Docstoc

Burleson Independent School District

Document Sample
Burleson Independent School District Powered By Docstoc
					     FACILITIES EVALUATION
      AND PROJECTED NEEDS




      DRAFT
Burleson Independent School District
            November 2005




            Genesis Partnership
              Dallas, Texas
              972-312-9206
                                                                           CONTENTS




                  Foreword        .       .       .       .    .   .   .     .      iv

                  Preface                 .       .       .    .   .   .     .       v

                  I.       Executive Summary .            .    .   .   .     .       1

                  II.      Master Planning Criteria       .    .   .   .     .       9

                  III.     Population Projections         .    .   .   .     .      19

                  IV.      Instructional Program Profile .     .   .   .     .      26

                  V.       Condition of Existing Facilities        .   .     .      30

                  VI.      Capacities of Existing Facilities       .   .     .      58

                  VII.     Best Use of Existing Facilities     .   .   .     .      69

                  VIII.    Site Evaluations               .    .   .   .     .      74

                  IX.      Comments and Considerations         .   .   .     .      92

                  X.       Appendix       .       .       .    .   .   .     .    102




Facilities Master Planning Data                  –ii–                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                  TABLES
         TABLES


         Table 1       District Projections by Grade Level      .      .     .    .        3

         Table 2       Burleson ISD Enrollment Trends:
                       2-A 10-Year Low, Mid-Range, and High Projections           .       19
                       2-B    10-Year Enrollment Forecasts, by School Division    .       20
                       2-C    Burleson ISD Build-Out Projections     .      .     .       20

         Table 3       Five-Year Forecasts:
                       3-A The Academy at Nola Dunn             .      .     .    .       21
                       3-B   Bransom Elementary School                 .     .    .       22
                       3-C   Frazier Elementary School          .      .     .    .       22
                       3-D Mound Elementary School              .      .     .    .       22
                       3-E   Norwood Elementary School          .      .     .    .       23
                       3-F   Stribling Elementary School        .      .     .    .       23
                       3-G Taylor Elementary School             .      .     .    .       23
                       3-H Hughes Middle School .               .      .     .    .       24
                       3-I   Kerr Middle School                 .      .     .    .       24
                       3-J   Burleson High School               .      .     .    .       24

         Table 4       Facility Scores
                       4-A Facility Composite Scores           .       .     .    .       31
                       4-B     School Ages vs. Evaluation Scores       .     .    .       32

         Table 5       School Plant Profiles:
                       5-A The Academy at Nola Dunn             .      .     .    .       33
                       5-B    Bransom Elementary School                .     .    .       35
                       5-C    Frazier Elementary School         .      .     .    .       37
                       5-D Mound Elementary School              .      .     .    .       39
                       5-E    Norwood Elementary School         .      .     .    .       41
                       5-F    Stribling Elementary School       .      .     .    .       43
                       5-G Taylor Elementary School             .      .     .    .       45
                       5-H Hughes Middle School .               .      .     .    .       47
                       5-I    Kerr Middle School                .      .     .    .       49
                       5-J    Burleson High School              .      .     .    .       53
                       5-K Crossroads School.          .        .      .     .    .       56

         Table 6       Capacity Analysis by Pupil Stations      .      .     .    .       63

         Table 7       Capacity Analysis by Teaching Stations .        .     .    .       64

         Table 8       Instructional Capacities (vs. Standards Capacities)
                       8-A Elementary School Instructional Capacities        .    .       65
                       8-B Secondary School Instructional Capacities         .    .       66


Facilities Master Planning Data                 –iii–                            Burleson ISD
         Table 9       School Overcrowding Percentages        .    .      .       .       67

         Table 10 School Overcrowding in Pupil Counts         .    .      .       .       67

         Table 11 School Educational Adequacy & Flexibility Scores        .       .       70

         Table 12 School Sites; Acreage         .      .      .    .      .       .       74

         Table 13 School Site Profiles/Aerials
                  13-A Academy at Nola Dunn                   .    .      .       .       77
                  13-B Bransom Elementary School                   .      .       .       78
                  13-C Frazier Elementary School              .    .      .       .       79
                  13-D Mound Elementary School                .    .      .       .       80
                  13-E Norwood Elementary School              .    .      .       .       81
                  13-F Stribling Elementary School            .    .      .       .       82
                  13-G Taylor Elementary School               .    .      .       .       83
                  13-H Hughes Middle School .                 .    .      .       .       84
                  13-I Kerr Middle School                     .    .      .       .       85
                  13-J Burleson High School                   .    .      .       .       86
                  13-K Crossroads School.       .             .    .      .       .       87

         Table 13 …continued: Vacant Site Profiles/Aerials
                  13-L David Anderson Survey .                .    .      .       .       88
                  13-M McAllister Road Site                   .    .      .       .       89
                  13-N Oak Grove Road Site         .          .    .      .       .       90
                  13-O West Bend Site .            .          .    .      .       .       91
                  13-P R000000596 Site .           .          .    .      .       .

         Table 14 Build-out Organization        .      .      .    .      .       .       96




                                                                                 FIGURES
         FIGURES

         Figure 1      Estimated High School Enrollment Patterns   .      .       .       29

         Figure 2      BISD Feeder Pattern Characteristics    .    .      .       .       29

         Figure 3      Elementary Reduced Capacity Programs        .      .       .       60

         Figure 4      Large Secondary Class Sections .       .    .      .       .       61

         Figure 5      General Classrooms Smaller than State Minimum Standards    .       62

         Figure 6      Sample: Master Planning Calendar       .    .      .       .       93

         Figure 7      Sample: One Feeder Organization        .    .      .       .       96


Facilities Master Planning Data                –iv–                              Burleson ISD
                                                                               FOREWORD


In 2004, Genesis Partnership was retained to conduct assist Burleson ISD with comprehensive
facilities planning. The tasks included facilitating the development of facility planning
criteria, a school plant survey related to the educational facilities of Burleson Independent
School District, and an analysis of four district-owned and vacant sites. The facilities study
was to utilize demographics forecast produced by an independent demographer; the Forecast
Report was completed and accepted by Burleson ISD in early in 2005. This report is the
product that includes the facilities study, the site analysis, and incorporates the Board adopted
planning criteria document in the Appendix.

We especially want to thank the Board Members, the superintendent, Dr. Mark Jackson, and
the central office staff, school principals and their staffs, and the maintenance and custodial
staffs for their cooperation. To all that assisted us, we express our deep appreciation.
Without their interest and willingness to give of their time, the preparation of this report
would have been most difficult.




Paul Trautman
Educational Consultant
Genesis Partnership




Facilities Master Planning Data              –v–                                   Burleson ISD
                                                                                   PREFACE


Study Procedures
This study was conducted beginning in March of 2004 and through the summer of 2005 for
the purpose of determining tasks outlined below, in order to have information essential to
long-term planning for future school building needs. Specifically, the Burleson ISD
administration charged the Genesis Partnership consultants with producing:
    1. An outline definition of the district’s existing and anticipated instructional program,
    2. Facility planning criteria, for adoption,
    3. An inventory and evaluation of all existing facilities,
    4. A capacity and utilization study of all district schools,
    5. A determination of probable best use of occupied school campuses and buildings,
    6. An application of the demographic forecasts developed by/for the district,
    7. An evaluation of school sites, especially those owned and yet-to-be-developed, and
    8. The development of options available to the district to meet facility needs based on
       the instructional program profile, the enrollment projections and planning priorities
       developed during the study

Enrollment Forecast
The enrollment forecasts, created by Dennis Harner and Associates, have been incorporated
into this study of facilities. The enrollment forecasts included a study of the district’s
enrollment at build-out, critical data to help establish the number of secondary schools and
related feeder patterns within Burleson ISD.

Instructional Program Profile
The instructional program profile was developed, based on information provided by the
superintendent, central office curriculum staff, and the respective building principals. The
profile provided a base-line and a template for evaluating the existing instructional facilities.

Facility Planning Criteria
The facility planning criteria were developed in concert with Burleson ISD’s administrative
team, and were presented to the School Board for review and approval. These adopted
criteria are intended to give an over-riding focus and direction to the district’s facility master
plan, in order to ensure that educational adequacy is central to all facility construction and
renovations/remodeling.


Facilities Master Planning Data              –vi–                                   Burleson ISD
Evaluation of Existing Facilities
To determine the condition of existing schools, the procedures include interviewing
operations staff and inspecting the existing school facilities using a validated evaluation
instrument based on nationally accepted standards that have been specifically adapted to
Texas standards, regulations, and recommendations. The survey instrument is an updated and
edited version of a validated and nationally recognized instrument that has been used for
evaluating school buildings nationally since the 1950s. It is designed to guide the evaluation
process in an orderly and comprehensive manner. It also is designed to make the evaluation
process as objective as possible despite the fact that there are many subjective judgments that
the evaluator must make in the process.

The survey instrument consists of 105 questions evaluating the six functional characteristics
of an educational facility. Those characteristics are (1) educational adequacy, (2) health and
safety, (3) accessibility, (4) efficiency, (5) flexibility, and (6) appearance. Each of those
characteristics is further divided into three subdivisions—the site, student areas, and general
features. The survey instrument evaluates the building on a theoretical 1,000-point value
score, weighing each of these characteristics of the school plant. More than half the total
value score (535 points of 1,000) is assigned to the educational features of the facility. The
remaining 465 points are assigned to the site (205) and the general features (260). A sample
of the survey instrument is included in the Appendix. The following definitions are an
excerpt from the survey instrument.

FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS DEFINED…
Educational Adequacy of the School Plant — Refers to the relationship between the size of the
 site and the overall size of the buildings on one hand, and the number of students to be served on
 the other. Those building features that are more appropriately judged on an educational
 sufficiency basis are also evaluated here.

Safety and Healthfulness of the School Plant — Refers to those features of the school plant that
  make the building and its occupants safe from hazards of traffic, fire, toxins, and accidents, and
  the degree to which occupants are provided adequate lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation,
  sanitation, and are free from intrusive and excessive noise. Are the building’s features intended
  to protect and promote the safety and good health of its occupants?

Accessibility of the School Plant — Refers to the proximity of the school building to the student
 population it serves, its central location, conveniently accessible by streets and walkways, as well
 as ease of access to the site and building.

Efficiency of the School Plant — Refers to the occupants’ ability to receive maximum effect for a
  minimum of invested effort. An efficient building requires a minimum of student travel for daily
  routines; it has facilities located for maximum utilization. It isolates areas of noise, has finishes
  that are easy to clean from convenient custodial facilities, and operates at minimum of cost,
  conserving energy for heating, cooling, and lighting.

Flexibility of the School Plant — Refers to the building’s capacity, as designed and constructed,
  to meet new and changing demands of curriculum. Also refers to the possibility for enlarging the
  building and developed site to meet expanding educational needs and/or population. In addition,


Facilities Master Planning Data                 –vii–                                      Burleson ISD
  it refers to the possibility that the building may change its use(s) during its functional life. This is
  provided, primarily through design, construction details, and considerations in the electrical and
  mechanical systems.

Appearance of the School Plant — Refers to the look, the impression made by the building and
 whether it is, in the aggregate, pleasing to the eye. Attention is given to texture, color, shape,
 scale, landscaping, and the appropriateness of furnishings and use of decoration.

Both the survey instrument’s weighted functional characteristic scores and Facility Composite
Score are translated into percentage scores for ease of comparison. The Facility Composite
Score represents the facility’s total score of all functional characteristics. This composite
score is valuable in assessing how well the facility serves the educational needs of the learners
through the program being offered and is evaluated in relation to the following scale:


     Facility Score        General Evaluation

      90–100%              A school facility of exceptional quality.
       70–89%               Serves program needs well; some minor or component improvements
                            are needed.
       60–69%               Facility needs substantial or major rehabilitation.
       46–59%               Complete renovation or replacement indicated; a more detailed study
                            may need to be completed prior to a final decision.
       00–45%               Abandon and/or replace the facility.

Facilities that score between 900 and 1,000 points are of exceptional quality. Facilities that
score 700–900 points are satisfactory/good, but their component parts should be studied, as
they may need some alteration or renovation to put them in first-class condition. Those that
score 600–700 have substantial need for rehabilitation and upgrading. If the facility’s score is
450–600, conditions are so bad that a complete restudy is indicated to determine if the
building should be rehabilitated or abandoned for school use. For those scoring below 450,
speedy abandonment is the only economical or justifiable course.

For each facility surveyed, the composite score and the scores for the six functional
characteristics are reported graphically in Section II, Condition of Existing Facilities, of this
report.

Capacity of Existing Facilities
The operational capacity of a school reflects the ability of the building(s) to accommodate the
program it is intended to house. Capacity analysis of the school plant is based on nationally
accepted standards and procedures, modified to be consistent with state standards, space
requirements adopted by the State Board of Education, and local policies. Floor plans of
buildings, current organization and operating schedules, and room-by-room inspection are all
utilized in making a space inventory and capacity analysis report that is part of the survey.


Facilities Master Planning Data                  –viii–                                       Burleson ISD
One standard unit for measuring capacity of schools is the number of workstations for
students, or pupil stations. This standard is normally used for determining capacity in
departmentalized programs, which are typically found in the upper grades. The pupil stations
assigned to classrooms in this study reflect the desired class size relative to room size based
on standards approved by the State Board of Education; it also is an appropriate measure for
all schools having classrooms smaller than state standards. These standards are effective for
all new construction or major renovations approved by a local school board.

The space requirements approved by the State Board of Education are divided into two
categories: Classrooms and Specialized Areas.

  Revised STATE STANDARDS, Effective 1/1/2004
                                    State Standards -- Classrooms
                           Elementary School           Middle School                 High School
                                PK - 6                 6-8, 7-8 or 7-9               9-12 or 10-12
                            Min S/F    Min. S/F        Min S/F       Min. S/F       Min S/F     Min. S/F
                           Per Room Per Pupil         Per Room Per Pupil           Per Room Per Pupil
                   PK-1         800        36 S/F
                   2-12         700        32 S/F         700          28 S/F          700          28 S/F

                                         State Standards -- Specialized Areas
                          Elementary School        Middle School                     High School
                               PK - 6              6-8, 7-8 or 7-9                   9-12 or 10-12
                          Min S/F Per Min. S/F Per Min S/F       Min. S/F           Min S/F     Min. S/F
                          Room (25) Pupil (26+) Per Room Per Pupil                 Per Room Per Pupil
 Computer Labs                  900        41 S/F         900           36 S/F         900           36 S/F
                                         classroom                    classroom                    classroom
 Computer Resource Lab          700                       700                          700
                                           or less                      or less                      or less
 Science Lecture/Lab*         900          41 S/F        1,200          50 S/F        1,400          58 S/F
 Gym/PE                      3,000          n.a.         4,800          n.a.          7,500          n.a.
 * @ 22 pupil stations
          Enrollment Range 100 or less    101-500                     501-2,000                     2,001 +
 Library/Media Center        1,400         1,400     4 S/F over 101    3,000      3 S/F over 501     7,500     2 S/F over 2,001
 Examples of LMC Requirements              1,600          150          3,375          625            8,100          2200
                                           1,800          200          3,750          750            8,700          2400
                                           2,000          250          4,125          875            9,300          2600
                                           2,200          300          4,500          1000           9,900          2800
                                           2,400          350          4,875          1125          10,500          3000
                                           2,600          400          5,250          1250          11,100          3200
                                           2,800          450          5,625          1375          11,700          3400
                                                                       6,000          1500          12,300          3600
                                                                       6,750          1750          12,900          3800
                                                                       7,500          2000          13,500          4000




Facilities Master Planning Data                           –ix–                                                   Burleson ISD
The rules state that for each type of instructional space, “a district may satisfy the
requirements of the rule by using either the standard for the minimum square feet per pupil or
the standard for square feet per room, as appropriate.” Size requirements are based on rooms
that will house 22 pupils at PK–grade 4 and 25 pupils for academic classrooms at other grade
levels.

Within these rules two issues strike this writer as particularly significant. The requirements
relative to minimum classroom size state, “classrooms shall be designed on the basis of
expected maximum class size, and not expected average class size.” For many districts,
the rules also will relate to the new and more demanding International Building Code and
the International Fire Code, which are replacing the current building (UBC and SBC) and
fire codes in most jurisdictions.

The other standard unit for measuring capacity of schools is the number of teaching stations,
or classroom equivalents. This measure is typically applied to elementary schools where the
program is offered in self-contained classrooms. As a check, this method also is applied to
schools with departmentalized programs and smaller student bodies or with an unusually high
number of class offerings relative to the school’s size. In those cases, the classroom
equivalent (teaching station) measure is often more appropriate.

It is important to understand that a school’s capacity is not static. Rather, it is a fluid number;
that is, it changes in response to the program it houses. The capacities reported in this study
take into consideration the existing programs and the current size of grade groups and classes.
Unless there is significant program or scheduling changes, or there is rapid growth in the next
few years, these capacities represent useful capacities for district planning purposes.

A variety of factors influence the fluid capacity of a facility, including small special facilities;
resource programs; advanced placement programs; small, inadequate or too few laboratories;
athletic periods; and pupil scheduling. Among the most common factors reducing a school’s
capacity are resource programs and the adequacy and capacity of special areas.

For calculating school capacities in this study, resource programs (often also called pull-out
programs) are defined as those programs that remove students from other classrooms
according to a schedule that does not free the pupil station the student leaves so that it can be
regularly used by another student. In self-contained classroom schools, programs like music,
physical education, Title I, and others that remove students from their self-contained
classroom for special assistance or enrichment are resource programs. In departmentalized
programs, resource programs are those programs that remove students on a random and
irregular schedule, such as content mastery (where the pupils are given special assistance as
needed with regular assignments). Both kinds of resource programs can significantly affect
the capacity of a building. In this way, classrooms are said to have been absorbed by program
requirements; these classrooms have no student capacity when calculating a school’s capacity.

Often specialized spaces that were operationally adequate for the original design capacity
have become limiting factors; they may not have been expanded to accommodate the larger
enrollment resulting from classroom additions. This is typically seen in cafeterias, kitchens,


Facilities Master Planning Data               –x–                                     Burleson ISD
administrative areas, restrooms, teacher workrooms, dressing rooms, storage rooms, and
corridor traffic, as well as in special facilities for music, art, science, computer education,
gymnasiums, vocational education, and special education resource rooms. Evaluation of total
school plant has to consider the relationship of instructional and auxiliary space to ensure
smooth operation.

The operational capacity of a school that is reported in this study reflects its functional
operating capacity, and includes application of a utilization factor calculated for the school
and compared to the optimal utilization factors (secondary, 85 percent; middle, 90 percent;
and elementary, 95 percent). The calculated utilization factor for elementary schools
generally ranges from 88 to 95 percent (see illustration below). For secondary schools it
generally ranges from 67 to 83 percent. This accounts for such issues as students not
enrolling/electing, in multiples of 22 or 25 students, for either required subjects or electives,
and the fact that rooms will generally have no students in them during the teachers’ planning
periods. In secondary schools with smaller enrollments or with many electives, the utilization
factor may be as low as 67 percent and still represent efficient use of the building.

The functional capacity of elementary school classrooms in Texas is based on the maximum
staffing ratios allowed and the number of sections per grade level. Up through grade 4, state
rules limit enrollment to 22 students and allow up to 25 for older students. Once that number
is exceeded, the district must either add an additional section or seek a variance to allow a
larger enrollment (NOTE: Some districts address this issue with multi-age grouping at the
elementary level). The effective average capacity for self-contained elementary programs is
the midpoint between the number of sections involved (by grade level), as seen below.

                           ELEMENTARY CAPACITY: UTILIZATION FACTORS
              Range of Enrollment; Midpoint, Class size UtilizationEnrollment; Midpoint,Class size Utilization
              Sections add section @ 22 at Midpoint Factor add section @ 25 at Break Factor
                1-2        23         33       16.5      75%           26        38       18.8      75%
                2-3        45         55       18.2      83%           51        63       20.6      83%
                3-4        67         77       19.3      88%           76         88      21.9      88%
                4-5        89         99       19.8      90%          101        113      22.5      90%
                5-6       111        121       20.2      92%          126        138      22.9      92%
                6-7       133        143       20.4      93%          151        163      23.2      93%
                7-8       155        165       20.6      94%          176        188      23.4      94%
                8-9       177        187       20.8      94%          201        213      23.6      94%
               9-10       199        209       20.9      95%          226        238      23.8      95%


Operational capacities for all the schools included in this study are calculated and reported in
Section V, Capacities of Existing Facilities, of this report.

Site Analysis
Commonly accepted site size requirements and site analysis standards were used in
conjunction with the district’s instructional program profile, to determine the appropriateness
and adequacy, as well as reasonable long-term uses of both developed and vacant school sites.


Facilities Master Planning Data                         –xi–                                             Burleson ISD
                                                                                 Section I –
                                                                       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Introduction
The task of this study has been to assist the district with developing a facilities master plan, by
developing baseline data that could be used to create a master plan. The baseline elements included
the following five significant activities.
    1.   The Instructional Program Profile
    2.   The Facility Planning Criteria
    3.   A Demographic Analysis and Enrollment Forecast (by Dennis Harner and Associates)
    4.   An Analysis of Existing Facilities
    5.   An Analysis of School Sites
These five elements provided the data and backdrop to develop conclusions and recommendations,
to assist the Burleson ISD community and its leadership with developing a Facilities Master Plan.

The focus of the initial activities was to define the district’s instructional program as it relates to
creating supportive instructional facilities. Attention was given to both the content of the
instructional program and to the teaching strategies (or the methods of instructional delivery)
needed to accomplish the instructional program. In addition, these activities led to the identification
of facility planning criteria, which would give focus and direction to the overall master plan. The
instructional program profile and the facility planning criteria were presented to and approved, with
modifications, by the Burleson ISD School Board.

The facilities study component analyzes the district’s facilities compared to state and other
established standards, and it identifies the range of deficiencies compared to those standards. In
addition, it evaluates the facilities based on the district’s stated instructional objectives and teaching
strategies (the instructional program profile). It is the nature of a deficiency analysis to draw
attention to items that do not meet these standards. Because this aspect of the report identifies
shortcomings, the reader should not misunderstand that all is wrong with the district’s schools. It is
the function of this analysis to report shortcomings in relation to adequately housing the district’s
current and anticipated instructional program.

The site study component reflects on the existing sites and their adequacy within the context of the
recently adopted planning criteria. In addition, the component includes an evaluation of the
potential of parcels owned by the district for future development.

The study team consulted with the superintendent and other staff regarding pertinent district
information and spent time in both the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years on site conducting the
fieldwork associated with this study. The field evaluations and information solicited from Burleson
ISD staff constitute the primary data for this study.

Findings: Instructional Program Profile
Burleson ISD has adopted a clear statement of its Mission. Further, it has identified Goal Statements
that are in support of the Mission statement. In keeping with the character of this study (a

Genesis Partnership                            page 1                                         Burleson ISD
                                                                                             Facility Study
deficiency analysis), the district’s instructional program and its elements have been reviewed in the
context of an “exceptions report” model. Using the existing program as the baseline, the study
sought information through staff interviews that identified instructional programs and methods of
instructional delivery that are needed and not fully implemented to accomplish its instructional
goals.

Within that context, the following statements outline the district’s direction and leadership, The
district’s instructional program profile is delineated in Section IV of this report, and centers around
expanding support for success with TEKS skills, differentiating instruction, integrating technology
into the regular instructional environment, supporting special needs, at-risk, and gifted/higher
performing students, and expanding career and vocational, and fine arts offerings.

Findings: Facility Planning Criteria
The district identified 11 specific topics that constituted the major planning criteria to guide the
development of a comprehensive facilities master plan. The topics are defined and discussed in
some detail in Section II, the next section of this study, and include the following.
         1.  School organization,
         2.  School feeder patterns,
         3.  School size, by organizational level,
         4.  Neighborhood schools,
         5.  District busing practices,
         6.  BISD attendance boundary redistricting policies/practices,
         7.  Portable classrooms,
         8.  Refurbishment and renovation practices regarding schools as they age,
         9.  Safety and security of students/staff,
         10. Bond elections – frequency and guiding assumptions, and
         11. Open-campus vs. closed-campus.

The general thrust of the criteria favors the stability of neighborhood schools that are part of
established feeder patterns, are of moderate size, and are supportive of integrated technology and
differentiating instruction. In addition, the plans should provide a safe and secure environment that
is maintained and updated at appropriate intervals.

Findings: Population Projections
Projections indicate that the district’s total enrollment will grow at relatively constant percentage
rates over the coming five years, increasing annually in absolute enrollment numbers. However, the
increases are not distributed across the grade levels, showing a pattern of consistent elementary
growth and modestly varying middle school and high school enrollment over the ten year forecast
term. Forecasts for district-wide elementary grades, middle school grades, and high school grades
are reported on Table 1 on the following page.

From a long-range facilities planning perspective, probably the single most useful piece of
information is the forecast build-out projections, developed in Appendix C of the Harner and


Genesis Partnership                           page 2                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                          Facility Study
Associates report and illustrated in Table 2-C. This shows the forecast enrollment at build-out to be
an estimated 27,049 pupils, also included on Table 1 of this report.
                                                    Table 1
                              Burleson ISD - District Projections by Grade Level

Grade Level      2005-06 2006-07 6007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Build-out
Elementary            3,748   3,953   4,121   4,306    4,471   4,658    4,845   5,032     5,220    5,407    12,983
Middle School         1,821   1,861   1,978   2,089    2,219   2,290    2,378   2,446     2,536    2,626     6,223
High School           2,265   2,425   2,493   2,525    2,620   2,727    2,857   3,018     3,156    3,257     7,843
Total                 7,834   8,239   8,592   8,920    9,310   9,675   10,080   10,496   10,912   11,290    27,049


Findings: Facility Evaluation
In the case of Burleson ISD, the 10 regular program schools range in age between 3 and 82 years,
when considering the construction of the oldest (original) portions. Except for parts of Nola Dunn,
all schools have been built since 1960. The older schools include Kerr, Mound, and Frazier
schools. The three newest regular program schools Bransom, Stribling, and the High School; these
have been opened since 1997. The average age of these older components is 31.3 years. The
average score of the 10 schools is 66.0 percent and ranges between 46.6 percent and 85.1 percent.
The Composite scores indicate that 6 of 10 schools have need for significant improvements and
upgrading, or replacement.

The Academy at Nola Dunn, Frazier ES, and Kerr MS are all educationally and economically
obsolete as regular program schools. Norwood ES, Mound ES, Taylor ES, and Hughes MS are in
need of major refurbishing, or replacement in a future phase of a district-wide comprehensive
master plan.

The three newest regular program schools, Bransom ES, Stribling ES, and the High School are all
less than 10 years old, score in the upper reaches of the good range, between 80 and 85 percent.
This indicates a need for some improvements, most of which are related to up-graded state
minimum standards, to changes in the district’s instructional program and teaching strategies, and to
growth (especially at the High School facility).

Crossroads Learning Center opened a new facility in 2003, according to district records. It houses
both the AEP and DAEP programs for BISD. It scores modestly for a new facility, partly because it
is in a somewhat unsuitable location for these programs, and partly because the programs will need
more space, if the AEP program expands as anticipated.

Some of the needs are the result of growth in enrollment, others are because of program changes
that result in inadequate spaces and overcrowding; others relate to inadequacies and the
deterioration that comes with age. The scope of needs at all of Burleson ISD’s schools will vary,
depending on the findings of the facilities master plan.

It is said that school facilities become a priority only when they get in the way of good instruction.
The majority of Burleson ISD schools are currently in that position. The district needs to evaluate
the most instructionally supportive way to use the existing schools and the sequence in which
schools are replaced and/or upgraded, as the district deals with growth.

Genesis Partnership                                   page 3                                           Burleson ISD
                                                                                                      Facility Study
It will be very helpful if Burleson ISD creates a facilities master plan for the long-term. If the needs
resulting from aging buildings and systems are not addressed, more will become economically or
educationally obsolete buildings. The district needs to deal with both existing space needs and
program needs; Burleson ISD should become as aggressive with the process of replacing and
upgrading schools for long-term use, as it might be if it has to address growth needs. Solutions for
both program and space needs should be based on well-defined planning policies that reflect the
district’s instructional program and values.

Findings: Building Capacities
The outline of the instructional program and methods of instructional delivery (exceptions report)
was used, together with the programs and procedures in place, to determine the current capacity of
the district’s existing schools. It was also used as a template to evaluate the “best uses” of the
various existing school buildings and campuses for long-term use.

Overcrowding in Burleson ISD is the result of a growing student population, of small and too few
general classrooms, small and/or inadequate specialized instructional spaces, and obsolescence and
near-obsolescence among some of the district’s inventory of buildings. It also is because of
changes and growth in instructional support programs, in response to both regular program students
and special student needs.

Making adjustments for small existing classrooms and space deficiencies where necessary and
reflecting the current district staffing practices, the district has an overall net deficiency of -1,048
pupil stations vs. state standards (the Standards Capacity). In terms of classroom teaching stations
compared to state standards, the district has a net overall deficiency of approximately -47 teaching
stations. If the schools’ capacities are adjusted to reflect the space needed to support the district’s
instructional initiatives and differentiating instruction, the current overall net deficiency would grow
to about -2,473 pupil stations and about -111 teaching stations. These shortfalls will continue to
grow as the district’s enrollment increases and, based on the mid-range 10-year projections, the net
overall deficiency will grow to -3622 pupil stations and a deficiency of about -162 teaching stations

Findings: Best Use – Facilities and Sites
In spite of four new schools opening in the last decade, six of the 10 regular program schools are
now seriously overcrowded; serious overcrowding is reached when a school is at 115 percent over
its capacity. In ten years eight of the 10 schools are expected to be overcrowded, except for
Stribling Elementary, whose current attendance boundaries are expected to produce fewer pupils
than currently attend that school

If the district is to meet the housing shortfalls, Burleson ISD will need to enter a construction and
rehabilitation program in the immediate future. The first order of need is for the district to develop
educational programming and educational specifications, simultaneously with developing a
comprehensive facilities master plan, to provide a planning template for a long-range facilities
master plan. Once that has been done, the actual program will most likely complete in multiple
phases and be spread over a number of years, as many as 15 years. The most immediate priority
need is to replace facilities that are educationally and economically obsolete, if possible, before
substantial growth begins.
Genesis Partnership                           page 4                                        Burleson ISD
                                                                                           Facility Study
Districts are not required to bring existing buildings up to these standards, except under certain
circumstances. Generally, if major renovation is planned, local districts are required by law and
Texas Education Agency (TEA) rules to meet all current standards. It should also be noted that
state minimum standards allow districts to have smaller spaces if the governing body confirms that
the student load in those classrooms will never exceed an appropriate reduced number of students.
However, realizing that personnel (staffing) is the single greatest annual cost to a district and
anticipating the 40–60 year life of a school, most governing boards find it inappropriate to handicap
future boards and administrations by limiting room occupancy below a level that state staffing ratios
allow.

Site size is a serious concern for Burleson ISD. When considering useable acreage (adjusted for
easements, irregular terrain and irregular shape) together with appropriate vehicular and pedestrian
access, the majority of the sites have significant challenges.

Sites for Burleson High School, Kerr Middle School, and Bransom and Stribling Elementary
schools are generally of suitable size. Sites for Hughes Middle School, Norwood and Taylor
Elementary schools are marginally small, with careful site master-planning; some of these can
probably be redeveloped for long-term use. The remaining sites are too small, including Nola
Dunn, Frazier, and Mound Elementary schools represent significant challenges and may not be able
to be redeveloped for long-term use. Site-related problems were found at most campuses, including
site drainage, as well as circulation problems and separation of vehicles, including cars and buses.

Realize that two different kinds of pressure will probably develop from the projected growth. The
most obvious pressure will be to provide enough schools/classrooms to house the influx. The
second pressure relates to a community’s expectations related to parity and equity of opportunity.
As newer schools become more supportive of the district’s instructional program, parents and
students in existing schools will raise their expectations to the perceived advantages, and begin to
expect, and in some cases, demand improvements in the name of parity and equality. This
reinforces the need for Planning Criteria 8, discussed in Section II of this report.

To make the most effective use of financial capacity, it is critical that Burleson ISD create a site
master plan for the long-term. Decisions related to the term of continued use, as well as phasing
remodeling, redevelopment, or replacement of existing schools should be made in the context of
supporting the districts’ long-term organizational goals and the instructional delivery and teaching
strategies model.

There are other issues that may impact the scope of improvements needed/required, once a district
begins to make improvements. There are various levels of improvement that will trigger additional
requirements. Those requirements include:
•   Handicapped accessibility (Texas Accessibility Standards)
•   Building code requirements
•   State/local fire marshals’ requirements
•   Commissioner’s Rules regarding minimum sizes for instructional spaces
•   Burleson ISD’s educational program priorities

Genesis Partnership                           page 5                                      Burleson ISD
                                                                                         Facility Study
General Conclusions and Recommendations
Burleson ISD has overcrowding and/or substantial needs at nearly all existing campuses. The
recommendations related to the priority of these needs are, to a large extent, reflect planning
policies that have recently been adopted. Certain issues need immediate attention; they may be only
temporary solutions, such as responding to overcrowding. Due to age and heavy use of facilities,
all will need major refurbishing within the planning and implementation period (estimated to be 10-
15 years); however, such work should start only after the district has established a clear direction
and plan as it relates to facilities.

Specifically, the study team recommends that the following be considered:
1.    Develop educational program statements for each school organizational level; each should
      serve as guide for space needs.
2.    Establish a comprehensive and long-range facilities master plan, including an orderly
      prioritization of the existing substantial facilities needs.
3.    Develop planning criteria/goals — school organization, school size, staffing ratios, school
      feeder patterns, busing, etc.
4.    Establish a policy regarding the use of temporary or portable buildings.
5.    A comprehensive site acquisition plan should be established as soon as possible, and
      appropriate acquisitions targeted.
           Develop site selection criteria to be used for all site evaluations, including acres, shape,
           access, soils, drainage, easements, utilities, vehicle access, area environment, etc.
           Confirm the number of high schools probable at build-out (4 to 5), and develop those
           feeder patterns with appropriate elementary and middle schools.
           Develop a preliminary phasing plan for the probable locations of the high schools.
           Develop preliminary master site plans/guidelines to evaluate the potential of each prior to
           acquiring, or in the case of existing sites, to committing to use.

6.    Frazier Elementary, the Nola Dunn facility, and Kerr Middle School buildings be taken out of
      service for the regular instructional program and the students relocated as soon as possible.

7.    Consider developing an FCI for each “bubble” school (Hughes, Mound, Norwood, and
      Taylor) as well as each school expected to remain in service for 10 or more years, to
      understand the costs of continued use and for developing improvements scenarios. Also
      complete a site use master plan, a construction phasing plan, and confirm the appropriateness
      of each location, long-term.

8.    Relocate the central administrative services and transportation services off the high school
      site; the high school needs access to the land, and both functions are overcrowded. Consider
      moving maintenance and warehousing at the same time. Recognize that the moves may be for
      5 to 10 years at which time, both may need to relocate again.


Genesis Partnership                            page 6                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                           Facility Study
9.    In order to deal with redevelopment and with growth, develop criteria and plans for housing
      students until new/replacement facilities are in place.
           Identify locations that can accept and support temporary classrooms for overflow.
           Consider schedule modifications that may be acceptable to deal with rapid growth, like
           extended year or double sessions.
           Consider developing necessary infrastructure on vacant sites that could serve as temporary
           schools during construction/replacement.
           Evaluate any schools taken out of service as possible short-term housing.

10.   Regarding subsequent high schools, evaluate multiple options for phasing in of new schools.
      A few are suggested as possible points for discussion
           Evaluate the prudence or financial need to phase construction of new schools, and
           prioritize the more important spaces in each phase.
           Evaluate the option of temporary/interim use to house grades other than the planned 9-12
           (such as middle school, freshman center, etc.)
           Evaluate acceptable phasing or growing of new schools, starting with only freshmen or
           only freshmen and sophomores.
           Consider the utility of creating a new school/student body in an existing school, through a
           house mechanism, double sessions, etc. (NOTE: can also apply to creating new middle
           schools.)
           Evaluate the “9th Grade Wing” for uses/refurbishing to support contemporary secondary
           instruction.

11.   Approach cautiously any reuse of small elements of existing schools. Experience suggests it
      may be as cost effective to replace such elements as to reuse them.

12.   Develop a detailed analysis, like the Facility Condition Index (FCI), for any schools
      considered for reuse; the added information about the condition of systems will increase
      confidence in decisions and in cost estimates.

13.   Consider alternate uses for any buildings where costs of renewal and upgrading may not return
      appropriate years of use. Alternate uses generally include reduced load (fewer people), and
      may include district uses, other public uses, or community uses. Also evaluate buildings/ sites
      for any potential commercial value.

14.   For emphasis, these recommendations are collected and repeated.
           Master plan the use of all sites (existing and acquired) before committing to specific
           construction solutions.
           Develop specific plans for redevelopment or additions projects, to ensure the safety of
           students during the construction.
           Ensure that any redeveloped facility and site have good spatial relationships and vehicular
           circulation patterns— and that will work for the intended program.

Genesis Partnership                           page 7                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                          Facility Study
15.   Evaluate ways to improve parking, site access routes, traffic circulation, vehicular queuing
      lanes and vehicular separation at existing and redeveloped campuses.
16.   As part of a facilities master plan, Burleson ISD should give particular attention to see that
      spatial relationships and program spaces are functional for the planned use.
17.   Be certain projects that include renovations or additions are planned so construction can occur
      while other buildings are occupied and safely used for school.
18.   Consider a plan to refurbish and renovate all school buildings as they reach about 20–25 years
      of age, to maintain effective instructional support and to control and delay obsolescence.
19.   Provide adequate housing for all special needs programs at appropriate locations, especially
      those in self-contained environments. The district has too few such spaces, and those that
      exist are generally inadequate.
20.   Provide a phased plan for making all schools handicapped accessible.
21.   Make all buildings and improvements technology ready, consistent with Burleson ISD’s
      technology plan.
22.   Burleson ISD should continue to address issues related to differentiating instruction and
      making technology accessible. Many rooms are too small to have the needed space, and the
      cost of renovating will be high. Staffing at levels to keep classes small is expensive.
      Encourage creative staff members to find solutions that can be modeled.

In all of this, it should be noted that we found that Burleson ISD has a dedicated staff offering a
very good education, in spite of and including those facilities that now limit and handicap the
instructional program.




Genesis Partnership                          page 8                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                         Facility Study
                                                                                 Section II –
                                                                          MASTER PLANNING
                                                                                  CRITERIA


Background
The process of establishing facility planning criteria is an important precedent to developing a
comprehensive facilities plan. These criteria establish critical guide-posts that define the road map
for Burleson ISD’s educational facilities, and create an environment that is supportive of the
district’s instructional program as it is perceived and anticipated. These criteria will also guide the
planning process, to encourage planning with enough flexibility to respond to reasonably
anticipatable modifications to teaching strategies and instructional delivery during the useful lives
of the various school plants. The exercise that follows was an effort of the district’s administrators
to establish instructionally supportive facility planning criteria, and to present them to the school
board and community for review, modification and concurrence.

These criteria, once established, should become a constant focus of the district’s ongoing facilities
planning, both as it effects the acquisition of new sites and the construction of new schools, and as it
evaluates and modifies existing schools for the remainder of their useful lives as school facilities.
The planning criteria will be reflected in the educational programming and educational
specifications the district develops, within the context of the planning criteria, to guide the planning
of new construction and updating of existing facilities.

As the community grows, the criteria may require some modifications; however, modifications
should be viewed as ‘tweaking’ the plan. A comprehensive redefining of the planning criteria
should be undertaken only after much consideration, and clear evidence that the criteria established
at this time by the Burleson ISD administration, school board, and community, have become
ineffective and no longer supportive of the district’s instructional program.

School Facility Planning Criteria/Policies

Burleson ISD has been engaged in a concerted effort to improve learning among its students,
through a progressive and appropriate curriculum, assessment, and instructional program. The
district is involved with many initiatives that are elements of this effort. They can be characterized
by improved vertical and horizontal curriculum alignment, quality assessments and differentiated
instruction. Improved methods of instructional delivery, especially as they relate to supporting
individual student learning objectives, are a significant component of these initiatives.

These initiatives need supportive instructional environments if they are to have reasonable
expectations for success. The students and their teachers should be in instructional environments
that are supportive of these initiatives. At a minimum, they should have schools and instructional
spaces that do not get in the way of the opportunities to learn more effectively provided by these
initiatives.

It is said that school buildings become important only when they get in the way of learning. The
purpose of this working paper is to set forth planning practices and criteria (planning policies) that
will focus on supportive schools and school buildings. The staff has identified and evaluated a
Genesis Partnership                           page 9                                        Burleson ISD
                                                                                           Facility Study
number of school building planning issues, and integrated them into a series of recommendations
intended to improve the potential for learning.

The planning criteria addressed in the attached position paper are those considered important to an
integrated procedure in support of improved learning and instructional delivery. They discuss the
following issues, focusing on their inter-relatedness.
    1.  School organization,
    2.  School feeder patterns,
    3.  School size, by organizational level,
    4.  Neighborhood schools,
    5.  District busing practices,
    6.  BISD attendance boundary redistricting policies/practices,
    7.  Portable classrooms,
    8.  Refurbishment and renovation practices regarding schools as they age,
    9.  Safety and security of students/staff,
    10. Bond elections – frequency and guiding assumptions, and
    11. Open-campus vs. closed-campus.

Individual project planning will need to address specific characteristics of the classroom and school
environment. The Texas Educational Commissioner’s Rules address individual school building
project planning requirements, through educational programming and educational specifications
documents. However, the greater context of this planning needs to be controlled by planning
criteria similar to the 11 issues above.

These issues, collectively, will provide a unifying umbrella, allowing the district to develop new
schools that are supportive of the instructional program and instructional initiatives. They will also
address the need to refurbish schools according to a plan that will provide comparable learning
opportunities.

In addition, the district should develop facility related planning criteria, that will support operating
efficiencies, and designs that can reasonably and cost-effectively change to support future
instructional initiatives and methods of instructional delivery. They will probably address such
issues as:
    12. Integrated technology,
    13. Standardized and flexible building systems,
    14. Site size and aspect ratio,
    15. Points of access to sites for vehicular and pedestrian safety, and
    16. Locating initial improvements to allow expansion and flexible use of sites.


The Criteria
1. School Organization, by Administrative Units.
    Background: Administrative staff considered implications for the learners related to various
    school organizations. Various alternative organizations are judged to all have instructional and
    social disadvantages, when compared to the preferred organization with three school levels. In
Genesis Partnership                           page 10                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                           Facility Study
    addition, the preferred organization (and the current organization), has also been the most
    acceptable to the Burleson school community.

    Selected Alternative:
         Three transitions (limiting school changes)
         Elementary EE-5, Middle 6-8, and High 9-12 schools.

    Other Alternatives Considered:
         Any District child-care facility[s] (infants and toddlers) should be in separate, central
         location(s).
         A 9th grade center option at HS level should be considered as a temporary solution, and
         only when other alternatives consistent with these planning criteria are not available.
                  Pro                                                     Con

    Fewer transitions support more effective              May not match the facilities available
    vertical integration and better learning.
                                                          Schools with only one or two grades create
    Could be used as the beginning of a new               learning and social disadvantages for pupils.
    high school
                                                          Potentially reduces parental and community
                                                          support, impacting loyalty to the school system.
                                                          Secondary programming duplication, with career
                                                          technology likely to be heavily impacted


    Some pros and cons were discussed relative to the undesirable alternative of a temporary 9th
    grade center, and included the following.
                  Pro                                                     Con

    Could be used as the beginning of a new               A school with only one grade creates learning
    high school.                                          and social disadvantages for pupils.
                                                          Shuttling of students will be costly disadvantage.
                                                          Shuttling will impact the schedule negatively, of
                                                          both the 9th grade center and the home school.
                                                          Even with hourly shuttling, program duplication
                                                          will be expensive.




2. School Feeder Patterns
    Background: Educational leaders feel strongly that BISD should keep grade groups from
    feeding schools intact as they move to the next, higher level, school. The leadership supported


Genesis Partnership                             page 11                                          Burleson ISD
                                                                                                Facility Study
    maintaining the current practice that makes exceptions temporary and reversible, subject to
    input from both parents and BISD.
    This relates very directly to school size and organization; all need to be integrated and
    supportive. Assuming intact school feeder patterns are a goal, the planning criteria should
    establish elementary grade level sizes that will allow and support the desired school sizes at the
    higher grade level schools. The primary determination for grade level size should be elementary
    grade groups that will support the district’s instructional program and instructional delivery.
    Selected Alternative: establish a feeder pattern practice that keeps groups intact through each
    transition, beginning with elementary schools averaging 4 sections per grade level.
          Three EE-5 elementary schools feeding one 6-8 middle school, and two 6-8 middle
          schools feeding one 9-12 high school
                  Pro                                                    Con
    Keeps kids together                                   May be distorted by geographic boundaries that
                                                          are not in the correct location

    Feeder programs for extracurricular                   Location of some campuses may make
    activities                                            regrouping difficult.

    School spirit and loyalty to a particular
    school

    Second high school will divide loyalties. It
    will be easier to keep groups together.

    Curriculum problems are easier to diagnose


3. School Size, by Administrative Unit
    Background: If intact school feeder patterns are a goal, the planning criteria should establish
    elementary grade level sizes that will also allow and support effective school sizes at all levels.
    The primary determination for grade level size should be groups that will support the district’s
    elementary instructional program and instructional delivery. Scheduling and management
    issues often influence the number of grade level sections in these schools.
    The building block for all schools becomes the number of sections desired to make elementary
    program most effective with instructional delivery. Burleson leadership believes that 4 sections
    is the preferred elementary grade level size, with 3 or 5 sections per grade seen as the minimum
    and maximum section range, respectively. An organization based on four sections per grade
    level is judged to be the best size for effective instruction and learning, and has been supported
    by historical preferences in Burleson ISD
    Selected Alternative:
     Elementary schools of:            400-550 pupils (max. 600; a Board stated preference, summer
                                       of 2000, as part of bond election information)
      Middle schools of:               600-800 pupils

Genesis Partnership                             page 12                                        Burleson ISD
                                                                                              Facility Study
      High schools of:                1,400 to 1,900 pupils (stay within 4-A for UIL activities)
                  Pro                                                      Con

    Previous Board position already sets                  May be increased operational costs due to
    elementary schools at 600 maximum                     inefficiencies in economies of scale
    Four sections per grade level at elementary           Concern over the class offerings at each of two
    school is educationally advantageous                  high schools creating a class of student disparity
                                                          at each high school. Must work consciously to
                                                          avoid this problem through careful planning.
    Prefer smaller number of sections (3) per             Separate Ninth grade center produces a much
    grade level rather than larger number (6)             larger comprehensive high school of at least
                                                          2500.
    Elementary schools have either an EE                  Ninth grade center is preferable to 2800 students
    program or a district-wide special education          on one high school campus. Creates educational
    program at each campus.                               disadvantages for student. Tried it already with
                                                          the old 5-6 center – poor social grouping. 5th
                                                          grade must stay at elementary
    Ninth grade center may be a phased                    Subject to community bonding support and
    program, but not a permanent solution.                community bonding capacity.
                                                          How do you grow into a second high school?
                                                          Parity in all aspects: academic, athletic, fine arts,
                                                          and careers.


3. Neighborhood Schools
   Discussion Points: The most common practice is to have neighborhood elementary schools that
   fall within the two-mile limit (busing) for as many residents as possible.
    Selected Alternative: Strong preference for neighborhood EE-5 schools, as the building block
    of district organization.
                  Pro                                                      Con

    Politically charged issue. Community                  May be more expensive through economies of
    expectation for this arrangement is strong.           scale.
                                                          Can be difficult to maintain as neighborhoods
                                                          transition.
                                                          Country kids have limited neighborhood
                                                          concept.


4. Busing Practices
   Background: The issue addresses how strictly or leniently the district will adhere to the busing
   distance limit of 2 miles. Districts’ practices towards application for hazardous routes
   (aggressive to reluctant), exceptions for younger children, a commitment to bus all who request,

Genesis Partnership                             page 13                                            Burleson ISD
                                                                                                  Facility Study
    are typical variations. These practices should consider and support such issues as a) school size,
    b) neighborhood schools, c) school organization, etc. The practice/criterion impacts the size of
    school sites and the points of access to school sites needed due to anticipated patterns of
    vehicular circulation, parking needs, and queuing lane needs – at build-out, what is the expected
    ratio of private cars to district buses to daycare buses to self-transported pupils (walk, ride bikes,
    drive), and so forth.
    Selected Alternative: no change in current policies/practices – bus outside 2-mile limit, plus
    maintain relatively aggressive practices to qualify hazardous routes.
                  Pro                                                     Con

    Staying with the 2-mile limit creates         Limited busing and neighborhood schools
    more need to the site for access (ingress     require more provision for queuing lines,
    and egress) to the site.                      parking, and separating vehicular traffic, by
                                                  type, and from pedestrian traffic
    Post school day-care exists at elementary
    schools now. May be some
    consideration for middle school post
    school day-care.


5. Redistricting Practices (Redrawing Attendance Boundaries)
    Background: Regarding attendance boundaries and crowded schools, existing practice transfers
    newly enrolled students (and family members) to school with space at grade-level in question
    (receiving school). Student/family may transfer back when space is available, but are
    transferred back at the start of the next school year, so long as all siblings can attend the
    neighborhood school.
    BISD administrators are strongly supportive of the district’s current administrative regulations
    regarding transfers and attendance boundaries, which allow only temporary transfers due to
    over-crowding, with the exception of open enrollment programs such as Nola Dunn. This is
    considered essential to managing within an environment of growth.
    Selected Alternative: Maintain practices consistent with Administrative Regulations. Make
    every effort to redistrict only in conjunction with opening of new schools
                  Pro                                                     Con

    Growth is the most justified reason for going         Bad if you do and bad if you don’t.
    through the process.
    Subdividing an attendance zone is easier              Growing districts may be in various stages of
    than reconstituting new zones from several            approximating the preferred attendance zones
    old zones.                                            for many years.
    It is easier to spin off the growth areas in the      Want to establish attendance zone as the campus
    crowded zones than to rezone through the              is complete.
    middle of the original zone.
                                                          Disrupts the culture of the campus.

Genesis Partnership                             page 14                                          Burleson ISD
                                                                                                Facility Study
6. Use of Portables and Temporary Classrooms
   Background: The position a district adopts will be heavily influenced and/or controlled by its
   facility planning practices and bonding practices.
    Many districts adopt criteria that govern their intended use. Such planning criteria usually
    address a district’s intention to use such spaces for limited periods (five years is suggested), to
    be replaced by permanent facilities within a reasonable period, and that acceptable uses are to
    support growth and/or the introduction of new programs. Such planning criteria also may
    address under what circumstances portables may be used for a longer period (such as programs
    that are externally funded for one-to-five year cycles). However, even with such programs, the
    practice may acknowledge the need for permanent space if such programs survive for a
    determined period.
    Other districts prefer a position that they will not use them, except under extreme need and only
    under circumstances with specific exemptions that have been approved.
    Selected Alternative: The district’s administrators have identified a number of criteria to be
    incorporated into a functioning policy.
         a. Portable classrooms are only a temporary solution, and only for over-crowding and
            specially funded, short-term projects.
         b. Portable classrooms should be replaced by permanent construction, within 5 years or
            less.
         c. Overcrowding should be addressed consistent with the “Redistricting Criteria”, using
            transfers first, then portables, and finally permanent construction.
         d. The use of portables should be limited to 10 percent or less of the schools permanent
            classrooms
         e. The number of portables at any school may need to cap at less than 10 percent of
            permanent classrooms, if the permanent facility’s infrastructure will not support the
            added students (e.g., restrooms, kitchen/dining, hallways, library, gym, parking, etc.).
         f. New schools should be designed and sited with the infrastructure necessary to accept up
            to 10 percent additional classrooms in portable classroom units, as a temporary
            adjustment for overcrowding
         g. Avoid the use of any portable classrooms, if at all possible.
                  Pro                                                  Con

    Prompt response to need                        Higher operating costs (3-5 times more)
    Minimize impact on instructional               Security of students/equipment
    program
    When used to accommodate growth, the           Safety – weather, disaster,
    life span of the portable should be 5 yrs.
    A policy on portables may spur activity        Access to support programs can be
    to replace the portables with permanent        interrupted
    facilities as long as the program is still
    needed on the campus.

Genesis Partnership                              page 15                                      Burleson ISD
                                                                                             Facility Study
                                               Tax school’s infrastructure (restrooms, labs,
                                               dining, LMC, etc.)
                                               Educators may act more “self-employed”
                                               and not function as team players assigned out
                                               of the main building.
                                               Aesthetics.
                                               Security, safety, weather, behavior.
                                               Portables require infrastructure, including
                                               electricity, water, phone and
                                               communications network, sewer, awnings
                                               (covered walks), and positive site drainage


8. Refurbish and Upgrade Criteria
    Background: As school buildings age, school districts should evaluate upgrading and
    configuration changes to existing schools, in order to accommodate changes in the instructional
    program and instructional delivery. Two types of renovation projects are relatively common;
    first, renovation of spaces that have been vacated and been replaced with new or
    expanded/updated facilities. The second common renovation involves the upgrading of various
    building systems, including electrical and lighting, communications and technology networks,
    roofs, heating and cooling, windows, restrooms, finishes, doors, hardware, and occasionally
    boards and casework. But most often, these common renovation projects leave the existing
    configurations in place, even though the instructional program and spatial relationship
    requirements may have changed substantially.
    The less common renovation includes gutting space and reconfiguring/adding as necessary, to
    meet new requirements and changed program needs. When this does occur, it is often a process
    to create equity, parity between older schools and newer schools, as the newer schools have
    adapted to instructional program changes.
    Burleson ISD, like most districts is facing decisions in the coming years, which may include
    replacing older school buildings, due to both economic and educational obsolescence. School
    buildings’ economic obsolescence can be delayed and useful life extended through planned
    upgrading and renovation. Most important, the students attending such refurbished schools will
    have equally supportive environments as those attending the newest facilities.
    Selected Alternative: The district administrators encourage a posture that will include evaluating
    aging schools to determine the appropriateness of each for upgrading and long-term use. Once
    existing schools have been evaluated and improved/replaced, then schools should be evaluated
    for refurbishing and major upgrades as they approach 20-25 years of use.
                Pro                                                     Con
    Get everyone involved before starting.             Easy to piece-meal a project.
    Equity at all campuses.                            Should finish the (promised) jobs.
                                                       Challenges the current practice.
                                                       Strong feelings (neighborhood/community
                                                       pride) for older buildings.

Genesis Partnership                          page 16                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                          Facility Study
9. Safety and Security of Students and Staff
      Background: With increased responsibilities for safety and security, as it relates to family and
      domestic strife that draws children into the disputes, as well as the more recent threats caused by
      various forms of terrorism (post Columbine HS and post 9/11), there is a significant need to
      control access to buildings and to school sites. The challenge includes the need for schools to
      remain open and inviting to children and their parents/family, but to restrict access to disruptive
      persons and elements.

      Selected Alternative: Make safety and security a consistent, necessary, and high priority.


10.    Bonding Practices, relative to anticipated needs (forecast) vs. known needs (they’re here!).
       Background: This is generally based on a combination of historic practices, community trust,
       and bonding capacity. Communities tend to repeat what has been seen as acceptable or what
       has been successful in the community. Communities who establish a long-range plan for their
       school buildings often have a goal of authorizing bonds to provide facilities in time to
       accommodate anticipated growth, including authorization based on anticipated bonding
       capacity.
       Creating or modifying bonding practices will consider two timing issues.
          a) Will bond funds be authorized for relatively known needs or also consider anticipated
              needs?
          b) How often will a growing community accept bond elections? The most common
              frequency is about 5 years, with some targeting over 5 years but less than 10 years.
              Bond elections that address less than 5 years are generally considering
              immediate/known needs (as completed school building projects are typically in place
              2-3 years after the vote).
       Building temporary extra capacity may be appropriate at times when existing schools are
       scheduled for refurbishing and upgrading. Extra capacity can be used to provide suitable
       housing while older buildings are temporarily taken out of service for major renovation. A
       typical alternative is to bring in a large number of temporary classrooms during major
       refurbishing, so the permanent construction can be temporarily vacated.
       Selected Alternative: Good planning and efficient use of tax money will need the support of a
       bond election practice that authorizes some expenditures and projects in anticipation. The
       most obvious is the need to purchase property well in advance of need. However, as the rate
       of growth in the district accelerates, the need for authorizing projects for forecast needs will be
       heightened significantly. It is suggested that the community target bond elections that are
       expected to meet needs for approximately 5-year periods.

                  Pro                                                  Con

      Bond beyond immediate needs.




Genesis Partnership                             page 17                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                             Facility Study
11.   Open-Campus vs. Closed-Campus
      Background: Policies or practices regarding open or closed campuses, that is, allowing
      students to go off campus or home for lunch, often grows out of historic practices of a
      community, and its relationship with local eateries. Most school administrators strongly
      support closed campuses, especially as safety and security risks increase and given the
      tendency of communities to hold schools responsible for student behavior during the school
      day, on or off school grounds. Open campuses are more common in smaller communities and
      rural areas, and much less common in growing and/or larger communities.
      Decisions regarding this issue may impact a number of related areas, including site and
      building security, kitchen and dining spaces, preventing absenteeism and dropouts, etc.

         Selected Alternative: Maintain closed campus environment.


Leadership and Community Buy-in

Do not take the planning criteria lightly. It cannot be emphasized too much that, to be effective,
these criteria must be the over-riding focal point of facility decisions, to ensure that these criteria are
maintained as the ultimate intention of the community for its schools. Interim options should seek
to approximate these criteria and to achieve them at every interval possible. Recognize that growth
may require regular, temporary modifications that vary from the criteria; but such variations should
not supplant them.

If decisions are made that seem contrary to these criteria, the criteria themselves should be re-
evaluated and modified. Modifications should reflect the best instructional program practices,
within the context of the community’s expectations and aspirations for its children and schools.
The district is encouraged to avoid the practice of voiding the planning criteria due to temporary
financing challenges, because in the useful life of a school, a financial challenge that spans 10 years
represents ONLY 1/5th to 1/6th of the useful life of a well-planned facility. It is the experience of
this consultant that temporary solutions can be achieved which do reflect and respect the over-riding
planning criteria, if the commitment to the criteria is strong.

The alternative almost always compromises some of the community’s tax money invested in
improvements, and leads to non-supportive buildings and/or inconsistent and inappropriate
improvements. Hind-sight will usually evaluate this as questionable leadership resulting in another
example of wasting taxpayer’s money.




Genesis Partnership                            page 18                                         Burleson ISD
                                                                                              Facility Study
                                                                                                            Section III –
                                                                                                          POPULATION
                                                                                                         PROJECTIONS


Background
Burleson ISD contracted with Dennis D. Harner and Associates, to conduct a demographic forecast
for the district, both short-term and at saturation. The findings from this study are incorporated, to
assess the impact of growth on existing facilities as well as to begin to address needs that are the
result of forecast growth within the district.

Population Forecast
The findings of Harner and Associates regarding growth in the student body of Burleson ISD might
be summarized by: expect growth; the only question is when, not if. Taking into account historic
growth rates, live births, and trends in the area housing markets, Harner has forecast three possible
growth scenarios, and recommends that the mid-range forecast (an average of 370 additional
students per year) be used for planning purposes. That information is reported on Table 2-A below.

                                             Table 2-A
                      Burleson ISD 10-Year Low, Mid-range, and High Projections


                                      Low, Mid-range, and High Projections

                 13,000
                                                                                                                 12,624
                 12,000
                                                                                                                 11,290
                 11,000
                                                                              10,519
                 10,000                                                                                           9,956
                                                               9,525          9,675
                  9,000                                        8,920          8,831
                                                               8,315
                  8,000
                                  7,542
                  7,000

                  6,000
                          -05

                                    -06


                                              -07

                                              -08


                                                        -09

                                                                  -10

                                                                  -11


                                                                              -12

                                                                              -13

                                                                                                 -14


                                                                                                           -15
                        04

                                  05


                                            06

                                            07


                                                      08

                                                                09

                                                                10


                                                                            11

                                                                            12

                                                                                               13


                                                                                                         14
                      20

                                20

                                          20

                                          60


                                                    20

                                                              20

                                                              20


                                                                          20

                                                                          20

                                                                                             20


                                                                                                       20




                                                      Low         Mid-range           High


The reader will note that Table 2-A forecasts that the district’s total enrollment will grow at
relatively constant percentage rates over the next five years, increasing annually in absolute
enrollment numbers. However, the increases are not distributed across the grade levels. Table 2-B
shows a pattern of consistent elementary growth and modestly varying middle school and high
school enrollment over the ten year forecast term. Forecasts for district-wide elementary grades,
middle school grades, and high school grades are reported on Table 2-B.
Genesis Partnership                                     page 19                                                            Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                          Facility Study
                                              Table 2-B
                    Burleson ISD 10-Year Enrollment Forecasts, by School Divisions

                                                         Elementary         Middle School           High School

           6000
                                                                                                                                         5407
                                  Historical                                                Projected                            5220
                                                                                                                          5032
           5000                                                                                            4658
                                                                                                                   4845
                                                                                                    4471
                                                                                             4306
                                                                                    4121
           4000                                                            3953
                                                                    3748
                                                           3558
                                                  3365
                                  3037     3189                                                                                          3257
                           2895                                                                                           3018   3156
           3000                                                                                                    2857
                                                                                                    2620   2727
                                                                           2425     2493     2525                                2536    2626
                                                  2196     2227     2265                                   2290    2378   2446
           2000                   1978     2011                                              2089   2219
                           1850                                            1861     1978
                                                  1718     1757     1821
                           1597   1619     1663
           1000

              0
                 -01

                 -02

                 -03

                 -04

                 -05

                 -06

                 -07

                 -08

                 -09

                 -10

                 -11

                -12

                 -13

                 -14

                -15
              00

              01

              02

              03

              04

              05

              06

              07

              08

              09

              10

              11

              12

              13

              14
            20

            20

            20

            20

            20

            20

            20

            60

            20

            20

            20

            20

            20

            20

            20
From a long-range facilities planning perspective, probably the single most useful piece of
information is the forecast build-out projections, developed in Appendix C of the Harner and
Associates report and illustrated in Table 2-C. This column graph shows the forecast enrollment at
build-out, compared to the enrollment in 2004-05.

                                                           Table 2-C
                                               Burleson ISD Build-out Projections


                  30,000
                                                                                                            27,049
                  27,500
                  25,000
                  22,500
                  20,000
                  17,500
                                                                                                                             2004-05
                  15,000                 12,983                                                                              Buildout
                  12,500
                  10,000
                                                                                          7,843        7,542
                   7,500                                          6,223

                   5,000          3,558
                                                         1,757                    2,227
                   2,500
                      0
                                  Elementary               Middle                 High School              Total



Genesis Partnership                                                   page 20                                                            Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                                        Facility Study
While it is impossible to forecast how quickly the growth might occur, usually there are districts
with like demographic characteristics and similarly situated relative to the Metroplex, that one can
begin to forecast a reasonable expectation. The district’s board and administration will be able to
best identify such districts, but they might include districts like Mansfield, Crowley, Aledo, and
other similar districts. Certainly, one should also take into account limiting factors, including
needed infrastructure, to understand probable timing. Having said all this, the growth could be
achieved in 15 years, or it could take as long as 30-40 years.

However, the implication for facilities is clear. Burleson ISD will probably build and replace all but
its newest schools by the time it reaches a build-out status, and two issues are expected to be at the
forefront of a facilities master plan. First, the district will need to define the spaces it needs to
adequately support its instructional program; generally this will be produced in the form of
educational programming and educational specifications. Second, the district will need to address
the issue of parity within levels as well as between levels. The master plan will need to include
provisions for upgrading and/or replacing existing facilities, as it also provides schools and
classrooms to accommodate the coming growth. The district’s expectations regarding these issues
have been addressed in the district’s facility planning criteria; the task will be to interpret and apply
them consistently.

School-by-School Forecasts

The following tables report the enrollment projections for each of the existing
schools/neighborhoods. The patterns of projected growth or relative stability in the various
neighborhoods are useful planning tools. They follow.



                                             Table 3-A
                                        Five-Year Forecast
                                     The Academy at Nola Dun




Genesis Partnership                            page 21                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                            Facility Study
                            Table 3-B
                       Five-Year Forecast
                      Bransom Elementary




                           Table 3-C
                      Five-Year Forecast
                      Frazier Elementary




                           Table 3-D
                      Five-Year Forecast
                      Mound Elementary




Genesis Partnership        page 22           Burleson ISD
                                            Facility Study
                            Table 3-E
                       Five-Year Forecast
                      Norwood Elementary




                            Table 3-F
                       Five-Year Forecast
                      Stribling Elementary




                           Table 3-G
                      Five-Year Forecast
                      Taylor Elementary




Genesis Partnership        page 23            Burleson ISD
                                             Facility Study
                                          Table 3-H
                                     Five-Year Forecast
                                    Hughes Middle School




                                           Table 3-I
                                      Five-Year Forecast
                                      Kerr Middle School




                                           Table 3-J
                                      Five-Year Forecast
                                     Burleson High School

                      High School
                         Fall       9th   10th      11th    12th     All
                        2004    704       572       437     448    2,161
                        2005    674       641       536     414    2,265
                        2006    729       609       591     496    2,425
                        2007    719       684       559     551    2,513
                        2008    738       654       614     519    2,525
                        2009    769       673       604     574    2,620




Genesis Partnership                       page 24                           Burleson ISD
                                                                           Facility Study
While Burleson ISD is a larger enrollment district among Texas schools, the appearance of new
businesses in the natural resources, industrial and commercial, and agricultural production
industries with employment opportunities could impact the enrollment projections. Developments
in the local and regional economies and demographics must be monitored and if significant new
trends are observed new projections should be made that incorporate the change.




Genesis Partnership                       page 25                                   Burleson ISD
                                                                                   Facility Study
                                                                               Section IV –
                                                                           INSTRUCTIONAL
                                                                         PROGRAM PROFILE


Background
The process of defining the district’s instructional program had polled the district’s instructional
leadership (superintendent, central administrative instructional leaders, and building principals),
developing an outline of those findings. The draft findings were presented to that group for editing
and modifications, prior to being endorsed by this group as the instructional program profile for
Burleson ISD. The study particulars are presented in this section, which follows.


INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM PROFILE

Data Gathering
Regarding the district’s instructional program, the Data Gathering Interviews from central office
staff and building principals included these questions (in various forms).
    1. What instructional programs are inadequately housed?
    2. What instructional programs need strengthening? …Are there facility implications?
    3. What new programs are needed to meet student needs? … Existing and trend anticipated?
    4. What existing programs need to be redirected for more relevance/effectiveness?
    5. Should any existing programs, in their existing forms, be allowed to “sunset”?

Each of the five questions was explored in order to identify and address their facility implications.

Findings
A – Existing Instructional Program Characteristics
    Elementary Programs (EE-5)
          Self contained classrooms
          Pull-out and rotation offerings
          Population-sensitive and ‘opportunity’ programs
          Instructional support and itinerant programs offerings

         Typical Findings
                25 to 30 percent of instructional spaces have no functional capacity
                Outsized spaces often inadequate

    Middle School Programs (6-8)
          Departmentalized offerings
          Limited electives
             Performing arts
             Technology/career

Genesis Partnership                           page 26                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                           Facility Study
             Population-sensitive and ‘opportunity’ programs
             Instructional support and itinerant programs offerings

         Typical Findings
                5 to 10 percent of instructional spaces have no functional capacity
                outsized spaces often inadequate

    High School Programs (9-12)
          Departmentalized offerings
          Academies make up internal organization (5, +9th Grade Academy)
          Substantial electives
          Population-sensitive and ‘opportunity’ programs
          Instructional support and limited itinerant programs’ offerings

         Typical Findings
                5 to 10 percent of instructional spaces have no functional capacity
                Labs, outsized spaces often inadequate

B – District Instructional Delivery Methods/Expectations
         Note: no effort was made to prioritize the following methods/expectations.
    1. Differentiated instruction at all grade levels
    2. Integrated technology, characterized by:
           a. 4-5 student-accessed computers in each core classroom
           b. Interactive at the classroom level
           c. Flexible location(s) for classroom computers
           d. Balanced mix of fixed resource labs and COWs (Computers On Wheels), trending
               toward more fixed labs
           e. Dial-up access
           f. Projection devices or large monitors in each classroom/lab
    3. Minimize/limit student transitions
    4. Supportive instructional spaces will…
          a. Allow hands-on and interactive learning
          b. Provide space for a kaleidoscope of large-group and small-group learning during the
             instructional period
          c. Have break-out spaces, that may or may not include space for student access
             computers
          d. Allow space for 3-5 varying and separate learning activities simultaneously


C – District Instructional Initiatives with Facilities Implications
    1. Science – provide instructional lab options/suitable lab spaces at all levels
          a. ES – create spaces

Genesis Partnership                           page 27                                   Burleson ISD
                                                                                       Facility Study
             b. MS – expand spaces, add spaces
             c. HS – add spaces (or reduce student load…)
    2. Special Education Spaces – provide instructional and staff options/suitable spaces at all
       levels
           a. Balance of inclusionary vs. pull-out resource
           b. Provide CMC at all levels
           c. Self-contained spaces; make adequate, add new
           d. Provide suitable offices, ARD space at all campuses
    3. Improved/added art facilities throughout
    4. Refocused, strengthened, and “contemporized” career and technology offerings; should lead
       to marketable skills (e.g., certification programs for all available)
    5. Refocus the Gifted and Talented program at elementary and secondary level; pull-out vs.
       inclusionary
    6. Plan for ESL/bilingual needs growth
    7. Strengthen programs for at-risk students
           a. On all campuses
           b. At an off-site facility (primarily credit recovery program)
    8. Strengthen and create permanence for community-use and community-involvement
       programs
           a. Community education
           b. After-school care
           c. Day-care (consolidate staff day-care and pregnant teens program?)
           d. Volunteer programs (production, tutorials, mentoring, etc.)



D – District Centralized Needs
         Provide adequate central administrative housing for all functions
            Preliminary count, between 90 and 105 current central and support staff
            Anticipate that these services will expand, corresponding to growth in enrollment
         Develop appropriate plan for long-range warehouse, maintenance, and bus facilities.


Feeder Pattern Options
Based on the planning criteria established by the district and ratified by the school board (reported
in Section II of this study), the feeder pattern is established as a priority by Criterion 2 and defined
by Criteria 1 and 3. The feeder pattern starts at the elementary school (grades EE-5, with 4 sections
per grade level with 400-550 pupils per school) and includes middle schools of 600-800 pupils for
grades 6-8 and high schools of 1,400 to 1,900 pupils.



Genesis Partnership                           page 28                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                           Facility Study
The proposed organization and resulting feeder pattern will likely look like the following.
Variations in school sizes will reflect the character of the neighborhoods served, especially as they
reflect the extent to which added supporting programs are provided to enhance the likelihood of
success by its learners.

The likely feeder pattern is a snapshot based on both local and statewide enrollment trends.
Effectively, the elementary school grade level groups were tracked as constant group sized through
middle school, and then reflected average statewide grade patterns through high school graduation,
and is illustrated in the following Figures.

                                                Figure 1
                                Estimated High School Enrollment Patterns

BURLESON ISD
FEEDER PATTERN STUDY BACKUP DATA
                                                                                                As a % of     As a % of HS
                                                                                             incoming 8th gr. enrollment
Statewide, Total HS Enrollment averages 93-94% of 8th grade                            9th     117.3%           126.1%
 Average grade size, as a percentage of 8th grade group as incoming grade             10th      92.1%            99.0%
 Average grade size, as a percentage of the total enrollment                          11th      84.7%            91.0%
                                                                                      12th      78.1%            83.9%
                                                                                      Ave.     93.04%



                                                  Figure 2
                                     BISD Feeder Pattern Characteristics

Feeder Pattern Characteristics
Three elementary schools of 4 sections per grades PK-5,
           feeting one middle school,
                       and two middle schools feeding 1 high school
     Grades    sections    Ave memb     Max.memb      Ave. Enroll   Max. Enroll School Sizes Ave Memb. Max. Memb.
        EE        1           13           16            13            16
        PK        2           14           16            28            32
         K        4          19.3          22            77            88
          1       4          19.3          22            77            88
          2       4          19.3          22            77            88
          3       4          19.3          22            77            88
          4       4          19.3          22            77            88
          5       4          19.3          22            77            88       PK-5 ES (3)     504       576
          6      12          19.3          22           232           264
          7      12          19.3          22           232           264
          8      12          19.3          22           232           264       6-8 MS (1)      695       792
          9      24          19.3          22           431           491
        10       24          19.3          22           431           491
        11       24          19.3          22           431           491
        12       24          19.3          22           431           491       9-12 HS (1)    1,724     1,965




Genesis Partnership                                     page 29                                               Burleson ISD
                                                                                                             Facility Study
                                                                                 Section V -
                                                                             CONDITION OF
                                                                       EXISTING FACILITIES


Background
Information on the gross amount of school facilities, such as square footage of buildings, number of
rooms or type of special rooms, is useful but inadequate by itself for determining the functionality
and usability of the actual school plant. A more exact description in terms of physical features,
educational features, and site features is required. Accordingly, an on-site survey of the entire
school plant has been made and analyzed relative to the facility’s capabilities and needs. In the
context of this report, the term facility refers to both the school buildings and the school site.

The survey instrument used for evaluating school buildings is based on nationally recognized
standards and is specifically adapted to Texas standards, regulations, and recommendations. It
consists of 105 questions that evaluate the six functional characteristics of an educational facility
(both buildings and site). The characteristics are (1) educational adequacy, (2) health and safety, (3)
accessibility, (4) efficiency, (5) flexibility, and (6) appearance. It evaluates the school on a
theoretical 1,000-point value score, weighing each of these characteristics of school plant and site.
More than half the total value score (535 points of 1,000) is assigned to the educational features of
the facility. The remaining 465 points are assigned to the site (205) and the general features (260).

Both the survey instrument’s weighted functional characteristic scores and Facility Composite
Score are translated into percentage scores for comparison. The Facility Composite Score
represents the facility’s total score of all six functional characteristics. The Facility Composite
Score is valuable in assessing how well the facility serves the educational needs of the learners
through the program being offered. A more detailed explanation of the survey instrument and
survey procedures is found in the Preface and the Appendix (for definitions of the six
characteristics, see the Appendix).

Burleson ISD Schools
Planning for space needs is a continuing process, and is based on current and projected student
needs. Planning for space needs also must be consistent with the community’s aspirations for its
youth and the resources available to accommodate those aspirations and needs. The evaluation of
the district’s schools is generally consistent with scores typical of Texas schools; the newer schools
generally score better and the older schools score as marginal, with serious needs that can dictate
replacement as the most cost-effective alternative.

In the case of Burleson ISD, the 10 regular program schools range in age between 3 and 82 years,
when considering the construction of the oldest (original) portions. Other than parts of Nola Dunn,
all schools have been built since 1960. The older schools include Kerr, Mound, and Frazier
schools. The three newest schools Bransom, Stribling, and the High School; these have been
opened since 1997. The average age of these older components is 31.3 years. The average score of
the 10 schools is 66.0 percent and ranges between 46.6 percent and 85.1 percent. The Composite
scores indicate that 6 of 10 schools have need for significant improvements and upgrading, or
replacement.

Genesis Partnership                           page 30                                      Burleson ISD
                                                                                          Facility Study
Nola Dunn Academy, Frazier ES, and Kerr MS are all educationally and economically obsolete as
regular program schools. Norwood ES, Mound ES, Taylor ES, and Hughes MS are in need of
major refurbishing, or replacement in a future phase of a district-wide comprehensive master plan.

The three newest regular program schools, Bransom ES, Stribling ES, and the High School are all
less than 10 years old, score in the upper reaches of the good range, between 80 and 85 percent.
This indicates a need for some improvements, most of which are related to up-graded state
minimum standards, to changes in the district’s instructional program and teaching strategies, and to
growth (especially at the High School facility).

Crossroads Learning Center opened its new facility in 2003, according to district records. It houses
both the AEP and DAEP programs for BISD. It scores modestly for a new facility, partly because it
is in a somewhat unsuitable location for these programs, and partly because the programs will need
more space, if the AEP program expands as anticipated.

The Facility Composite Score for each regular program school and the alternative education school
is reported in the following table.

                                                     Table 4-A
                                            Facility Composite Scores


                 Nola Dunn/Academy                            46.6%

                       Bransom ES                                                         85.1%

                         Frazier ES                            48.6%

                         Mound ES                                        64.7%

                       Norwood ES                                        63.4%

                        Stribling ES                                                 81.3%

                         Taylor ES                                        66.1%

                        Hughes MS                                            71.1%

                           Kerr MS                               51.8%

                       Burleson HS                                                   81.6%

                        Crossroads                                                75.9%

                                       0%   10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Regarding preventive maintenance, the condition of the district’s schools is typical of most schools.
The district has generally maintained and repaired components as long as possible, before making
major repairs or replacing systems/equipment. Most major components of a school building have a
maximum expected useful life of between 15 and 30 years, and when a school is older than that, it
often has an accumulation of needed repairs/improvements, often referred to as deferred
maintenance. Table 4-B illustrates that concern. It shows the score of the respective schools in
relation to the age of the original construction. Generally, the pattern for BISD schools is repeated
in most Texas school districts surveyed. Schools 30 years or older have a backlog of needs that will
Genesis Partnership                                 page 31                                        Burleson ISD
                                                                                                  Facility Study
require major refurbishing or (depending on age, conditions and educational adequacy)
replacement. The reader should note the obvious relationship between aging and the cumulative
scores for each regular program school. The red horizontal line represents the forty-fifth percentile;
buildings at or below this range are educationally and economically obsolete, and generally need to
be completely replaced.

                                                       Table 4-B
                                             School Age vs. Evaluation Score


   2020                                                                                                                          90.0%

   2000                                                                                                                          80.0%
                                                                                                                                 70.0%
   1980
                                                                                                                                 60.0%
   1960                                                                                                                          50.0%
   1940                                                                                                                          40.0%
                                                                                                                                 30.0%
   1920
                                                                                                                                 20.0%
   1900                                                                                                                          10.0%
             2002          1998      1997        1986         1976         1970         1963       1962      1960     1923
   1880                                                                                                                          0.0%
                            g
             m




                                                                                                                      n
                                     ol




                                                                                                   d
                                                  r




                                                                         es


                                                                                      i er




                                                                                                                     rr
                                                             d
                                              y lo
                         lin




                                                                                                                    un
                                                                                                 un
                                                           oo
           so




                                   ho




                                                                                                                  Ke
                                                                       gh



                                                                                    az
                      rib




                                            Ta




                                                                                                                y/D
                                                                                               Mo
         an




                                                        rw
                                 Sc




                                                                     Hu



                                                                                  Fr
                    St




                                                      No
      Br




                                                                                                              em
                              gh
                            Hi




                                                                                                            ad
                                                                                                          Ac
                                                        Age                   Composite Score


The profiles of the schools that follow are a quick reference for each facility. The chart presents a
summary of the six functional characteristics and the composite score for each, and it provides a
graphic view of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the facility as an educational support tool
as observed during the on-site inspections.

It must be kept in mind that the ratings are based on the consultant’s professional observations
about the particular facility and are objectively judgmental. These profiles can be used to assist
with setting priorities for overall district facility improvements in the context of further study by the
district and in light of existing financial resources. The two most significant functional
characteristics relative to long-term use of facilities are the sub-scores for both the educational
adequacy and flexibility components. If these scores both fall below the sixtieth percentile, it is
often a hallmark of a facility that may not justify the investment needed to support long-term use,
especially if these two categories also score below the composite score of the facility being
evaluated.

Some deficiencies noted in the Comments section for each facility may already be scheduled for
correction by the district.




Genesis Partnership                                              page 32                                                      Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                             Facility Study
                                                   Table 5-A
                                               School Plant Profile
                                            The Academy at Nola Dunn


         BUILDING FUNCTIONS

           Educational Adequacy                                 43.3%

                  Safety & Health                                    50.4%

                      Accessibility                                      52.3%

                        Efficiency                               44.4%

                        Flexibility                             43.3%

                      Appearance                                             58.8%



    BLDG. COMPOSITE SCORE                                         46.6%

                                  0.0%   10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%


         KEY
         90–100%             A school facility of exceptional quality
         70–89%              Serves program well; some minor or component improvements needed
         60–69%              Facility needs substantial or major rehabilitation
         46–59%              Complete renovation or replacement; a detailed study may be needed
         00–45%              Abandon and/or replace the facility


Comments/Deficiencies:
    This is school is located on a downtown site of approximately nine acres, and consists of two
    adjacent rectangular parcels (L-shaped).
    Parking is inadequate for the facility, with some parking street side. Because the school is a
    choice school, nearly all students are transported by family vehicles, creating a regular and
    relatively serious vehicular circulation problem.
    The oldest building on this campus was built in
    1923, according to school district records.
    Additional buildings were constructed in 1947,
    1968 and 1980. The school has ten portable
    classrooms and one Quonset hut among the
    buildings on site.
    Because the site is made up of a series of
    additions, there are site drainage issues,
    especially between the gym and portable
    classrooms.
    This school had been closed; it was reopened                          Quonset building at Nola Dunn


Genesis Partnership                                  page 33                                               Burleson ISD
                                                                                                          Facility Study
    fairly recently to house the academy program. It has received facelift attention; however the
    buildings systems are aging and/or failing.
    There is evidence of foundation/structural shifting, and waste line back up, the facility has too
    few restrooms for the student load, electrical service is inadequate, the roof continues to have
    leaks, and the building is subject to varmints and termites.
    The classrooms in the 1947 permanent structure
    have shallow bay depths (distance from outside
    wall to hallway wall) of less than 20 feet; these
    buildings are not candidates for effective
    renovation appropriate to consider such
    modifications.
    The classrooms on site that do meet the state
    minimum standards are generally found in the
    1968 addition, which has the library as its central
    focus. The condition of these classrooms
    however is such, that they would need complete
    and thorough renovation. The building’s overall                    Crowding seems overwhelming
    condition does not warrant such consideration.
    Specialized spaces are generally inadequate including the computer lab, science lab, and self-
    contained special education spaces (two life skills classes).
    The school has too few classrooms to support the current instructional program. Spaces are
    needed for an additional computer lab, a suitable art space, a gifted and talented space, and
    volunteers to tutor and work.
    The school does not have adequate support space for itinerant programs, including dyslexia,
    occupational and physical therapy, diagnostician, speech therapist, a suitable conference room
    for ARDs and clinic.
    The site is located adjacent to old downtown Burleson; appropriate long term uses will depend
    on the location’s potential value for commercial uses and/or commercial element. This site is
    small for redevelopment; however the configuration could support the needed development,
    assuming that careful site planning would confirm this option.
    Playground equipment has had some upgrading;
    the gym is old and too small for the program.
    There is some concern about the possibility of
    buried tanks with potential environmental impact.




                                                                    Updated playground apparatus




Genesis Partnership                           page 34                                                 Burleson ISD
                                                                                                     Facility Study
                                                     Table 5-B
                                                School Plant Profile
                                            Bransom Elementary School


        BUILDING FUNCTIONS

          Educational Adequacy                                                                        82.2%

                 Safety & Health                                                                              89.8%

                      Accessibility                                                                         87.8%

                        Efficiency                                                                      83.6%

                        Flexibility                                                                   82.5%

                      Appearance                                                                             89.0%



    BLDG. COMPOSITE SCORE                                                                                85.1%

                                  0.0%   10.0%   20.0% 30.0% 40.0%   50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%              90.0% 100.0%


         KEY
         90–100%               A school facility of exceptional quality
         70–89%                Serves program well; some minor or component improvements needed
         60–69%                Facility needs substantial or major rehabilitation
         46–59%                Complete renovation or replacement; a detailed study may be needed
         00–45%                Abandon and/or replace the facility


Comments/Deficiencies:
    Bransom Elementary School is the district’s newest elementary school, built on a portion of a
    larger 100 acre site. It is estimated that the school occupies approximately 30-35 acres on the
    southern end of the larger site. The site in this area does have elevation changes and terrain
    limitations.
    Soils behind the school need to be stabilized;
    there is substantial evidence of topsoil washing
    onto the service drive beside and behind the
    school (see adjacent photo).
    The school is an attractive building, with
    architectural features linking it to the areas
    history.
    There is adequate parking; access is by way of
    relatively steep driveways up to the building site.
    The access to the site does complicate vehicular                     Soil washing across service drive; classroom
    circulation, creating some congestion.                                       clerestory windows visible




Genesis Partnership                                    page 35                                                   Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                Facility Study
    Restrooms are a concern. The facility has some (8) classroom restrooms; students not in those
    rooms must share two small gang toilets, one at the entrance to each of the academic halls.
    The school has a unique feature; all classrooms
    have clerestory windows, to bring natural light
    into the classrooms (see adjacent photo). Many
    classrooms were in use without the aide of
    artificial lighting, a feature almost every staff
    member appreciated.
    This school has fewer spaces than needed by the
    district’s instructional program. Spaces are
    needed for content mastery, distance learning, for
    tutorial pull outs, and spaces sufficient for
    itinerant programs.
                                                                  Natural light from clerestory, with curtains
    Other support spaces are also small, including the
    clinic, the staff work/break space, and the counselor’s office. In addition spaces housing the
    Waterford materials, the music room, the special education self-contained classroom, and the
    cafeteria dining area are all overcrowded.
    Eight classrooms were designed to meet the requirements of the Pre-K, K and first grade
    programs – and there are eight such primary sections.
    The school’s entrance is adjacent to visitor parking; the design requires all visitors to enter
    through the school office lobby, a very helpful feature for site safety and security.
    Unfortunately the entrance area is among the noisiest in the school
    The building has acoustical problems; hard
    surfaces throughout (doors, walls, lighting
    chimneys) result in a noisy environment (see
    adjacent photo). Noise seems to travel in and
    between classrooms as well. Over the long term,
    some modifications should be considered to
    reduce the level of noise throughout the building.
    This school was designed to meet the minimum
    standards of the time it was built. About one-half
    of the classrooms are marginally substandard,
    averaging about 690 square feet (minimum                          Hard surfaces make for noisy halls
    standard for grades 2 through 5 is 700 square feet).
    The classrooms are too small, as configured, to support the desired elementary instructional
    program. The design could support expansion of the classrooms to support the district’s goals
    of differentiating instruction and the integration of technology. Because of the clerestory
    windows and light chimneys, the school will be more expensive than most to reconfigure.
    The building was not planned to support substantial additional classroom space, limiting the
    potential to address the need for larger classrooms, as well as the space needed for the various
    support and pull out programs that are a part of the current district elementary school program.
    This issue further complicates the need to enlarge basic academic classrooms, and will require a
    site and facility master plan to determine how to achieve the goal of larger classrooms
    efficiently and effectively.

Genesis Partnership                            page 36                                                   Burleson ISD
                                                                                                        Facility Study
                                                    Table 5-C
                                               School Plant Profile
                                            Frazier Elementary School


         BUILDING FUNCTIONS

            Educational Adequacy                                 44.6%

                  Safety & Health                                           57.1%

                      Accessibility                                      52.8%

                        Efficiency                                      50.9%

                        Flexibility                             43.6%

                      Appearance                                         52.6%



     BLDG. COMPOSITE SCORE                                         48.6%

                                  0.0%   10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%


         KEY
         90–100%             A school facility of exceptional quality
         70–89%              Serves program well; some minor or component improvements needed
         60–69%              Facility needs substantial or major rehabilitation
         46–59%              Complete renovation or replacement; a detailed study may be needed
         00–45%              Abandon and/or replace the facility


Comments/Deficiencies:
    Frasier is located on a site of just over seven acres off Hillside Drive. The small site has the
    school located centrally on that site, with vehicular access across the back of the site and by
    means of a perpendicular road between the buildings and the main playground area.
    Parking is on the backside of the building between the school building, the gymnasium, and four
    portable classrooms. The parking lot is a single access in and out lot in an area that is congested
    with students during normal passing periods.
    Vehicular circulation is compounded by school’s
    location relative to the high school. A primary
    route of access to the high school is Hillside Dr.,
    resulting in high school related vehicles passing
    directly in front of the school on a daily basis.
    The school consists of three or four additions;
    most of the school was built prior to 1973. Only
    the music room was built subsequent to that time.
    Some of the school was built as an open plan
    space that has been poorly converted to partially
    enclosed classrooms (see adjacent photo).                                    Open-plan ‘enclosures’ marginal

Genesis Partnership                                  page 37                                                   Burleson ISD
                                                                                                              Facility Study
    The building shows movement and stress; they are most likely structural issues.
    This school scores the second lowest among all district schools, and is judged to be both
    educationally and economically obsolete.
    The original classroom building has rooms averaging about 610 square feet, substantially
    smaller than state minimum standards for any elementary classrooms. Less than 50 percent of
    the classroom spaces meet state minimum standards and none meet the requirements for
    kindergarten/first grade standard.
    The library is much too small by current standards, as are the computer lab, the distance
    learning lab, the art room, and the special education self-contained classrooms.
    Only the two kindergarten classrooms meet state minimum standards for that program.
    The school is in need of additional space for math and reading specialists, for a second fixed
    computer lab, for storage, and for an in school suspension room.
    Most building systems are marginal to deficient including, electrical, heating and cooling units,
    roof, and plumbing.
    The building has a history of flooding, both from waste line back ups and from run off. The
    building also has a history of fungal growth, including microbiologicals.
    As the open plan area was partially enclosed, it
    appears to have been done so in stages and likely
    does not meet current code requirements for life
    safety.
    Generally, the small classrooms do not have space
    for materials storage (see adjacent storage), and
    do not have space to allow for the integration of
    technology or differentiating of instruction.
    The building does not meet current handicapped
    accessibility requirements throughout.
                                                                    Storage space is constant need
    The main entrance to the school has only street
    curbside parking, and is therefore little used. Most people seem to use one of the rear entrances,
    complicating site security.
    This school also has encapsulated asbestos, which would further complicate any effort to
    rehabilitate the building.




Genesis Partnership                           page 38                                                 Burleson ISD
                                                                                                     Facility Study
                                                      Table 5-D
                                                 School Plant Profile
                                               Mound Elementary School


       BUILDING FUNCTIONS

         Educational Adequacy                                                    59.3%

               Safety & Health                                                             68.9%

                  Accessibility                                                                71.9%

                      Efficiency                                                         66.9%

                      Flexibility                                                59.5%

                  Appearance                                                                   71.7%



   BLDG. COMPOSITE SCORE                                                               64.7%

                                0.0%   10.0%   20.0%   30.0%   40.0%   50.0%   60.0%     70.0%     80.0%    90.0%   100.0%


         KEY
         90–100%               A school facility of exceptional quality
         70–89%                Serves program well; some minor or component improvements needed
         60–69%                Facility needs substantial or major rehabilitation
         46–59%                Complete renovation or replacement; a detailed study may be needed
         00–45%                Abandon and/or replace the facility


Comments/Deficiencies:
    Mound Elementary is located on a small site, of about 7.1 acres, fronting on Thomas Street. It
    was originally constructed in 1962 with a major refurbishing and addition in 1997 at, and
    adjacent to, the 2 story wing.
    The site has limited parking including curbside parking at the front of the school.
    Vehicular circulation is a concern, in part because
    students are picked up on both sides of adjacent
    streets, and in part because of the school’s
    proximity to Hughes Middle School and the
    traffic it generates.
    The school has four portable classroom units,
    which are used primarily by support programs
    (see adjacent photo).
    The original building has many original fixtures
    including restrooms that have not been
    refurbished and rehabilitated and hallways have                               Portables feel like a maze…
    vinyl tile.

Genesis Partnership                                     page 39                                                  Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                Facility Study
    There have been mold issues at the school and it still may be a problem – there is concern about
    mold in carpet at the elevator, in the library, the office areas, and one computer lab. The carpet
    has been pulled in other areas in response to mold concerns. The mold concerns were first
    reported after some renovating in the school during 1995-1997 and 1998 (moisture problems
    occasionally surface after a building has been renovated and made more efficient/air tight).
    Much of the remaining carpet is worn and needs replacing; carpet mastic has released and the
    carpet has stretched, separating from the floor in spots and creating bunching and waving.
    The hallways in the old wing are not cooled; they are heated with gas space heaters. Apparently
    there are gas odors in these halls during the heating season.
    There is evidence of roof leaks; the building has concerns with asbestos remaining in the
    building, although some has also been removed.
    The cafeteria dining area is relatively small for
    the enrollment in this school; it does have a stage.
    There appears to be just one serving line (see
    adjacent photo).
    The gym is very small, about 36 feet wide with
    play areas of about 34 feet (sidelines are much too
    close to the gym walls).
    The playground apparatus includes some pieces
    of equipment that are dated and no longer
                                                                 Cafeteria dining is small; just 1 serving line
    recommended, from a safety stand point.
    The school has replacement whiteboards that look like melamine (white shower-board) in many
    places in the building, particularly in the older areas.
    This school had an unusually high number of light fixtures with fluorescent tubes that are not
    functioning.




Genesis Partnership                            page 40                                                  Burleson ISD
                                                                                                       Facility Study
                                                  Table 5-E
                                              School Plant Profile
                                           Norwood Elementary School


         BUILDING FUNCTIONS

            Educational Adequacy                                         58.5%

                  Safety & Health                                                65.8%

                      Accessibility                                                 70.3%

                        Efficiency                                           64.0%

                        Flexibility                                         62.5%

                      Appearance                                                  68.5%



     BLDG. COMPOSITE SCORE                                                   63.4%

                                  0.0%   10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%


         KEY
         90–100%             A school facility of exceptional quality
         70–89%              Serves program well; some minor or component improvements needed
         60–69%              Facility needs substantial or major rehabilitation
         46–59%              Complete renovation or replacement; a detailed study may be needed
         00–45%              Abandon and/or replace the facility


Comments/Deficiencies:
         Norwood, dedicated 1976, is located on a 12.37 acre parcel on the perimeter of the
         neighborhood; limited on the east and south by a railroad track and a creek channel.
         The gym is open to the building on three sides; only two of the sides have instructional
         spaces and school offices; the entire area is noisy when the gym is in use. The gym is a pit
         design, with a few levels of “amphitheater” seating on three sides (the fourth side contains a
         stage). This is a design problem that should be addressed for any long-term use of this
         facility.
         The cafeteria dining area is small; the school has extended cafeteria service that limits
         instructional scheduling options.
         The design concept is similar to that found at Taylor Elementary; groups of 4 classrooms
         form pods, serviced by a dead-end hallway. The two back classrooms are larger than the
         two front rooms in each pod.
         Emergency window exits are provided for the back rooms, to an outdoor landing with steps
         to ground level. These would represent suitable emergency egress, but a very difficult exit
         for any person with a handicapping condition. The school should avoid placing
         handicapped staff or students in those rooms.

Genesis Partnership                                  page 41                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                                  Facility Study
         The pod rooms to the back generally meet current minimum state standards, while the two
         front rooms do not. All specialized instructional spaces are small, including computer labs,
         science, art, music, life skills rooms, literacy lab, reading specialist, ISS, and other similar
         spaces.
         Most support spaces are marginal to inadequate, including the library, counseling and
         conferencing spaces, tutorials spaces, clinic, ARI, staff work/break space, and storage.
         None of the existing classrooms have enough space to support the instructional program
         based on differentiating instruction and the integration of technology. About 45 percent of
         the permanent general classrooms are substandard, by state standards, for elementary school
         use
         The facility has aging systems and
         components, including finishes, fixtures, roof
         leaks, some casework and boards (using
         melamine for white boards), student
         restrooms, and acoustic needs (see adjacent
         photo).
         The newer wing, the 500s classrooms, was
         designed for primary classrooms, with sinks
         and toilet rooms; they range in size from 784
         square feet to 858 square feet.
                                                                  ‘Tired’ rooms; old casework, melamine boards…
         The old wing has many older finishes,
         including aging carpet in many places and some very narrow halls (some between 3’6” to
         3’9”). The center core of this old building has small rooms that are used by tutorials aides
         and various specialists, etc.
         Special education self-contained classrooms are accessed by two ramps that are non-
         conforming. The OT/PT room is even less accessible; it has steps up to the door.
         The local administration is concerned over site and building security; the facility backs up to
         wooded areas, creating a screen that could be used to disrupt school activities.




Genesis Partnership                             page 42                                                 Burleson ISD
                                                                                                       Facility Study
                                                      Table 5-F
                                                School Plant Profile
                                            Stribling Elementary School


        BUILDING FUNCTIONS

           Educational Adequacy                                                             78.0%

                 Safety & Health                                                                   84.7%

                      Accessibility                                                                84.6%

                        Efficiency                                                                83.3%

                        Flexibility                                                       75.8%

                      Appearance                                                                  83.1%



    BLDG. COMPOSITE SCORE                                                                       81.3%

                                  0.0%   10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%


         KEY
         90–100%              A school facility of exceptional quality
         70–89%               Serves program well; some minor or component improvements needed
         60–69%               Facility needs substantial or major rehabilitation
         46–59%               Complete renovation or replacement; a detailed study may be needed
         00–45%               Abandon and/or replace the facility


Comments/Deficiencies:
    This school is relatively new, dedicated in 1998, and is located on 19.9 acres (based on appraisal
    district records) off Renfro Street.
    Vehicular circulation is adequate, aided by a feeder drive from Renfro. Queuing is restricted to
    the drive, and apparently does not restrict traffic
    on the county road.
    Site spatial relationships are awkward; the gym
    and the cafeteria are both on the opposite side of
    the school plant from the area with the potential
    for playfields, leaving the school with poor
    internal circulation.
    The site has significant topographic issues; it falls
    away to a creek at the northern property
    boundary. The topography significantly restricts
    playfields; the site needs additional work to
                                                                            Playground has no level fields
    provide level playgrounds (see adjacent photo).


Genesis Partnership                                  page 43                                               Burleson ISD
                                                                                                          Facility Study
    The classrooms generally meet all state minimum standards at the time the facility was planned
    and constructed, both in the regular classrooms and the special classrooms. The school does
    have two portable classrooms on-site, currently used for a special education class and for the
    after-school-care program.
    The classrooms are too small, as configured, to support the desired elementary instructional
    program. The design could support expansion of the classrooms to support the district’s goals
    of differentiating instruction and the integration of technology.
    This attractive building (see adjacent photo) was
    not planned and sited to support substantial
    additional classroom space, limiting the potential
    to address the need for larger classrooms, as well
    as the space needed for the various support and
    pull out programs that are a part of the current
    district elementary school program. This will
    require a site and facility master plan to determine
    how to achieve the goal of larger classrooms
    efficiently and effectively.
    The library is smaller than the current revised
                                                                Attractive elevation; gym away from fields
    minimum state standards, although it did meet the
    less appropriate earlier standards.
    The program needs additional space, not only to move the programs housed in the portable
    classrooms, but to add a second computer lab, a self-contained special education room, and
    suitable space for the Accelerated Reader program.
    The school design allows noise to travel between rooms; teachers report the tendency for the
    traveling noise to occasionally interfere with instruction.
    An odor, one similar to sewage, is a recurring problem throughout the building; as of this
    writing, the source and solution have avoided discovery.
    Even though the school is relatively new; the electrical service needs enhancing. Rooms where
    teachers are striving to integrate technology need access to more service.
    As improvements are considered, the security of the school should be upgraded, given the
    relative remoteness of the school site.




Genesis Partnership                           page 44                                                 Burleson ISD
                                                                                                     Facility Study
                                                     Table 5-G
                                               School Plant Profile
                                             Taylor Elementary School


       BUILDING FUNCTIONS

          Educational Adequacy                                              60.3%

                Safety & Health                                                  65.3%

                      Accessibility                                                       73.9%

                        Efficiency                                                  68.1%

                        Flexibility                                                    71.8%

                      Appearance                                                    67.8%



   BLDG. COMPOSITE SCORE                                                          66.1%

                                  0.0%   10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%


         KEY
         90–100%               A school facility of exceptional quality
         70–89%                Serves program well; some minor or component improvements needed
         60–69%                Facility needs substantial or major rehabilitation
         46–59%                Complete renovation or replacement; a detailed study may be needed
         00–45%                Abandon and/or replace the facility

Comments/Deficiencies:
    This school was built in 1986, on a rectangular
    site of about 12.65 acres. The site has limited
    access off Alsbury Boulevard, too little parking
    and inadequate queuing for drop-offs and pick-
    ups (see adjacent photo).
    Traffic at this site appeared to be more congested
    than at any other school location.
    The playground has some erosion. Equipment
    includes styles that are considered unsafe for
    children, including geodesic domes, some jungle                         Pick-up time is near mayhem
    gym type of equipment, and old style swings
    (many appear to be original installation).
    The school is not handicapped accessible; there are non-conforming ramps, entries, hallways,
    and restrooms.
    This school has the gym open at one end to the school corridors; it is noisy, particularly for the
    adjacent classrooms.


Genesis Partnership                                   page 45                                              Burleson ISD
                                                                                                          Facility Study
    The restrooms show the impact of heavy use; ceramic wall tile are missing in a number of
    locations, leaving holes in restroom walls (see adjacent photo).
    The kindergarten area has a small common area
    with large classrooms, skylights do not show
    evidence of leaks, hallways are relatively wide
    with the exception of/by the kindergarten addition
    – there is a narrow hallway in front of that area.
    The school is overcrowded, and does not have
    adequate storage. Hallways are filled with
    storage; in many cases they are cubbies and
    cabinets that were moved out of crowded
    classrooms.
                                                                    Ceramic tile missing; leaves hole in wall
    The classrooms generally meet current state
    minimum standards for elementary classrooms; however, there is a severe classroom shortage at
    this school. In addition to 8 portable classrooms that should be replaced with permanent
    construction, the school needs space for an additional computer lab, a distance learning lab,
    literacy lab, math instructional support, and instructional materials storage (e.g., FOSS Kits).
    The school’s 8 portable classrooms create congestion at the access to the main building. The
    exterior walkways are protected somewhat by a cover and a canvas side curtain.
    The school has an undersized library and computer lab, inadequate counseling space, clinic,
    conferencing space, and music room; it has no suitable ISS space
    The teachers lounge is small, and it is being used for science storage, the bulky FOSS kits.
    There is some roof leak evidence.
    Lighting in the hallways is marginal. The mastic has released in these hallways as well,
    resulting in stretched carpet and protruding ripples.
    This school has halls that do not meet life-safety
    code requirements, restricting dead-end halls to a
    maximum length of 20 feet, to a cross hall. This
    condition exists in a number of classroom pod
    areas (see adjacent photo).
    The cafeteria dining area is small, with just one
    serving line; lunch is served for about 2. 5 hours,
    a handicap for scheduling instruction. There are
    recurring odors near the cafeteria that seem to be
    waste-line, sewer gas-like odors.
                                                                   Storage space needed; dead-end hall is unsafe
    Roof leaks are evident in this building,
    particularly on ceiling tiles at and in the teachers’ lounge, in front of the cafeteria and in the
    cafeteria itself




Genesis Partnership                             page 46                                                    Burleson ISD
                                                                                                          Facility Study
                                                    Table 5-H
                                                School Plant Profile
                                               Hughes Middle School


        BUILDING FUNCTIONS

           Educational Adequacy                                                    66.7%

                 Safety & Health                                                         73.6%

                      Accessibility                                                        75.0%

                        Efficiency                                                       73.3%

                        Flexibility                                                 68.4%

                      Appearance                                                       70.8%



    BLDG. COMPOSITE SCORE                                                              71.1%

                                  0.0%   10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%


         KEY
         90–100%              A school facility of exceptional quality
         70–89%               Serves program well; some minor or component improvements needed
         60–69%               Facility needs substantial or major rehabilitation
         46–59%               Complete renovation or replacement; a detailed study may be needed
         00–45%               Abandon and/or replace the facility



Comments/Deficiencies:
    Hughes Middle School was dedicated in 1970, designed to serve the pre-adolescent years,
    located on a marginally small site of 20 acres for the size and age of its planned students.
    The site fronts on Thomas Street, and is relatively close to the Mound Elementary School site.
    It is generally rectangular, with irregular and curving boundaries front and back, with a second
    access at the back of the site (Murphy Road). There is vehicular congestion; it is difficult to
    separate cars and buses, and to avoid queuing and
    pick-up congestion exacerbated by Mound
    Elementary traffic.
    There is evidence of some building settling; it
    does appear to be a more cosmetic condition than
    a concern.
    The major circulation corridors are adequate;
    some wider halls also serve as student commons
    areas, with gathering space and bench seating (see
    adjacent photo). There are, however, two                           Halls also serve as student commons spaces
    instances of dead-end halls where 6 classrooms do

Genesis Partnership                                  page 47                                                Burleson ISD
                                                                                                           Facility Study
    not have the required second emergency exit. The halls are relatively dreary, with poor lighting;
    there are some corridor skylights to illuminate with natural light.
    About 20 percent of the general academic classrooms are below state minimum standards,
    averaging about 30 square feet less than the standard. The average size of the rooms being used
    for regular academic instruction that are at or larger than the state minimum standard, average
    about 760 square feet.
    No classrooms on this campus are capable of supporting differentiated instruction and the
    integration of technology; the problem is exacerbated by large academic sections, with up to 34
    students in programs using standard classrooms.
    About 50 percent of the specialized classrooms
    are also of substandard size, some science labs,
    most computer labs, the art and drama rooms (see
    adjacent photo), and the distance learning lab.
    There is evidence of roof leaks and roof
    deterioration; the roof needs to be replaced (may
    have been completed by this time).
    The heating and cooling systems need replacing,
    there are plumbing problems, especially related to
    grease traps, the building has a history of termite     Small art lab colorful, but too little storage
    problems, chalk boards have deteriorated and
    often have been replaced by temporary white boards (melamine); the building’s
    communications system is problematic.
    The school’s age, condition, and score reflect the need for a thorough refurbishing. The district
    is encouraged to link any major refurbishing to a plan to reconfigure the building, to provide
    suitable classrooms large enough to support the district’s instructional program. This should
    also be consistent with the district’s facilities master plan, and the eventual use of this site and
    facility (middle school or elementary school use).
    Most drinking fountains are not handicapped
    accessible. The restrooms do not appear to be
    handicapped accessible, it is also the case with
    some classrooms (see adjacent photo). Access is
    marginal and they have not been modified.
    The administrative offices in the newer addition
    serve as counselor’s offices; provide a good
    counseling suite. Appears to have been a separate
    administrative unit at some point in the building’s
    history, when it appears this addition housed the
    ninth graders.                                                     Rooms not accessible; don’t have needed 18” clear

    Some newer floor tiles have mastic floating up at joints. The floor tiles in the original building
    are red and white (school colors), those colors transition to a less attractive darker beige tile in
    the 1985 addition.
    Hughes Middle School is one of the district’s schools that will need asbestos removal and
    abatement at such time as major refurbishing is done.


Genesis Partnership                                page 48                                                     Burleson ISD
                                                                                                              Facility Study
                                                            Table 5-I
                                                       School Plant Profile
                                                       Kerr Middle School


        BUILDING FUNCTIONS

          Educational Adequacy                                                   50.4%

                  Safety & Health                                                     55.2%

                      Accessibility                                                           63.0%

                        Efficiency                                                 52.5%

                        Flexibility                                           45.6%

                      Appearance                                                  51.3%



    BLDG. COMPOSITE SCORE                                                         51.8%

                                  0.0%     10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%


         KEY
         90–100%               A school facility of exceptional quality
         70–89%                Serves program well; some minor or component improvements needed
         60–69%                Facility needs substantial or major rehabilitation
         46–59%                Complete renovation or replacement; a detailed study may be needed
         00–45%                Abandon and/or replace the facility

Comments/Deficiencies:
    Kerr Middle School is a distressed and worn out
    building that has not been modified adequately to
    accommodate the changing program. This school
    has additions, built in segments that have an
    element of disconnect, other than being on the
    same site.



                                                                                  This view suggests a pleasant school environment

                                                                         The school, at one time housing both the
                                                                         district’s junior high and high schools, has no
                                                                         main entrance. The location of the cafeteria is
                                                                         such that deliveries and disposals occur near
                                                                         the school’s administrative offices. Garbage
          ‘Main’ entrance by kitchen dumpster; deteriorating
                                                                         collection is in this parking lot. A grease trap
                 pavement; not a welcoming approach
                                                                         overflows to a curb area in front of the
                                                                         administration building.

Genesis Partnership                                            page 49                                                     Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                          Facility Study
    Parking surfaces are very deteriorated, especially by the pick up of garbage, at the nominal
    ‘front’ of the building. The building, building segments and add-ons generally have resulted in
    a fairly inflexible school campus with significant needs.
    The campus has nearly all symptoms of deterioration in one or more of the buildings: the
    condition and levels of deterioration reflect years of overcrowding and heavy use
       the heating and cooling system needs complete replacement,




                                     Ceiling tile removed (on counter) – due to roof leak (above)
         some roofs need major repair - evidence of leaks/water damage seen throughout (100s, 200s,
         and 300s buildings),
         there is structural settling in the 100s and 200s
         buildings,
         electrical service is inadequate throughout,
         the complex has asbestos that makes some
         repairs/upgrades very expensive,
         plumbing and waste lines are deteriorated,
         almost without exception finishes and fixtures
         need full refurbishing,

                                                                                           Masonry wall shows settling movement


                                                                                 handicapped accessibility is an issue at
                                                                                 locations throughout,
                                                                                 exterior fascia board is deteriorating and
                                                                                 rotting.
                                                                                 some casement windows don’t function,
                                                                                 and others leak.
             Casement window frame damaged; plywood for glass


    Over 75 percent of the general academic classrooms are below state minimum standards, as
    small as 550 square feet. Most specialized classrooms are also of substandard size; 9 of 11
    science classrooms/labs are smaller than state minimum standards, and some serving lab
    functions are between 25 and 50 percent undersized.



Genesis Partnership                                          page 50                                                        Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                           Facility Study
    The original buildings did not anticipate the school’s growth and have narrow, double loaded
    (lockers) 10 foot-wide hallways that are inefficient and congested. Some classrooms have
    shallow rooms with 22 feet or less from the hallway wall to the outside wall, and are inefficient
    to expand, even if one wished to do so.
    No classrooms on this campus are capable of supporting differentiated instruction and the
    integration of technology; the problem is exacerbated by large academic sections, with up to 36
    students in programs using standard classrooms.




       Dressg. room bath, deteriorated, hot water heaters, urine trough                           Dressg. room locker base collapsing

    PE and athletic dressing areas are generally deteriorated and in a state of disrepair; dressing
    areas determined to be the most needed should be improved to create a safe and healthful
    environment.




                   Accessibility issues: classroom door does not have needed 18’’ clearance – hall ramp is not railed


    Handicapped accessibility is a challenge for this complex; building entrances do not meet
    accessibility requirements; some classrooms don’t have the required clearances at doors to allow
    room access, ramps in various locations are non-conforming – either too steep or without
    required handrails, and restrooms and fountains are not suitably modified.
    Central maintenance is on site, along with other services - they are using most of the high school
    vocational/shop space and at some point soon the district will be much better off if those
    services are relocated away from any school site to a separate site.
    The choir room is small for the program. They need a decent sized ensemble room. The room
    itself is small, with the exception that it would probably hold the students, but the teacher
    involves the students in some dance and choreography for presentations and need adjacent

Genesis Partnership                                               page 51                                                          Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                                  Facility Study
    available space for that purpose. They really need a larger space to accommodate 60 students
    and allow that activity.
    Some on-site custodial management practices
    seem counterproductive. Restrooms are locked
    down in a retaliatory spirit because they are
    judged to be abused by students. One could also
    easily make the argument that they are abused by
    students because they are locked down and often
    not available.
    The seats in the auditorium and gym are
    apparently no longer manufactured and
    replacement parts cannot be purchased. The
    maintenance of those has not been organized so              Student restroom padlocked during school day
    that one area has replacement seats and the
    remaining seats are used for salvage, the broken seats are simply left scattered throughout the
    seating areas and not repaired.
    The old high school stadium has been allowed to deteriorate. Elements of the grandstands are
    not needed, and because they are not needed they have not been repaired; they are in a state of
    disrepair that has created unsafe conditions. Probably the best alternative would be for the
    district to reduce the seating and maintain that reduced amount in an appropriate manner.
    This facility is educationally and economically
    obsolete; it has a disconnected and discouraging
    environment. These buildings should be taken
    out of service as soon as possible. These
    buildings are not reasonable candidates for
    renovation; no section of the various additions has
    enough flexibility to serve as the core of a
    redeveloped school on this site.




                                                                   Kerr’s character - science room with folding tables &
                                                                  chairs; melamine white boards, light fixture out; poor
                                                                     demonstration desk – feels much like a neglected
                                                                                        after-thought.




                      School has a disjointed feeling




Genesis Partnership                                     page 52                                               Burleson ISD
                                                                                                             Facility Study
                                                     Table 5-J
                                                School Plant Profile
                                               Burleson High School


       BUILDING FUNCTIONS

          Educational Adequacy                                                              76.2%

                Safety & Health                                                                      85.8%

                      Accessibility                                                                  86.4%

                        Efficiency                                                                  84.5%

                        Flexibility                                                         77.0%

                      Appearance                                                                       88.5%



   BLDG. COMPOSITE SCORE                                                                         81.6%

                                  0.0%   10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%


         KEY
         90–100%               A school facility of exceptional quality
         70–89%                Serves program well; some minor or component improvements needed
         60–69%                Facility needs substantial or major rehabilitation
         46–59%                Complete renovation or replacement; a detailed study may be needed
         00–45%                Abandon and/or replace the facility


Comments/Deficiencies:
    The new high school, dedicated and opened in 1997, is located on a 79.43 acre site at Wilshire
    Boulevard and John Jones Drive. The site also houses the district transportation facility and the
    central administrative offices on about 8 acres of the site. The site size is marginally adequate
    for a full-service high school of a size consistent with the district’s planning criteria.
    The site is rectangular, with primary access from three drives on John Jones Drive, with limited
    access from Wilshire Boulevard. Vehicular circulation is generally separated, with primary
    student parking in the lot shared as stadium
    parking.
    The building is a handsome design, with generally
    quality materials and equipment. The school was
    designed to house a program conceived in the
    early 1990s, and it appears to support that model
    well.
    Unfortunately, the program has progressed to new
    instructional concepts, different teaching
    strategies, additional offerings, and larger class
    sections. The original configuration did not                        Handsome design, with masonry detailing

Genesis Partnership                                   page 53                                                Burleson ISD
                                                                                                            Facility Study
    anticipate some of the significant changes, and cannot easily respond to some needed
    modifications without reducing the projected capacity when constructed.
                                                                         The site does have some drainage problems,
                                                                         and ground water run-off does collect on the
                                                                         student/stadium lot. It is likely that the
                                                                         collecting water may be part of required
                                                                         retention and flood control; however parts of
                                                                         the lot are not useable/accessible during
                                                                         periods of run-off.
                                                                         Generally, the building’s finishes and
                                                                         systems have aged well, and do not yet need
                                                                         significant refurbishing, except for some
                 Tiles around delivery vent starting to soil
                                                                         minor face-lifting.
    Circulation within the building seems to flow
    reasonably well, with no bottlenecks noted.
    The classrooms were designed to nominally meet
    the state minimum standards in place at the time
    of design and construction; about 35 percent are
    nominally below state minimum standards at an
    average of 686 square feet, vs. the 700 square foot
    minimum (for up to 25 pupils). The remaining
    general use classrooms average over the state
    minimum standard. The significant shortages are         Students move easily in most of building
    the result of large sections; 40 percent of the
    school’s sections using regular academic classrooms have between 26 and 36 pupils enrolled.
    The specialized classrooms generally meet or
    exceed minimum standards for those functions.
    The difficulty rests with evolving programs,
    whose requirements are often different than those
    of the spaces available. More often, the design
    does not have enough spaces to provide the
    needed space.
    An example of that shortage is: the science labs
    are adequate, but because of the size student body
    and changing state requirements, the school needs                             Science lecture/lab meets state standards
    between 2 and 3 more science lecture labs.
    Programs needing new/more spaces include science, media technology, PE mat/dance room, 2nd
    life skills lab, two math labs (Agile Mind program), two open computer labs, expanded theater
    arts space, and the ISS program a larger room.
    CATE programs that need additional space or modified space include; health sciences program
    lab for EMT training, criminal justice lab, and a CAD lab with fabrication work area.
    Some support spaces are also in need of more room, including offices, where the school vault
    and conference rooms have been converted from their intended use for needed offices.


Genesis Partnership                                            page 54                                                  Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                       Facility Study
    The special education behavioral classroom needs a self-contained restroom; the program needs
    a conference room to be used for ARDs and added spaces for special education resource
    programs.
    The cumulative need for these additional or
    changed spaces represents space equal to about 24
    average general academic classrooms.
    The school will likely need both modifications to
    the existing classroom space and some additions,
    to accommodate the program and house a high
    school of the size indicated by the district’s
    adopted planning criteria.
    The school will also need access to the
    approximately 8 acres now being used by central              Well designed & appointed auditorium
    administrative services, to provide stadium
    support and parking; otherwise the district may absorb a needed practice field to expand
    parking.
    Even in new facilities, design and construction
    miscues can occur. The slope of the sidewalk
    from the north parking into the building appears
    to make it a ramp, but it was not built to conform
    to ramp requirements, with handrails for support.
    This lot offers parking for the cosmetology
    clients, some of whom are elderly; negotiating the
    walk may be quite challenging for some.


                                                                     Sidewalk slope would benefit from handrails




Genesis Partnership                              page 55                                                   Burleson ISD
                                                                                                          Facility Study
                                                     Table 5-K
                                                School Plant Profile
                                                Crossroads School


        BUILDING FUNCTIONS

          Educational Adequacy                                                             73.2%

                 Safety & Health                                                                         87.1%

                      Accessibility                                                       71.7%

                        Efficiency                                                           74.7%

                        Flexibility                                                       72.3%

                      Appearance                                                                     82.8%



    BLDG. COMPOSITE SCORE                                                                     75.9%

                                  0.0%   10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%


         KEY
         90–100%              A school facility of exceptional quality
         70–89%               Serves program well; some minor or component improvements needed
         60–69%               Facility needs substantial or major rehabilitation
         46–59%               Complete renovation or replacement; a detailed study may be needed
         00–45%               Abandon and/or replace the facility


Comments/Deficiencies:
    The facility is on a relatively small site of 4.5
    acres; site has some erosion, as soils have not
    been stabilized by a stand of grass.(see adjacent
    photo).
    The building was planned as an alternative
    education center, with some expansion potential.
    It is currently housing both the voluntary AEP
    program and the mandated DAEP program.
    Access to this site is restricted to the quiet streets
    of a residential neighborhood, a potential                     Erosion is occurring on sides of site-pad
    problem, especially if the programs grow in
    population as the district grows.
    The instructional spaces are relatively small (about 500 square feet); minimally suitable for the
    DAEP program, as long as staffing levels keep section size at 10 or fewer.



Genesis Partnership                                  page 56                                                    Burleson ISD
                                                                                                               Facility Study
    Smaller spaces are generally not planned for the voluntary AEP program, as students attending
    this program are generally self-motivated students with work or other responsibilities. (see
    adjacent photo).
    As the school district grows, this facility is unlikely to be capable of housing both programs,
    regardless of planned expansion.
    These programs need relatively little outdoor
    support space; DAEP programs typically have
    indoor and/or outdoor spaces for some
    physical activity (usually provided as a
    necessary ‘release’ for these students).
    The AEP programs generally have ½ day
    students whose focus is on completing
    diploma or GED requirements as quickly as
    they can, often on managed independent
    study, and their schedules are flexible. This
    program needs adequate parking and access to
    public transportation, if such is available.         New facility has limited expansion & parking

    The district may consider alternate locations for the AEP program as it grows/outgrows the
    space at Crossroads, locations that are more accessible and visible.
    If the programs are to stay together, then, as program participation grows, this facility might
    serve other centralized functions, or it might be a candidate for liquidation.


Summary of Conditions

Over-use accelerates aging and obsolescence, shortens expected useful life. Delaying component
replacement accelerates aging and obsolescence, shortens expected useful life. Both are OK, as
long as the reality of a shorter useful life is acknowledged and accepted. In some ways, allowing
deterioration to accelerate may not be harmful, if the resulting facility is made more malleable to
change and more supportive of change.

The district has three existing facilities that should be completely replaced at the first opportunity.
It has another group of four facilities that are 30+ years old, and, without attention and significant
investment will fall into the ‘need to replace as soon as possible’ group within about 10 years.
Finally, it has four newer facilities that need some modifications to significant modifications to
create instructionally supportive environments in 2006, environments that are in keeping with the
vision of the district’s planning criteria.

It is easy to say growth is coming and we need to be ready to address it – and that is definitely true.
It is more difficult to acknowledge that the district has an inventory of schools and buildings, all
with varying degrees of need – now, from replacement to refurbishing and remodeling. Consider
steps you can commit to in order to begin the process of getting out of the hole while addressing
growth.



Genesis Partnership                           page 57                                                    Burleson ISD
                                                                                                        Facility Study
                                                                                Section VI –
                                                                            CAPACITIES OF
                                                                       EXISTING FACILITIES


Background
Capacity analysis of the school plant is based on nationally accepted standards and procedures
modified to be consistent with state standards, space requirements adopted by the State Board of
Education, and local policies that are reflected in the current and/or anticipated curriculum
offerings.

The space requirements approved by the State Board of Education are divided into two categories:
Classrooms and Specialized Areas (see Preface).

The capacity of a school reflects the ability of the building(s) to accommodate the program it
currently houses. A variety of issues influence the capacity of a facility, including small core
facilities, resource programs, advanced placement programs, too few or inadequate laboratories,
athletic periods, pupil scheduling, and graduation requirements. Among the most common issues
reducing a school’s capacity are resource programs and the adequacy and capacity of special areas.
Refer to the Preface for a more detailed discussion of these influences and the methodology for
calculating school capacities.

The capacity of each building is calculated based on both the number of pupil stations and the
number of classroom equivalent teaching stations required by the current program. The data are
gathered and recorded on a worksheet, samples of which are included in the Appendix. The pupil
station capacity measure is the basic evaluation tool for secondary and departmentalized programs
(and for all schools with classrooms much smaller than the state minimum standards shown in the
Preface); the teacher station capacity measure is used for elementary schools (also the alternate
measure for secondary schools).

For smaller schools with departmentalized programs and for schools with small classrooms and/or
labs, the results of both calculations are examined to determine which is more appropriate to the
situation. Experience suggests that for smaller schools and/or programs with an unusually high
number of offerings, capacity by teaching stations is the more accurate measure. Schools with
small teaching stations are often more accurately measured by the pupil stations measure.
Normally, the measurement procedure that generates the smaller capacity is reported as the school’s
capacity.

At some facilities, the available classrooms and total pupil stations could include portable buildings.
They are excluded when summarizing permanent facility assets.




Genesis Partnership                           page 58                                      Burleson ISD
                                                                                          Facility Study
Factors Effecting Use of School Capacity Information
It is appropriate to restate this study’s assumption regarding the state minimum size standards.
They are used as one measure for existing spaces, assuming that these rooms will be used for the
general instructional program for their reasonable useful life.

However, the state standards are intended only as minimum standards for contemporary educational
programs. They were not intended to accommodate differentiated instruction, technology, inclusion
and similar program directions that require more space than the minimum standards provide. In
fact, the Commissioner’s Rules encourage school districts to provide extra space, beyond the
minimum standard, if classroom computers, projectors, monitors, and other types of instructional
equipment are to be in the basic classroom. By extension, in order to be successful teaching
students to succeed with Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills (TEKS), teachers find it is both
desirable and necessary to instruct addressing each student’s unique weaknesses, and in that process
organizing some learning activities around small group instruction. Normally, each small group
takes on its own distinctiveness; its topic is specific, its life is usually short but varying, and the
groupings change regularly and constantly. This generally functions best with 3-4 small group
break-out spaces (or interest centers) within the general academic classroom, and that is specifically
where Burleson is or intends to be, at all grade levels.

Burleson ISD Program Profile Facility Implications
Burleson ISD’s program profile has been reported in Section IV of this report, where it delineates
the instructional expectations and programs.

Because Burleson ISD does have a significant inventory of classrooms that does not meet the
current state minimum standards, and has virtually no classrooms with the space needed for the
combination of break-out spaces and room to accommodate the class sizes, capacities are reported
two ways. The first capacity calculation (Standards Capacity) makes adjustments for spaces that are
smaller than minimum standards, or simply not available, for all instructional and instructional
support spaces. The second capacity calculation (Instructional Capacity) reflects the capacity of the
existing schools if they were made up of classrooms large enough to accommodate differentiated
instruction and other instructional and instructional support space shortages. To differentiate, the
first capacity calculation that reflects meeting current state minimum standards has been called the
“Standards Capacity”, while the capacity of the school if it were to support differentiated
instruction is called the “Instructional Capacity”.

A critical element of a schools capacity is the size of the rooms, for both regular academic
instruction, and those needing specialized spaces or labs. For illustration purposes, Figure 2, which
follows, only addresses the general academic classrooms, and reports the number of general
classrooms that are smaller than the current state minimum standards, on a school-by-school basis.

At the elementary school level, the district offers a variety of instructional support programs, to
meet the unique needs of the various student populations. The following Figure identifies the
variety of programs encountered during this facilities study. Two issues are identified that have
direct implications for the capacities of respective schools.



Genesis Partnership                           page 59                                      Burleson ISD
                                                                                          Facility Study
                                                 Figure 2
                                     Substandard Academic Classrooms
                                                                                    Academic Classrooms        progr.standards
                           Year     Cumul. Ave Acad Small Acad Large Acad % Below     # acad.     below stand.   900 s/f ES,
       School/Site        Opened     Score Classroom Classroom Classroom Standard   classrooms acad. classrms. 950 s/f MS/HS
       Academy/Dunn       1923      46.6% 652           566       1,050 79.2%           24            19               2
       Bransom            2002      85.1% 743           690          920 58.6%          29            17               0
       Frazier            1963      48.6% 642           604       1,163 52.4%           21            11               0
       Mound              1962      64.7% 721           637          774 34.4%          32            11               0
       Norwood            1976      63.4% 746           616          877 44.1%          34            15               0
       Stribling          1998      81.3% 751           709          878 0.0%           32             0               0
       Taylor             1986      66.1% 765           708          981 0.0%           32             0               0
       Hughes             1970      71.1% 740           640          877 27.9%          43            12               0
       Kerr               1957      51.8% 664           500       1,050 88.6%           44            39               1
       High School        1997      81.6% 719           674          893 33.3%          81            27               0

                                                 Figure 3
                                   Elementary Reduced Capacity Programs

                                            Burleson ISD
                                    Elementary Support Programs,
                                     both Mandated and Elective,
                           Using between .5 and 2.0 Classroom Equivalents
              1   art lab                          3 are typically in "rotation"
              2   music room                       3 are typically in "rotation"
              3   gym                              3 are typically in "rotation"
              3   Spanish/Art                      3 are typically in "rotation"
              3   computer lab                     3 are typically in "rotation"
              4   ISS                              May part of required discipline plan
              5   Spanish                          instructional enrichment
              6   computer lab(s)                  TEKS
              7   SE/resource                      Mandated
              8   SE/inclusion                     Mandated
              9   SE/CMC                           Mandated
             10   SE-SC/Life Skills/PPCD           Mandated
             11   SE-SC/E.D.                       Mandated
             12   ESL                              Mandated
             13   distance learning lab            instructional enrichment
             14   science lab                      Part of expanded TEKS, instructional enrichment
             15   Reading specialists              instructional enrichment
             16   Waterford Lab                    instructional enrichment
             17   Math specialist/tutorials        instructional enrichment
             18   Literacy lab/library             instructional enrichment
             19   ARI lab                          instructional enrichment
             20   T.A.G.                           instructional enrichment
             21   Parents/Volunteers/PTO           instructional enrichment
             22   after school program             Instructional enrichment and community service


Genesis Partnership                                    page 60                                                        Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                     Facility Study
First, a number of elementary schools do not have adequate space to house the programs. In a few
instances, programs were not available because of the lack of suitable space. More often, however,
the programs are housed in conditions that do not support proper use or implementation.

Second, the district recognizes that some programs are used to support students’ learning until a
more effective alternative has been developed or identified, but these types of programs will always
need to be housed and available. At the point of this study, just over 1/3rd of the elementary
classrooms were being used to house programs that either have no effective capacity (take pupils
out of their classrooms temporarily, e.g., music, computer lab, etc.) or have a very limited capacity
(e.g., SE/life skills). Figure 4 enumerates the varying elementary programs in place at the district’s
schools.

Different issues confront the secondary, departmentalized schools, and Burleson ISD must also deal
with them. The issues that impact and restrain capacity can be categorized as 1) room use related
and 2) section size related.

Room use related constraints revolve around the schedule and scheduling. Room use can diminish
for the following reasons. Full room use is compromised by
    1. Offerings that involve a large segment of the students, such as band or athletics, leaving
       fewer students available to be placed in all other offerings - will result in empty classrooms;
       conversely when no such courses are competing for students, more rooms/sections are
       needed,
    2. Block scheduling and/or middle school concept scheduling; both extend the planning time
       for staff and reduce slightly, the ability to schedule and staff course offerings (particularly if
       teachers have no place to work except classroom), and
    3. Policies regarding when or at what minimum membership will courses be staffed and
       offered, and related policies regarding “0” hour or “8th” hour offerings.

Section size related constraints are much like the proverbial ‘two-edged sword’. Figure 4 identifies
the average section size at each of the middle schools and the high school. Note that these levels of
section size are at higher levels than are typically found in secondary programs. An average section
size of all other middle schools/junior high schools evaluated to date is 17.8 pupils, and the
corresponding average section size for all other high schools is 16.7 pupils.

Burleson ISD’s schools have larger average section sizes than those averages; the middle schools
have an average section size of 22.8 pupils, and the high school has an average section size of 19.3
pupils. There are various issues that account for this. However, an important consequence of
higher than average section sizes is a larger number of sections with more students than the
maximum than the standards address (22:1 EE-gr.4, and 25:1 gr. 5-12). In the case of Burleson ISD
secondary schools, the analysis found the following percentages of large sections.




Genesis Partnership                            page 61                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                            Facility Study
                                          Figure 4
                               Large Secondary Class Sections

                                                      26 plus   31 plus
                             Hughes MS                 42%       5%
                             Kerr MS                   41%       27%
                             Burleson HS               40%       12%
                             Average                  40.9%


Forty-one percent of the general academic sections in the three schools have 26 or more students,
and nearly 15 percent have 31 or more students enrolled. Some regular academic classes have as
many as 36 pupils in a section, and labs have as many as 38 students in a section. Although these
high numbers may be the result of budgetary constraints, the district should be aware of the number
of classes that exceed the maximum design load of the state standards, and make every effort to
respond to the Commissioner’s recommendation that classroom size be determined by the largest
groups expected. In the case of Burleson ISD, plan secondary classrooms to accommodate at least
30 students (30 students x 28 square feet = 840 square feet), PLUS added space to allow four
breakout spaces (+ 200 square feet), the basis of the “instructional capacity”.

Figure 5 shows that the number and percent of small general academic classrooms is not necessarily
related to the age of the school. Stribling and Taylor elementary schools classrooms all conform to
the state minimum standards. The High School and Bransom Elementary are also new, and were
built after the standards were in place; even though they have a relatively high percent of non-
conforming general classrooms, the small rooms are only marginally small, no smaller than 690
square feet (vs. 700 square feet) at Bransom, and no smaller than 675 square feet (vs. 700 square
feet) at the High School. Most schools that score low also have a high percent of substandard size
rooms, and they tend to be significantly undersized by comparison. For example, two of the lowest
scoring schools, Kerr MS (51.8%) and the Academy (46.6%), have a high percent of substandard
size rooms (78% and 81% respectively), and the substandard rooms are as much as 200 square feet
too small (vs. 700 square feet). The light yellow horizontal line references the state minimum
standard size for general academic classrooms, for reference purposes.




Genesis Partnership                         page 62                                     Burleson ISD
                                                                                       Facility Study
                                              Figure 5
                          General Classrooms Smaller than State Minimum Size


                          % substandard classrms.                     composite score                  small size (S/F)

   100.0%                                                                                                                             900
    90.0%                    85.1%                                                                                                    800
              80.8%                                                        81.3%                                              81.6%
                                                                                                           77.8%
    80.0%                                                                                                                             700
                                                                                                  71.1%
    70.0%                                          64.7%                               66.1%
                                                              63.4%                                                                   600
    60.0%
                                        48.6%                                                                      51.8%              500
    50.0%         46.6%   47.1%                            44.8%
                                     40.0%                                                                                            400
    40.0%                                                                                                                  35.1%
                                                29.5%                                                                                 300
    30.0%
                                                                                               20.7%
    20.0%                                                                                                                             200

    10.0%                                                                                                                             100
                                                                        0.0%        0.0%
     0.0%                                                                                                                             0
             Academy Bransom         Frazier    Mound      Norwood      Stribling   Taylor     Hughes        Kerr           High
                                                                                                                           School




Burleson ISD School Capacities
The “standards capacity” of the schools in Burleson ISD was determined by applying standard
capacity measures, which are described on the previous pages and in more detail in the Preface. It
should be noted that room utilization data in this study is based on information furnished by the
central administration and the school principals as of the fall of the 2004-05 school year.

Making adjustments for small existing classrooms and space deficiencies where necessary and
reflecting the current district staffing practices, the district has an overall net deficiency of up to -
1,048 pupil stations vs. state standards (Standards Capacity). In terms of classroom teaching
stations compared to state standards, the district has a net overall deficiency of approximately -47
teaching stations. If the schools’ capacities are adjusted to reflect the space needed to support the
district’s instructional initiatives and differentiating instruction, the current overall net deficiency
would grow to about -2,473 pupil stations and about -111 teaching stations. These shortfalls will
continue to grow as the district’s enrollment increases and, based on the mid-range 10-year
projections, the net overall deficiency will grow to -3622 pupil stations and a deficiency of
approximately -162 teaching stations.

Burleson ISD has a backlog of significant facilities needs. A program of replacement and
upgrading should be initiated as soon as possible, in order to prepare for the growth that seems
inevitable. The school capacity calculations are reported on the following tables and discussed in
more detail under Capacity Comments.

It is important to understand that the following capacities assume that the current programs and
student bodies would remain at the respective locations. The diminished capacities really indicate

Genesis Partnership                                        page 63                                                            Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                             Facility Study
 the scope of additions and/remodeling necessary at the respective school sites if they were to
 adequately house the current programs and student population. The additional space required is
 represented in classroom equivalents, and does not indicate the specific kinds of space that would
 be most appropriate, or if the school and site have the capacity to be renovated/expanded. That
 issue is more directly addressed as part of the condition and educational adequacy analysis and in
 the best use assessment.

                                                 Table 6
                         Capacity Analysis (Standards Capacity) by Pupil Stations
                                               Burleson ISD
                                        2004-05            Portable     Pupil Statns.        Pupil Statns. Pupil Stns.   Permanent              Available
                             Grades    Total F.T.E.        Classrms     Lost to Bldg         Absorbed by lost: Portables Operational             Pupil
          School             Housed    Membersh.            on Site     Deficiencies*        Program** or Substandard Capacity                  Stations
 Academy-Nola Dunn           PK-5        501                10             (116)              (135)          (193)         395                  (106)
 Bransom ES                  PK-5        520                 0             (115)              (134)            0           441                   (79)
 Frazier ES                  PK-5        337                 4              (84)              (209)           (84)         280                   (57)
 Mound ES                    PK-5        520                 2              (90)              (161)           (36)         410                  (110)
 Norwood ES                  PK-5        567                 2             (105)              (251)           (42)         470                   (97)
 Stribling ES                PK-5        438                 2              (80)              (179)           (40)         392                   (46)
 Taylor ES                   PK-5        660                 8             (122)              (224)          (163)         487                  (173)
 Hughes MS                    6-8        761                 0             (114)              (147)            0           874                   113
 Kerr MS                      6-8        992                 0              (21)              (122)            0           905                   (87)
 Burleson HS                 9-12       2,161                0              (49)              (208)            0          1,760                 (401)
 TOTALS                                 7,457               28             (895)             (1,771)         (557)        6,414                (1,043)

 *   Deficiencies: pupil stations designated to provide for space deficiencies in libraries, cafeteria, labs, resource
     programs, etc. Where existing buildings cannot reasonably accommodate the space deficiency, the need may not
     be deducted; such deficiencies need to be met through an addition.
**   Capacity absorbed by program refers to classrooms/teaching stations used for programs that add no capacity,
     such as music and title programs in schools with self-contained rooms, and content mastery in schools with
     departmentalized programs (see discussion of this issue on page v of the Preface).

                                                 Table 7
                       Capacity Analysis (Standards Capacity) by Teaching Stations
                                              Burleson ISD

                                   Total Tchg. Tchg. Statns. Tchg. Statns. Tchg. Statns.             Net Perm.      Current     Available Tchg. Statns.
                          Grades    Stations      lost to    Absorbed by lost: Pull-out              Teaching     Prog. Needs Teaching Capacity to          Capacity
        School            Housed    On-site Deficiencies* Program** or Substandard                    Stations   [tchg. statns] Stations Pupil Statns.      Shortfall
Academy-Nola Dunn         PK-5         34             6                7                10             11           26           (15)        375            (126)
Bransom ES                PK-5         34             6                7                0              21           28            (7)        417            (103)
Frazier ES                PK-5         36             4               10                4              18           16             2         266             (71)
Mound ES                  PK-5         38             5                9                2              22           28            (6)        410            (110)
Norwood ES                PK-5         42             5               12                2              23           29            (6)        488             (79)
Stribling ES              PK-5         37             4                9                2              22           23            (1)        402             (36)
Taylor ES                 PK-5         44             6               11                8              19           31           (12)        430            (230)
Hughes MS                  6-8         53             6                8                0              39           33             6          881            120
Kerr MS                    6-8         65             1                6                0              58           47            11          992             (0)
Burleson HS               9-12        122             3               11                 0            108           102            6         1906           (255)
TOTALS                                505             46              90                28            341           363          (47)       6,567           (890)



 Genesis Partnership                                                  page 64                                                                   Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                                               Facility Study
*      Deficiencies: teaching stations designated to provide for space deficiencies in libraries, cafeteria, labs, resource programs, etc. Where
       existing buildings cannot reasonably accommodate the space deficiency, the need may not be deducted; such deficiencies need to be
       met through an addition.
**     Capacity absorbed by program refers to classrooms/teaching stations used for programs that add no capacity, such as music and title
       programs in schools with self-contained rooms, and content mastery in schools with departmentalized programs (see discussion of this
       issue on page v of the Preface.)


     The district’s school cumulative “standards capacities” are below current levels of need. The need
     is from enrollment growth, from small to marginal classrooms, from small and inappropriate labs
     and special spaces, and from additional programs and substantial program changes put in place
     since the schools were constructed. When compared to the more important BISD instructional
     program needs (“instructional capacity”), all schools are overcrowded and will remain overcrowded
     until the district provides both new facilities and renovations/additions as appropriate.

     Capacity Comments
     The following comments help further explain why the individual school “standards capacities”
     reported in the two tables above may be lower than one might expect. They reflect the fact that
     schools today have more programs to support instruction that require their own spaces and have no
     capacity (see discussion of resource programs in the Preface), such as resource, dyslexia, ESL, Title
     I, content mastery, gifted/talented, etc. There also have been changes in membership limits, such as
     the 22:1 ratio up through grade 4. Capacities are also impacted by the minimum room size
     standards the state adopted in 1994. The state bases its minimum room sizes for academic
     classrooms on a maximum of 22 pupils for PK–grade 4 and a maximum of 25 pupils for grades 5–
     12; however, these minimum sizes are not sufficient to accommodate differentiated instruction,
     classroom technology, and computers.

     Virtually all of the permanent classrooms are smaller than needed to support the district’s
     instructional program (the “instructional capacity”). Burleson ISD’s instructional delivery and
     technology integration goals need larger classrooms. Generally, small group break-out spaces
     should have approximately 50–55 square feet of available space, and most classrooms should
     provide up to four such spaces, for the various differentiated activities. The district is encouraged to
     consider providing 200–250 square feet above current state minimum standards in general academic
     rooms for grades 2–12, resulting in general classrooms of 900–950 square feet. And 1,000 square
     feet for schools where the larger academic sections will be larger than 25 pupils.

     Following is a summary of issues impacting the capacity of the district’s facilities, in varying
     degrees at the respective schools.
            Small general classrooms
            Small specialized labs and spaces
            Insufficient number of spaces for instructional support programs
            Inadequate staff support spaces.
            Inadequate libraries.
            Inadequate spaces for special education programs and for at-risk students.
            Inadequate PE and athletic support spaces and dressing.
            Portable classrooms in place of permanent construction
            Inadequate infrastructure, cafeteria/kitchen, commons, etc.
            Site issues
     Genesis Partnership                                         page 65                                                     Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                            Facility Study
                                                 Table 8-A
                         Elementary Capacities Adjusted to the Instructional Capacity




                                                                                                                            d']




                                                                                                                            ts
                                                                                                                        l-ou
                                                                                                                       ede




                                                                                                                     Pul
                                                                                                                     Ne
                                                                                                                d ['




                                                                                                                by
                                                                                                                ts



                                                                                                              ed'

                                                                                                            ske
                                                                                                            len
                                                   to




                                                                                                          sed
                                                                                                        eed




                                                                                                            s
                                     ls" gned




                                                                                                        iva




                                                                                                      tion
                                                                                                      &A

                                                                                                         ut




                                                                                                     sU
                                            re




                                                                                                   ll-o
                                                                                                  s 'N
                                                                                                  Equ
                                        Sco
                                         LS




                                                                                                Sec

                                                                                                 om


                                                                                                 ity
                                          i




                                                                                                 ing
                              hor Ass




                                                                                               Pu
                                                                                              out
                                      OO




                                                                                            ram
                                                         city




                                                                                             Ro

                                                                                          pac
                                                                                            om




                                                                                            xist
                                   tion




                                                                                          om
                          AR ISD




                                                                                          per
                                                                                          ull-
                          & 'S lents
                                 CH




                                 tfal




                                                                                        rog
                                                                                        sro




                                                                                        tal
                                                                                      of E




                                                                                      ero
                                                       pa




                                                                                      Ca
                               lua




                                                                                     er P




                                                                                     pils
                                N
                              YS




                                                                 ts




                                                                                   f To
                                                                                    las




                                                                                    tP
                               a


                                                    Ca




                                                                                  om
                   ME ESO




                            Eva




                                                             l-ou
                  tab quiv




                                                                                  tal




                                                                                 nal
                                                                               ils p




                                                                               , Pu
                                                                               l-ou
                                                                              in C




                                                                              eo
                                                                              fH
                                                                            , To
                                                   rds

                                                          Pul




                                                                          ctio
                         ve
              ELE URL




              Por m. E
                       ent
                       NT




                                                                         Pup




                                                                          atio
                                                                          Pul




                                                                          tag
                                                                         er o
                      les




                                                                          ts,
                     lati




                                                                        uts
                       a

                                                             g
                  ollm




                                                                      cen
                                                                     l-ou
                   nd




                                                                      tru
                                                                    v. R
                                                        stin
                    B




                                                                      ed
                 ssr
                 mu




                                                                    mb
                                                                    tio,




                                                                   ll-o
                                                                 Add
              Sta




                                                                 Ins
              Enr




                                                                 Per
              Cla




                                                                 Pul
                                                    Exi
              Cu




                                                                 Ra




                                                                 Re

                                                                 Nu
                                                                 Pu
1 Academy                46.6%   501   -16   375     7           7    71.6          9    55.7   25     28%    299
     Academy needs...                                                         2
2 Bransom                85.1%   520   -6    417     8           8    65.0         12    43.3   27     34%    349
     Bransom needs…                                                           4
3 Frazier                48.6%   337   -8    266 10              11   33.7         13    25.9   17     46%    202
       Frazier needs…                                                         3
4 Mound                  64.7%   410   -7    410     9           8    45.6         11    37.3   24     34%    320
       Mound needs…                                                           2
5 Norwood                63.4%   567   -7    470 12              13   47.3         16    35.4   29     38%    385
     Norwood needs…                                                           4
6 Stribling              81.3%   438   -6    392     9           10   48.7         12    36.5   21     39%    308
      Stribling needs…                                                        3
7 Taylor              66.1%      660   -14   430 11              10   60.0         14    47.1   29     36%    350
        Taylor needs…                                                         3




Genesis Partnership                                          page 66                                                     Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                        Facility Study
                                                         Table 8-B
                          Secondary Capacities Adjusted to the Instructional Capacity




                                                                          alls

                                                                       eds
                                                                     ortf

                                                                    Ne
                                                                   Sh
                                                                 es



                                                               ram
                                                               to '
                                                            pac
                                                            pils

                                                               d
                                                          erio




                                                           rog
                                                          ned
                                                        rd S
                                                         Pu




                                                       DP
                                                      st P




                                                     ssig
                                                       re




                                                    26+




                                                   nda
                                                  Sco




                                                 BIS
                                                  sie
                                                  LS




                                               ts A
                                               atio

                                               ith




                                              sta




                                              ity
                                             OO




                                           t Bu
                                           tion




                                            ing
                                         sw
                                 Y S SD




                                          len
                                          ity




                                        nR
                                             s




                                        pac
                                       Sub
                                       om
                                       CH




                                       eet
                                      da
                                      lua




                                   pac




                                     iva
                                        I




                                    ion
                                  ctio
                        ND SON




                                   Ca
                                  Ro




                                 tM
                                 t to
                                ede
                                Eva




                               Equ
                                ect
                               Ca




                              -Se




                              nal
                             city




                             Los




                             Los
                             AR




                            Ne
               SE URLE




                           ic S
                            ve




                          rds
                          ent




                        oom
                         t-to




                       ctio
                       apa
                       lati




                        ity




                        ity
                        ns
                    dem
                    ollm


                    nda




                    den




                   pac




                   pac
                   CO




                    ssr
                   ctio




                   tru
                     B




                   mu




                   n-c



               Aca
               Enr


               Sta




               Stu




               Cla




               In s
               Cu




               No




               Ca




               Ca
               Se
  8 Hughes MS                 71.1%   761   874     8   22.8 42%    33    -12         -174       700
     Hughes MS needs                                                             3
  9 Kerr MS                   51.8%   992   905     4   22.8 41%    47    -102        -341       564
     Kerr MS needs                                                               7
10a Burleson HS (Block)       81.6% 2,161 1,760     6   19.3 40%    102   -116        -362      1,397
     Burleson HS needs.                                                          23          (98,800 S/F)
10b Burleson HS (traditni.)           2,161 1,890   6   19.3              -116        -410      1,480
    Burleson HS needs.                                                           23          (104,000 S/F)
       NOTE 1: The High School shows two calculations; the first is based on the block scheduling in place at the
        time of this study, and the second has been adjusted to reflect the likely capacity of the school using a
        traditional 7 period day schedule.
       NOTE 2: Within the Capacity column a square footage number appears in parenthesis; this number
        estimates the square feet that would be typically needed as an addition, to offer enough space under the
        roof to accommodate the “Instructional Capacity” to the “Standards Capacity” enrollment.



  Enrollment Projections and Existing Facilities
  The following tables compare the current and projected enrollments in each of the schools to their
  respective capacities. The capacities utilized are the lower of the “standards capacity” calculations
  based on teaching stations (classrooms) or pupil stations (desks) from Tables 6 and 7. The current
  overcrowding is generally the result of (1) instructional program expansion and changes, (2) too few
  and/or too small permanent academic classrooms, (3) too few and/or too small special spaces, and
  (4) too little instructional support space.

  Tables 8 and 9, which follow, show the current and forecasted student enrollments graphically
  relative to the schools capacity (at the 100% line) to each other and the percentage that each is
  overcrowded, based on the “standards capacities”. Table 8 illustrates that six of the schools are now
  seriously overcrowded (in excess of 115 percent of capacity), and in ten years all but Stribling and
  Kerr are projected to be intolerably overcrowded. The capacities reported for the schools in ten
  years assume that all schools would continue to be useable, even though three should be out of
  service for the regular instructional program, as they now exist.




  Genesis Partnership                                     page 67                                             Burleson ISD
                                                                                                             Facility Study
                                                          Table 9
                                              School Overcrowding Percentages


          275%                                                                             253%
          250%
          225%
          200%                                                                                                                185%
                                              179%                163%
          175%               159%                                                     153%
                 134%                                    147%
          150%       133%         127%                                                                  136%
                         125%                               121%             112%                                 112% 123%
          125%                                                                                                 110%
                                                 100%                               95%            87%
          100%
                                                                                                                                             2004-05
          75%
                                                                                                                                             2114-15
          50%
          25%
           0%

                                                                             ES
                 ES


                              S




                                                                                                                            S
                                                                                                   S
                                                    ES


                                                                 ES




                                                                                                                S
                                                                                          ES
                                      ES
                            mE




                                                                                                                             nH
                                                                                                    sM


                                                                                                                rM
                                                                                g
                 ND




                                                und


                                                              od
                                         r




                                                                                      lor
                                                                          ibli n
                                     zi e




                                                                                                            Ker


                                                                                                                         leso
                                                                                                 ghe
                         nso




                                                           rwo




                                                                                    Tay
                 y




                                              Mo
                                  Fra




                                                                      Str
              dem




                                                                                               Hu
                      Bra




                                                                                                                     Bur
                                                         No
           Aca




Table 8 shows each school’s overcrowding by the number of actual and forecast students, and
relative to each other. The same information that is reported in percentiles by school on Table 9 is
reported by the number of students on Table 10.

                                                          Table 10
                                             School Overcrowding in Pupil Counts

                                                Capacity         2004-05            2114-15
  3,500                                                                                                                                      3,257

  3,000

  2,500
                                                                                                                                     2,161
  2,000                                                                                                                           1,760

  1,500                                                                                                          1,190
                                                                                                    1,090                       1,010
                                                                                                               874            992
                                                                                                               761          905
  1,000                                                            766                            660
              501498    520661          476
                                                                567
                                                       410602 470         438
            375                                                                                 430
    500
                     417              337            410               392 371
                                   266

      0
            Academy Bransom          Frazier         Mound      Norwood             Stribling Taylor ES Hughes              Kerr MS Burleson
             ND ES     ES              ES             ES          ES                   ES                 MS                          HS




Genesis Partnership                                                   page 68                                                                   Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                                               Facility Study
Tables 6 through 10 reporting capacity information assume that most identified deficiencies will be
corrected using existing space in the school to the extent possible, but just to the “standards
capacity” levels. This helps illustrate the extent of the need for long-term improvements to resolve
the space shortages, especially if the district chooses to achieve “instructional capacity” levels.


Summary of Capacities

The capacities section points out the buildings’ deficiencies, created by growth, but even more the
result of instructional program changes and teaching strategies to respond to the demands of Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills and the No Child Left Behind initiatives.

The actual capacities, both the Standards Capacities and the Instructional Capacities, reflect the cost
in space to accommodate the varying levels of instructional changes. They also point out the need
to plan school facilities with flexibility, so that as change occurs, the facilities can change their
configuration to support the new instructional models.

Thirty years ago this flexibility was targeted by one initiative toward module construction;
demountable partitions (wall panels) were a very visible product of that effort. The demountable
partitions fell out of favor because of their initial cost, and the reality that change occurred more
slowly than projected. They were also very expensive for the limited flexibility the offered.
However, that design initiative did identify means to support relatively inexpensive changes over
the life of a building. It is those lessons that are needed to influence design today, utilizing the
technology of today.

The district will do well to begin a process of creating guidelines to support flexibility in all its new
schools. The ideas explored might address such concepts as:
   a) Flexibility in the delivery of utilities
   b) Minimum structural modules, while design-specific, common to that campus.
   c) Pseudopodial designs; designs that are planned for the potential of growing/expanding, or
      contracting.
   d) Site master-planning for potential expansion (and contraction).
   e) Designs with alternate use potential, a convertibility factor.
   f) Planning for the anticipated program at opening, not the program in place this year or last
      year.
Hopefully, these will serve as food-for-thought.

If one reflects on the three newest campuses developed in the District, while the buildings are
attractive and were built with good materials and quality, the issues that are arising in their first 10
years of operation relate to
         Spaces needed for program changes that were not anticipated
         Spaces needed for new programs that were not anticipated
         Existing spaces needing modification from program redirection
         Space adjustments, to address growing concerns, such as security, larger sections, growing
         school year, and improved spatial relationships for program changes and initiatives.



Genesis Partnership                            page 69                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                            Facility Study
                                                                                     Section VII –
                                                                                       BEST USE

This study analyzes your district’s facilities compared to state and other established standards, and it
identifies the range of deficiencies compared to those standards. The nature of a deficiency analysis
is to draw attention to items that do not meet the standards. Because the report identifies
shortcomings, the reader should not misunderstand that all is wrong with the district’s schools. It is
the function of this analysis to report shortcomings in relation to adequately housing the district’s
current instructional program.

Findings: Best Use(s) of Existing Facilities
In order to utilize all existing suitable facilities and grounds to their maximum as part of a
comprehensive long-range plan, the survey team evaluated the facilities regarding best uses.

In considering long-term best use a key to evaluating any existing building relates to producing
suitably sized classrooms within its walls. The building’s bay-depth is usually critical to efficient
modernization; existing buildings with less than 24 feet or 26 feet (with narrow and congesting
halls), are usually not good candidates for upgrading. Also, the heating, cooling, electrical, and
plumbing system need some flexibility to changes in the number and sizes of rooms, etc. Also,
consideration is given to a return on the taxpayer’s investment: Will the anticipated cost extend the
useful life of the building long enough to make the investment sensible?

Classroom size should support your district’s instructional program; districts evaluating this have
generally concluded that 900–1,000 square feet is a desirable target, allowing space for the basic
classroom group (700 square feet) and additional space for student computers, monitors, etc. This
additional space will allow for six or more individual computer stations, or up to four small-group
computer stations (four students each), small-group interest/study centers, etc.

Generally, older buildings with spaces that do not meet current program needs, and have limited
flexibility, have lost their long-term usefulness to the instructional program and the school children
of the community. They then may have a recycled use, generally for a use with a much lower level
of occupancy. Lower occupancies often reduce the demands on the buildings systems, prolonging
their lives without major refurbishing. Such uses are typically for offices, storage and warehousing,
often for the school district or for some other local governmental agency. Occasionally, other uses
will materialize, including homes for local historical societies, but often the community must face
the reality that no need exists locally that can functionally use an aged facility and it must be razed.
Communities should avoid owning an “attractive nuisance” and assuming the moral and financial
liability that can come with that.

The task of determining best use for Burleson ISD existing inventory of school buildings is subject
to a long-range site acquisition plan. The district has adopted planning criteria that have defined the
school levels and organization, into a feeder plan of three EE-5 elementary schools of 400-550
pupils, feeding one 6-8 middle school of 600-800 students, and two 6-8 middle schools feeding one
9-12 high school of 1,400-1,900 pupils (refer to Figure 2 in Section IV of this study).


Genesis Partnership                           page 70                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                           Facility Study
                                                     Table 11
                                      Building Composite Scores Compared to
                                     Educational Adequacy and Flexibility Scores

                                           COMPOSITE SCORE              Flexibility   Educational Adequacy
   90.0%
   80.0%
   70.0%
   60.0%
   50.0%
   40.0%
   30.0%
   20.0%
   10.0%
    0.0%
                                  ES




                                                                   ES
                      ES




                                                                                                              S
                                                                                 ES
                                                       ES




                                                                                                                           S
           ES




                                                                                                    S
                                           ES




                                                                                                              M




                                                                                                                          H
                                                                                               sM
                               er
                      m




                                                                  g
                                                      d




                                                                              or
           y




                                                                                                                       n
                                          nd




                                                                                                           rr
                                                                in
                                                   oo
          m




                                 i




                                                                                                                     so
                   so




                                                                           yl




                                                                                                e
                              az




                                                                                                        Ke
                                       ou




                                                             bl
       de




                                                                                             gh
                                                  rw




                                                                                                                    rle
                 an




                                                                        Ta
                           Fr




                                                             ri
                                       M
       a




                                                                                          Hu
               Br




                                               No




                                                                                                                  Bu
                                                          St
    Ac




Table 11 addresses the two critical segments regarding all the district’s schools. This comparison is
important to all facilities, but especially to schools where both the educational adequacy and plant
flexibility score below the 60th percentile and are lower than the facility’s composite score. While
the facility scores are just indicators, and not finally definitive, it is most common that facilities
with that condition either are now or are about to become educationally and economically obsolete.
Certainly, it is possible to refurbish them, but in terms of the return in use versus the cost of the
upgrading, it is almost always a better and more cost effective use of the taxpayers’ money to
replace such facilities.

In this context, the best uses are related to the relative condition of existing facilities, and to the
room sizes and configuration. The scores on Table 11 identify three schools where the combination
of relative scores and the composite clearly indicate they should receive the highest priority, and
should be replaced as soon as possible; those are the Academy at Nola Dunn, Frazier Elementary,
and Kerr Middle School.

The next three schools are marginal, approaching obsolescence, and include Mound, Norwood, and
Taylor elementary schools. These three schools will need to be evaluated carefully, as their relative
structural design, site size, and relative location on the respective sites will impact whether they
should be planned for renovations and additions, for full replacement, or for relocation. As a
general guide, the district should make a careful evaluation and cost the possible improvements, in
order to determine the best approach; and they should probably be planned for major attention
within the next 10 years.

As part of the more detailed analysis of these three schools, Burleson ISD may consider using a
more detailed analysis like the Facility Condition Index (FCI), or similar, in conjunction with an

Genesis Partnership                                               page 71                                              Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                      Facility Study
architectural master plan study of the school and site. The combination of an FCI and an
architectural master plan of the remaining facilities would also be helpful, as part of a
comprehensive facilities master plan. In addition, if there is concern that any of the three
recommended for immediate replacement (Dunn, Frazier, and Kerr) are candidates for major
remodeling, then an FCI would be very valuable information in determining the most cost effective
route to a supportive and functional school.

• The Academy at Nola Dunn — This facility is educationally and economically obsolete and
  should be abandoned for regular program use; the site should be evaluated, based on its limited
  size and its location to old downtown, for redevelopment and long-term use or for liquidation.
  Its long-term use also relates to 1) the need for a school in this geographic area and 2) the
  district’s commitment to the Academy concept, and how the Academy concept fits within the
  EE-12 instructional programs – at all levels.
• Bransom Elementary School — This facility is the newest school, and should serve the district
  for many years as an elementary school. The design does have apparent limitations that should
  be addressed; it does not have enough classrooms or large enough instructional spaces to house
  the district’s instructional model and elementary program. Limitations from the site (terrain) and
  the design may restrict expansion that will be needed to support the elementary instructional
  program.
• Frazier Elementary School — This facility is educationally and economically obsolete and
  should be abandoned for regular program use; the school/site should be evaluated, based on its
  limited size, for alternative low-occupancy uses. It should not be considered for redevelopment
  as an elementary school unless a school is needed in this geographic area and this site is the best
  of available options. Any re-use of this site should be planned, recognizing the impact of high
  school vehicular traffic using Hillside Drive.
• Mound Elementary School — This facility scores at a marginal level and will need major
  renovation or redevelopment in the next 10-15 years. The site is small; the building appears to
  have some structural flexibility. A combination of factors suggests it is probably not a candidate
  for long-term use or for redevelopment. However, if the location is appropriate, analyze and
  master-plan the site and facilities for possible remodeling/redevelopment, including an objective
  analysis of costs based on an FCI or similar tool.
• Norwood Elementary School — This facility also scores at a marginal level and will need
  major renovation or redevelopment in the next 10-15 years. The site is probably suitable for
  redevelopment; the building has some structural rigidity and may not lend itself to renovation.
  The site is currently on the fringe of the neighborhood, and it should be confirmed as an
  appropriate location for an elementary school prior to any decision. And before reaching a final
  decision on remodeling/additions vs. redevelopment, the improvements and site should be
  analyzed objectively, with refurbishing option costs based on an FCI or similar tool.
• Stribling Elementary School — This facility is also a newer school, and should serve the
  district for many years as an elementary school. Generally the rooms meet state minimum
  standards, and the design appears to have the flexibility to adapt to the larger spaces needed to
  support the district’s differentiated instruction and integration of technology. However, the site
  has substantial terrain variations and the building is sited so that the limited field/playground
  space is away from the gym and cafeteria, most often near fields because of their relationship to
  PE and lunch play-breaks. Playfields need to be better developed, including by the gym.

Genesis Partnership                          page 72                                      Burleson ISD
                                                                                         Facility Study
• Taylor Elementary School — This facility is 20 years old and in need of major refurbishing, in
  part from overcrowding and the accelerated wear-and-tear from that. The building design has
  some limitations, it is too small for a full-service elementary school, and is poorly sited to
  accommodate the school’s vehicular traffic. This site is suitable for expansion or redevelopment,
  but the site should be carefully master-planned to address parking and vehicular circulation as
  part of any improvements program.
• Hughes Middle School — This school was built in 1970, scores just above the 70th percentile
  range, the only of the older, pre-1990 schools in Burleson ISD to score that high. It is on a site of
  a size (20 AC) more appropriate for use as an elementary location. However, the facility can
  continue to serve the middle school program in the near term, it is the most functional of the
  older schools. It has some flexibility, and may be able to be cost-effectively modernized and
  expanded for long-term use. Depending on appropriate location of middle schools for the
  district at build-out, this location could also serve as a suitable long-term elementary school.
• Kerr Middle School — This facility was previously the district’s high school, until 1997; it is
  on a 35.6 acre site, shared with some district centralized functions, including maintenance. The
  site is adequate for middle school use. The buildings, however, score as educationally and
  economically obsolete, and as one of the three district schools that should be replaced as soon as
  possible. The site is adequate for redevelopment; it is also relatively close to Hughes Middle
  School (they are less than 1 mile apart). It is possible that the district will not need two middle
  schools in this neighborhood at build-out, and this site would be appropriate for redeveloping as
  a middle school, compared to the Hughes site.
• Burleson High School — Burleson High opened as the new district high school in 1997. It is
  generally a good facility that will serve secondary program needs for many years. The school
  plant was built to approximate state minimum standards at the time it was planned and
  constructed. About 35 percent of the academic classrooms are nominally smaller than state
  minimum standards (average 686 sq. ft. vs. 700 sq. ft. minimum standard); the majority average
  737 square feet. Likewise, the majority of the computer labs and the science labs meet current
  state minimum standards. However, the general academic classrooms are functionally small,
  based on both the size of larger high school sections and on the need for differentiating
  instruction and integrating technology. The facility does have sufficient design flexibility to
  allow eventual modification of academic classrooms so they can accommodate both the district’s
  secondary instructional program and larger section sizes. It may require some added space at
  that time, again depending on the size school the feeder schools generate. The facilities master
  plan should include provisions to upgrade and expand the classrooms at the time it is completing
  its second high school, when the district may have the temporary capacity to allow a phased
  modernization of this facility.
• Crossroads School — This facility scores lower than expected, for a relatively new facility to
  house district DAEP and AEP programs. The facility is undersized, based on the assessed and
  projected need for these programs; it has limited flexibility, and is located so access is through
  residential neighborhood streets designed to carry local traffic only. The facility has the potential
  for a number of uses, particularly uses that minimize traffic through the neighborhoods.

If the needs resulting from aging buildings and systems are not addressed, six of the district’s
schools will be economically or educationally obsolete buildings within 10 years. The district needs
to address projected growth, as well as existing space needs and program needs; Burleson ISD
should become as aggressive with the process of replacing and upgrading schools for long-term use,
Genesis Partnership                           page 73                                      Burleson ISD
                                                                                          Facility Study
as it will be in addressing forecast growth needs. The district should also strive to locate schools in a
manner that will facilitate appropriate economic balance between schools/attendance areas.
Solutions for both program and space needs should be based on well-defined planning criteria that
support the district’s instructional program and values. Burleson ISD has recently adopted such
planning criteria; the task will be to respect them and relentlessly focus on them in order to
have school facilities that actually achieve the criteria.




Genesis Partnership                            page 74                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                            Facility Study
                                                                                      Section VIII –
                                                                                SITE EVALUATIONS


Findings: Application of Site Criteria to Existing Schools
Site size is a serious concern for Burleson ISD. When considering useable acreage (adjusted for
easements, drainage, irregular terrain and irregular shape) together with appropriate vehicular and
pedestrian access, the majority of the existing sites have significant challenges. The gross acreage
for each site is reported on Table 12, which follows

                                                 Table 12
                                          School Sites, Acreage 1

                                                         District/      Year
                               School/Site               Tax Data      Opened
                               Administration                           1987
                               High School                    79.43     1997
                               Bransom                       102.91     2002
                               Crossroads                      4.85     2003
                               Frazier                           7.4    1963
                               Hughes                            20     1970
                               Kerr                           35.61     1960
                               Mound                             7.1    1962
                               Nola Dunn                           9    1923
                               Norwood                        12.37     1976
                               Stribling                     19.906     1998
                               Taylor                        12.653     1986

                               McAllister Rd                 15.000
                               Oakgrove Rd                   14.954
                               West Bend                     17.324
                               R000596 (unknown)             14.329
1   Site information from Johnson Appraisal District, the Tarrant Appraisal District, Burleson City Tax
    Records, and Burleson ISD records.

The district’s sites can be compared to the state recommended size standards on the following table:

        Elementary Schools                10 acres, plus 1 acre for every 100 pupils expected
        Middle/Junior High Schools        20 acres, plus 1 acre for every 100 pupils expected
        High Schools                      30 acres, plus 1 acre for every 100 pupils expected


These standards are for usable or buildable sites and are recommended by TEA, as well as various
professional organizations. They are intended to provide room for (1) the building and related
improvements; (2) activities fields including physical education fields, hard surface, and apparatus
areas; (3) access, queuing lanes, driveways, and parking; and (4) performance/competition facilities,
as appropriate. The aspect ratio of sites (rectangular 3:5 length-to-width ratio preferred maximum)
also should be considered when evaluating sites, meeting minimum acceptable ratios with
Genesis Partnership                               page 75                                          Burleson ISD
                                                                                                  Facility Study
adjustments up in size for irregular shapes, steep slopes, easements, set-backs, poor soils, wetlands,
and on-site sewer or water. Also, if a stadium and associated parking are planned on-site, the site
should have an added 10 acres or more of useable land.

Findings: Application of Site Criteria to Potential School Sites
As the district evaluates new sites and existing sites for development or redevelopment, it should
establish site criteria, and make every effort to approximate their criteria in each acquisition. When
sites are evaluated, the district should have the following information to consider;
        Plat maps,
        Topographic survey,
        Environmental assessment, and
        Soils analysis.
If the site is judged to be challenging or borderline, consider developing a preliminary site master
plan to either confirm or rule out the site as an appropriate alternative.

Following is an example of site selection and evaluation criteria
    1.     Program considerations – the single most important issue; will the site meet the
           planning criteria and instructional program needs?
    2.     Centrality and/or accessibility – safe and easily accessed, both for bused students (target
           30 to 60 minutes; shorter for youngest riders), as well as for walk-ins.
    3.     Soils – quality, stability, water table, vegetation, arable.
    4.     Topography – slopes, drainage, floodplain, bottom land, wetlands, and elevation of
           ingress/egress.
    5.     Access to utilities – sewer and water can be especially critical and/or expensive.
    6.     Paved access – all-weather, improved streets, preferably 2 to 3 routes of access; should
           include separate walking paths if adjacent/close to residential development.
    7.     Police, fire, refuse services.
    8.     Zoning/development of adjacent land – is it a suitable environment for a school?
    9.     Size – always think ‘USEABLE’ acres; most Texas sites have 70-75 percent that is
           useable, so also think oversized.
    10.    Configuration – rectangular is best; the maximum recommended ratio (length to width)
           is 2:1; 1.5:1 is the preferred maximum ratio. Sites that are longer and narrower must be
           carefully master-planned to ensure usability, before acquisition.
    11.    Cost vs. cost-as-developed – consider both developed cost of land (off-site and site
           preparation costs), as well as long-term busing costs.
    12.    Acquisition/use decision – base on planning criteria and the long-term facility plan;
           essential to wise investment of community tax dollars.

To make the most effective use of financial capacity, it is critical that Burleson ISD create a site
master plan for the long-term. Decisions related to the term of continued use, as well as phasing
remodeling, redevelopment, or replacement of existing schools should be made in the context of

Genesis Partnership                              page 76                                     Burleson ISD
                                                                                            Facility Study
supporting the districts’ long-term organizational goals and the instructional delivery and teaching
strategies model.

Realize that two different kinds of pressure will probably develop from the projected growth. The
most obvious pressure will be to provide enough schools/classrooms to house the influx. The
second pressure relates to a community’s expectations related to parity and equity of opportunity.
As newer schools become more supportive of the district’s instructional program, parents and
students in existing schools will raise their expectations to the perceived advantages, and begin to
expect, and in some cases, demand improvements in the name of parity and equality. This
reinforces the need for Planning Criteria 8, discussed in Section II of this report.


Burleson ISD Sites

The following pages include aerial photographs of the district’s known sites, along with brief
comments about its size and probable usability. The sites are presented in two groups. First, the
reader will find the currently developed school sites. The second group contains parcels that are
vacant and are potentially developable.

Special consideration should be given the balance of the 102.9 acre parcel located on S Hurst Road
at East Renfro (Route 3391). Overall, this site has a relatively poor aspect ratio, which will reduce
the effective useable acreage. Bransom Elementary occupies the southerly portion, estimated to be
nearly 30 of the 100+ acres available. Much of this acreage has very limited usefulness to the
elementary school, because of the slopes and topography of this portion of the site.

If one assumes there may be up to 65 useable acres remaining (providing a 5-10 acre buffer, as
Bransom is at the northern boundary of the 30 acres), an appropriate use will also need to consider
the area and vehicular traffic patterns. Renfro Road, which is the northern boundary of the
property, is planned to become a major, six-lane regional arterial. In addition, South Hurst Road
will be a 4-lane road. These streets are slated to carry significant traffic, especially Renfro. Safe
and effective access to the undeveloped portion the 102.9 acres will be limited to Hurst Road, which
is already impacted by school-day traffic. The balance of the useable site is too small for a full-
service high school, based on the district’s planning criteria and the limitations of the site. In
addition, traffic circulation would be very difficult and congested.

The balance of this site may have better uses. One obvious alternative would be to develop a
middle school on this parcel. And as the site is larger than needed for a middle school, the district
should consider the northern portion of the site for liquidation. It could have either commercial or
religious applications. Whatever the potential use, the district is urged to support restrictions that
would prevent businesses that are considered inappropriate as school neighbors.

Site aerials and evaluative comments follow




Genesis Partnership                           page 77                                      Burleson ISD
                                                                                          Facility Study
                                            Table 13–A
                                   The Academy at Nola Dunn Site




                                                            DISCLAIMER
                                                            This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                 NCTCOG Maps                official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                            information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                www.dfwmaps.com             accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                            or implied as to the accuracy of said data.




                                          Academy at Nola Dunn
    • Site is 9 acres, ‘L’ shaped, with access on all property boundaries
    • Site shape and location of the improvements should allow rebuilding with new school
    • There is a long-term issue about the appropriateness of this location for a school (and potential
      land value), if old downtown redevelops.

Genesis Partnership                             page 78                                                                 Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                       Facility Study
                                            Table 13–B
                                      Bransom Elementary Site




                                                             DISCLAIMER
                                                             This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                  NCTCOG Maps                official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                             information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                 www.dfwmaps.com             accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                             or implied as to the accuracy of said data.



                                           Bransom Elementary
    • Part of a larger 102.9 acre site
    • It is estimated to use about 30-35 acres of the available 102.9 acre parcel.
    • Portion of the site with ES has limited expansion potential, principally due to terrain
    • The adjacent remaining acres may serve a MS; with frontage on County Road 600 some
      commercial zoning?
Genesis Partnership                             page 79                                                                  Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                        Facility Study
                                              Table 13–C
                                        Frazier Elementary Site




                                                             DISCLAIMER
                                                             This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                  NCTCOG Maps                official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                             information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                 www.dfwmaps.com             accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                             or implied as to the accuracy of said data.




                                            Frazier Elementary
    • Site is approximately 7.4 acres; gets HS traffic passing.
    • The site is land-locked, no practical expansion.
    • The site is too small for redevelopment, unless no better options exist.
    • Any redevelopment will require razing the existing buildings.

Genesis Partnership                             page 80                                                                  Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                        Facility Study
                                            Table 13–D
                                        Mound Elementary Site




                                                            DISCLAIMER
                                                            This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                 NCTCOG Maps                official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                            information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                www.dfwmaps.com             accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                            or implied as to the accuracy of said data.



                                            Mound Elementary
    • Site is about 7.1 acres; next to small park-site; generally rectangular.
    • More acreage and siting could allow additions & long-term rebuilding; otherwise, very difficult to
      use.
    • Location suggests alternate use potential.


Genesis Partnership                             page 81                                                                 Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                       Facility Study
                                            Table 13–E
                                      Norwood Elementary Site




                                                             DISCLAIMER
                                                             This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                  NCTCOG Maps                official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                             information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                 www.dfwmaps.com             accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                             or implied as to the accuracy of said data.



                                           Norwood Elementary
    • Site is 12.37 acres; irregular shape, with limited access and perimeter location.
    • Will be difficult to redevelop with additions.
    • Acreage and siting would allow remodeling and updating – producing a low capacity school.



Genesis Partnership                             page 82                                                                  Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                        Facility Study
                                               Table 13–F
                                       Stribling Elementary Site




                                                             DISCLAIMER
                                                             This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                  NCTCOG Maps                official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                             information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                 www.dfwmaps.com             accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                             or implied as to the accuracy of said data.




                                           Stribling Elementary
    • Site is 19.9 acres; much acreage is lost to access road and terrain issues.
    • Site should be developed with suitable playfields.
    • Site will always have compromised spatial relationship issues.



Genesis Partnership                             page 83                                                                  Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                        Facility Study
                                            Table 13–G
                                       Taylor Elementary Site




                                                           DISCLAIMER
                                                           This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                 NCTCOG Maps               official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                           information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                www.dfwmaps.com            accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                           or implied as to the accuracy of said data.




                                            Taylor Elementary
    • The site is 12.65 acres; rectangular, with very limited access & parking.
    • Location on major street & poor access will make circulation difficult.
    • Acreage and siting of existing improvements should allow additions and/or long-term rebuilding.



Genesis Partnership                            page 84                                                                 Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                      Facility Study
                                            Table 13–H
                                      Hughes Middle School Site




                                                               DISCLAIMER
                                                               This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                  NCTCOG Maps                  official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                               information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                 www.dfwmaps.com               accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                               or implied as to the accuracy of said data.



                                           Hughes Middle School
    • The site is 20 acres – small for middle school use; could be redeveloped as elementary school.
    • Site looses some useable acres to its irregular shape.
    • Has very limited potential for expansion of buildings.



Genesis Partnership                             page 85                                                                    Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                          Facility Study
                                                  Table 13–I
                                            Kerr Middle School Site




                                                                 DISCLAIMER
                                                                 This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                        NCTCOG Maps              official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                                 information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                       www.dfwmaps.com           accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                                 or implied as to the accuracy of said data.



                                                  Kerr Middle School
             •        35.6 acres shape reduces usefulness
             •        Houses central functions, including
                            + maintenance                 + technology
                            + printing                    + community education
             •        Has Redevelopment Potential…


Genesis Partnership                                 page 86                                                                  Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                            Facility Study
                                             Table 13–J
                                      Burleson High School Site




                                                            DISCLAIMER
                                                            This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                 NCTCOG Maps                official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                            information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                www.dfwmaps.com             accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                            or implied as to the accuracy of said data.



                                           Burleson High School
    • Site is 79.43 acres; loss of useable function given other improvements
    • Relatively little expansion potential; limited to existing infrastructure
    • Stadium needs more parking; consider east side visitor parking
    • Spring sports fields need up-grading; reorient to create sports complex
    • Central administration & transportation should move off this site.

Genesis Partnership                            page 87                                                                  Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                       Facility Study
                                              Table 13–K
                                            Crossroads Site




                                                             DISCLAIMER
                                                             This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                  NCTCOG Maps                official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                             information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                 www.dfwmaps.com             accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                             or implied as to the accuracy of said data.



                                                Crossroads
    • Site is small; 4.85 acres, suitable for use in a support roll
    • Site access is limited, and by passing through quiet residential streets
    • Location is unusual for DAEP and AEP programs (typically easy access in visible location);
      confirm suitability of this location before any facility expansion.


Genesis Partnership                             page 88                                                                  Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                        Facility Study
                                            Table 13–L
                                        Anderson Survey Site




                                                            DISCLAIMER
                                                            This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                 NCTCOG Maps                official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                            information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                www.dfwmaps.com             accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                            or implied as to the accuracy of said data.




                          102.9 Acre Anderson Survey/Bransom Elementary Site
    • About 30-35 acres of south end occupied by Bransom Elementary (visible in photo).
    • Remainder has poor aspect ratio: would need very careful planning.
    • Limited points of potential vehicular access further reduce usability.
    • Abuts Renfro to the north; will become 6-lane major arterial roadway.
Genesis Partnership                             page 89                                                                 Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                       Facility Study
                                             Table 13–M
                                          McAlister Road Site




                                                              DISCLAIMER
                                                              This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                  NCTCOG Maps                 official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                              information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                                 www.dfwmaps.com              accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                              or implied as to the accuracy of said data.



                                          521 McAlister Road Site
  • 15.0 acre site fronting on McAlister Road; suitable for elementary school.
  • Generally a good aspect ratio; access limited to McAlister Road frontage.
  • Consider developing a 2nd access road on either property line to improve traffic flow.
  • Site generally flat; be sensitive to positive site drainage for improvements.

Genesis Partnership                              page 90                                                                  Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                         Facility Study
                                            Table 13–N
                                        Oak Grove Road Site




                                                         DISCLAIMER
                                                         This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                              NCTCOG Maps                official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                         information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                             www.dfwmaps.com             accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                         or implied as to the accuracy of said data.




                                           Oak Grove Road Site
    • 14.64 acre site; gas line easement runs diagonally inside westerly boundary.
    • Marginally suitable for elementary school; will need careful site master planning.
    • Aspect ratio poor; site more rectangular than desired.
    • Limited frontage; consider a second access road on north or south property line for good traffic
      queuing and flow
Genesis Partnership                            page 91                                                               Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                    Facility Study
                                             Table 13–O
                                            West Bend Site




                                                           DISCLAIMER
                                                           This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various
                                NCTCOG Maps                official and unofficial sources were used to gather this
                                                           information. Every effort was made to ensure the
                               www.dfwmaps.com             accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given
                                                           or implied as to the accuracy of said data.



                                        West Bend Subdivision Site
  • 17.21 acres; modest usable acres lost to drainage easement and shape.
  • Generally rectangular; backs up to residential lots on 3 sides; suitable for elementary.
  • Limited access, on Summercrest Blvd. only; may have sidewalk access through one neighborhood.
  • Site has modest fall (7 foot elevation) northerly to southerly.


Genesis Partnership                             page 92                                                                Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                      Facility Study
                                                                              Section IX –
                                                                       CONCLUSIONS AND
                                                                        CONSIDERATIONS



Findings: Scope of Burleson ISD’s Space Needs
If the district is to meet the housing shortfalls, Burleson ISD will need to enter a construction and
rehabilitation program in the immediate future. If the needs resulting from aging buildings and
systems are not addressed, six of the district’s schools are or will be economically or educationally
obsolete buildings within 10 years. The district needs to address projected growth, as well as
existing space needs and program needs; Burleson ISD should become as aggressive with the
process of replacing and upgrading schools for long-term use, as it will be in addressing forecast
growth needs. The district should also strive to locate schools in a manner that will facilitate
appropriate economic balance between schools/attendance areas. Solutions for both program and
space needs should be based on well-defined planning criteria that support the district’s
instructional program and values. Burleson ISD has recently adopted such planning criteria;
the task will be to respect them and relentlessly focus on them in order to have school facilities
that actually achieve the criteria.

The district has much of the information it needs to establish a facilities master plan. This report
contains added data that will be helpful in that process.

A typical master plan schedule, applied to Burleson ISD, follows in the text box on the next page.
This is presented for illustrative purposes, to represent common major threads that Burleson ISD
has already addressed, and those it may wish to include in their planning. This simulated master
plan is not specifically recommended, although the elements include issues the district is
encouraged to address in developing a master plan.




Genesis Partnership                          page 93                                      Burleson ISD
                                                                                         Facility Study
                                                                         Year 1                                               Year 2                                               Year 3
                             Year-Month                                  1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 1-10 1-11 1-12 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 2-11 2-12 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12
                             Develop Conprehensive Facility Plan
                             Establish Planning Parameters
                              Community Input Meetings                            cc cc
                             Consultant Facility Study (baseline data)




       Genesis Partnership
                             Consultant Demographic Forecasts
                             Facility Master Plan
                             Community Committee (if used)                                          cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
                             Adoption of Master Plan
                              Community Input Meetings                                                                    cc cc cc
                             Bond Election Support Committee                                                              cc cc cc cc cc
                             Pre-Bond Community Meetings
                             Bond Amounts Established
                             Bond Election Called

                             Select Design Team
                              + Architect
                              + Program Manager
                              + Bond Counsel
                             Develop Educ. Progr. & EdSpecs
                             Prelim. Programming (EdSpecs)




      page 94
                             Final Programming (EdSpecs)
                             Develop Plans, Bid, Build Project(s)
                             Conceptual Design; Project #1
                             Working Drawings, Project #1
                             Bid, Project #1
                             Award Project #1
                             Negotiate Contract; Project #1
                             Construction Start, Project #1                                                                                                                                                            15-24 months to occupancy

                             Notes of Explanation:
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Figure 6 - Sample: Master Planning Calendar




                                 PLANNING PARAMETERS - Board established or corroborated planning parameters related to district school organization (grade levels housed together), school size (ranges) by level, feeder patterns,
                                                                busing policies, etc.
                                 FACILITY STUDY AND MASTER PLAN - Need to be based on the adopted Planning Parameters, and provide baseline data of needs that reflects probable school enrollment trends, and the district's
                                                                 instructional programs and planned programs, for developing a master plan, a comprehensive map of needs and priorities to meet those needs
                                 COMMUNICATING TO COMMUNITY - The needs and their basis, together with the program for addressing the needs, are communicated to the community; usually involves one or more citizen's committees
                                                                (at least one committee to lead the support of the bond election for the needs). Citizen's committees may add months to the process; they are usually vital to success.
                                 DESIGN TEAM SELECTION - The order of selection may vary, but the designers ( architect) and the design solution(s) will benefit significantly from his early involvement, of for no other reason than
                                                                 understanding the background leading to the district's needs and priorities.
                                 PROGRAMMING - Preliminary program should be completed before bond election amounts are determined, and will be more reliable if the architect, project manager (if one is used), and programmer are
                                                                  involved; final programming and conceptual design are normally completed promptly after a successful bond election, so design can be completed &] readied for bidding.
                                 FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION - The time needed will vary with the scope and level of the project(s), as well as the method of delivery selected by the owner (design/bid/build - CM at risk - sealed
                                                              proposals, etc.)




 Burleson ISD
Facility Study
                                 THE TIMING OF THE SCHEDULE - The schedule can be compressed, with careful coordination and prompt access to the administrators, the Board, and citizen's committees. The times cited are generally
                                                                typical, and reflect the need for preliminary planning, that some districts may have already accomplished. Even with compressed planning, an uncomplicated project will
                                                                likely take at least 3 years for beneficial occupancy, from the time the need is recognized and the process is initiated, compared to the 4-6 years more typically taken.
Summary of Conditions

Over-use accelerates aging and obsolescence, and shortens expected useful life. Delaying
component replacement accelerates aging and obsolescence, and shortens expected useful life.
Both are OK, as long as the reality of a shorter useful life is acknowledged and accepted. In some
ways, allowing deterioration to accelerate may not be harmful, if the resulting facility is made more
malleable to change and more supportive of change.

The district has three existing facilities that should be completely replaced at the first opportunity.
It has another group of four facilities that are 30+ years old, and, without attention and significant
investment will fall into the ‘need to replace as soon as possible’ group within about 10 years.
Finally, it has four newer facilities that need some modifications to significant modifications to
create instructionally supportive environments in 2006, environments that are in keeping with the
vision of the district’s planning criteria.

It is easy to say growth is coming and we need to be ready to address it – and that is definitely true.
It is more difficult to acknowledge that the district has an inventory of schools and buildings, all
with varying degrees of need – now…from replacement to refurbishing and remodeling. Consider
steps you can commit to in order to begin the process of getting out of the hole while addressing
growth.

Summary of Capacities

The capacities section points out the buildings’ deficiencies, created by growth, but more the result
of instructional program changes and teaching strategies to respond to the demands of Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills and the No Child Left Behind initiatives.

The actual capacities, both the Standards Capacities and the Instructional Capacities, reflect the cost
in space to accommodate the varying levels of instructional changes. They also point out the need
to plan school facilities with flexibility, so that as change occurs, the facilities can change their
configuration to support the new instructional models.

Thirty years ago this flexibility was targeted by one initiative toward module construction;
demountable partitions (wall panels) were a very visible product of that effort. The demountable
partitions fell out of favor because of their initial cost, and the reality that change occurred more
slowly than projected. They were also very expensive for the limited flexibility the offered.
However, that design initiative did identify means to support relatively inexpensive changes over
the life of a building. It is those lessons that are needed to influence contemporary design, utilizing
the technology of today.

The district will do well to begin a process of creating guidelines to support flexibility in all its new
schools. The ideas explored might address such concepts as:
   g) Flexibility in the delivery of utilities
   h) Minimum structural modules, while design-specific, common to that campus.
   i) Pseudopodial designs; designs that are planned for the potential of growing/expanding, or
       contracting.
Genesis Partnership                            page 95                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                            Facility Study
   j) Site master-planning for potential expansion (and contraction).
   k) Designs with alternate use potential, a convertibility factor.
   l) Planning for the anticipated program at opening, not the program in place this year or last
      year.
Hopefully, these will serve as food-for-thought.

If one reflects on the three newest campuses developed in the District, while the buildings are
attractive and were built with good materials and quality, the issues that are arising in their first 10
years of operation relate to
               Spaces needed for program changes that were not anticipated
               Spaces needed for new programs that were not anticipated
               Existing spaces needing modification from program redirection
               Space adjustments, to address growing concerns, such as security, larger sections,
               growing school year, and improved spatial relationships for program changes.

Organization of School Administrative Units
When reflecting on the two related planning criteria, School Organization, by administrative units,
folded into the School Feeder Patterns in the context of the district’s enrollment at build-out.
Calculating the schools needed, based on building a feeder pattern with elementary schools at 4
sections per grade level, Burleson ISD will need 26 elementary schools, 9, middle schools, and 4.5
high schools. A number of options would allow Burleson ISD to have approximately 27,000
students at build-out and approximate the intention of the planning criteria. It is the bias of this
study team that the best point of adjustment is at the elementary school level. Three examples that
‘tweak’ the elementary schools follow.
         One of the 3 elementary schools feeding each middle school could have 5 sections per grade
         level; that one school would have about 635 pupils, slightly larger than the targeted
         maximum of 600 pupils per elementary school, with an appropriate number of extra rooms.
         Each elementary school could embrace a multi-age grouping alternative as a desirable
         learning environment for some pupils, and have 2-3 classrooms that intentionally have 2
         grades learning together. This would require planning at least 2-3 extra rooms in each
         elementary school.
         Each high school feeder group could have one additional elementary school, 7 elementary
         schools instead of 6, and split the students from that one neighborhood between the two
         middle schools.
Also, political and natural boundaries to elementary school neighborhoods, such as railroads, major
thoroughfares/freeways, and streams, may alter the precision of the assumption about elementary
school size. If natural boundaries are considered and respected in the drawing of elementary
attendance boundaries, some natural neighborhoods will produce larger or smaller student bodies
than the optimum targeted in planning criteria.

Table 14, found on the next page, assumes that the feeder school imbalance is resolved in a manner
that does not include adding to the required number of elementary schools. Given the planning
criteria, the district can expect to have 4 to 5 high schools, each with between 1,500 and 2,000
students, and an appropriate number of elementary and middle schools.

Genesis Partnership                           page 96                                       Burleson ISD
                                                                                           Facility Study
                                                        Table 14
                                                 Build-Out Organization

                       School            Build-out    Grades     size range…            No. of           Ave.
                        Level            Enrollment   Served        ave.     high       Schools          Size

                   Elementary              12,983      EE-5           504        576      24             541
                   Middle                   6,223       6-8           695        792      8              778
                   High School              7,843      9-12          1,724      1,965     4             1,961


                                                      Figure 7
                                            One Feeder Organization (of 4)

  ES Feeder pattern with some                               High School                        ES Feeder pattern with 1 larger
      multi-grade rooms                                    1,961 Pupils                             school [5 per grade]


                         Middle S “A”                                                    Middle S “B”
                          778 Pupils                                                      778 Pupils


  Elementary A-1        Elementary A-2         Elementary A-3         Elementary B-1    Elementary B-2          Elementary B-3
    541 Pupils            541 Pupils             541 Pupils             504 Pupils        635 Pupils              504 Pupils




Recommendations
Acknowledging the current and projected needs and the limited educational functionality of some
existing buildings, the study team recommends the following relative to facility needs
considerations in Burleson ISD (not necessarily in order of priority).

A. It is recommended that the district review and commit to writing educational programming
    and educational specifications for the three school organizational levels. The educational
    programming should describe the current program and anticipated instructional program (next
    3-5 years), as well as desired teaching strategies for instructional delivery for each level, and the
    number and character of the spaces needed to support that instructional program.

B. It is recommended that Burleson ISD establish a long-range and comprehensive facilities plan
   for grades EE–12 and alternative education programs. Integral to this plan, the district must
   seek agreement/acceptance of an orderly prioritization of the substantial facilities needs.

C. As part of the facilities plan, it is recommended that Burleson ISD establish a comprehensive
   site acquisition plan that will examine and identify site alternatives, based on the district’s
   planning criteria.
      NOTE: careful site planning and site utilization may allow functional sites that are smaller than
      recommended sizes (useable acres).


Genesis Partnership                                        page 97                                                 Burleson ISD
                                                                                                                  Facility Study
    (1)    Create weighted site selection criteria that can be applied to all site evaluations, including
           acreage (gross acreage and useable acreage), configuration, access points, soils, drainage,
           easements, utilities, access routes for vehicular circulation, neighborhood environment,
           etc.
             NOTE: About 70% to 75% of gross acres of Texas school sites, on average, are useable acres.
    (2)    Based on the facilities master plan confirming the number of high schools expected at
           build-out, create preliminary planning areas that represent probable high school attendance
           areas, in order to begin identifying HS site options for an acquisition plan. Acquire a
           strategically located site second HS site as soon as possible. Because of size and access
           issues, HS sites will most likely be the most difficult to acquire.
    (3)    Based on demographic data, identify the more likely areas of near-term development, and
           begin the acquisition of sites for all school levels.
    (4)    If the most suitable sites include existing, owned and occupied sites, then develop
           preliminary master site plans for each, to evaluate the potential of each being considered
           for successful redevelopment while existing buildings are occupied. If the resources exist
           (empty space), try to relocate students off-site during redevelopment/new construction.

D. As part of the first phase of a facilities master plan, it is recommended that Frazier Elementary,
   the Nola Dunn facility, and Kerr Middle School buildings be taken out of service for the regular
   instructional program and the students relocated as soon as possible, most likely to new schools.

E. If any existing schools are considered for expansion or redevelopment in order to house students
   from the three schools recommended for closure, it is recommended that Burleson ISD do a
   comprehensive evaluation that includes the costs associated with bringing the entire campus into
   compliance with the educational programming and educational specifications. Consider
   obtaining the type of information produced by the Facility Condition Index (FCI), to assist with
   cost estimates and for making decisions.

F. It is recommended that Burleson ISD create a strategy to address growth, until new facilities can
   be authorized and constructed. Consider adding this strategy to the Board’s adopted planning
   criteria. Following are suggestions the district might consider.
    (1)    Identify locations with access, utilities and related infrastructure to temporarily locate
           portable classroom units for 3-5 years of projected elementary, middle, and high school
           growth.
    (2)    Evaluate other administrative alternatives used by rapidly growing districts to deal with
           overcrowding during construction of new schools (may consider extended year, double
           sessions, etc.)
    (3)    If no locations exist with needed access and support, consider developing enough
           infrastructure on an owned and vacant site (not in conflict with development of that site)
           that could serve as a temporary location.
    (4)    Evaluate schools to be taken out of service for potential as temporary housing for
           overcrowding, once their students have been relocated.



Genesis Partnership                             page 98                                        Burleson ISD
                                                                                              Facility Study
G. Regarding the group of existing schools that will need to be refurbished or replaced in the next
   8-15 years (including Mound, Norwood, Taylor, and Hughes), consider the following.
    (1)    Evaluate locations to determine if they are in a suitable location and are large enough
           (useable acreage) for long-term use and substantial investment.
    (2)    Evaluate any existing buildings considered for substantial refurbishing and/or remodeling,
           to confirm the value returned (through FCI or similar tools), and to confirm that any
           significant addition could serve as the core for a redeveloped campus when the existing
           structure(s) needs to be taken out of service.
    (3)    Confirm the value returned for any major improvements to existing buildings; recognize
           that many refurbishment-type improvements have useful lives of 15 years or less
           (electrical upgrades, ceiling & lighting, heating and cooling systems, roofs, etc.); making
           such improvements to schools with 10-15 years of useful life may be appropriate.
    (4)    If redevelopment is the determined solution for any of the above schools, develop phasing
           plans that would allow the district to construct replacement facilities while the existing
           facilities remain in service.

H. As part of the facilities master planning process, it is recommended that Burleson ISD
   administrative team determine multiple options for phasing in the 2nd high school; retain the
   options for consideration at subsequent HS openings. Some common options include:
    (1)    Construct first phase (or all) of new school; use as temporary housing for either a middle
           school or a portion of existing high school - such as a freshman center or as a
           freshman/sophomore center, until enrollment justifies conversion to a full-service high
           school.
    (2)    Phase in student body upon completion of construction (1st phase or all), starting with
           either freshmen only, or freshmen and sophomores.
    (3)    Create the new student body at the existing HS, in one or more houses, or in an extended
           session or double session environment; move to new school after no more than two years.

I. If redevelopment is the determined solution at any existing school, it is recommended that
   Burleson ISD develop phasing plans that would allow the district to construct replacement
   facilities while the existing facilities remain in service, with appropriate safety precautions.

J. It is recommended that Burleson ISD approach cautiously (possibly skeptically), any reuse of
   small elements of existing schools, allowing those elements to fit a comprehensive site plan,
   rather than building a comprehensive site plan around them. Recognize that connecting
   buildings is most often the source/location of long-term problems; difficulty in stabilizing
   adjacent buildings often leads to roof leaks and other instability at those joints. Experience
   suggests it may be as cost effective to replace such elements as to reuse them.

K. It is recommended that Burleson ISD develop a detailed condition analysis, such as a Facility
   Condition Index (FCI), for any schools/buildings that are considered for reuse or
   redevelopment. This information will give the district needed information regarding the
   condition of building systems, to ensure the upgrade estimates are as accurate as possible.

Genesis Partnership                           page 99                                      Burleson ISD
                                                                                          Facility Study
      NOTE: Recent experience of the survey team suggests that major renovations will likely require a
      budgeted contingency of between 25 and 35 percent of total costs.

L. It is recommended that Burleson ISD consider alternate uses for any facilities that may be
   considered as problematic. Such uses include district lower density uses, like alternative
   education and central administration. Other public agency use (city, county, state) also may be
   appropriate, as well as community use (senior centers, recreation centers, neighborhood centers)
   or nonprofit use (Boys Clubs, YMCA or YWCA, etc.). Also evaluate the facility and site for
   any potential commercial value before decisions are made regarding the best use of any such
   facility.

M. For emphasis, the following recommendations are repeated. It is recommended that Burleson
   ISD apply these to all facility planning activities.
      (1)    It is recommended that Burleson ISD master plan the use of all sites (existing and
             acquired) before committing to specific construction solutions to be consistent with the
             district’s planning policies/criteria.
      (2)    It is recommended that Burleson ISD develop specific plans for any school involved in
             redevelopment or with additions so that construction activities can be separated to retain
             safe student access and safe student movement during the construction.
      (3)    It is recommended that Burleson ISD commit to a planning process that will insure that
             any redeveloped facility and site have good spatial relationships and vehicular
             circulation patterns—that will work for the intended program/purpose.

N. It is recommended that Burleson ISD evaluate ways to improve parking, site access routes,
   traffic circulation, vehicular queuing lanes and vehicular separation at existing and redeveloped
   campuses. Generally, plans should provide each campus with safe, separated car and bus drop-
   off and pickup, separated student ingress/egress and parking, and staff and visitor parking.
   Student drivers should be provided ingress/egress and parking separate from all other site
   traffic, if at all possible. Visitor parking should be convenient to the school’s primary entrance.
   Ideally, pedestrians should have a separate route that does not require or encourage them to
   cross any vehicular circulation except at controlled locations.

O. It is recommended that Burleson ISD consider implementing a procedure that will provide for
   evaluation of and scheduling replacement for major components and systems, as nearly all
   buildings are 25 years old or more—consider using a process that will develop information
   similar to a Facility Condition Assessment (FCA), for that process.

P. This item outlines the issues to be addressed through educational programming: With respect
   to expanding program needs, recognize that many support services and spaces are not properly
   accommodated or are housed in stolen or minimal spaces throughout the district. Many of these
   programs did not exist when buildings were originally constructed. Plan to meet these needs
   based on program priorities and available funding. The listing of such spaces/services includes
   the following (not all inclusive and not all apply to every facility) and should be considered as
   the instructional program needs defined in space requirements:
   • Adequate number of larger rooms for grades EE–1
   • Larger school libraries where undersized

Genesis Partnership                            page 100                                     Burleson ISD
                                                                                           Facility Study
    •    Larger specialized labs and rooms, as needed, for science, computers, electives, career and
         vocational programs, and the fine arts
    •    Larger general classrooms, where space for student accessed computers and/or
         individualizing instruction are contemplated; consider 900–950 square feet as reasonable
         minimum standards for regular classrooms, at all grade levels
    •    Sufficient and properly equipped space for self-contained special education needs, especially
         for multiple/severe conditions and the emotionally disturbed
    •    Suitable and centrally located resource teacher rooms, with storage for materials and
         manipulatives
    •    Space for itinerant staff (speech therapists, psychologists, diagnosticians, ESL teachers, and
         similar), with storage (generally, sharing of itinerant space is appropriate)
    •    Adequate student and athletic dressing facilities and gym spaces
    •    Adequate teacher break areas, work areas, and equipment
    •    Adequate classroom boards, casework and storage
    •    Adequate classroom lighting, especially on teaching boards and surfaces, and sufficient
         electrical outlets
    •    Suitable student personal and project storage, convenient and accessible
    •    Adequate preparation kitchens and serving areas for breakfast and lunch programs
    •    Showers, eyewashes, safety cutoffs for all gas and utilities in shops and labs
    •    Sufficient mechanical exhaust ventilation (CFM movement) in restrooms, labs, chemical,
         custodial, and caustic storage areas, etc.
    •    Administrative suites, with administrative offices large enough for conferences with four to
         six people, PEIMS work/records storage, adequate work-production area, reception area,
         parent waiting area, small conference rooms (for ±6–10 people), book room, school
         materials storage, etc.
    •    Health clinics that include adequate space for waiting, examination, resting, storage
         (including secure, refrigerated storage for medicines), fully accessible restrooms, etc.
    •    Counseling offices/suites large enough for small-group work, especially for lower grades,
         suitably located away from and accessible separately from administrative offices
    •    Large conference room(s) to accommodate up to 15 people (for ARDs)
    •    Sufficient and centrally located custodial closet(s) and storage
    •    Handicapped-accessible buildings, classrooms, restrooms, drinking fountains, etc.

    EXTERIOR SPACES/SERVICES
    • Adequate, separated, and convenient parking for staff, visitors, and students (high school)
      with separated points of ingress/egress
    • Suitable hard surface, all weather outdoor play and activities areas
    • Suitable safe use zones for all equipment areas with safe and appropriate cushioning
      materials to protect falls
    • Maintained grass play fields for group and team activities
    • Sufficient updated and safe outdoor apparatus and/or play equipment
    • Fenced and secure playground areas, especially for younger children
    • Separation of auto and bus traffic, as well as pedestrians, providing for safety of students

Q. It is recommended that Burleson ISD plan for adequate housing for special needs students at all
   schools. This should include spaces for self-contained classrooms, support, and resource
   programs, as well as space for behavioral, autistic, life skills, and multiple/severe disability

Genesis Partnership                           page 101                                      Burleson ISD
                                                                                           Facility Study
    classes at age appropriate locations (with a fully accessible restroom with an appropriate
    cleanup shower, changing table [as appropriate], and provisions for hoists; as well as
    separation/isolation space, or occupational and physical therapy space [as appropriate]).

R. As part of a facilities master plan, evaluate facilities kept in service for instructional or public
   use relative to handicapped accessibility issues. Texas Accessibility Standards requirements
   should be implemented as part of any long-term use program.

S. As part of a facilities master plan, implement the district's technology goals. Continue
   development of the Local Area Networks, Wide Area Network, media distribution facilities on
   each campus (recommend locating the operating equipment rooms with and under the
   supervision of technical staff or the library/media centers), and satellite linkages. Ensure that
   appropriate media provisions are incorporated into all renovation and improvement plans,
   including classrooms that are large enough to accommodate the student load and the targeted
   number of student access classroom computers and for differentiated instruction.

T. Burleson ISD should note that, almost without exception, all of its current general classrooms
   are small for a full load of students and the additional room needed for the anticipated
   classroom-based student computers, and/or differentiated instruction, and cooperative or
   collaborative learning. Burleson ISD should consider modifying any classrooms kept in use
   long term to accommodate computers and differentiated instruction; 900–950 square feet is a
   reasonable minimum classroom size to accommodate both computers and differentiated
   instruction, at all levels (unless sections are expected to have enrollments of 28–34 or more,
   then consider 950-1,000 square feet as a minimum size).

U. Consider providing community use, parental education, and volunteer program space (work
   and/or storage space), especially at the elementary level school(s), to bolster the community
   support and involvement programs, as well as any volunteer programs now present or planned.




Genesis Partnership                           page 102                                     Burleson ISD
                                                                                          Facility Study
                                                                                      Section X –
                                                                                      APPENDIX




         SBOE School Facilities Standards
             Texas Education Code, Sections 42.352 and 46.008
             Texas Administrative Code, Part II, Chapter 61, Subchapter CC,
               Commissioner’s Rules Concerning School Facilities
             Certification of Project Compliance Document, Texas Education Agency

         School Facilities Survey Instrument
             Instrument for Evaluating School Buildings, GENESIS Facility Planning Consultants

         School Facilities Capacity Analysis
             Pupil Station and Teaching Station Analysis Worksheets
             Burleson High School Schedule Analysis
             Bonham Middle School Schedule Analysis
             Lamar Middle School Schedule Analysis
             Travis Middle School Schedule Analysis

         Hints for Planning New Construction
             Text: Experience from 30 Years of Planning and Constructing Schools

         Help with Site Evaluation and Site Selection
             Text: Site Selection Criteria, Site Requirements, and Selecting a Site

         BOMA’s Building Systems Useful Life
             Text: Examples of Building Components Useful Life as rated by BOMA

         Facilities Condition Assessment & Facilities Condition Index
             Text: Discussion of FCA and FCI, using Building Components Useful Life data




Genesis Partnership                            page 103                                  Burleson ISD
                                                                                        Facility Study
                      Facility Condition Assessment
                         Facility Condition Index




Genesis Partnership             page 104               Burleson ISD
                                                      Facility Study

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:8/19/2011
language:English
pages:124