room and additional classrooms will be located in the newly constructed addition.

• 40% of the classrooms will be located within the existing building, therefore these classrooms will meet the HCPSS “Guidelines Manual for Renovations and Modernizations of Existing Schools” but will be undersized in comparison to the classrooms in Scheme 3 which will be designed to meet the current HCPSS elementary school program for square footage.

• A new addition will be constructed to accommodate the new kitchen which will meet current HCPSS standards for food service.

• Mechanical, electrical and data systems will be upgraded for the entire building. • Eight of the existing portable classrooms will be required to be relocated on site to make room for

the construction of the new addition. These portable classrooms will be removed from the site at the completion of the project.

• School will not have access to most of the play fields for duration of construction (±27 months) due to the relocated portables and the contractor’s staging area.

• Site amenities will remain the same as the existing conditions after construction.

• Construction project will be designed to receive USGBC certification at LEED ‘Certified’ level.

103232

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Scheme 3 New Replacement School

Area of First Floor 57,425 gsf Area of Second Floor 33,786 gsf Total Area 91,211 gsf

Construction Duration ± 27 months

LEED certification level ‘Silver’

Building Cost $23,820,203 Site Cost $ 2,497,177 Demolition Cost $ 607,864 Phased Construction Cost $ 202,621 Total Construction Cost $27,127,865

Note: * Based on Bid-Day Construction Cost

from Elementary School No.42.


• This scheme allows the existing school to run as it does today while construction of the new school is underway. In addition, all of the students and staff will be able to occupy the new school earlier than Scheme 2.

• New school illustrated is a smaller version of the current Elementary School No. 42 design, which will accommodate 500 students.

• This scheme will provide natural daylight and views to more of the occupied spaces and earn more LEED credits than the other schemes.

• New construction will allow for the school to have highly efficient building envelope which will reduce energy costs.

• Highly efficient mechanical, electrical and data systems will be utilized.

• Floor plan includes Recreation and Parks spaces per the prototype design, which is not included in Scheme 1.

• School will not have access to playfields for duration of construction (± 27 months).

• Site design for this scheme will allow students to enter building directly from parent drop-off without crossing the bus-loop and to access playfields directly from gymnasium without crossing the service drive.

• Project will need a variance from Columbia Association to provide the appropriate amount of paving for all the vehicular circulation on site. The process of obtaining such a variance is estimated to take a year.

• Construction project will be designed to receive USGBC certification at LEED ‘Silver’ level as required by the State of Maryland for new construction projects.


tca architects


123434

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Feasibility Study Recommendation

After a review of all schemes, the staff recommends Scheme 3, thus constructing a new high performance, elementary school building alongside the existing Talbott Springs Elementary School which will be demolished upon completion of the new school.

Benefits of Scheme 3 Include the following:

• Scheme 3 allows the occupants of Talbott Springs ES to work, teach and learn, in a newly constructed building where all spaces will be constructed for their intended use. No spaces will be repurposed as in the renovation schemes.

• There will be virtually no disruption to the students educational spaces of Talbott Springs Elementary School during construction of Scheme 3. Renovation schemes require teaching and learning to be located within the same building as construction for anywhere between 18-27 months. New construction for Scheme 3 building will be on the other side of the school site.

• Scheme 3 provides more natural daylighting and exterior views in occupied spaces than either of the renovation schemes.

• Scheme 3 provides the most efficient corridor circulation pattern throughout the building, compared to the renovation schemes.

• Scheme 3 completely separates the bus drop-off/pick-up area from the car drop-off/pick - up area. Students will not cross a vehicular driveway as they enter/exit the school from the car drop-off/pick-up area as they would in the other schemes.

• Scheme 3 provides an energy efficient building envelope built in the most cost effective manner. Insulation for Scheme 3 will be integral to the new building envelope design in comparison to adding a new layer of insulation to the 44 year old building envelope for the areas of renovation.

• The state of the art, highly energy efficient building provided by Scheme 3 will provide both a superior building envelope (walls, doors, windows and roof) with a higher thermal resistance and an enhanced lighting design which minimizes energy consumption by careful light fixture selection and automated controls with dimming capabilities and occupancy sensors

• Scheme 3 results in lower operating costs over the life of the school compared to the renovation schemes.

• Scheme 3 allows the high performance school building to be used as a teaching tool to educate students, educators and community members about the benefits of energy efficiencies.

• Scheme 3 will achieve a ‘Silver’ level of LEED certification compared to the renovation/addition schemes which would likely achieve a ‘Certified’ level.


BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTY

MEETING AGENDA ITEM

TITLE: Talbott Springs Elementary School Schematic Design Report DATE: February 8, 2018

PRESENTER(S):

Scott W. Washington, Director, School Construction


OVERVIEW: The attached schematic design report describes the new replacement school for Talbott Springs Elementary

School. Talbott Springs Elementary School is a one-story building that opened in 1973 with an open

classroom design. The school has had two additions and one minor renovation in 2000, 2008, and 2013

respectively. Based on the age of the existing building, its numerous systemic needs, and the necessary site improvements,

a replacement school was recommended. The project will be a smaller adaptation of the Hanover Hills

Elementary School prototype design currently being constructed in Oxford Square.

A continuing emphasis on energy efficient systems and sustainability will be incorporated into the design. It

is the intent that the design and construction of the building achieve another LEED (Leadership in Energy

and Environmental Design) ‘Silver’ designation.

The design team has worked collaboratively with the planning committee to ensure an appropriately updated

building which will serve the current and future needs of the elementary school program at the school.

RECOMMENDATION/FUTURE DIRECTION: It is recommended that the schematic design report for Talbott Springs Elementary School be approved as

submitted.

SUBMITTED BY: APPROVAL/CONCURRENCE:

Scott W. Washington

Director, School

Construction

Michael J. Martirano, Ed.D.

Interim Superintendent

Construction

Bruce Gist

Executive Director,

Capital Planning and

Operations

Karalee Turner-Little

Assistant Superintendent

For Administrative Affairs

Anissa Brown Dennis

Chief Operating Officer

ACTION

4040

!tcaarchitects.com tca architects • School Project 1

New Replacement School

Schematic Design Report Talbott Springs Elementary School

Howard County Public School System Board of Education

8 February 2018

4141

http://tcaarchitects.com

Schematic Design Report

for


Talbott Springs Elementary School

FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTY:

Chairman Cynthia L. Vaillancourt

Vice Chairman Mavis Ellis

Members Bess Altwerger, Ed. D. Kirsten A. Coombs

Christina Delmont-Small Sandra H. French

Ananta Hejeebu Anna C. Selbrede (Student)

Interim Superintendent of Schools Michael J. Martirano, Ed. D.

Executive Director Capital Planning and Operations Bruce Gist

Director School Construction Scott W. Washington

8 February 2018

4242

architectstca


2

4343

SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT

Table of Contents

4 Planning Advisory Committee and Design Team 5 Project Description and Planning Process

6 Project Facts and Schedule 7 Sustainable ‘Green’ Design Goals 8 Vicinity Map

9 Existing Site Plan 10 Conceptual Site Phasing Diagrams

11 Site Phasing Notes 12 Proposed Site Plan 13 Proposed Site Plan Notes

14 Floor Plan Features 16 Proposed First Floor Plan

17 Proposed Second Floor Plan 18 Modifications to Prototype Floor Plans 19 Space Analysis

22 Building Sections 23 Architectural Character

24 Interior Views from the Original Prototype Design 25 Civil Design Narrative 27 Architectural Design Narrative

29 Roofing Design Narrative 30 Structural Design Narrative

32 Mechanical Design Narrative 36 Plumbing Design Narrative 38 Fire Protection Design Narrative

39 Electrical Design Narrative 43 Technology and Security Design Narrative

46 Food Service Design Narrative 47 Energy Statement 48 Construction Cost Estimate

Appendix Original larger prototype design as constructed for Elementary School No. 42 is provided for reference:

A1 First Floor Plan - Elementary School No.42

A2 Second Floor Plan - Elementary School No.42

SPECIALIZING IN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY DESIGN �3

4444

architectstca


Planning Advisory Committee

Lois Bailey HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, 4th Grade Teacher Kimberly Burtwell HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, Night Building Supervisor Taffie Clark HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, 1st Grade Teacher Dr. Theo Cramer HCPSS, Community Superintendent, Birth-Grade 12, Area 2 Matt Evans Dustin Construction David Ramsay HCPSS, Director of Transportation Lauran Hoffman HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, Principal’s Secretary Kristen Humphrey Maryland Department of Planning Michelle Humphrey HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, 5th Grade Paraeducator Megan Knysak HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, Music Teacher Amy Lauer HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, Pre-K Team Leader Paul Linkins HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, Assistant Principal Julia Lubelczyk HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, Reading Support Teacher Dan Lubeley HCPSS, Manager of Design and Preconstruction Christina Morabito HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, 3rd Grade Teacher Sarah Palmer Dustin Construction Joe Phaneuf Holly Court Board of Directors Kelli Pope HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, Focus Teacher Brian Ralph HCPSS, Director of Food and Nutrition Services Laurie Ressler HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, Media Specialist Jan Sadowski Dustin Construction Jillian Storms MSDE, School Facilities Architect Nancy Thompson HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, Principal Thea Turnage HCPSS, Talbott Springs Elementary School, Speech Pierre Van Greunen HCPSS, Director of Safety, Environment and Risk Mgmt. Scott Washington HCPSS, Director of School Construction Betsy Zentz HCPSS, Interagency Specialist

Architects Robyn Toth, AIA Principal, Project Manager, LEED AP Sandra Watts, AIA Architect, LEED AP

Design Team

ARCHITECT TCA Architects Annapolis, MD CIVIL ENGINEER Fisher, Collins & Carter Ellicott City, MD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER Morabito Consultants Sparks Glencoe, MD M/E/P ENGINEER James Posey Associates Baltimore, MD IT CONSULTANT Educational Systems Planning Annapolis, MD DAYLIGHTING ENGINEER EMO Energy Solutions Falls Church, VA ROOFING CONSULTANT Restoration Engineering Fairfax, VA ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER Miller, Beam & Paganelli Reston, VA FOODSERVICE DESIGN Nyikos Associates Gaithersburg, MD CONSTRUCTION MANAGER Dustin Construction Ijamsville, MD

4

4545

SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT

Project Description

The Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) plans to construct a replacement school for Talbott Springs Elementary School (ES) on the same site as the existing elementary school. The new 94,795 square-foot replacement school will be designed to a local capacity of 525 students along with 97 students for the immersion program. The new Talbott Springs ES design is based on Scheme 3 from the Board of Education approved August 2017 feasibility study. Scheme 3 represents a modified version of Elementary School No. 42 (ES42), currently under construction and is the fourth iteration of this prototype. The project will be constructed in phases, much like the Wilde Lake Middle School project. The existing Talbott Springs ES will remain occupied and operational until the new replacement school is fully constructed and ready for occupancy. Once the new school is occupied, the existing school will be demolished.

The ‘Space Analysis’ section of this report contains a complete listing of elementary school program spaces found in the 2010 Educational Specifications, and compares the size of each space in the Educational Specification to the size of each space in the Talbott Springs ES design.

It is the intent that the design and construction of this new elementary school achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)‘Silver’ designation making this facility yet another ‘Green’ school for HCPSS. The ‘LEED for Schools v4’ released by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) will provide the necessary goals and requirements to obtain LEED Certification. (See page 7 for Sustainable ‘Green’ Design Goals.)

Planning Process

In October and November of 2017, the Planning Advisory Committee attended three meetings with the project architect and the school and HCPSS construction staff to review the proposed site design and floor plans, as well as the current educational needs for elementary schools as stated in the “General Elementary Educational Specifications for New Schools” adopted by the Board of Education in 2010.

Planning meetings were held at the existing Talbott Springs Elementary School. The meetings focused on familiarizing the committee with both the ES42 prototype floor plan and the modified prototype design (Scheme 3), and presenting the proposed site design, floor plans and elevations. During the course of these meetings, the committee participated in a thorough discussion of the building layout, and contributed helpful input leading to a refined building design. Refer to page 18 for a summary of significant modifications to the prototype floor plans.

To assist with the project’s cost estimate and constructibility review, the construction manager participated in the planning process.

SPECIALIZING IN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY DESIGN �5

4646

architectstca


Project Facts Total size of site: 10 acres

Zoning: New Town (NT)

Proposed Existing

On site car parking provided: 110 cars 77 cars

On site bus parking provided: 8 busses 6 busses

Building Square Footage: 94,795 gsf 54,089 gsf (to be demolished)

Local Student Capacity: 622 Students * 377 Students **

* Including new Immersion Program.

** For existing building. There are 10 portable classrroms on site. Current enrollment is 501 students

Project Schedule Feasibility Study presented to Board of Education 17 August 2017

Schematic Planning Meetings Completed 30 November 2017

Schematic Design presentation to Board of Education for Review and Approval 8 February 2018

Design Development presentation to Board of Education for Review and Approval June 2018

Construction Documents presentation to Board of Education for Review and Approval November 2018

Project out for Bids: (1 month) January 2019

Bids Received February 2019

Construction Starts May 2019

School Opens January 2021

Construction Completed (27 months) August 2021

6

4747

10910 Clarksville Pike Ellicott City, MD 21042 410-313-6600 www.hcpss.org

March 2, 2018

CONFIDENTIAL

MEMORANDUM

To: Members of the Board of Education

From: Michael J. Martirano, Ed.D


Subject: Talbott Springs Elementary School Replacement - Feasibility Study

The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you that after reviewing the Feasibility Study for

the Talbott Springs Elementary School (TSES) Replacement, the Designees for the Interagency

Committee on School Construction (Designees) maintain that the Board’s decision to build a

replacement school is not justified. Consequently, the Designees did not recommend State Local

Planning approval or future funding of the project as a replacement facility. In their letter dated

December 8, 2017, it states the building is in good condition, has solid finish materials, and

presents some unique architectural features, such as high ceilings in some of the classrooms.

They further suggest that with more intense design effort, the renovation/addition can

significantly address the limitations of the existing facility.

The Designee’s letter concludes that if and when TSES receives construction funding approval,

participation will be based on the renovation/addition rate. This amounts to approximately $4

million in State participation. Therefore, the balance of funding to construct the replacement

school would require a higher local county contribution. The level of State funding will not

increase unless the Designees reverse their decision and agree with the Board’s decision to build

a replacement school.

The Division of Operations staff sent a response to the State requesting reconsideration of a

replacement school. If you have any questions, please contact Anissa Brown Dennis, Chief

Operating Officer.

Copy to: Executive Staff

Board of Education Office

I encourage Board Members to contact members for State Delegates to request their support and

advocacy for the two projected projects.

4848


April 5, 2018

MEMORANDUM


From: Michael J. Martirano, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent

Subject: Talbott Spring Elementary School Project Planning Timeline

The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of the timeline associated with the Talbott Springs Elementary School (TSES) project. On August 17, 2017, staff presented the TSES Feasibility Study to the Board of Education. The Board approved the project and directed staff to begin the planning process. The TSES project is listed as a replacement school in the FY18 Board Approved Capital Budget. The State requires that for replacement schools or schools involving major demolition, a feasibility study must be submitted and approved by the Designee’s of the Interagency Committee (IAC). Once a project (e.g., replacement, renovation or renovation/addition) receives initial approval by the Board in the capital budget, direction is given to staff to initiate the planning of the project. Staff continues to plan for the TSES replacement and advocate for State local planning approval and state funding at the replacement rate, until an alternative direction is approved by the Board. For the TSES project, the following timeline occurred:

February 23, 2017 – FY 2018 Board of Education Requested Capital Budget listed TSES as a renovation project. A feasibility study is not required to be submitted to the State for a renovation project.

May 25, 2017 – FY 2018 Board of Education Approved Capital Budget shows

TSES as a replacement project. As a replacement project, the State requires a feasibility study be submitted for review and approval. The change in project scope was the result of discussions between County Council and the Board of Education during the FY 2018 Operating and Capital Budget process.

August 17, 2017 – TSES Feasibility Study was presented to the Board of Education. At that time, staff advised the Board that the budget is subject to the State review of the TSES Feasibility Study.

4949

September 13, 2017 – TSES Feasibility Study submitted for State review.

October 4, 2017 – HCPSS staff submitted the FY 2019 State Capital Budget

request, which included a request for State Local Planning for the TSES replacement project. Construction funding was not requested in FY 2019 due to the lack of design progress. State Local Planning can be requested prior to or in the same year as a Construction Funding, depending on the design progress.

November 9, 2017 – Mr. Scott Washington, Director of School Construction, received the Capital Improvement Plan Issues Letter from Joan Schaefer, Deputy Director, Maryland Public School Construction Program (CIP). This letter is the result of the CIP review meeting with the State and identifies issues with the FY 2019 State Capital Improvement Program submittal. Staff was asked to provide additional information for multiple projects, including the TSES project and Feasibility Study.

November 27, 2017 – HCPSS staff submitted a response to the issues letter, which stated we will continue to coordinate with our state contact, Ms. Jillian Storms, regarding any concerns with the TSES Feasibility Study.

December 7, 2017 – Dr. Martirano presented testimony at the IAC Appeals on the TSES Replacement as well as other projects and concerns.

December 8, 2017 – The Designee’s for the IAC issued a letter stating they feel the Board’s decision of a replacement school for TSES is not justified and will not support funding the project at the replacement rate. (HCPSS received it via email on December 18, 2017)

December 20, 2017 – The December 20, 2017, IAC meeting agenda was posted on the IAC’s website with FY 2019 Designee funding recommendations. TSES Replacement received a “C” status, which meant that the project is “deferred, and not currently eligible for planning or funding approval based on unresolved issues.”

January 11, 2018 – HCPSS received communication from the Board of Public Works (BPW) that their annual appeal meeting was by invitation only. HCPSS and the Board did not appeal to the BPW at that time regarding TSES receiving a “C” status as this opportunity was not afforded to us.

January 26, 2018 – The BPW letter indicating approval of 75% of the proposed FY 2019 Capital Budget for public school construction was issued.

February 8, 2018 – HCPSS staff sent a letter requesting that the IAC Designees reconsider support for TSES replacement.

5050

February 8, 2018 – Staff presented schematic design to the Board. The Board

approved the schematic design as submitted.

February 8, 2018 – Staff presented a capital budget amendment to the Board. The revisions included an updated timeline and cash flow for the Hammond HS renovation/addition. Staff indicated we were working through the State’s issues on its lack of support for the TSES replacement.

February 28, 2018 – IAC recommendation of 90% of the proposed capital budget for public school construction was issued. TSES remained a “C” status.

March 2, 2018 – HCPSS staff sent a memorandum to the Board regarding the final decisions on the State Local Planning for the FY 2019 Capital Budget, including the lack of support for a TSES replacement.

March 29, 2018 – County Executive Proposed Capital Budget lists TSES as a

renovation/addition. Although the State will not support funding TSES at the replacement rate, they have indicated they may fund TSES at the renovation rate. State funding allocations for a renovation/addition at TSES can be applied toward a replacement. The Board may still choose to move forward with a replacement school, should local funding be available to cover the difference in cost. In addition, there have been questions pertaining to the reconsideration (a.k.a. as appeal) letter. The letter that was sent to the Board on Wednesday, April 4 that was addressed to Fred Mason is the reconsideration letter. We have not received a response from Mr. Mason at this time. HCPSS staff has verified with Public School Construction staff today that there is a Designees work session on April 11, 2018, and that the TSES reconsideration letter has been placed on the agenda for discussion. Please note, the Designee meetings are not public meetings. As a result, HCPSS was unaware that the April 11, 2018 meeting was scheduled. The next steps include the following

Staff will continue to follow-up with the Designees on the issues identified in their letter, dated December 8, 2017.

HCPSS staff will follow-up with the Public School Construction Program staff on April 12 to discuss results of the Designees meeting.

HCPSS is able to request both State Local Planning and Construction funding (should planning have progressed sufficiently) in the FY 2020 State Capital Budget. This process starts July 1, 2018.

We have been asked what the community can do in support of TSES and what talking points can be shared. The community may advocate to the state for the reconsideration of

5151

the replacement school by using the points from the HCPSS letter dated Februay 8, 2018. (See Attachment.) If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Anissa Brown Dennis, Chief Operating Officer. Copy to: Executive Staff


5252

1

Renee Kamen

From: Kathleen V. HanksSent: Friday, April 27, 2018 11:14 AMTo: Renee KamenSubject: Fw: Attachments for CC TSES requestAttachments: 3 - FINAL PDF Print _ Response To State CIP Issues Letter _ 11 27 2017 .pdf; 3a - Appeal

email.pdf; 5 - 02 08 2018 Talbott Springs Elementary Replacement School Schematic Design Report BR.pdf; 6 - March 2 Board Memo to TSES Funding Participation.pdf; 1 - FINAL FY19 State Budget 4Oct2017.pdf; 2 - 13 - FIN Howard Issues Letter.pdf; 4 - Email From Shauntia Gray _ BPW LEA Testimony at 11 24 2018 Meeting.pdf

Kathy Hanks Administrator Board of Education of Howard County Phone: 410-313-7194 Fax: 410-313-6833

From: Anissa Brown Dennis Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 4:02:25 PM To: Kathleen V. Hanks Cc: Valerie J. Willis; Bruce Gist; Scott Washington; Renee Kamen Subject: Fw: Attachments for CC TSES request Hello Kathy, Please see the message below which identifies a request (see attachments) from Councilwoman Jen Terrasa. Could you please forward to her, along with copying our Board of Education members, this information? ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Hi Anissa, I am reviewing the Board Memo our office received a few days ago on the TSES timeline and trying to make sure I understand all the steps in the process and that our file on this issue is complete. There are a couple of items mentioned in the Board Memo that we do not have:

1. Oct. 4, 17 – FY19 State Cap Budget Request – can you provide? 2. Nov. 9, 17 – Cap Improvement Plan Issues letter from Joan Schaefer – can you provide? 3. Nov. 27, 17 – Response letter from HCPSS – can you provide? 4. Jan. 11, 18 – Letter from BPW regarding annual appeal meeting and that appeal on the TSES status

not eligible for appeal – can you provide? 5. Feb. 8, 18 – Schematic design – can you provide? 6. Mar. 2, 18 – HCPSS memo – can you provide?

Thank you! Colette Gelwicks District Aide District 3, Councilwoman Jen Terrasa

5353

2

Howard County Council 3430 Court House Drive, Ellicott City, MD 21043 [email protected] Phone: (410) 313‐3108 Fax: (410) 313‐3297 Like Councilwoman Terrasa’s page on Facebook and follow her on Twitter!

Nessa Anissa Brown Dennis Chief Operating Officer Howard County Public School System Phone: 410-313-1550 Fax: 410-313-6890

5454

State Capital Budget FY 2019Howard County PubliC SCHool SyStem

October 4, 20175555

jbubenko

Text Box

Full attachments emailed on April 16, 2018

STATE OF MARYLAND

PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 200 W. BALTIMORE STREET

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 410-767-0617

ROBERT A. GORRELL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

LARRY HOGAN INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION KAREN SALMON, Ph.D. GOVERNOR CHAIRPERSON

November 9, 2017



Noted.


See enclosed.


See enclosed.

5656

jbubenko

Text Box

RESPONSE to CIP Issues letter - Sent from State


4. There are projects in this Capital Improvement Program request that are subject to the COMAR 23.03.02.29 Emergency Shelter Compliance Process, but are not yet entered into SharePoint. Please refer to the Administrative Procedures Guide Section 106 - Emergency Shelter Compliance Procedures as your guide through this process. Early contact with MEMA is recommended so that the electrical power requirements can be incorporated at the beginning of the design process. MEMA will be contacted before projects move into the design development phase.


Please provide the most recent roof inspection report. See enclosed.


Please provide the most recent roof inspection report.

See enclosed.

Priority #3 - Long Reach High - Building Envelope (Funding Request) Please consider requesting that the architect of record investigate whether the window

leakage is due to improper detail and/or improper installation.

Noted, will consider. Priority #4 - Fulton Elementary - Roof (Funding Request)

No issue Priority #5 - Glenwood Middle - Building Envelope (Funding Request)

Please resubmit the floor plan with a legend for the color coding.

See enclosed. Priority #6 - Talbott Springs Elementary - Replacement (Planning Request)

Revise and resubmit IAC/PSCP Form 102.1 Request for Approval of Planning to address the following issues: o Please confirm bid date and occupancy date.

Confirmed.

o Under Enrollment Projections, confirm all adjacent school shown and indicate in the form if any should not be considered in the calculation of available capacity and why. Clarify if HCPSS considers Route 29 a boundary that should not be crossed for elementary school redistricting, such as for Running Brook Elementary. All adjacent schools should be considered. HCPSS currently has attendance areas that cross Route 29.

5757


On a separate table, provide projected enrollment for the Elementary Regional Language Immersion Program and the area from which the program is drawing.

The ERLI Program discussions are in very preliminary stages. It is not known at this time where the program(s) will be located nor the projected enrollment.

Coordinate with Jillian Storms of the School Facilities Branch to provide any additional information needed to support the Feasibility Study submitted on 9/13/2017.

Will coordinate.


See Issues #4 response above. Priority #7 - New High School #13 - New (Planning Request)

Please review the requirements for School Site Approval in the Administrative Procedures Guide Section 104, particularly with reference to scheduling a site visit with officials from the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP), and submission of the site to the State Clearinghouse. Mr. Michael Bayer at (410) 767-7179 is available to discuss any questions you have on the site approval process.

Maryland Department of Planning staff visited potential sites on November 9th.


See Issues #4 response above. Please respond to the issues stated above as soon as possible but no later than November 27, 2017. Responses should be directed to the attention of Ms. Arabia Davis at this address. Submit eight (8) copies on colored paper of all revised submission documents marking them as “Revised” and showing a revised date. Please contact Ms. Davis at (410) 767-2153 if you have any questions. Thank you for your ongoing cooperation with the CIP review process. Sincerely,

Joan Schaefer Deputy Director Maryland Public School Construction Program cc: Mr. Robert A. Gorrell, Executive Director, PSCP Ms. Arabia Davis, Funding Programs Manager, PSCP Ms. Kim Spivey, Manager of Fiscal Services, PSCP Mr. Fred Mason, III, Chief, School Facilities Branch, MSDE Mr. Michael Bayer, Manager, Infrastructure and Development, MDP Mr. Mahmood Yahyai, Acting Program Manager, DGS Ms. Cassandra Viscarra, Program Support Administrator, PSCP

5858

November 9, 2017





4. There are projects in this Capital Improvement Program request that are subject to the COMAR 23.03.02.29 Emergency Shelter Compliance Process, but are not yet entered into SharePoint. Please refer to the Administrative Procedures Guide Section 106 - Emergency Shelter Compliance Procedures as your guide through this process. Early contact with MEMA is recommended so that the electrical power requirements can be incorporated at the beginning of the design process.



5959

jbubenko

Text Box

CIP Issues letter - Received from State



Priority #3 - Long Reach High - Building Envelope (Funding Request) • Please consider requesting that the architect of record investigate whether the window

leakage is due to improper detail and/or improper installation. Priority #4 - Fulton Elementary - Roof (Funding Request)

• No issue Priority #5 - Glenwood Middle - Building Envelope (Funding Request)

• Please resubmit the floor plan with a legend for the color coding. Priority #6 - Talbott Springs Elementary - Replacement (Planning Request)

• Revise and resubmit IAC/PSCP Form 102.1 Request for Approval of Planning to address the following issues: o Please confirm bid date and occupancy date. o Under Enrollment Projections, confirm all adjacent school shown and indicate in the form if

any should not be considered in the calculation of available capacity and why. Clarify if HCPSS considers Route 29 a boundary that should not be crossed for elementary school redistricting, such as for Running Brook Elementary.

• On a separate table, provide projected enrollment for the Elementary Regional Language Immersion Program and the area from which the program is drawing.

• Coordinate with Jillian Storms of the School Facilities Branch to provide any additional information needed to support the Feasibility Study submitted on 9/13/2017.


Priority #7 - New High School #13 - New (Planning Request) • Please review the requirements for School Site Approval in the Administrative Procedures

Guide Section 104, particularly with reference to scheduling a site visit with officials from the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP), and submission of the site to the State Clearinghouse. Mr. Michael Bayer at (410) 767-7179 is available to discuss any questions you have on the site approval process.


Please respond to the issues stated above as soon as possible but no later than November 27, 2017. Responses should be directed to the attention of Ms. Arabia Davis at this address. Submit eight (8) copies on colored paper of all revised submission documents marking them as “Revised” and showing a revised date. Please contact Ms. Davis at (410) 767-2153 if you have any questions. Thank you for your ongoing cooperation with the CIP review process. Sincerely,

Joan Schaefer Deputy Director Maryland Public School Construction Program

6060

10910 Clarksville Pike Ellicott City, MD 21042 410-313-6600 www.hcpss.org

March 2, 2018

CONFIDENTIAL

MEMORANDUM


From: Michael J. Martirano, Ed.D


Subject: Talbott Springs Elementary School Replacement - Feasibility Study

The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you that after reviewing the Feasibility Study for

the Talbott Springs Elementary School (TSES) Replacement, the Designees for the Interagency

Committee on School Construction (Designees) maintain that the Board’s decision to build a

replacement school is not justified. Consequently, the Designees did not recommend State Local

Planning approval or future funding of the project as a replacement facility. In their letter dated

December 8, 2017, it states the building is in good condition, has solid finish materials, and

presents some unique architectural features, such as high ceilings in some of the classrooms.

They further suggest that with more intense design effort, the renovation/addition can

significantly address the limitations of the existing facility.

The Designee’s letter concludes that if and when TSES receives construction funding approval,

participation will be based on the renovation/addition rate. This amounts to approximately $4

million in State participation. Therefore, the balance of funding to construct the replacement

school would require a higher local county contribution. The level of State funding will not

increase unless the Designees reverse their decision and agree with the Board’s decision to build

a replacement school.

The Division of Operations staff sent a response to the State requesting reconsideration of a

replacement school. If you have any questions, please contact Anissa Brown Dennis, Chief

Operating Officer.

Copy to: Executive Staff


I encourage Board Members to contact members for State Delegates to request their support and

advocacy for the two projected projects.

6161


BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTY

MEETING AGENDA ITEM

TITLE: Talbott Springs Elementary School Schematic Design Report DATE: February 8, 2018

PRESENTER(S):

Scott W. Washington, Director, School Construction


OVERVIEW: The attached schematic design report describes the new replacement school for Talbott Springs Elementary

School. Talbott Springs Elementary School is a one-story building that opened in 1973 with an open

classroom design. The school has had two additions and one minor renovation in 2000, 2008, and 2013

respectively. Based on the age of the existing building, its numerous systemic needs, and the necessary site improvements,

a replacement school was recommended. The project will be a smaller adaptation of the Hanover Hills

Elementary School prototype design currently being constructed in Oxford Square.

A continuing emphasis on energy efficient systems and sustainability will be incorporated into the design. It

is the intent that the design and construction of the building achieve another LEED (Leadership in Energy

and Environmental Design) ‘Silver’ designation.

The design team has worked collaboratively with the planning committee to ensure an appropriately updated

building which will serve the current and future needs of the elementary school program at the school.

RECOMMENDATION/FUTURE DIRECTION: It is recommended that the schematic design report for Talbott Springs Elementary School be approved as

submitted.

SUBMITTED BY: APPROVAL/CONCURRENCE:

Scott W. Washington

Director, School

Construction

Michael J. Martirano, Ed.D.


Construction

Bruce Gist

Executive Director,

Capital Planning and

Operations

Karalee Turner-Little

Assistant Superintendent

For Administrative Affairs

Anissa Brown Dennis

Chief Operating Officer

ACTION

6262

!tcaarchitects.com tca architects • School Project 1


Schematic Design Report Talbott Springs Elementary School

Howard County Public School System Board of Education

8 February 2018

6363

http://tcaarchitects.com

1

Betsy Zentz

From: Shauntia Gray -MSDE- <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 1:53 PMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]; MILTON NAGEL; [email protected]; Charles Simpers; [email protected]; [email protected]; Elizabeth Pasierb; [email protected]; [email protected]; Scott Washington; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Cc: Gloria Mikolajczyk -MSDE-; Jillian Storms -MSDE-; Kristen Humphrey -MDP-; Michael Bayer -MDP-; Mahmood Yahyai -DGS-; Fred Mason -MSDE-; Kim Spivey -MSDE-; Joan Schaefer -MSDE-; Cassandra Viscarra -MSDE-; Arabia Davis -MSDE-; Robert Gorrell -MSDE-; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Susan Himmer; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sam Slacum; Karen King; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Cassie Marsh; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Betsy Zentz; Bruce Gist; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Willis, Leesa L; Aretha Heigh; Wesley Watts; Sharon Dent; [email protected]; [email protected]; Robin Evans; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Board of Public Works 1/24/18 Meeting

Good Afternoon All, Please be advised that the Board of Public Works (BPW) will not be scheduling each LEA to testify on the FY 2019 Capital Improvement Program submissions at their meeting on January 24, 2018. The BPW will, however, consider and potentially take action on the CIP at that time. As you will recall, each school system met with the BPW on October 18, 2017, and provided a brief update on their CIP submission. It is our understanding that the BPW will directly contact the school systems individually should questions arise regarding your CIP submission/project(s) allocations. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions. Thank you so much. Shauntia

6464

2

--

Shauntia Gray Administrative Specialist II Public School Construction Program 200 West Baltimore Street, Suite 201 Baltimore, MD 21201 [email protected] (410) 767-0617

Click here to complete a three question customer experience survey

6565

1

Jennifer Bubenko

From: Bruce GistSent: Monday, November 27, 2017 12:48 PMTo: Joan Schaefer ([email protected])Cc: Michael Martirano; Anissa Brown Dennis; [email protected]; Betsy Zentz;

Gina Petrick; Jennifer Bubenko; Renee Kamen; Daniel Lubeley; Scott Washington; Herb Savje; Olivia Claus

Subject: FW: 2019 CIP Appeals

Ms. Schaefer – The Howard County Public School System (HCPSS) will be appealing the following projects and amounts: Long Reach HS – Building Envelope $2,713,027 Fulton ES – Roof $ 831,000 Glenwood – Building Envelope $ 789,000 Talbott Springs ES - LP New HS #13 LP TOTAL $4,333,027 These amounts are based on the calculation of 55% at 2.5% contingency of eligible costs. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or Betsy Zentz @ 410-313-6753 Bruce Gist | Executive Director Capital Planning and Operations Howard County Public School System direct 410.313.6798 mobile 410.365.0248 School Planning - School Construction - Use of School Facilities Transportation - Food and Nutrition Services

6666

73

jbubenko

Typewritten Text

Section 3: Hammond HS

Operating Budget Overview - Howard County Council

Documents

Transcript of Operating Budget Overview - Howard County Council