>> All right, everybody in order to comply with section 2 DOT 2 Dash, 3, 7, 1, 2, d of the code of Virginia. It's necessary for the board to certify this is the Fairfax
County School board convene a closed meeting on May 6, 2025 to the best of each member's knowledge. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements and only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convened, closed meeting were heard discussed or considered by the board during the closed meeting. have a motion. This lady to have a second Mr.
Moon, all those in favor, Dr, Anderson, Mr. Mckelvie missed mayor and Mr. McDaniel Anderson misleading Mystics it Mr. Dunn, Mr. Moon and myself. That's unanimous for board
members at the table. I will turn this over to Miss Lady in Mystic set for the meeting management. >> Thank you, Chairman Fish. And I'm going to turn this over to Dr Presidio and his
team for a presentation. All right, sir. >> Well, almost good afternoon. 12. 0, 1, looks like so. I know you had a very busy day with a lot of items on the agenda. So I'm gonna
try to go through the content here relatively quickly. And I know thank you. We've got it up on the screen. If I know that there's probably going to be number of questions and
discussion that we need to have sought my best to kind of a breeze through here as quickly as I can. But we're very excited and happy to be here with you today to present the recommendations from the secondary grating Committee
committee, as you know, has been working really h*** o* this work for a number of months. So our goal today are the objectives are to share the committee's recommendation. Tell you a
little bit about the rationale that supports those recommendations, including the data and the information we collected in our interviews and focus groups that we conducted and then obviously
what we're asking for. Thank Thank you. What we're asking for from the board today. If we could get it is consensus and moving forward with the recommendations were not able to do that. That's fine. But if we are that will allow us
to move forward with implementing some professional learning that would occur during the summer to get everyone prepared to ement the updated regulation
requirements as quickly as possible. So before we jump just want to introduce for community, I'm joined by know, welcoming car system, superintendent of instructional Services and Michael Gillespie or senior manager in the curriculum
office and Michael Senate. Tremendous amount of work supporting the committee for 2 years now in this process. And we really appreciate everything that he's done. If it's possible to get the
presentation on the screen, it will be great if not its. Okay. So what we're waiting for the slides. I'm gonna keep going. Just a reminder to the
community. We have been doing a lot of work around grating as a school division. The board in particular has been doing a tremendous amount of
work beginning back July of 2024. the board convened a discussion about their intentions to update policy.
24 18, to more clear. Provide more guidance to our schools and to make sure that we're consistent in our practices across the division. That work was followed by work session
in August where we share committee updates and recommendations from school year. 23. 24 and then governance had 6 meetings on grading from the late summer
through October, followed by another work session in November. And then ultimately the adoption of the updated policy in December. So a lot of work has gone into this from the board. Following that
work in December, we were able to reconvene the secondary Grading Committee in January. And we have most of the members continue from the previous year from 23. 24 and
the committee was provided the charge by Dr Reid to look at developing language for regulation to accompany the policy that would provide the necessary guidance to schools to implement our practices
consistently from school to school. So those areas that we look that included consistency in great. But great book waiting reassessment practices. The number of
minimum assignments that are required to be great. Every quarter. And then looking at home work as a separate category of the U.S. of a student's grade. Additionally,
the committee looked at the follow-on motions that the board approved in December of 2024oking alternative ways to enhance the reporting of student work habits that would be separate from a student's
grade and also looking at ways to increase effectiveness and efficiency in the technical systems that we're using for great reporting. So just real
briefly, again, I do want to. Acknowledge the work of the grating committee. We had 35 individuals who served on this committee. Most of them for 2 years. They did a tremendous
amount of work each year this year. They met 6 times from January to March, did a tremendous amount of work looking at data looking at
stakeholder feedback and really, I think being very, very thoughtful about how to take all of the input across different groups, whether it's the perspectives of teachers,
administrators, students or parents, and they did a tremendous job with that. So we really appreciated. The committee, of course, was made up of administrators, teachers, students and parents and we're grateful for all of
their contributions. As I mentioned, the committee was provided that that formal charge from Dr Reid and worked very diligently to develop recommendations in each of
those areas, which I'll share with you in just a second. But another thing that they did, which I really appreciated gave a lot of time attention and thought about how we could successfully implement any of these new practices. So they
provided some recommendations around professional learning that would be required as well. And as I mentioned, they did a great job trying to balance competing the point sometimes across different
groups. So the data that we collected. Was significance and it really started with a look at comparing great data
from school year. 23 24 fiscal year. 24 25 where we have implemented some of the changes now, given the timing of when the committee met, we could only look at quarter one and quarter 2 data. So there's
that one limitation there. We also looked at significant survey data. And one of the things that we did a little bit differently with the survey instead of just offering a broad survey across
different groups where, you know, sometimes you get a low response rate and you don't really know who's represented in the sample. We worked instead to come up with a random sampling methodology,
working with our Office of Research and Strategic Improvement and that random sampling methodology allowed us to actually create a representative sample for the survey. So we were able to
sample when we think about students by grade level, what particular greater 9th 10009th 11th or 12th. We were able to sample if they had any special learning characteristics,
multilingual students with disabilities and then for teachers, we're able to create a representative population sample by content area. And we think that that really allowed us to create certainly more
generalized double results. When we look at the survey results and often what we have in the past, we also held 17 different focus groups with a
variety of members again in our community from different viewpoints and perspectives to really round out the quantitative data that we had collected from the survey. And then we also collected direct
feedback from our principal associations. >> But overall, there's a lot of information I would say in the report itself. >> From the serve and from the
focus groups. But overall, just for our purposes this morning. When we look at the great data we saw very little change from school year. 23 to
24. 25. So, for example, when we look at A's and F's, the great distribution was relatively stable. We saw slight increases and A's of
less than one percent slight decreases in deaths of less than one percent. So I think both of those things are positive trends, but that's a really small number. Of course, the other thing that we looked at was to see if
that general trend held true across different groups of you know, the general population. How did that compare to multilingual learners students in terms of great out outcomes? How did that compare
to students with disabilities and again, very, very little variability there. We didn't see anything when we looked at A's and have some that quarter to data. That was more than half a percentage point.
Really. And then finally, the survey results, though, as I've already mentioned, we do see different results based on the different groups that individual might be in. And I
think the biggest one that I really want to call out and illustrate on this slide is that when we looked at our reassessment policy, for example, 74% of our students
and 64% of our parents and families via the reassessment to 100% as a positive. But 56% of our staff viewed it negatively. So again, depending on the group that
you're a member of oftentimes the survey results, we're quite different. So the committee had to balance all of that along with the research and along with the information that we collected
in focus groups to develop their recommendations. Very briefly, just a high-level view of the research. Again, similar to what we talked
about last year when we presented, we did review all the relevant research on grading that was available to us. you know, historically those we've shared before the
research on secondary grating really does show a high degree of variability across schools across classrooms across teacher practice and division
It's very difficult. I think in the research base to draw a lot of valid conclusions about evidence based on the particular areas that were interested in. So when we think about, for example,
reassessment practice, when we think about the number of minimum assignments when we think about Graybeal type are great book waiting. There's not a lot of research on those topics. There was one recent
study and reassessment. But I do want to point out we'll talk about that when we get to the reassessment recommendation. But other than that, we do not have as much relevant research available to
us as we would like. So let's jump into the committee recommendations. In the first area that we looked was great
book Type-o the updated policy. 24 18 requires us to use a consistent great, but I across our schools and you can see here that the recommendation from the
committee was to move to the rolling great book. But not until school year. 26 27. The committee recommended that we use school year. 25 26 to make
sure that everybody is trained sufficiently and has the support and resources and time that they need to make the shift. 2, the rolling great book. And I think that's a really wise recommendation
because we know previously won. Sometimes we've seen some of our school communities make more sudden changes to grading practices. It's been quite disruptive to the community
and cause confusion for some students, parents and staff. So in terms of the rationale for this particular recommendation, the folks that
looked it, the current use of rolling great book in terms of who's currently using it and pointing up benefits from that group. The really great book really does allow for more
flexibility, both in reassessment practices as well as course design. So, Roland, Great book again, differs from traditional great book in Gray because open from the first day of school until the last
day of school, the traditional quarterly great book closes each quarter and then a student's grade his average from quarter to quarter over the course of the semester or over the course of the full year. And most of our
secondary courses are full year courses, but with a rolling great book, students can go back and demonstrate mastery on a particular learning standard or skill that maybe they started in the 1st quarter, but they didn't
quite mastered it yet. But by the 3rd quarter, they've mastered it and they can get credit for that. Continuation of working towards mass Theresa provides more flexibility, more support for
student learning. Additionally, the committee looked at this, you can see that most of our schools are using the rolling rate book. 66% of our high schools use the rolling great book
exclusively as of today. And when we include middle schools and that 63% of our middle schools and high schools use the rolling great book and at least some capacity. That means they might be a school where some teachers use
rolling great looking school and others use the quarter. The great book. So again, because of the flexibility and because of the high use of current use of the rolling great book, the committee is
recommending implementation for 26 27. The next area that we looked at was a grade waiting. So 24 18 policy. 24 18 does require consistent
waiting with a balanced and fair approach between formative in some categories. So again, for folks in the community when we're talking about some of the tasks, we're talking about those assignments, those task that
might be at the end of a learning unit at the end of quarter at the end of the school year. For example, as opposed to formative tasks where students have the opportunity to continue to
practice their learning and to get feedback from their teacher. So the some of those are kind of the culminating activity and the form is our process oriented in practice
oriented. So the committee here recommended maintaining the current district great book waiting of 70%, some of the oven, 30% formative. And again, you can see the committee percentages at the
bottom of each of these slides. So this was 93% concurrence on us. You know, in terms of the rationale, we have seen that the consistency
of parents and students reporting that they understand their students grades. He's increased significantly. And in fact, when we surveyed the different groups, only 9% of
our students, 12% of parents and 19% of staff reported that our current waiting of 70 somebody of 30 formative is not working well for them. So again, the vast majority are reporting that 70 30 is
working well for them right now. We did look on this particular recommendation to see if there was any interest with our department chairs and administrators differentiating
the category waiting by content area. So, for example, maybe you have 70, 30 in the court content areas. Maybe you have 80 20 in the elected
areas are the fine arts or CTE Urias. However, in discussion with our department chairs and administrator is we were not able to reach any consensus on what a standardization might look like in different content
areas. There was a lot of disagreement about what that might look like and given the fact that the policy calls for fair and balanced and consistent waiting the committee ultimately
recommended that all teachers use the 70 30 waiting. Okay. So the next recommendation was around homework and policy. 24
18 was updated, of course, to really promote the importance of consistent use of homework regular opportunities for student practice. And the committee looked at this and did recommend maintaining our
current homework practices which currently allow teachers to use the formative category, that 30% of a student's weight to provide homework grades.
The considerations really around. This was looking at the data about current use around homework. You can see it the supporting evidence there that when we look at our you survey results, almost 92%
of our students. Secondary students report having daily homework and you can see the amount ranges all the way up to, you know, daily homework of over half of our students
at the 8th grade saying they spend more than an hour a day on homework. 2, 2, thirds of our students at the 12th grade saying they spend more than an hour a day on homework. And when we process this through with our staff and focus
groups and at the committee, there was a lot of disagreement about creating a separate category for homework for waiting homework. And I think main reason or one of
the main reasons for that was the concern about having to grade homework and the workload that would be associated with that. So again, committee recommended
maintaining our current practices. Now, I want to point out, though, that the committee, again, has been fantastic in terms of their dedication to this work. But
some members of senior leadership, of course, have had other conversations with community members outside of the committee process and have had conversations really
through the entire process of the board's development of policy. 24, 18. And when we looked at the homework recommendation from the committee, our senior leadership team fell that we
really needed to establish a set category for homework, waiting and that we thought that the best way to do that would be to establish homework, waiting category a 10% of a student's grade. And
the reason for that is well, students are reporting consistent homework right now. We're not at 100% of those experiences and I share that data to submit go various
gonna from, you know, 50% two-thirds over great 8 through grade 12 that have consistently reporting homework. So with the belief around our increased focus on
academic rigor in all the areas of our strategic plan, the researcher and consistent homework in practice supporting student learning our senior leadership team felt strongly that we should waited at 10% of a student's
grade. If we do that. And if the board accepts that alternate recommendation, that obviously is going to impact the category waiting because currently homework as part of that 30% formative. Great
simply take homework. Make it a separate 10%. That's going to impact our some of the percentage in our formative percentage. So the second alternative recommendation that you see here would be to
change the category, waiting to 60%. Some of 30% formative and 10% homework. And when we look at the board's guidance and policy 20 for a team that
creates an expectation for a fair and balanced approach between the formative in some of categories. 60 40 basically is getting us. I think a better balance. Then 70, 30.
So that's our senior leadership team develop that recommendation as an alternative to the committee. Okay. The next area around
reassessment so policy. 24 18 also requires consistent reassessment practices that would provide students one opportunity to reassess for each Summit of assessment that
they take. And you can see that the committee's recommendation here is to maintain the current practice, which allows students to earn up to 100% credit on those reassessments that they
complete. Now, just as a reminder before student completes a reassessment, we do have requirements that they take action to ensure that they have done additional work
before a teacher provides them with a reassessment opportunity. So that might look like test corrections, additional homework assignments that need to be completed to prepare for that
reassessment. So when we look at the feedback on this particular recommendation, though, again, what you'll notice is that there was obviously a difference of
opinion on this particular recommendation across the different groups in school system. So, for example, our students and family members were very clear that the
change to 100% this year was a very positive change that lowered stress levels for them, increased their motivation, both on the original assessments and Henry assessments. So we see that very clearly in the survey
data as well as the focus groups that we're aunt. However, I also want to be very clear that we heard loudly and strongly from our teachers that they did not be
the change to 100% reassessment positively and largely that was due to increased workloads. So 51% of our teachers said that they had a significant increase in
workload reassessment to 100%. Ultimately should point out there is the bullet point about the study that I mentioned earlier around reassessment. And this is a relatively new study. So this
particular study looked at math performance of the secondary level and studied the impact of reassessment policy allowing up to 100% and
found that student learning growth was increased between 36 to 45%. When students were allowed to reassess to 100% of
those math classes. So ultimately taking all of this into consideration, the committee felt like our current practice was manageable, recognizing teacher workload issues. They
felt it was manageable. If we provided very clear guidance and support to our teachers about practices for reassessment that could address workload. And I want to share a few of those ideas
with you next. Really to that end reducing teacher workload. The committee recommended professional learning specific practices to alleviate those concerns. Like the ones that
you see here. So, for example, focusing reassessments on the specific standards or skills. The students have not mastered. So instead of let's
just pretend you gave a 50 question test instead of reassessing another 50 questions, maybe students only we're struggling with 10 of the questions. You can create a smaller reassessment of 10
questions on those topics that students have mastered saving time in the grading process. Obviously they're still workload associated with reassessment, but that starts to mitigate that somewhat.
Additionally, when we hear from teachers that sometimes students want to reassess where they had like 95 and they want to get that 100. Well, there might only be one or 2 questions that a student would need to retake and you
might actually be able to do that in a conversation with the student or you might be able to do that in a simple test. Correction may be a student made calculation air
on math exam. But given that student an opportunity to redo that one item certainly would be a lot less work than asking them to retest on every one of
the concepts from the original have to grade that again. Additionally, we know that it's difficult to find time to do the When we use that learning seminar time built
into the schedule. And when we work to really try to utilize time in class for reassessment, that can reduce some of the workload issues as well. So the committee with
felt very strongly again, if we continue with 100% reassessment policy, we certainly want to make resources and training available to staff some strategies address workload
concerns. All right. Just a couple more. Here the number of assignments was the next area that we looked at. I think this one is pretty straightforward. There was very positive feedback on the move to a minimum number of
assignments. That would be great. It each quarter from 9 to 7. We implemented that changed last year. So the committee is recommending maintaining that it's 7 assignments this year and we had 100% consensus from the
committee on that recommendation. And then as I mentioned, the committee had really, I think thoughtful feedback on the need for quality professional
you can see that we've already started to work on development, professional, learning that could start to take place at the end of this school year during the summer and next school year in all of these different areas now, the
one thing that I want to mention on the slide that's that last bullet point in red that's very important is with these recommendations as we move forward with
implementation. We are suggesting senior leadership team is suggesting that we delay middle school implementation of any changes. So middle schools would not be
working on these changes in school year. 25 26 and our middle schools, as you all know, are involved in a lot of new initiatives right now. You can think about the work in the strategic plan around middle school algebra that
they're doing the work that they're continuing to do around the Virginia Literacy Act. They're going to be implementing new social studies, curriculum and materials. There's just a lot of things that are happening
and our middle schools right now that we believe it would be better to pause implementation at the middle school level for next school year. OK, very quickly. I just want to share a few updates on
those follow-on motions that the board approved in December. The first was to look at our technology systems to see if we can create more effective and efficient ways to communicate grades to our
students, to our families and to save time for teachers. So we have already begun working. Instructional services working with the IT team. I think there are some folks from it
here with earlier. And we're working on some short-term and long-term solutions that you see on the slide. A couple examples would be really trying to standardize some of the great book settings. So
teachers don't need to spend a lot of time setting up their great. But as well as looking at ways to share information more effectively from our student information system. Schoology are learning
management system because we know people sometimes are looking for information and different systems and having that coherence, we think would support a lot of understanding
upgrades that has created some confusion previously apologized in advance that slider there for you. So those are the technical changes that we're looking at. The second area that there is a follow-on
motion for was around reporting work habits and the request was to make sure that we could look at it a different way to provide quality comments on the report card around students work
habits. So we're in the process right now of working to revise our current report card comments to align more closely with portrait of a graduate. That was one of the things that the governance
committee asked us to do and to be more descriptive and have more frequency information in the that I'm a parent or family member could really understand to what
extent a student is exhibiting are not exhibiting those work habits. So we're going to continue to work on this. But I wanted to share just a few examples of what that might look like. So, for example,
here you can see at the top of the slide, some of our current report card comments you might see a needs to be prepared for class. The teacher might give
a student or shows inconsistent effort. I think it's to some extent this is a little vague and open to interpretation. Certainly not aligned porch or the graduate. So you can see when we think
about our portrait of a graduate attribute in-goal around being goal-directed resilient. We might revise some of these comments as you see on the slide here, for example, they manage their time and resources to
accomplish their academic goals. Or they're still developing their time management skills. So you can see we're attempting to align some of these work habits to portrait of a graduate and be
more developmental in nature. There's a few other examples that really look at kind of the frequency that a student might demonstrate one of their work habits. So you can see here we're talking about are
they demonstrating work habits necessary to maximize their learning. So you can see we would be able to, for example, to report those students consistently doing that. Usually doing that
occasionally doing that are seldom Lee doing that. And I think that would give parents and family members more information about how their students are currently doing.
All right. And then the final follow-on motion was around updates to our transcripts and school profile. So for our transcript, the board ask us to make sure that we had the
online campus noted on a student's transcript as well as academies noted on their transcript. And then at the profile, making that our school profiles for all of our schools include information
about how students can enroll online campus in academy classes. And we think that's going to make it much clearer for colleges and universities that are trying to evaluate
student transcripts across our 26 high schools. So we're in the process of making those edits with it and those will be in place and updated for school year. 25 26. So just in
terms of proposed next steps after we get direction from the board will continue to build out the specific regulation language that will help with the implementation of each of the policies that
we've discussed here today. And we'll continue to work on developing those professional learning experiences to start in early June and continue throughout the year. The last
slide that's in your slide deck. Just provides a summary charge of all of the different recommendations that we looked at. It provides the committee recommendation as well as the staff recommendation. So with
that and this lady, I'll turn it back over to you for board discussion. And when we get started, I think we're going 3 minutes. And if we have go
back work and drop that too. >> Hopefully we can be concise and articulate and I will start with Miss Sizemore Heizer. >> Thank you. And thank you to all your hard work in the hard
work, the committee and the hard work of the Grade II of the Governance Committee on the grading policy before. That's I appreciate all that I know this has been a long journey. So I appreciate that.
A couple things. On some of the recommendations. You know, I think some of this work is because a great book. We always said We didn't care which one necessarily which great because I was just consistency. I am a little
concerned about not doing it at the middle school level, but the 2 things I really wanted to focus on was one of the Reassessments. I appreciate the alternate recommendation of the 60, 30 10 while the governance
committee didn't prescribe any numbers because we didn't want to get into operations. It was pretty clear from the conversations we had that 70 30 was. We've heard a lot of concerns about it. One of the
things I'm surprised, Henry assessments that we didn't really talk about across content areas because in the policy we did say consistency across content areas and something I heard significantly about was 70%.
You know, somebody of my work in a math class, but it's maybe hard to do in a ceramics class. All right. And what I've added only heard is in some of our music and arts class, especially getting kids to drop out of those classes
because they're such a heavy focus on assessments and that not as much on playing in performance, which is a higher part of those classes. So I'm sused a little bit. The lack of content I can support
the 60 30 10. I know I can also support a 60 40 if we have a statement saying that consistent and regular homework will be, you know, part of the formative
assessments. You know, no less than 5% up to 10%. I could support that. But I think it should be also for all students, almost Contra indicated by a 5, a foreign IP
plan because there is I would love to some data on homework across class types. Because I think that's where the breakdown necessarily as so. A
lot of good points that may be working backwards a little bit. I was Russian through the slide. So >> we did think about homework and differentiation for homework quite a bit. And we started to prepare guidance
and examples for schools around that. The first thing that I would say is I want to be really clear because I think staff had concerns about the workload associated with grating. We think that there
are ways to assign homework where the grating is going to be relatively minimal. So, for example, some of content areas you just shared. Perhaps in a
music class students might submit a practice log and provide evidence that they have been practicing. Well, the teachers going to know if they've been practicing or not, just by listening to play right? So that's pretty easy
to greatest kind of a yes or now. Similarly, even in a math class where students might be doing daily, what we would hope the students would be doing daily math problems for practice. Teachers wouldn't have to grade those. They
could just check to see if students are actually completing them. So we're working on ways to minimize homework. We're also working on ways to make sure. And this is part of the professional learning that skimmed over
quickly as well to really make sure that teachers are thinking about supports and accommodations for our special populations in ways that they can modify assessments as well as homework assignments to
support students with differentiated learning needs. So that will be part of what we would focus on as well. And then you are asking about differentiation across the
content areas for great. Okay. >> all due respect think maybe it was unclear in what I said. I wasn't talking about homework in terms of grading homework of the workload of
homework. I was talking about the 70% focus on assess summited and the issue that has across content areas and on the Inc on on and on making sure that homework is assigned
across different class is not necessarily differentiation in that office. All those are important. But those were not the point I trying to make that I apologize those working backwards. I was trying to get to the 70 31. So if we go back
in the slides, maybe Noel can take us back. There was one bullet point on there. And again, I mentioned it briefly. >> We did have discussion as part of the committee about differentiating grade waiting
across content areas. We absolutely did that. We found a lot of different thoughts and opinions about what those weight should be. And we did not have agreement even within particular content areas like
a CTE or an arts area. So that doesn't mean that we couldn't do it and we could certainly differentiate across content areas. But the work of the committee, we did not come to any consensus even with within
those departments of what that grade waiting should look like. So unfortunately, that's kind of where we ended up with that. We're afraid it was just going to end at more inconsistency from student
experience to student experience. >> And I appreciate that just I kind of wished lot of your example that you use math based examples around the
grading our American dream at the map, you can reassessments only p these questions. You got wrong and I would have loved more conversation about. How does a plain English, how does it apply to music class has a plan. Ceramics getting
math is the easiest way to to break it So I just this is a comment. response back yet, but I want to make another comment in terms of the homework. I think we have us. That's the fight consistent
and regular and a specific percentage, whether it's part of the formative are separate number. I think that's super important. The reassessment I want to get to really quick and for my time is up. When you see up 100%, you're saying
reassessment. With the score is anything less than 100%. They can reassess because that is a concern that I've heard from a lot. And the question is, is it better to do a reassessment like 85%? That
takes some of the workload concern off while still allowing the students to demonstrate mastery to be still above average. So that's something I want to throw out those. I'm not sure 100% makes
lot of sense. know my time's So. >> you characterize the current policy correctly. A student can reassess if they earn less than 100% and receive up to 100% credit. The committee, as I mentioned,
spent a lot of time on this one because that's where we had the most variants across different groups in terms of opinions about what to do. You know, we looked at a number of different things, including the guiding principles and
policy. 24 18 that really speak to, you know, supporting students throughout their learning journey to continue their learning, providing maximum of support for them to
maximize their learning. And we looked at different, you know, examples like you just mentioned 90%, 80%. Ultimately, I think, you know,
looking at percentages like that just seemed arbitrary to the to the committee because you're telling a student at that point that if you earned less than 90%, for example, you can't continue near
learning and everything else. We're telling our students as we want them to continue their learning and we want to award them credit for the learning that they've done. So we definitely understand the
workload issues associated with the 100%. And that's why we were trying to offer suggestions and supports that we would develop. But this is a really difficult one because, again, people have really strong opinions
depending on their perspective and their role in the organization. >> Thank you as Mayor. Yeah. So I am seeing this through
many lenses. One is governance. One a school board member. One is parent of a high school student. So what I'm wondering, is like, what's the big picture here, Dr Reid, because we talked about
homework is important. I think the board as a whole has generally been supportive of it and I support it. But how is separating 10% from the summit the way to go? How is
that adding to the effort to get students to mask tree and not just completion and checking off that box that the whole grading policy was trying get us away from it. >> So I homework is critically
important. Then I would bet if we drill down on the actual students doing homework, the percentage from the youth survey, those students would generally be and a more rigorous track. And so we want
to embed those skills. Younger. I don't know that 10% is the magic percentage, but I do think that we need to send a clear message that. Homework is part of the disciplined
approach to learning. I could be practice at home. It doesn't need to be graded. I think Dr per city on the team. Are looking at a lot of
options to delineate how you know if I'm in a chamber orchestra just practicing will be sufficient returning practice law. Great Woods is
do. They practice? They don't just show up to class some play. If you're in theater. I across board, there is something that happens outside of that face-to-face
instruction time. I think the purpose of sort of I'd be happy send it into a the formative setting. It's not really summit right his
formative because they're developing. And getting feedback on a regular basis. don't think put it into the summit of late. So that would require you to add some
percentage to the formative. Maybe it's not Maybe it's 65. 35. But I just think when you send that clear message and positive, if a mix of forming a summit but I guess, you
know, if we're giving says homered but has not created, but than 10% of their grade as homework. So how can you not graded? It's 10% of their grade. >> So fully agree that students who homework and I
can picture my 6th grader with his trumpet log, you know. And so he turns that in and, you know, I've heard the gamut of things that students who want to do the homework will do it. Some students and maybe the
parents will help them. You know, check the box. It's and that's not going to help them with instruction. I'm aware of some practices were in high schools. Now some of the staff are already using that 10%.
That's part of that 70 30 split. And does that reached the mark? I'm just to get him. One the 6.10%, get as to what again, we're trying to get away from completion like,
yes, I've done the thing. I've done a lot for says, oh, I'm actually a better player or done. And I'm not. I'm not so convinced that when I see that the committee didn't support that by and large really gives
me a lot of pause so But I think and a combined weight, you know, the >> tying this all together to how students are instructed to
plead. My clock is running. If someone wants to put that Prada's replaced timing of new limitation. The professional development like what I think
the vision is is to really focus on the instruction being the driver and so that the grades and homework or the, you know them by product of learning learning. Well and so
You know, when it comes to algebra, it seems like a good time to make sure that our teachers are learning how to do the grating for Al-Jubeir. I'm not saying it needs to be fully implemented, but I actually think that seems like
a good time. I think overall my big things are this. There's a lot of stuff coming in or teachers. I'm okay to have it be implemented. And 26 27. It's not clear in this
presentation that you're suggesting everything happened in. 26 27. There was some mention of middle school being held off and 26 way. So that could be clarified. Please.
overall and I again experience greets. The parents are getting the great book to get an e-mail every week. That tells me how y students doing. And I will tell you sends my family into a whirlwind every time because
the grades fluctuate and because some teachers are putting things in it one date and some have. Ultimately, what are the grades as a communicator to the students
and the families and the training that the communication that's going to go to families. I think putting the porch of a graduate skills in report card is great. I like that a lot. That was a big component of
our governance committee conversation. I guess I'm not. I'd like to know more about the technology pieces and how because students are still
getting trapped This teacher says they can retake. And this one says I can't. we're going to wait for another year, how do we keep her students from this constant confusion and having to check all the different ways that teachers
to this and where students really stand in their learning. I'll stop there because my voice terrible. sorry to say and certainly welcome Dr Reid this as well.
But >> just here, last points, you know, the idea with the technical systems is to make them easier to navigate and easier to use so that parents and students know where to
find the information and get the best information. >> And that we reduce any workload on teachers. So, for example, if we standardized the great book set up, those aren't poor teachers. They don't need to do that work
which often times can be tedious. However. If a teacher doesn't input the information in a timely manner, then a student and a parent won't
know the up-to-date information about their students. Progress in the class. So what's the number of days that we currently have in regulation for teachers to update their great book 7? So
right now, the current policy as the teachers have 7 days to input the grades into the great book. I'm sure that doesn't happen all the time,
but that's not a policy issue problem because we already have that that's an implementation issue. Problem. But we need to work with our staff and our principles and our region teams on so. You
know, I I think the other issue that you raise, which similarly isn't implementation issue problem is around reassessment. The current policy as students can have one reassessment attempt for
every summit of assessment. That's the policy this year. That was the policy in the past. So if that's not happening again in a particular school or classroom, it's not a policy issue. That's and implementation issue that we
would need to work on a little bit differently. >> Thanks. We'll just I would love to see grating approach
slick. We approach chronic absenteeism where it was very specific and we knew what the the work was to get those kids back in school. They were very specific communications. They
specific people charged with the rollout. There were metrics. And to my knowledge, our teachers have not been thoroughly trained in schoology in using it and then
teaching kids. That's just such a huge missing component. will tell you. My lovely daughter will tell me that he upload that great. And here I am. 6 days after the test really? we're not making
helping parents be learners, but it just needs more like strategic. Yeah. Doing that. >> He and I appreciate that. And I think we can do better
with that. This slide is kind of the first attempt to show some of the things just on the technical systems that we want to standardize and improve that I think will help. And obviously there's training that needs to be associated
with all of these things, right? So reinforcing the expectations around the practices that we've just discussed, reinforcing the expectation around how often you need to how many days you
have before you need to grade the assignment and entered the information into the system. So all of those things would be part of that work that we're doing. And you can see from some of these technical enhancements, we think working
with the vendor, we could get better reports about what's happening at the school. So, for example, how long has it been sense? Assignments were in the great book before they were graded. Can we get individual aggregate
information on that if their schools that are outliers, that it's taking that much longer than we need to support those schools with strategies to expedite their That is part of what we're trying to do in
this technical section. Dr. Anderson. Thank you. I'm going to just start with number of assignments which are at 7.
>> Is that inclusive of summit. formative >> Yes, 7 graded assignments, a minimum, not a maximum. A minimum of 7 graded assignments per quarter. >> So this was essentially sit
outside of the homework bucket. If that were to be a separate category. >> Yes, our current policy is
7, right? So we change that last year to take effect for 24. 25 previously, it had been 9. So we've always had a minimum number of assignments for decades. >> All right. I'd like to talk
about homework and kind of get my feet back there. I'm huge. I know I've talked to you about this ad nauseum, Dr Reid. I do believe that having homework is preparation because we do have to do
things outside of the instructional setting, whether or not it lives in the formative or its own category. I think I'm fairly ambivalent
about, but I am I did have to question why was in that part of the formative? >> So I think when you think about what homework is its
practice. So it is a formative, right, type of task student would complete. And again, as Dr Read said, we're happy to 10% into the 30% to
make it 60, 40 year. 65. 35. We could do whatever the board has consensus around. The reason we started with the 60 30 10 was to illustrate that
if we're going to require homework be part of the student's grade, we wanted to make sure that that was really clear and people can see that. But again, the way that it's currently recommended by
staff, if you can go to the staff recommendation, slide 60 Summit 30 formative, 10 homework. It basically is 60 Summit 44 minutes so.
>> And again, that's not a h*** for me to die on at all. I'm just happy we've moved away from the 90 10 that some
of us. >> Thanks, obese. >> Harder to utilize because
Quinerly you provide a grade. You close it. You move on. A rolling. Great book is actually won't work because you do have to go back and have that replacement rate. It's a part that's what's chosen and that's what's
provided. It is the perfect partner to the reassessment up to 100% because they do go together because if you have a rolling great book and this child, that's a September, did
not do wellthat assessment and has no opportunity to make it up. They continue to carry that burden throughout the entire year. In everything U.S. could be stellar. And so I want to make sure that
that's shared. And also I want to say this, you know, the reassessment. I know there's been a lot of concerns that it's unfair. You know, somebody is going to, you know, leapfrog me. I had a 95.
They reassess. They went to 100. We all in unique situations. And we could think of a number of different instances. Even doctor Reed, where we have sent you back to
do new work. We did not say we're going to -10 because its new work. We just accepted it for what it was at that time. And we have to apply the same approach to our kids because
that's how it works in the real world. It's not you turn in a sub par report and that's it. You go and you make it better and you bring it back. And that's what counts. And
I'd like for us to begin to apply the same thing to our students.
>> The was my other question. Alwork habits. >> I am very, very, very excited about this option. I'm very excited about it because I think it just gives more
information to parents because we need to know how to better support kids. When you get that little part, Cardenas says that 1, 3, sentence thing. 3 word. They are
nothing at all. And the great may not be satisfactory or maybe it is either way you do not know how to better support your child. So unpacking that a little bit. What guidance
will there be around the usage of guidance statements that you working on? It's a great question. We haven't reached a conclusion on that point yet.
>> So we're going to be working with a group of teachers and administrators over the summer to develop that guidance. That would be part of the regulation. But if we're going to go to all the trouble of, you know, changing
all the work habits we're going to need to use those. And I have an expectation that they're used to some extent. But we haven't reached a conclusion on that yet. All right. Thank you all to go
back. Thank you. Miss Anderson.
>> Okay. So I'm not going to rehash all the things that I've already talked to you guys about. But I did. I also am a little surprised that we ended up at the Rolling great book. Can I ask when we're talking standards based grading which recognize many
of these things are aligned with its standards based grading start in the college classroom.
>> Now, I really don't think so. But I'll say is there's more variability in college grating. Then there is and secondary grating. >> You don't have to tell me that I owe understand. I guess
the reason I'm asking is this is set up more on a semester system where you actually are giving a semester-long grade where you can reassess things that happened at the beginning because it makes sense that the student would be working
through it. I have for the same reasons as Dr Houston brought up. I have significant concerns that we have a that particularly as the getting like 7th grade when they're first in this is a new thing.
They can get a significantly lower grade than maybe they burned the rest of the year and they get locked in because so unless we are doing a significant amount of retraining of our staff
members, I think we're going to continue to be in this realm where you either have kids that are gaming the system so that they aren't doing much work the last quarter or they get locked into very low grades that
follow them throughout the entire year. And so I am concerned about this. I also will say that I think we're doing this the wrong way. I think that the piloting in the in there trying something out
new has to happen in the middle school where we don't have as high stakes for students because trying things out with high schoolers has a significant impact on a grade point averages which has a
very real world application that is coming very soon for many of them. And so I am extremely concerned as being one of those students that actually had the rug pulled out from underneath me when we
added the plus-minus system, one I was in high school that's significantly change the grade point average when the rest of the world hadn't caught up with us yet. And so I am concerned. I actually think that testing this out
middle school as a way to retrain and actually get people on track makes far more sense. moving into high school where the stakes are higher. So that's the first thing that I wanted to say. The other
thing is I strongly believe that any format of assignment that is due, the next class period is homework and the student has to figure out when to get that assignment completed. And so I do not
think that we necessarily need to. I agree with the 60 to 40 split, but I don't necessarily think that we need to set a specific percentage and based on their feedback that we receive from high school
principals, they're also saying the same thing that percentage could be hard to reach. It could be, you know, we're still going to have to sign some great is likely going to be a participation grade based on quizzes at the start of class or whatever it
is to determine whether or not reading was done in an English class or things like that. And so I would very much like to see s kind of move away from a prescriptive approach in that in that place. I think that
this is also a place That staff can gain back some autonomy and what they're doing as well. So giving a student a formative assignment that is due. The next class period is homework and we just
have to give them the opportunity to to you utilize as executive functioning skills. Okay. Thank you.
Mister Dunn. >> Mr. Can you clarify whether there's actually ever been an analysis of the grating within
Fcps to determine whether there is grade inflation are no grade inflation. We've done different things. I think the
comment was raised here about grade inflation. Within the context of looking at the comparison between 23 24 24. 25 quarter one and quarter 2
greats to see how grades may have increased or decreased in. 24 25 as compared to 23. 24 and we saw little to no variability. So I don't know
that I would term that is great inflation. It's comparing the grading the impact of the policy changes from 23. 24 and students grades. We have run analysis
to look at across schools, the percentage of students that might be earning a particular GPA or particular grades to compare across schools to see if there is variability. And
there is variability. But we've never done a formal grade inflation study before those of the 2 major things that I would probably say are it's close to that as we've
done. Because I've read in news reports that something like 90% of students at Harvard Get A's. Right. And it's not that all students
should get a is every educational institution normally I mean. >> I grew up with a bell curve right to a number of A's or number. These are number of
And so I would be interested just in seeing that study. You mentioned about the variability of GPA is across schools and that that may affect college prospects,
right? If there is inconsistency. So has there been effort to standardize kind of the bell curve across schools? Well, we really have moved away, not just in
Fairfax, but an education in general. The idea that a grade should be used to sort students in a particular class or school. >> As opposed to maximizing
every student's opportunity to really fully optimize their learning. >> So >> I would say certainly we can look at trying to and are
with these recommendations trying to standardize consistent practices from school to school. So, for example, think about reassessment before the grating committee formed. We
had some schools are some teachers in the school that would allow students to reassess up 200%. We had others that would cap it at 80%. Well, that's the inconsistency that impacts a student's GPA that impacts
their college prospects. That impacts a lot of other things right. So in terms of trying to flatten the variability. it's really these
recommendations that we're looking at in terms of the grade waits, the reassessment policies, the homework components and trying to standardize the individual practices within a teacher's
approached, a grating. Can you talk about the rolling great book and how that works in practice. So the big concept with the Rolling great book
again, what differentiates it from a traditional great book is the grades are not locked at the end of a quarter. So traditional great book at the end of 1st quarter at the end of 9 weeks, a great is like
you got to be 1st quarter. 2nd quarter. You got to see if it was a semester clash ever those together and you got to be. Rowling. Great book. The great book is Open from the
first Day until the last day. And the currents information that a student or a parent might look at, let's say in quarter 2 tells them their current status in terms of performance in that class. So
let's say, for example, a student a quarter 2 has a C in a class. And they haven't taken advantage of reassessment opportunities yet they have an opportunity to
demonstrate information from quarter one because it's not locked in the great book. They could go back and reassess something from quarter one if they didn't already do that in quarter one. And that could
raise their grade. More importantly, teachers to operate on a rolling Graber traditionally think about kind of the ways that you scaffold in information and you the way
that you scaffold in students, skill development in terms the content, mastery of the skills in particular class. So, for example, if a student isn't performing well in a
particular standard a quarter to by the time you get to quarter for, they might be performing higher, that standard and they're great can be raised. But on the traditional great book, they're great is just going to be averaged altogether. So
it's it's open as opposed to being close that each quarter as one of the main differences. In general. just saying my family's experience
those my constituents are going great book has been much hated in my community as much hated by my children. I think it resulted him getting worse grades.
>> Overall, despite increased effort. it seemed to almost penalize students because you could never get past a bad grade. You got early in the
year. you carry that forward with you throughout the year rather than being out to get a fresh start each quarter, that was our experience that certainly the experience of many parents I speak with.
>> But I also want to ask about whether the reassessment and the rolling great book creates more work because you mentioned that you can
demonstrate mastery and subsequent quarter, right? And if you if you get a bad grade and quarter one and then your quarter for and you gotta see earlier. Now you want to get
a. That requires a teacher to create basically a new test or some new assignment for that student is not right. >> And so that's what I was trying to speak a little bit as I was racing through the
slides is that definitely reassessment is a workload issue, right? So when the committee was developing their recommendations and I think this is true, just general about work in education
administrative field is that we're always trying to balance teacher workload issues and be very sensitive to those along with the best practices that are going to optimize student
learning. So reassessment, we We we see that in our data ng. from students from parents. We see the research study that just came out quantifying the impact and the effect of that.
But we also know that reassessment we're hearing from our staff causes more workload. >> Our goal would be. Is to provide examples, resources
and training to help minimize that workload. So again, instead of >> having complete entire reassessment design, an entire new test for a student. If a
student mastered 80% of that test, you just going to reassess among the 20% that they didn't already master. And that reduces the amount of time it takes to create a new assessment. It reduces the amount of time it takes to
grade that assessment. It might be when we hear about these examples where student just missed one or 2 problems, it could be something that again, a teacher and a quick conversation might be able to
do a check for understanding or a student may be made a calculation error. They could just do a test correction instead of having to do a whole new rias reassignment. A reassessment. So I know that that doesn't completely solve
the problem because reassessment is more work. But it starts to mitigate the impact of the workload with with reassessment. And that's what we really want to focus on. matter what the percentage
is, whether it's 100% or 90%. We still want to do that work anyway. The reassessment, the ruling great book are inextricably intertwined, essentially. Is that right? No, I think. Even on the
traditional great. But teachers currently are required to provide a reassessment opportunity to student one one reassessment opportunity per summit of assignment. However, in a
rolling Ghraib looking at more flexibility to reassess something from a previous quarter. If the student wanted to do that and do the work to demonstrate that they've mastered content. Now, where is on a traditional great
book. You can only do it within a quarter. So it was not a rolling great book that and the reassessment would be limited to the same quarter in
which the test was taken. That's correct. Okay. I I do not support a rolling great book. I also do support assessment. Reassessments up
to 100 if someone gets a 99 an a plus. The one point difference isn't maybe. Help them get back, get develop. Victorian. But it simply
impose more work on the teacher. And so I strongly believe we need to be teacher centered in our approach because teachers are already overburdened. And so I would prefer to set the reassessment
of what 70, see is still a passing grade and and gets need to learn. You know, you get to see you have an assessment within the quarter go back 6 months and figure o
out how they can reassessment that is punitive to teachers and causes teachers to leave
our system. >> With due respect to Mister Dunn, the Justice 8 about
reassessment, the 70%. don't believe We It be 100%. 2 students. Right? I mean, I
don't. The coach. I don't want it to center of Studens. ♪ Taking the first assessment, a
city, a city. You know, every assessment speak really consider as important any other. So. The highway. But at the same time, I believe the
reason behind reassessment is evolution an opportunity might have been a bad day. a second to prove that he or she has
really on the staff or even improve upon. >> He was she might not have from the national enough.
100%. I don't believe getting as a to on more. Yes. Whether I would go for a similarly cop. 93, why 93 the coldest
beginning point able to get on a E, you know, give given that incentive. With rolling great,
a buck. Let me let me ask you this question. First on the road great. The book. So the road Gray, the book situation,
is it possible for student who might have gotten from his own party? >> CCC. >> First require first quarters. And then in the 4th
quarter. don't really hard really remastered. The work. work that was supposed to be done. First, part quarter, be
able to put her on a because the street and has really demonstrate having law that equal was it required to in and a lever.
>> So technically that is possible. I would say it's probably pretty rare that a student would go 3 quarters at the sea level and then be able to do all the work in the
final quarter to race the 2 in a level. But it is technically possible in in in that hypothetical. What that does is it rewards the effort that that student Putin to mastering that content and you
cannot to reward the student for their work in a similar fashion in a traditional great book. >> With a mine dollars support a more integrated book. With a
homework, homework. And homered not have one has to be trapped for everything by teachers. You could be with a somebody We're going out on could be a spot check if they
were like Ken questions to Chuck, the chant. Number 7 out of those 10 and see where the shouldn't stop why there was a formative assessment can be given and our support to the
extent giving 10% as a separate credible, he to make a point to students and the public that we going to consider. it's an important
aspect it. Shouldn't school Canady. Mr. Fresh. Thanks. just a general question.
Really the 50,000 foot level? >> Are there any significant changes with the recommendations that were receiving today as a result of the policy that the board
adopted last year. Well, all of the recommendations that the committee developed were in response to the updated policy. So I tried a new word that on each of the
recommendations lied. So, yeah, so we looked at not just the policy requirement, but also the guiding principles in the policy to really try to understand the board's thinking. So like one of the
guiding principles as the promotion of continuous engagement and student learning so short, all of these recommendations are developed from the board's updates to the policy. And were these recommendations,
the things that we're going to be recommended before we engaged in the policy work. Remember, we had the recommendations from 23. 24.
We brought those forward last year. And I think the first conversation that the board had there was some disagreement across board members about, for example, the grade waiting category of
the green. I the reassessment policy. So the board did the work to update the policy to provide clarity of expectation. But within each of these areas that you see on this chart, the board did not
say, for example, the great book Type needs to be rolling your traditional said it needs to be consistent, right and ask the committee to go back. Think about it more deeply for an additional year and with
additional stakeholder engagement with additional data analysis. Consider the recommendations. And that's the committee worked really hard to do that. Now I'm public right but I don't see
much of a change from the changes that were implemented last year, right? Or any change. >> Yeah, the great but Apa's
as Michaels Point as the major when And that was before the board changed its policy. No, that was after the board to change the policy. I believe the board picked up the work
of the policy based on what we what many people size changes that were proceeding, the policy work. So that's I think you're correct. But just in
terms of the timeline again, remember, so the board updated the policy started that work in July of 2024. Finish that work in December of 2024. >> Throughout that entire period of time, the grating
committee was suspended. And right pick up the work again until January 2025. right. But there were changes. Communicated to schools. >> For this school year 100%.
And that's what I'm getting at is that there's no. Significant difference between that and where we've ended up here. Well, again, the biggest the 2 biggest ones are great
but tight because we did not require a great, but I to be consistent from classroom to classroom. So this recommendation. >> In response to the updated policy language that says we have to have a consistent graybeal type would be to do
the rolling. Great book and then homework. We didn't have as part of the Grating committee's work last year. That was new work this year. But the other ones are essentially the same what the committee recommended for 23.
24. >> All right. It was commented that the work that is done for each class in or out of school could be considered homework,
you know, students are taking it and figuring out a path of getting it done. How do we ensure that that type of expectation is consistent for all students, including the ones that typically don't get
that type of work? Well, I think that was our senior leadership team looking at the committee recommendations recommended actually having a set category, wait for
homework. >> Because we do right right now from the date of the day that I share that students are reporting daily homework, but it's not 100% that are reporting that. And there's variability across the great
bands. So to get consistency, the first place that we need to start is clarity, policy expectations. So that was why senior leadership team was recommending that separate
homework waiting category. Generally speaking, I'd be supportive of something that some commitment to homework.
I'd be open to interpretations of what the word homework means. I just want consistent application and I want every student to haven't and opportunity to meet those
expectations. think I would say is that I would be in favor of limiting retakes. Perhaps to one. And setting a threshold. 85 1%. I know that
some board members have been talking about those 2 things and I'd be supportive of that. If there's a consensus being taken today. Generally speaking, I really appreciate
the work of my colleagues on the policy of the committee and staff for working on this. And I'm hopeful that we can get to a point where we're not changing this in the year or 2
years or 3 years and that we sit with what we've. What has been determined for a while so that we're not constantly moving the football for people. And that's my only
sports reference for the year. Thank Well, it was apt and appreciated by our schools. I can tell you that because they would like consistency of
expectations. Mystic Cent. >> So I just like to emphasize on the the I mean, personally,
I do not believe we should go up 200% beginning for. Preparing. The students for college is the intention higher education and they did
not get that. That reassessment of I think that sex abilities were doing the service to the students. I'm okay. With up to 80% as to
which is which is still good. it's not giving them the chance off like you keep working and working in getting the grade up. And that it's hard for teachers still for
doing the reassessments. So I'm gonna strongly advocate far doing the Rios's was on the up to 80% of the max and
you know 90 but not 100%. John County. >> So in terms of the reassessment, some I don't
know if you can gather the state of the state exists of. Grade or kids honor what and then what like? What is the
number that they're at and what are they trying to get? Do you know, like, like, is it? This is my concern that that there are students that.
Our high performers and then maybe to do, you know, peer pressure there, pressure, Pence pressure that they're just trying to go for the higher grade, not necessarily
because they needed because there's that pressure. And I know that. Working with kids in schools that mental health issue, which sometimes a
self-imposed is something that concerns me that that reach to perfection. And so I don't know. We have the data. Is that a kid that he's got a
grade that is 50% of us trying to get up to, you know, hopefully 80 or whatever. Was it a kit that is at 80 percent and wants to get the 100% and like I think we saw that we could figure out it would be
easier for us to figure out of my concern. And I've always said kid is not in this alone are great. I think that we get lost in all of that. And so my concern is some of the mental
health impacts of these kids striving for perfection. And I think that's a great question. Unfortunately, we can't centrally really collect that information and that's going vary.
>> Probably classroom to classroom in terms of what students are asking to do. I would just say from my own perspective, though, I wouldn't want to minimize the student has maybe at an 80%
wanting to get to 100%. Because student is doing that probably is doing that for a lot of different reasons. Some to maximize their learning to make sure that they really do know the contents of that they can carry on to the next
course of the sequence of their studies. But when you think about the competitiveness of college admissions right now, the difference between a be in a class a in a class on a
transcript makes a difference for students that are applying to selective colleges and many of our students and Fairfax County are applying to selective colleges. So I just think we need to keep that in
mind when we think about the reasons and motivations that students have for trying to achieve certain standards, it's going to depend on the student and what their individual situation is and
what their post-secondary goals are. >> And I don't want to minimize that, but I also don't want to minimize the other aspect course, not
appreciate. Thank seeing other Parkers. I'm gonna take a turn. And then we're gonna break for lunch. Indigo backs. >> Because fruit here. So I'm going to be as quick as A start by saying I cannot agree
with assessment 100%. Loudoun County Public Schools is currently at 80. And when the student reassesses, they can only earn up to an 80. That is exactly the same province
policy they have in Arlington County. I'm still hoping to get a text back about Prince William Manassas. But I've checked with people. That's what they have in Loudoun County's school board. Just rewrote the policy and it's
going drop 2.70, next year. I don't think grade inflation. When you show me on page, whatever page to page. 35 of the report that 51.5% of the
greats issued at the high school level this year at 1st quarter raise and 62.7% at the middle school level raise. We got great inflation. Okay. I do want poker. I want all
students to succeed. All right. That's huge. That's important to me. But I need to be clear, we can't do reassessment because the workload we go back to slide
8. I believe it's 56% of staff feud. The receptor policy negatively. And then when you look at report, I think it was
52% significant increase in workload and for 23%. A slight increase of 75% are teacher said saw increase in workload because a reassessment, it's a problem. Homework. I like 60
40. I would like to be up to 10%, but I would like to be required to be assigned. We ed to be habit forming and the starting younger years.
The other thing I want to talk about is there are lots of studies, for example, published in the Journal Educational Assessment, Brook
Hart at all 2022 found that grading reforms often result inflated grades do not correspond actual student learning when schools eliminate zeros rollout unlimited retakes without structure interventions. Students, mayor passing grades
about mastering in central content. The effects on student innovation 2023 report by the Thomas of Fordham Institute. Researchers concluded that policies minimizing consequences for missed assignments or poor
performance inadvertently reduce student modifications, motivation. The study found that students districts with strict late work policies and minimum grating thresholds demonstrate a greater responsibility and time
management skills over time. Some students benefit from additional chances too much leniency can remove the urgency concede. I can go on with more studies. I appreciated your report that all of your studies when the
other direction. But there was a lot of research that also says the reassessing up 200% is not best practice. So, you know, want to share this. I've shared this with other people
because I don't need a response. I did talk to 11 board members and I heard from Mr. Moon this morning. He doesn't agree with 100 up 200% either. And so we're gonna have to come to a consensus of what that number might look
like. But quickly, what I'm going to share is an idea. I did talk with several of you about, but I still like personally, but I don't think we're ready for it. And that is if you're in a standard
course that's been waited. happy for you. Reassess up to 100%. That's why we created some of these practices as we wanted kids to want to learn. If you're in an honors course or something. a 0.5 weight.
You can reassess up to 90%. Because you get a 0.5 bump in your GPA. And if you're in an AP IB or do enroll class, you can reassess up to 80% because you get a one point and your
GPA. The workload is the number of our dance learners who are retaking when they have a 90 to a 94 95 or an 88 and trying to get better and it's not properly prepare our
kids for college. So I'll stop there amount of time. We'll do a recess. Hopefully we pretty quickly and come back go backs and then we've got to get safety Cip. So thank you. I
mean, I'd like to say 25, if
we can do it.
So time and we have a lot to get to with Cip. I'm gonna try and do a little bit of consensus gathering. >> And then there are a few items. I don't think we're going to get a consensus on. So we will set up a Google
Doc, but I feel like I didn't hear a lot of conversation around number assignments. So I can I get consensus with the raise a hand or people comfortable. What with what
the committee has proposed with the minimum number assignments. Okay. Lets for those in the room great book waiting. We did have a
conversation because that's also tied to homework. And so you know, I I see 3 options that will be in a Google Doc. So listen. So hopefully
understand them. The first one is. But it created. We'll talk. It's not good. Okay. we
can try, but we're not going to get into discussions that we can't get there. We're going to go. What I heard from most people. I think was 60,
30 10. Or 60, 40 with homework being picked up to 10% in the 40. So who would like a 60, 30
10 to just give me your sense, Mr. Moon. That's a 60, 30 10. Okay. 60, 30 10. I think I saw 3 a 61 to qualified my 60, 40
up to 10. They still need to be signing homework. Consistent. For all students, right? We need to be assigning homework. So within that is you need to be written in the
regulation. But you will assign homework can be set up to 10%. So let's go back 60.
I'm sorry, 70. 60, 30 10 same hands. 3, 60, 40 up to 10%. With homework assigned, OK,
that looks like consensus. It looks like we're at 60, 40 up to 10% homework has to be assigned. Okay. So that takes care of that. The 2 of those great book type because it we
would be delayed. Well, first of all, great book type, even though it's still going to be delayed implementation for the great book Type. Do we have consistent consensus on really great book? Who's comfortable with the Rolling? Great book a
year from now with training this year. At high schools. Only. I mean, it looks like
consensus, but maybe people need to have more discussion on that. So but do that again. If you're comfortable with. What I just Rowling, great
book training this year, implementation following year. Raise your hand. So 1, 2, 3, 4. Yeah, it's the same thing I
just reworded. And so it's so icy for Sizemore. Heizer is your hand now? And so those people who prefer more discussion around great book before we pick. All right. So
that's inconsistent. So we're gonna have to rep to come back to that. Yeah, more discussion. And finally
reassessment heard consensus that nobody can. Nobody can work with up to 100%. I've heard as low as 70 as high as
90. So. That's gonna be part 2. Part one of reassessment is do we have consensus around a number and I think that what I
heard the most was 85 or 90 someone to start with. 85 who's comfortable with up to 85%. I'm not going to this
could it. okay. Start with up to 90. Okay. Start with up to
90. 93 up to 93 bottom law. IC IC 2 hands up to 85. Up to a
90. 1, 2, voted twice. And now you're down a little bit. I got you 1, 2, 3, 4, 0, k up to 85. That's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8. Up to an ad. All right. I think right at 85. That was where the consensus was. The next question is and I think this one is a little tougher.
Again, articulating what Loudoun and Arlington do is they are up to an 80. And when you take the reassessment, you can only earn up to an 80. No,
we said you can reassess up to 85. We didn't see what you could get 2. That's the second part. 85 or below you can
reassess. We're now talking. But we're now talking about what you can earn in that reassessment. Again, Loudoun and Arlington. You can only get up to that threshold,
which is 80. I see 3 ops. I've heard 3 options for people. You can reassess and you can get up to 100. You could reassess take the average of
the reassessment and their first test. But it can't go below the original score. Or you can only recess up to the 85, which is the threshold.
Right? So my first question is how many people support? The reassessment allowing the student to earn up to 100%. Okay. IC 4. How many people
are comfortable with and average of that second score and the first score. But it cannot go below the original score. I'm sorry. MS.
>> Lady, where adding new things that we never discuss in this makes really uncomfortable because Israeli arbitrary, we had all of this work done by the committee, then senior leadership looked at it. I'm very uncomfortable
with the new things that were not up for discussion or greater understanding. >> Well, we're gonna get stuck
on that. So I don't know what to do because we're out of time. So I'm just saying that I was going to share the 3 things that people are shared with me and see where the consensus was. Yes, we have
not discussed this part of it. I agree with you and with people have shared have shared with you. But we have people who actually. >> Educators who have done this wired. I can go out and come up with all kinds of
things on a lot of different things. But if I'm not an expert in that field, I think it warrants a little bit of conversation, a little bit of feedback from staff. I'm just really concerned that we're doing this so that
arbitrarily. >> Okay. I hear that because I hear your frustration of but that hear from him. What you want to have happen is what I'm hearing and so I'm just
going to finish the consensus gathering and just curious to know how many people would want that reassessment only to be up to the threshold of 85%.
Okay. That's for and then who would want the average of the 2 not to allow it to go below the original score. Compare that to sets for. Okay. We're not going. We're not going
maybe 5. We're not going to get a consensus. I just don't know when we're going to talk about it. So we're table this for now because we have to get to cip because we don't have
time for everybody to to speak to it. just hang on a second. Are people comfortable if we send this? Particular
discussion back to Dr Reid? To then come back to us and we can also next next steps, Doc,
related to this. As Yeah, I I just think we need another discussion about this. you
know, the great book typed to Doctor Anderson's Point. We never sussed 60, 40 10. The options presented to us was 60, 30 10 or 70, 30. So this
is way too important to feel like I'm at an auction, you know, making decisions. So >> I think it needs to have a I think to the challenge. So
Dr Reid is yours. You presented as 2 recommendations. Or what I am not the educational expert. That's you. So. you know, I
find were in the space a lot where you give us these options. But so I think it needs to be tightened up and very clear what you want Arden
put on and what is not up for discussion and what is actually going to be implemented next year and the year after. So I do think this
happens from time to time where a committee is going to come in and make recommendations. That senior leadership will adjust. >> Because those are recommendations and those committees are told they're
not making policy. They're not drafting regulation, but we wanted you to see what the recommendation the committee came to. I was providing you one recommendation. That's a
far right. So and that's Dr Presidio provided. I think the clear message is that there's not a comfort with 100% for
the retakes and we can take that back I can provide all meet with staff will come back with a proposal for you. Our recommendation that is not to 100% and then we can have a
discussion on that piece moving forward. >> Thank you. then we're going to journey. But I'm going to say one thing. We have canceled every evening work
session. This is the second time I've been a meeting manager and I have gotten the short end of the stick on the amount of time needed for the discussion. I'm gonna leave it at that because I need to honor get to cip because we're
half an hour late. But thank
you.
>> school board members, if you can come back to the table. Girls missing cars
missing. we have we have. With Kevin. We have quorum. Well, I'm I'm really excited to get
started here today and a re-recording. We've got all that. Okay. I'm really excited to get started here today. This is the combination of
almost a year and a half of work by facilities and outside consultants an F pack. And there's a lot of content here today. We have 3 subjects that
will be discussing today. So just to make simplest, we'll having slides. About the first part that discussion sides about the second part, then
discussion and slides about the 3rd part then discussion because we were kind of Chongqing this because there 3 very different subjects because we have a lot of content to get through will be
doing our initial questions. 2 minutes to start with one minute go backs. I did provide by email and there are hard copies have been provided to you. One pagers for the first
2 subjects that will be discussing today and what unites these 3 subjects is that it's all about building cheaper and building faster because we've all been through
the cip work session a few months ago where we have great facility needs that vast exceed the amount of our financial resources are limited. School bond funding,
which is 230 million dollars every year. So we need to look for alternative ways to be more efficient with our dollars to be fiscally responsible and to make better use of our facilities and also
to reduce our construction time frames because we have a 42 year renovation cycle that we need to get down to the recommended 20 to 25 years. So
really excited. Talk about this. The initial 2 subjects will be looking for in farm. All school were consensus and the 3rd one as well for this
first subject, specifically what we're looking for in terms of outcomes as to obtain schoolboard consensus to proceed with the revision of policy. 80 to 40, which is
currently pending before the governance to allow the use of design build and construction management at risk. 2 new procurement methodologies nude fcps, not new to the world and
also to obtain schoolboard consensus to incorporate design, build and construction management at risk as options and future our fees were appropriate. circle back to those at the end of the
discussion. So with that, I'll turn Dre to introduce staff. Thank you, Mr. Dunn and this afternoon we have as Mr. Dunn mentions several very meaty topic. So I think we should
just get started. >> I'm pleased to have Umansky to introduce or team and introduce the work. So thank you as Minsky >> thank you, Doctor, Eva and
good afternoon to the board. And thank you for having me here today has Dre mentioned my name is Janice Umansky chief of facility services and capital programs. And with me today, I have Jessica Gillis,
Scottish buck leaders on the facilities team. Today. We're going to cover a summary presentation on 3 Capital improvement program related topics, starting with some background information, followed by alternative
project delivery methods swings basis and then public-private partnerships. So before we dive in, I do want to share some background information on our facility
funding. This slide was presented in this year cip and it shows an overview of facility funding and their sources funding sources for capital projects shown at the top of the chart for the
general obligation, bonds as voted on by residents and the biannual schoolboard referendum. The annual limit for general obligation funding has increased over time. The
increase annual allocation to 230 million per year in Fy 25 and be on scene here and it should be noted that referendum for schools as biannual. So we're in the odd years at Fcps. As a result of
escalation in the construction industry. You know, we continue to monitor these costs as they relate to capital projects and also on slide, you can see the additional funding, the
impacts. The cip includes fcps operating funds, funds from the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors for Infrastructure Management. The Capital sinking Fund Proffers so you
can see we spend approximately 40 million annually on facility projects that are not using bond funds and please know this is 40 million for facility related projects and that does not include work such as maintenance. That's
also coming out of separate operating funds. Also previously shared with the board. I want to remind everyone that Fcps faces Capital project funding
constraints. This chart illustrates Fy 24 capital construction funding per square foot compared to other school divisions. Limited to the DMV where the regional cost of construction is most comparable to our market
conditions. Comparing funding per square foot helps us underside understand the size of facility portfolio at a minimum obligated for renovations against capital funding. This graphic includes
divisions, approximately one-third the size of fcps, a greater as most comparable to our design and construction program. So as you can see of a public schools listed above Fcps ranks last with the
funding per square foot of $8 and $0.54 the average funding per square foot of the school division shown. Here is $21.80. Yeah, because we're such a large school system,
even increasing funding by an additional $3.58. to bring us up to the second lowest rank school. That means an annual bond amount or alternative funding. need to increase by
97.5 million dollars annually or 195 per two-year referendum. And so this funding disparity has been really the catalyst for identifying ways that we can
optimize the facility program. So the 3 topics today will be discussing are in response to the growing need for facility capital. With that framework
in mind, we're first going to discuss alternative project delivery methods. I'm first going to walk through what the methods are have procurement influences them and the implications for different approaches for capital
improvement projects. So when we talk about project delivery methods were referring to the full process by which a project is planned, design contracted in built. It lays
out who does what, how the owner design team and contractors interact these methods do not exist in a vacuum. They're rooted in procurement strategies. How we choose the project delivery
method, influences everything from the contract. Type 2 when team members are brought on board. Fcps has historically preferred to deliver its major capital projects following the
design bid build process. And so we're seeking ways to expand beyond just this delivery method and explore other options. Please know our current policy. 82 40
describes a cap. improvement project should be awarded by competitive, sealed bidding process to the lowest responsible bidder provided that sufficient funding is available. And so our current
policy follows this traditional design bid build project delivery method with a revision to the policy delivery methods may be explored. There are 2 methods
widely used in education, construction. That's construction management at risk and design Bill, which will be discussing today. The
first is our current method design bid build our current process and expanding on this a bit more here provides the foundation for a better understanding how it compares to others. The traditional design that Bill method
follows a very linear approach. The us in this case Fcps has a contract with the design team. Usually an architect and engineers and that they create a complete
set. A project plans and specifications. Once that design is fully finalized and permits are secured. The project thing goes out to bid. We have preferred qualified
general contractors who submit competitive bids based on those documents. The onerous in this case has a contract with that general contractor. And again, it's usually the lowest responsible banner to construct the project.
According to the plans, the general contractor then completes the building and turns it back over to us based on the bid. Price with change orders submitted throughout construction. So the construction price for this
method can fluctuate due to change order process. This process also does not allow for any fast-tracking nor does it consider the gener contractors insight during
design. So with that, we're going to go into our first alternative method and that's construction manager at risk. It's a project delivery method where the construction manager also into the C M is involved
early on in the project and typically we hire them during the design phase and they provide input on Kos estimation, scheduling and construct ability. There are
still 2 separate contracts with the owner. So we would have won with our design team and a separate one for that construction manager. In this model, the construction manager assumes the risk of
delivering the project within a guaranteed maximum price or commonly known as a GMP, meaning they're responsible for completing project on budget. Even if the actual costs exceed that set, maximum
price. The cmr construction manager typically oversees the entire construction process. Ensuring the project stays on schedule and within that budget. See him at risk allows for more collaboration through
constant communication between Fcps the design team in the contractor lea to potential better cost control and reduce project delays. It also opens up to the possibility for the
construction manager order materials early and start construction early even before the full documents are complete. An. And then the
other method is designed build. So design build is a project delivery method where there's a single entity or team that's responsible for both the design and the construction of a project. And
this approach a sudden as if CPS, we would hire one from. It's typically a contractor who has architect underneath them to handle both the design and construction phases instead of hiring 2 separate
teams for each face. So like construction manager at risk, this method also uses a guaranteed maximum They're still responsible for completing the project budget, even if actual costs exceed.
And because it's one contract, the general contractor is part of that project team from day one of design all the way through construction. So it's a key features of the design, build method include one
single point of responsibility, faster project completion and cost control and the highest ability for collaboration and this method. The design builder assumes that also seems the greatest
amount of risk on behalf of the project and this method also has the potential for ordering the materials and starting that construction early. So and recap this slide
here. Looks at all 3 methods side by side. So you can see design build our current practice. See him at risk, offering that more collaborative product back to
swell. Still having a separate contract and design Bill being the more integrated method. And you can see each method does have its advantages and features. And I would say
ultimately the choice between these methods really depends on the specific needs of the project, including complexity, its budget, its timeline and
that level of collaboration you're seeking. So why we're doing this. I mean, exploring other delivery methods kind of stems from that idea that one size doesn't fit all when it
comes to managing construction projects. Yeah, fcps capital improvement projects are all slightly different with unique sights, existing buildings and very needs an alternative
project delivery methods, like design builder, see him at risk, allowed for better is sharing between parties which can lead to fewer disputes and change orders. They also promote early collaboration
between Fcps the design team in the contractor which I think can lead to better improving construct ability cost estimates and that overall efficiency. Our projects are very complex. So
this could really be an added benefit for fcps. These methods can also allow for the opportunity to shorten the construction time and provide cost control, which I think is
very good for that predictability of budget better opportunities for getting good value during the design, especially when the design contractors brought on
during that design face. So no moving along here. This are the staff next steps. So on our side, we're going to continue exploring the
delivery methods for capital improvement projects. As mentioned, we redlined policy. 82 40 and currently staff were developing. The architect engineer, RFP for our next
renovation project in the queue. That's Cub Run Elementary School for the cip. And so our draft that we're building now states that this project may be a construction manager, at-risk delivery
method and the design team will be expected to work with the construction manager team as an option. assuming the policy does get approved. So
for the board next steps, you know, we have the recommended actions here. So policy. 82 40 has been red line to incorporate construction manager at risk and design build as approved the school
board with the need to approve the updated policy to enact a new deliver these delivery options. And again, I want to reiterate this does not eliminate or lack ourselves into a delivery method moving forward. But it really just
gives us the option if we so choose to use a new method. Looking ahead if we do approve it and do move forward, any future use of construction
manager at risk or design, but build will require school board approval for their respective contracts. So it would be required before an RFP is issued. And then again
at the GMP, if that dollar threshold is exceeded. And so our office, you know, we're committed to working closely with the superintendent and the school board to implement these delivery methods and in
search of optimizing our program. Thank Before we get started with questions, I just want to clarify in response a question.
>> On the one pager we design bid build, which is the default required under Virginia law. With design build and construction management risk. The idea is right now we have only one
tool in our tool box, which is design bid build. And f Baucus said that more appropriate for simple one trade projects. And we're looking to add more tools to our tool box where
appropriate and build, including our So with that. lady. Thank you, Mr. thank
you. Staff for this presentation and all the work you do tirelessly behind the scenes. >> When it comes to facilities, I'll be brief. I
100% support Mr. Dunn just said I don't see any reason why we wouldn't want to have all of the options in our tool box. And so in relation to swing spaces and procurement,
I'm 100% support of the additional columns are suggestions that were made related to both of those.
Thanks. Thank Mr. Moon. >> I wish could be as we fence my colleagues leading, I cannot. yes the missed a few
questions. a CNA on. He's a new to us. And obviously I need to educated. Her father on this one. And then they
start with this one and I'm looking at slight moderate its that can be posted. saw what
you whole lot of peace, one for the time. 1, CM. And then CNN. Didn't he? Was to to
construction budget. Is that something stipulating or business EMS responding to? >> I walked out into hands to plating maximum contract price.
>> It would be the first. So we in the RFP would stipulate with that budget is so we would, you know, internally decide what our budget is. We would use that cip the estimate we put together and
put that in the RFP. hiring the CM and then as they go through the design, they're going to be keeping that cost control. And that review of the design. So when we get to actually negotiating the GMP,
it should be that budgeted amount that we had originally in the RFP. >> If ACM is going to be looking at the general contractor, how much of a
country we have what cost expenditure. At the end of the day. >> I think we're actually going to have greater control because we're going to one
stipulate with that budget is we're not crossing our fingers that big day. We're going to say, hey, the price, the guaranteed price needs to be under 40 million dollars say. And we're going to put that
and the RFP before we even sign up with a contractor. But then we're going to be working very closely with them. And they're also going to be advising with the design team to make sure that that cost
control is being done in a collaborative way with fcps. So when it comes time, we feel like there's enough a surety in the documents we can actually negotiate that contract.
>> So if you want to have the time to quit, going to be doing the design, I'm assuming design with 2. I want know where process based upon design. The contract to a
general contractor. So with a beak. Based upon our design. That's how the process right and how would see him be able
to play to the maximum price without knowing what that the time he's going to be. >> Well, I think that's why we bring them on is a collaborative partner. So I think one, it's just being
transparent. When we hire Monde saying you're going to need to work with this design team in with us to make sure it stays under 40 million dollars and then they do have a seat at the table, working
with the architect to say, hey, you know what you've designed is overly complicated. We think this will be more expensive to build. And so there is just more control of the design
from a cost perspective throughout because they have a voice at the table. >> So so CM is going stipulate
to the maximum amount, even with on the design and then make a recommendation. Should design to on that design and then you put these 19 does not agree with the recommendations that month.
>> We're going to have to work through like a value engineering process, work with them. But ideally, because they're on earlier through the beginning of the design. They're making the right big
moves. You know, right? Moves through as a design process goes through. You know, to make sure that when it comes time do that, guaranteed maximum price contract. It's
it's meeting that mark and you're right. Sometimes designs not fully flushed out. They are taking on that risk their green to do it for 40 million without every line being drawn again, that's some of the risk we put on the
construction manager. We do pay them fees and the fees will be negotiated when we bring the month on board as part of the RFP.
>> And we would see em. If general contractor, other ones that may be hiding subcontractors. I mean, I'm assuming that they go through
issue the old old, out out of peas to hire subcontractors and we have a control. >> we will be reviewing them. And yes, it will all be open. Books are going to be able to
see what sort of pricing they're negotiating with their subcontractors. And in fact, it because it's a guaranteed maximum price say they degree
to 40 million dollars. They start awarding contracts and lone behold. It comes in at 38. We see all that and we actually get the 2 million dollars back that we only pay
them. The 38 for the actual awarding contracts. If it goes over 40, we don't pay any higher. I know would 13 seconds left. >> If you could talk us how we
can save money, how we can. We can save a time using this month old. >> Right. One. I think you have greater speed because you can actually on board. They can already start ordering
long lead materials before you finish the design. So there's some efficiency in the timeline which equates to money. I think the other one is budget predictability. We're going to put an RFP. It's 40 and then we're going
to have all the right players in the room working together to make sure it stays at 40. And so your likelihood of change orders throughout construction goes way down. So I think it offers more
predictability to that budget. >> probably need a little bit for one minute later, a Bush and say before sentence. Let me ask you, could you tell me what school districts August which districts are utilizing this?
>> Yeah. Many school districts in the DMV are utilizing this eye. I got sample contracts from Loudoun County and a Prince William counties using
it. Pg County was doing design build through their P 3 program. DC did a combination of cement risk and design build so Montgomery County's using it. It's it's widely known and education work
because it is complex work. You do want that perspective early on.
>> Doesn't seem to Stu. What let the woman go back later. Dr. Anderson. Thank you. Just to follow up a little bit with was questioning, is your
position on would your position be that had we employed the CM AR? That's it for the fall stretch. Construction. They would not have allowed the design team
to put that queue or that glass walkway because it would have been difficult to build. and expensive to build. And then that that's a design that would not have gone to the
community and not clear the consternation that it created. Yeah, that's a good hypothetical without being in a time machine. That's exactly what a construction manager design builder would do. They would take a look at.
>> The design drawings as they go on and say, hey, actually, this is not a great highlights. Very complicated, humid, overly complicated. It's it's difficult to construct. May be either take it out. Were billed at this
more simplistic way. They get the same effect and it's less expensive because it's easier to do. And that's where you would have that dialogue between the construction manager and the designer to
come up with a good solution. So under approach, the value engineering is built in rather than added after the fact, right? It's truly finding value through the design to
its. It's getting good value. It's making sure things can actually be constructed. It's a quality thing to like. When the details are being vetted by people to actually install
them, the likelihood that it's going to be done in a good quality way goes up to. So then how are we then going merge this with the fcps
approach of having a design team that includes community. I think it would be almost identical because we're going to have a design team on board. They're going to be going through all the different phases that doesn't
change. It's just another partner at the table so we can actually bring them to the community meetings as well. I think if anything, you're going to get a more robust perspective when we go out and
talk, talk to folks, okay, can you speak to the differences between CMA are indeed be whether or not one each approach lends themselves. 2
particular projects. Yeah, it's a good question that they both have their pros and cons. When you have to contracts, you actually get to control the architect a little bit more. So if you want more.
>> Control over what the design team is doing. You might lend yourself to construction manager at risk. >> If you want more of a one-stop shop and more of that you know, one benefit of
design build as if made a mistake. Well, it's part of their team. So they be responsible for the performance of them a little bit more. So it's a matter of preference, not size and scope of a project. Know. I think
you would want to take a look at each project and say, hey, if this project carries more risk, it's more complicated. Has its shorter time frame. Maybe the expediency of using one company would be good. But
if you had something that was a little bit longer and you wanted enter play with the architect a little bit more directly. You might do construction manager at risk. I think both of them have their merits. This China.
Thank you for putting that up. The owner control over design under design. Build. >> It's not checked off. What does that mean? Well, it means
the architect technically works for the contractor directly. So then we don't have input into the design. We will and we need to make we have strong Ed specs to make sure that no matter what the
design build team is bringing forth says table, it meets our standards and we can give feedback. >> They might actually come up with some ideas and the builder might think there are a little risky so they might not even never be shown to us.
You know, there's and there might be a little bit Moore entered play between that builder and architect. Before comes to us. There will be definitely collaboration and we'll make sure it's a design that works for city. Said it
in You don't get to see everything. So again, the community part lives. The community part who are engaged in the design of who are
engaged in design team. They will see. Let's do have a slightly smaller window into what's possible because it's already been organized to only provide what they feel is
doable rather than, you know, wide wide open kind of opportunities, which if you think about could be a good thing because we can ensure that it's constructive, will
that actually needs the budget? So anything that we are seeing, we have assurance that it's going to like viable share. One of the things that maybe this is a better question for the next section.
But you can tell me when I worked out and because they open new schools just about year, the year that I opened elementary school. That was a heist, middle school. And
typically they would use that one design in just I don't know how that worked with the construction company, but they would just use the same design over and over right now and over again. So you'll have elementary schools that look
the same just with different colors. With this lend us to that kind of work because it was lot cheaper. Yeah, I think
you could do that methodology and any of these? I think the bigger constraints actually going to be existing sites
here at Fcps. Mystic's it. Thank you, Dennis, with the presentation. I'm a big
believer in fix from from price contracts there. The not keep adding more and more funds as a as a four-car dollars and change of orders. >> So definitely this is much
of better approach to things going to design bills are construction the cmr. I do want to that given certain example, if you could just go over a cost savings, you know,
for different any future project is in mind that how much savings going to do by switching over? >> Yeah, I think that might even be better done in a follow-up because we had
started to do that with swing space. We kind of equated it to number dollars, save per month. >> So I think if you could say we can get ahead by a few months using this methodology,
we can kind of equate hey, that's $50,000, less a month and a half to pay general contractor to be out there. It's a little bit more streamlined with, you know, having the construction trades
out there longer. So I think I'd want to actually put something together for you in that regard. But I guess what, I will just keep reiterating as it provides us more budget
confirmation upfront and less variance from that because when you agree and we do our internal estimates and put estimate for certain specific price. When bitters the
construction manager at risk of the design, better build on it. Then they're obligated to keep that price. Thank you for that response. And I don't stand. Things can change. And
we've talked about that before that. And there might be something unexpected happening it could be all you know, something we have address the
men didn't slog and Elvis TV have a cycle. If a switch to this brought the new approaches, how much difference can it make in terms of our 45 years of
menton like, oh, we have a caller. much can be deduced that? Well, I think the benefits will be if you get work done quicker, you can move on to the next project. I
do think having trades that are actually building the work involved in the design, lead to better designs. Personally. I think that's very strong voice that you need at the
table. So I'm hopeful that even just using these alternative methods, we might have longer lasting park. And maybe more sustainable
buildings which yeah commitment. Don't unsuitable. Yeah, I agree. There's a lot of construction managers and design have experience building at 0 and you can
design a theoretical design, but you got having that experience actually building at 0 work is very valuable. So I'm definitely very much in
support of this from PRI and would like to go forward that the board's support. thank you for this and thank you for
done this matter and for all to the board. Miss Anderson. I also would like to thank my colleagues and I 100% agree
with Mr. Dunn that having more tools in the tool box is there is a good idea I guess my question that was from is this harder or either or any of
these harder to attract contractors to work with? >> I would say in this geographic area and no, in fact, there's many larger companies that started to only
do construction manager at risk are designed built. It's a more collaborative approach. So I think there's actually a lot of companies out there that prefer it because you're in a partnership row and not an adversarial role. Only
looking at the bottom prices a way to make profit and these other models are actually negotiating the fees upfront, see have all settled. And then it's a chilly more of a partnership process. So this wouldn't limit the number of
contractors that were available to us. I would estimate no, okay. Excellent. How would this work in amongst the bonds? So understanding that oftentimes we get bond
money. That's for a few years like several years out for when we vote on the bond. Can you just speak to any of that? Yeah, we tried to make sure that in this cip and moving
forward with our cash flow. We're cognizant and wanted to future-proof ourselves. When we talked about the potential for bringing someone on earlier, we made sure that the
design year had enough money to bring on preconstruction services from these builders. So that should be built in. And, you know, if we don't use it and we go with the traditional method, then that money would just roll into
construction once it starts. I feel like it'll work either way for us. The other thing we did was during that permitting year, we usually just limit to design and permitting. We actually front loaded some of
the construction funding in that cash flow in the event. You want to buy that long lead, mechanical or electrical equipment upfront get started on it. So I think our cip cash flow should support these
models. Excellent. Thank you to you and your team for the work they've done on This man. The day is finally here. We've
been talking about this for a while. Think you can your wonderful team. >> I think it's just, you know, I'm glad to be learning about these options. And I love the way of phrasing it is. It's a tool in our tool
box especially because we know that we have to be so stringent with our budget dollars and knowing that in this s past year alone, we spent 20 million of our instructional budget on or capital facility needs. We
just have to figure out other ways to do the facilities better. So I do hope that the public and certainly the board of supervisors see that we're doing everything we can to be
as frugal of a steward as we can of every single dollar because no student or staff deserves to be in a building. That is 45 years old. So I just wanted to say it's really
imperative that the board approved the policy that makes all this stuff happened. We have to give that authority over to the superintendent. And so the governance committee is reviewing that and that will come before the
board. And so we do hope the goal is if the board can approve this before the school year is out, we can start using this right away. So if you do have questions about that policy, please seek. The
answer is out in advance. But it should be pretty straight forward. Again, this has been at our disposal. We just haven't done this traditionally. But you know, now is very different time
than it ever was. So let's get to moving using these other tools. Thank you. Thank you. just want to echo I praise
mask in our team and for Dre and for championing this. >> The 6 trying this new options for procurement of school, construction and renovation projects. I just
want confirm your exploration of this involved review of by legal Counsel Division Council. That's correct. We in collaboration with the Vision Council on this work and with
the revisions to policy. 82 40. >> And and doctor, it is it your recommendation to add these tools to our tool box. I
think the more varied approaches I think yes. Answer sir. So are the sources of cost savings from design build and CM AR, does it come from
essentially doing things in parallel rather than sequentially and also through that collaboration, reducing the number of change orders that might be required later on. Yeah, the those who are
absolutely correct. You, you know, you put out the fires before they ever even start design. And then again, it had it. Those these are the 2 methods to have the ability to
fast track work. >> I believe either Packer can't remember had estimated that design build and or CMA are would save 6 to 9 months on the typical project is that
a rough ballpark of what you think could be achieved. >> You know, I think that's what we had talked more about in context of swings space because that's probably going
to be a more limiting factor when it comes a time line. I think there's definitely efficiencies gained in this. But I think that will be part of the discussion in the in the next round.
>> Do you from using design build and CMA are? Does it help too accelerate the permitting zoning 20 to 30 to process a dollar. And are there any positive impacts in that respect?
>> It it could have not gone through here in Fairfax County. We're going to have to go through this together. I do know. And my last division we were actually able to break out permits and get them fast
track. So the architect may have been able to build a quick demo package and lay out the foundations. Well, they then moved on to the rest of the building. In the meantime, we could submit those to the
county for permitting and then the contractor could even order some of those materials early get started on that work early while we finished up the rest of the design. Again, knowing that we are always
kind of keeping that stable budget. So it allowed for. But in partnership with our local jurisdictions and regulatory agencies to do that.
>> And can can you clarify the question asked by my colleague it's and used by other school districts in the DMV. Understand from what you said that some large construction companies don't do design bid build anymore. 4 large school
projects. So does that mean we're going to be accessing new companies are new contractors that have not been on our projects in the past. Yes, there's the potential for
that. And do you see? That's all my questions. And I miss Sizemore Heizer. Thank you.
And I'll second my colleagues, appreciate all the hard work your staff are pushing hard work of my colleagues and CDC. >> fact to bring this work forward. A couple questions.
>> It's okay. Was that I was like, good. And it says under. >> For Jalen Policy, 82 40 design build is default method assuming that means he's not
the only method or loud light sentiments and opposed amending the policy. clear. But have these of the methods been allowed already? That's correct. So the PPA stipulates that design bid build is a
preferred method because it's all costs driven. >> However, it does also allow for alternatives like construction manager at risk and design build. And that will be part of the revisions
to policy. 82 40, the talk about that process because purview to there still needs to be local governing authority that signs off on those methods. >> I asked tquestion somewhat. I have we use some
of these other methods because they want not allowed. It was it's not list his friend method so did if we have, what would the cost savings? Because I understand BBB method is lowest cost bid,
which isn't always the cheapest option in the long run, right? Because you have like you said this, you know, 2 step process and you might have changes because that have we seen on the other school
system, seen a savings using those of the methods. >> So we have not done that here. That CPS. Oh, wow, the PPA has the preferred and allows the alternatives. Are
school board policy right now only allows for design bid build. So we actually haven't piloted any of these here. >> You know, if other school systems just kind of curious, it sounds like, of course, that there be a lot of savings and time savings as well,
which is also money savings. I'm just curious what the what Yes. s done in other schools. >> I don't want to speak out of turn, but I feel like just anecdotally more often than
other nearby school districts are using these alternative methods as their preferred for large complex project. That's really good to know. I'm wondering, you know, this a regulation that policy, but
are we going are there times when one would be preferred over the other you know, guns, facilities standpoint. And if so, are we going put those and retions as to terms of these are the criteria? I
think criteria developed. So I understand the board will vote on it be nice for us to know why one method is better than the other. What type of construction. The weather's we'll size or for print. I
don't yet. I think that will be part of future cip planning. So are step one was making sure the cost cash flow works. But should policy 82 40
be approved? We would then on a school by school basis as projects under the cip evaluate them because I do think it really depends on the complexity and the goals of the project. And so when we
bring forth approval for an RFP to beak construction manager or design build. We would share our analysis. It would just be helpful. Maybe AM. mean, to this. But has the
discussion about policy? 82 for E is thoughts of kind of criteria you be looking for when these apply just to get a better understanding of why these would be important. And I think on second second part,
I think you'd be really helpful if we had some communications once we may pass this policy about. And we talked about this with a boundaryk. These are all the things we're trying to do
to your effective and efficient with our resources. I think that good to have that conversation as well around this piece of a man. I really appreciate all the hard work of staff and our school board
members in shepherding Mr. Fish. Thanks very much. And thank you to our meeting managers and all the staff that
>> worked really h*** o* all of curious if we have and I'm not looking for specific projects, but we have any projects in the distant pipeline that would benefit from the board aggressively
moving forward with adopting revisions to 80 to 40. And if I'm not mistaken, secondarily. It's not that 80 to 40
requires bid to build. It's that we don't specifically allow for other things to be considered. >> Yeah, that's correct. Right now, it only allows for the design bid build to answer
your first question. I would recommend starting with our large renovation projects. That's where you have complexity that you can really get value from having the
construction manager one and we'll get into it. And our next session. But right now we are doing phase occupied work and that has, you know, a lot of input on making sure you
can work on the part of the building while the other part safe. And a lot of that is the means and methods of the contractor implementing that. So having that particular insight will be very
beneficial. So to me, it's the major cip work where it's complex. >> So we have several projects in the pipeline that would benefit from this approach. >> I would agree. And like I
mentioned in the Steph next steps were actually future-proofing our design. Our piece to say he architect you may be expected to work under the low bid condition or
you may be expected to work with the construction manager and the fees that we negotiate should cover either method. And this is probably. A
question that you don't have an easy answer to. But >> take one bond. We have a bond coming up just. About what percentage of that could be realized in savings if we
it took this approach to having more flexibility. >> That's really difficult to project because it just varies so much. I guess what I will
say is we will be very thoughtful on the cost estimates in the cip and I would expect less variance of, you know, going over and having a value engineer at the last minute or going over and
having to take from another projects. I think what it ultimately offers is stability. >> Which has been very difficult given all of the post-pandemic cost overruns
and everything else. All right. Thanks very much. Like to start go backs embassy.
Anyone so Mr. Men. >> Just question. Just to recap from my perspective. If our current approach he cover
it. All right. Describe the as we Just kind of be How much does that cost for says we have to sponsor it. Could you
be art? Yes, that's a great summary. Thank you. Miss Anderson. Assessment Heizer.
Thank you. That was actually one of my questions that Mr. just my statements to try to understand it 2 comments, I'm very supportive of having more tools in our tool box. I just want understand a little bit.
It looks to me from the descriptions are reading that design build has the potential of having less fcps control over the process. talks about
resolving disputes and things like that, which of course, take some pressure off my staff. I some cost savings there, but then does that give us some control over how the
project may look as things go along and I bring that up. So a certain renovations, you know, parts as we've gone along the process, we've heard from certain communities, but they're concerned about certain fields or this or
that. And I I'm wondering if there's still space for that. The way I'm reading the Cmr C a R processors of the DVD process. Fcps is involved a little bit more stuff. You
talked a little bit. >> Yeah, and I want to share even in design. Build Fcps still has a seat at the table and provides design input. I
think maybe sometimes we might see some dead cleaned up before it ever comes to us, you know, between the contractor and architect. But if we come and there's a design and we have particular feedback, we don't like
something in our. We want to see something done differently. We work with them and actually, again, it's a collaborative approach where maybe we want something a little bit more upgraded, our fancy or whatever it might be.
But then we work with them on where we can offset that, you know, and where they might recommend. Okay. Here's some other options. So there's there's definitely still space for Fcps to work with this
team design. And then just last question. >> Since the first that we use the DVD looks like a low bid contract right lows, but contract may just finishing thank you. I think really do
think Dre to be really important for the community to understand that we're not just moving away from low bid and going that could lead to higher costs, that the purpose is to actually have overall
lower cost. >> Because I think you could be spun as Fcps is trying to get away from the lowest bed to some. He's more expensive without some information
about. Well, actually, when you look at all of these other things, has a potential being cheaper or more effective or faster, which is cheaper. I think that's a really important piece help community derstand. Yes, ma'am. And I
think it come from and variable reviews multiple of these. What I can say is we also want I think the particularly the addition of
design build speak, sometimes the lowest bid has the most expensive change orders and it actually ends up potentially
being far more expensive. Then the design upfront being vetted by those who it. >> So I really think I see this as a another methodology
to really get the best product for the money, right? Best value for money. And I think that missing man, Skinner, team of early work to look at
some of the repetitive change order contracts. And that's a concern as well. So little bit doesn't always mean at the end
of the Project cost. >> And I'll take a go back unless there any others. So
March 12 Twenty-twenty 4 Pak memo to the school board. They stated ae of their 3 recommendations that our current default design bid build may continue to be an
appropriate method of hiring contractors for clear single faced projects with a simple scope such as reduced, replacing chillers, etc. Do
share that view, Mr. Maskey? >> Yeah, again, I think to your point, it's another tool in our tool belt and it allows us to be strategic and look at each project and fit the right method for the right project.
And I do agree with that concept that if you don't really need input on something very straightforward, he then you actually might get a better price when you can do
the design very easily. Its limited trades, limited complexity. Thank >> Can you talk about that? You know, if the school board
approved tomorrow, the new revised policy, 82 40, what is the timeline for rolling out or incorporating these as options? And are these because
I imagine this is going to be new for at least some of your staff and might require some training rather efforts do do have a thought as to rolling out. Design, build first or
our first or kind of the sequencing there. >> Yeah. So from an implementation standpoint, I would say construction manager at risk is more of an evolutionary process. It still
has the to contracts that were used to and right now we have in the cip starting in Fy 26 to renovation projects that's cover an elementary and
Franklin Middle School. And so we're starting to write those solicitations for the architect and should policy. 82 40 be approved, then we could follow after that and do an RFP for a construction
manager. So I think that makes sense to start because that we don't lose time. We can still Move forward with the architect RFP no matter what. And again, if the policy gets
approved, then we can follow right behind with a construction manager. >> Okay. Great. So before we move into spring spaces, let me just see if I can obtain
schoolwork consensus and 2 suggestions. I think from listening to my colleagues, I just want to see if there's consensus to support revision
of policy. 80 to 40 to allow the use of design build and construction management at risk, which would allow SBS to use them wherever appropriate, Mr. Dunn, the board will adopt
changes to the policy of regular board meeting. >> We don't I'm not proposing that we change the policy right this minute. But just to see if there's support for governments proceeding and
that I believe governance is already working on the policy. Okay. >> All right. Well, I have
heard Mr. may I take consensus whether it would there would be support include designed building construction management wrist as options and future our fees are
appropriate. I'd like to just confirmed that there is consensus to support facilities, incorporate design, build and construction management risk as options and
future of these were appropriate. If you support. if doctor, Anderson, Mr. McElveen, Mr. McDaniel misunderstand and this lady
Miss mayor and myself Mystics it Mr. Fish, Mr. Moon John County. So taking Ms. Thank you. All right. So now we will move on to the second phase of
our presentation, which is on a swing spaces and alternatives to our current approach to renovating schools. While students are still in the building. Thank you.
>> So moving on a swing spaces, one of our biggest challenges in school construction, especially renovations is how to keep students and staff safe and well work is happening on
site. The currently used phased. Occupy construction is one approach, but it often comes with its challenges. An alternative method defaced occupy construction is using
swing space. This approach, relocates building occupants to a temporary facility allowing construction to happen all at once. And in an occupied building. Let's take a closer look at how swing space works and how it
compares to our current method. little background here. So swing space refers to the temporary facilities. Are locations used to relocate students and staff while the
permanent school building undergoes renovation or new construction. It allows work to proceed faster and more efficiently since the construction site is unoccupied. By contrast,
phased occupy construction means the renovation happens. Well, the school is still in use, completed in carefully planned phases to minimize disruption. Well, this avoids
the need for relocation. It often extends the timeline increases. Complexity due to the need for enhanced safety noise, control and logistical consideration. Fcps we've been
doing phase occupy construction for decades and is well versed in handling this type of process and it uses the existing facility along with temporary trailers on site. The trailers are
owned and maintained by Fcps minimizing the additional cost to the project in that regard. But this and this model also has a minimal impact on school drop-off and pick-up allowing families to continue to retain
their routines to the greatest extent possible. Additionally, this type of approach allows a portion of the school's building such as the cafeteria, a gym, those big box basis to remain in use.
While this method has been successful for years, there are alternative swing space options that are worth exploring moving forward. So we're gonna go through a few
different options. This is the first 1, 1, type of swing space is to swing the entire school to temporary trailers on site. And that includes big box basis. I mention such as
the gym cafeteria and library. There are multiple possible solutions for those larger spaces such as a tent or Butler, also known as an air supported structure. And it's important to note that this
type of swing space will require temporary bathroom trailers and other features for full occupant use. There is substantial investment to purchasing the trailers and thoughtful planning for their
storage and use if we were to do this, fcps would likely only trailers so they can be used for future school projects or repurpose them to other schools in need of trailers. The swing option
also requires temporary plans for bus loops, kiss and rides and pedestrian bridge suite. In short the building, a whole campus on the same site. Another consideration is the
temporary trailer campus could Occupy field space which may impact current program use and the trailers would still be operating next to a construction site similar to faced occupied situation,
which can be noisy and busy. So just things to consider with this approach. Another type of swing space. The second of 3 we're going to
discuss today is to build a new school on the same site and move students after the construction is complete and then demolish the existing building for new field space. This way students can stay in
their current building until the new one is online. Minimizing the administrative coordination of moving an entire school at the beginning or during construction and this wing space approach could
also Occupy field space which may impact program used like the option previously described a new school swings based approach will undergo a lengthy your site review permitting process and may
involve other agency coordination. But it's all really subject to the actual site itself. And before moving on, I will also add the end
result is a brand-new building. So more of the construction costs are going into the physical building itself. Sunset of renovating your left with a complete new Bill. Okay. So moving on to a
3rd, the 3rd and final and that's basically swinging off site. And that's where a school goes completely off site to another location. The main benefits of swinging
off-site is removing students and staff from the exposure of construction and allowing contractors full access to the entirety of the site for maximum construction efficiency. Reducing
construction timeline. Associated costs, another benefit to using off-site is the potential for the building to reused for another swing school site maximizing that
initial investment which can be expensive. There will be considerable upfront coordination and costs associated with this approach, though, the initial investment will really very, though, depending on the site chosen
and the need, but really may involve a similar effort to like a refresh of a school. Significant administration coordination is going to be needed. And you would want to
align that to the academic year. So that needs to be considered along with transportation needs and community outreach more coordination with this approach. In addition to the
direct cost. There's other considerations such as the potential need for traffic demand. Studies and other agency coordination to ensure this all means zoning site requirements. You know, we'll
need to make sure that there's considerations for parking drop-off pick-up security and storm water needs off-site. Swing spaces hat will have to be catered for this specific type of school building. And
so a larger schools such as the middle or high school might have a hard or impossible time finding the right off-site location, large enough and specialized enough to support their program. So
with this, we would likely recommend that you be used more for elementary school. You know why all these types of swing spaces have their challenges. Each option would be to really be analyzed from
our cam, but improvement projects and really way those options accordingly. And so while there may be costs associated with building
swings spaces that vary depending on the approach there is the potential for overall cost savings and reduction in construction costs. The average elementary school renovation right now
has been lingering around that. 28 to 30 months. And so without building occupants, we think this could be reduced by approximately 6 to 12 months again, depending on
conditions. And so we expect the construction process savings due to deficiencies game from the permitting process for not doing breakouts of phase permits.
It'll be more streamlined for the contractors to mobilize. They're not going out at 4 different times throughout construction and just the overall material ordering and whatnot. It'll be much more.
Streamlined undone once instead of multiple times. And so right now staff is currently exploring different approaches to reviewing swing space on a state-by-state basis. I will say due to the
size of the county and the locations of schools in the cip onsite swing spaces are generally seen as the preferred option from our opinion. And so moving
forward, what we want to do is during the concept of concept design phase when we hire an architect for cip project, we want to have a feasibility
study done for alternative swing space options compared to the phased occupied route as part of the design process
up front. So again, a kind of covered it. But, you know, the next steps are to do just that. The next school scheduled for renovation and our cip is Cub Run Elementary
School. It starts design and fiscal year, 26. So our staff right now we're finalizing the architect, engineering, RFP, and we wrote specifically in that scope of work to include
an expanded conceptual design phase. This phase will explore both onsite swing space and phase occupied options. It's something we already do during concept. We usually asked architect to share a few
different options. And then we picked one. We get community feedback. So really just be a continuation on that where we say, hey, first, will you do a little benefit analysis and
look at the potential savings. Look at the potential sustainability factors, how they might better fit the program. One over the other. And then we would kind of pick up half and they would develop
the same multiple options. So you wouldn't see too much of a difference in concept design phase, except it might be a little bit more robust and we might have them look at a
couple extra options. And so like I said, it will really depend on the project. So each option will be evaluated and it will be evaluated based on cost estimates that that sustainability considerations.
I mentioned and the construction schedule impacts. And so we would use this analysis to determine the most operationally beneficial path forward. And then we hope this could be a standard approach
moving forward with the remaining projects in the cip renovation. Que. So similar to
the last section. This is all about having more tools in the tool box, not preferring one method versus the other. >> So at that I last I
Sizemore Heizer. I are men. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mister just a few questions. The note to see us to be able
to do people to stay away from as much as possible or phased. Occupy the pouch. And I just my. We have a thousands of parents and families whose
kids go through that you see one of those and I really hate to see the kind of unknown environment for any student to
be for number years. And a time. So thank you for putting up what he for April discussion and Bush consideration. We've that one
of the approaches, which is site and up are 10. Would you say that up 10 versus for land
of bill you tend to build in state has a longer life cycle. >> I would say there is the potential for that. Just a potential. Yeah. You are
getting 100% of the materials. Brand-new versus renovation where you might just replace be replacing part of the materials. Usually you keep the structure, the foundations
and all of that. So if there's any ability to prolong that, I do think it would. be able to quantify that. 20%, 30%. I
have to do some additional research that I I would appreciate that. What If the size of that extra space on on
site for the new building is not large enough. If building we want to be constructed. Is there a possibility for he may
be larger portion of a job leading to dealer? First. >> And >> and Taylor down the street to Martin Street just in building and use part that
tomorrow. Dust space, relocation to peer into maybe a smaller space needed for. Is that is that a possibility? >> I think we would have to take a look at it. Depend on the site. I have seen some projects where it's
technically still a renovation, but it's probably more 75% new bill. And we build maybe we can't fit an entire complex of trailers, but we can build a larger
complex. The trailers which would allow for more new construction and starting to make it more ground up. Yes, I think its potential. >> Again, again, you know, you
think as much as possible find a we to stay away from Occupy to provide not just to pass the savings. It's a lot you buy it for students and
teaching environment for staff members well. >> Thank Miss Lady. >> Thank you again. Thank you
for your hard work. I'm going to sound like a broken record with my remarks the last time. I don't know why we would want tools in our tool kit. So I'm fully in support of all of these being added as options
for when we're doing a renovation. Thank you. Misses more heizer. Thank you. And I also agree, I think having more tools is always a good thing. I do have some
questions in terms of similar to what I asked Do we have criteria on how each of these may get selected? We're going to be developing that criteria. So we know which of
3 or 4 options like the one we currently use the phase occupied the other ones to be selected. Yeah, again, our preference would be for the on-site swing just given the
geographic challenges of going off site. And so our approach would to be doing almost a feasibility study. >> Per project as a project enters the cip. And so that same architect. We asked to
design a building and create 3 different designs. A u shape one in l shape one. We would also say a also consider you know what it would look like if we built it. Brand-new over
on the field here and then I do want part of that architect analysis for them to work with a cost estimate are and then we can really make a decision and that we could stand behind with real data. I ask that
question because the forecast for asking them to do a feasibility study. I'm sitting us just a new school is a feasibility for all any one of these 4. >> Options outside the swings based off Get that say the 3
on site options. Yeah, it would be for the onsite options. I ask that question because if what will be the additional cost of requiring a feasibility study for every
project versus the savings that we may have in the costs on CE using some of these other options. >> Yeah, you're really looking at design fees here and our
strategy was to just in that it into the full project. So say you are the architect that selected. Did you come run? I mean, this is going to be a multimillion-dollar contract that has goes all the way
through construction documents into construction. So adding on this feasibility study, I think we're going to be getting very good value for just getting the work done and it and it will be I want
complete designs done for each option to this is a conceptual process that we would go That's led just want I was thinking that through because if I'm an architect in, I'm getting paid 2 million 82 1 million dollars to do what
we some do not now adding this on top of it. >> I might ask for more money right to do that so that don't have a sense of how much to How much extra that is that some kind of get a sense from you on that? Yeah.
>> Because usually it's a fee based on cost of construction budget. And so we're just asking for a little additional scope when, you know, negotiating a it sounds good
and, you I'm also curious how Tina other things into account in terms of picking these right like I was in use, go on site would depend on whether the site was >> appropriate for that. And then the difference in the cost of renovating which to
point that everything is brand new and you're renovating first, the cost a brand-new building. Great And then, but the trailers on site, you know, there's a little bit of of concern about safety right here. And I'm Amber One Lake
Braddock is renovated many years ago and that is all see of trailers. And there's a lot of concern then that was right up in the community about safety. But having that money, kids in trailers and whether it be feasible to have. But,
you know, the shared ss like the gyms and things. So I'm curious, that's when asked what the criteria like, how Zola take into account in terms of because there's
obviously we want to save as much costs as we can. We also, I think like crazy what have best value gap and also best experience for our students, least least disruptive. So that's a question for you and a half.
>> Yeah, and that's actually the criteria we're putting in. These are we want an analysis and we want them to consider cost sustainability. We had other criteria such as safe logistics during construction.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but it really does depend on the site. I mean, you might even have enough acres. But if you don't have street access to have the contractor to have their own
path way safely to the construction and then, you know, you can't do it or it would be so financially unfeasible, you wouldn't want to do it. And so you really do need to look at it on a case-by-case basis. But to
your point, we're going to as part of the rp establish that criteria of the things that bring the best to your point, not just best price, but the best value best product.
That's all it asking to wings bases off site, taking account transportation time. The community impacted having the kids at schools. You way. >> The trailers in the safety. I just that's what best my
criteria so get a better understanding of what we're looking at and picking of these things for my sentence and I don't have a go back. the same way that we've done. The lowest bid didn't really
get us. Maybe the lowest cost. I want to take these into account just would love to hear more about that at some point. Not today. Thank you. Missing coming. Thank you. And
thank you for all the work you've done. I think what piggyback on what Miss Sizemore Heizer was saying, I think having that criteria
think realistically it is going to be the site by state basis as some of that has lived through 3 renovations. When I worked in schools and my daughters lived through another.
>> Onsite renovations. mean, it's doable. It's not the best option. But kids are resilient. Unser teachers >> obviously having some
spaces. Woodward better. But I do see just knowing the schools that I worked at were some would be able to provide us some space and some wouldn't. And I guess I'm just the reason I'm mentioning this
is to calibrate people that are listening. To not have the expectation that that's going to be possible at every school. And I can understand when some schools that would be and some schools that
wouldn't be. And I also want to say I lived through 3 of them. I'm here. I survived. The could survive. The
school's look beautiful. start. Mr. Mckelvie. Thanks. I
want to pick up Mr. Men left off and >> you know, and I want to echo ever announced for saying this is fantastic research presentations. Nice to see innovative thinking in this
Appreciate it. On the. same site. New build concept. We have always been told by people in your position and
others that from a sustainability perspective, it's really a prohibitive to do that just because year because of the resource use
because you're not repurposing you know, either materials. So can you give us your perspective on that? And also just that if you have a sense at this point, how you would
evaluate these different approaches from a sustainability perspective. >> Yeah. >> I would probably need to. have. It's a good question. I
do think on one hand, when you think about the embodied carbon the active construction, this approach will likely exceed renovation because you have to tear it down and then you're building
something brand new. >> So that can be put into account what I t we need a way that, though, against many of these schools undergoing renovations there often our highest energy usage
buildings. So the ability to build something brand new, we should consider that. That gives us the opportunity to build something as energy efficient as possible. And if these are long-term assets
that are going to be operation for another 40 plus years, we should balance those 2 outs. I wouldn't completely discount from a sustainability standpoint this option because
you got to think about that as well. >> And then just in terms of that option and the others, how it how you evaluate them in terms of sustainability,
how metrics we be using, you know? >> Yeah, I Looking at in body carbon, it's sort of a new or, you know, endeavor in the construction industry. So I would probably have if we're
using our alternative delivery method, get that builder in sight on the embodied carbon for major construction materials. Probably looking at your steel and concrete. Your
big, heavy hitters that would have an impact on the environment and see if they can do an analysis that could be considered. In contrast with the architect and engineer, they're doing an
energy model and they're able to actually project what the energy costs will be for operations for like the next 4 decades, too. So probably like bringing those 2 data points together, you know, using the
architect and contractor teams. Thank you. Thank you
for another great presentation. I think it's it's really good to see those innovative ideas. I'm Said. >> But I did want to say after going to the Brookfield be
constructions meeting and also attended the the couple fact, a retreat there, too. It It's very difficult to be in the
building while the construction's happening for staff members and then being all this trainers in high going to be constructed there.
community was already concerned about their safety of the students because they have had some break-ins in that school, though, dating and they wear making charred that because trucks to
construction trial. The workers out of a from the students do for them safety perspective. So. That really kind of. But what did me a little thinking that this must be happening in all the
schools? We're going constructions I prefer preferred the swing off site space. So that school it's completely going in normal.
They have their own place in space and doing the trick coursework and not getting interrupted by construction. The timeframe and the construction of the school.
We'll go much faster without any interruptions. Are phased construction. I would just prefer that if if CBS can have
like, you know, they rent office buildings for temporarily house those schools there for some time. And then I wanted to ask you
about the new school on site. How's that been option? Wouldn't that be double the cost renovation are not. Yeah, we looked at that and I think
that's why you would want to do a benefit analysis per site because when you look at it, purely in a vacuum side by side, the cost of new construction is a little bit more than the cost renovation.
That's not always the case. And I do think that costs could be offset by cutting down on that 6 to 12 months of construction. And then you're
actually left with 100% new building versus a renovated buildings. I think the offset is in the speed. But we are also having budget cry crisis. We don't have enough money.
And, you know, we don't have a no bond of funding to do these new constructions of the We have to make that the swing off site. Would that be
cheaper? But my last question. Yes, I do think that would be the offset is constructing said off-site location. That would be the analysis you would need to do. And that
method say, got to say, hey, I gotta. >> Refurbished office building or take one of our existing facilities and turn it into a school. So you just want to
offset the savings of the faster construction and then same with the building. Knew he would want to say, hey, it might cost a little bit more for the material to buy more materials. You're not saving
the foundations and Vols, but you would offset that with the speed and C would never want to pick something that would Faruk seen price with the swing option. You mean maybe
in some cases it is appropriate to do the phased occupied. You just want to be able to do that. Analysis and we'll get into in the next session. But we did actually look at it. Building a new
building on site as part of the P 3 scope. And what we did find in that study and again, it's in a vacuum was a very specific set of schools. We did find that the actual
construction cost the actual project cost overall was cheaper because of the time saved versus new Bill. Thank
Dr. Anderson. Thank you. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Jessica, maybe you can confirm when Glasgow Middle school was rebuilt. It was a school next to the school because they had
enough space in order to do that. Yes. >> So we do have some history of having done this. And I think the benefits of the new materials pretty much across
the board. All of the things and bringing back what I raised earlier, which is if we use this, if it's a tool in the tool box would could lend
itself to the possibility of reusing designs so that we don't have to pay that cost. Yes, and that there is some precedent for that in Fairfax
County. There is prototype developed many years ago. So not that's always a good ring tone. So where it could support it. I definitely think that's an option that we could look at right. And I think,
you know, it's hard to lift of construction. You know, Mister, Fresh as we know, the kids at Falls Church high school. The those who are freshman will live through the
renovation throughout their entire career. At Falls Church. You know, lucky they'll have little parts, but they will always be faced with all of the things involved in the construction process. But
we do know very clearly we have limited dollars. I mean, we share that all of the time. So any place when we could maximize and specials dollars, I would want to investigate because I think that's the
bonus here. Not only do we save and you know, the materials perhaps that we don't have to because we can replace everything and expediting the the timetable.
I think that's where the real savings are. And at this point you have a nanny dollars, any numbers that we could pass work with? Yeah, I think the best place second point is
part of the P 3 cost-benefit analysis because we did say, hey, when you're analyzing these set of schools, you c consider an on-site swing if it's possible and they
actually did a light feasibility study and then the look that renovating versus new build on site when they put together their package options and what they found, at least in these particular
set of schools that building the brand new building on site swing option was cheaper than the phased occupied, right. And that's why looking at. And if we do the temporary
trailers that you described with the bubbles for the Jan, I had a bubble on my college campus and that's where swimming happened. So all kinds of things can occur. Then that is a set of
materials. We can move from location to location pending that the site has enough space that you know, I would love
for to see this be something that we explore as an option because again, looking to maximize the dollars that we have, which we know are severely limited when it comes
to construction. Miss Anderson. Not to speak as my colleagues. agree with most what was said. I do have just a There's a significant amount
more ways to annoy talking about tearing down our previous building. Correct. >> Okay. So the other aspect that I would just put out into the ether here just a little bit is that as someone who
grew up here and has watched our historic buildings get torn down over and over and over again. I would hate to have it be that one of our schools could end up being in that category. I'm not
suggesting that that is the most important thing. But there is an aspect of that that I would hate for us to lose that if there's anything we can do preserve the history of our county, I think it's an
important step to make. And I do. I would always ask us to make sure that we're doing things in Lima, jackals and reducing waste and things like that. So anything that we could do, even if it was just part of a building that we could that we could keep and
maybe move the kids to the other side of the building or anything like that. I think that it would be worthwhile to at least consider as we as we move forward with these options. But otherwise, I I'm
in favor of swing spaces. I'm particularly in favors from spring spaces where we might be able to renovate an existing building and use it for a number of schools around and then kind of switch kiddos
in and out. I think that there are some options there. If we look at more regional renovation projects. As
parents away from the table, so take up question. >> This man, can you talk a little bit about the analysis that was done by the outside consultant? I believe they looked at the next 7 or 8
schools in the renovation. Que for potential trunk space. >> That's correct. And we'll be diving more into it because it was part of the public private partnership. But in
order for that team to do it true cost benefit analysis. You had to give them a very firm scope and swing space, you know, would greatly impact that scope. So it was studied
as part of that work. And so what we did was we looked at the last 6 schools, I believe in the cip and have them briefly look at could you
actually put a new building or could you do an on-site swing option? >> And what was concluded was was swings based practical for most of those schools.
>> It wasn't some and not others. Yeah, I believe it was 3 or 4 of the existing schools could support an onsite options. You can print.
>> I thought it was 5 elementary schools of the 1, is a new elementary school, but not for 20 middle school. >> Yeah, it will go into it further. It was. I'm looking
at the last 6 renovations, schools in Cip which includes 5 elementary is and one middle. And then we also looked at one completely brand new building in the cip Silver
Line for the adopted Cip. >> You mentioned use of swings basis might accelerate the elementary school renovation by 6 to 12 months. Did you
perform a similar analysis for middle school and high school? >> We did not. We thought, you know, if we were to start doing this work, just given the current cip given the
number of element resources, middle versus hi. This is where we would like to start that work. And so when we met with cost estimate ERs other
contractors, we have them test out that model because it requires a lot less special. The space is the goal is to try to keep the cost of the swing process itself as low as
possible. >> Did the outside consultant identify a about a dozen different fcps assets that we own right now that could be used as off-site swings basis.
>> They did. They briefly just did a quick analysis of facilities that are owned by Fcps that are currently not being used to schools. We also have all that data as well. >> And those are geographically distributed
around the county so they could serve as kind of regional centers renovations. Yeah, they did like a light mapping of where things are geographically. And so if you invest and renovating one of
those sites to serve as an off-site springs space, that could be leveraged for multiple renovations, essentially spreading the cost of that renovation of these trains base over multiple
schools. Is that correct? That's correct. I will be better if you can use it for multiple schools.
>> F PAC has recommended that fcps pursue a comprehensive plan amendment based on potential concerns on the part of the county with respect to Florida area ratio, if you add
trailers, existing school site or you build a new school. Can you talk? What about whether you support that recommendation to pursue a comprehensive plan amendment or whether it's necessary in
light of the fact that Glasgow no school pursue this new school construction pouch. >> Well, I think one it it will depend on the site. Some
of this might be potentially done by right? So as part of the arect RFP having them explore that. >> They're going to need to look at zoning and entitlements to make sure this is a viable path where I think
we might be running up into some challenges. I would recommend early, you know, collaboration with the county to make sure that it can still be a green light as we move forward.
>> Comprehensive plan amendment, solve it kind of up front many projects, Travon project by project. >> That is certainly something we can consider. I think the consultant pointed out of
floor area ratio is likely our biggest risk. So making sure that we buy right can build in a facility to have that on-site swing happened. Concurrently. If we were to work with the county on
something like that, it could be a big benefit. Make sure that everything could move forward. >> And if the school board consensus to support one or more of these potential swing
spaces. Can you describe kind of timeline for rollout of these incorporating them into our fees? >> For the off-site swing. >> We would need to first
build a timeline for when procuring in the green up on a site. If it is, you know, turn key versus renovating. An officer says it's an existing school that needs to be
converted into a school. I think that will depend that will change the timeline. So I think one it's I could we could come up with a series of estimated time lines depending on the path and then you would
need to ensure that that is then built before the construction of whatever project would be using it. So that's how we would approach that. >> there why one particular
swing space option that you prefer over others? >> Again, we think if you if we're serious about using this, I think the most straightforward way to doing this is first looking at on
site options. You know, not the holding the finding new land or a new facility. It cuts down on the impact of families from a geographic and
transportation sense. And so that's why we're interested in getting this RFP language for the architect scope to be expanded and then really finding that analysis and we
might see seems right. We might find that. Out of the next few schools, the building a new building on site is the has the best return on investment. So it allows to
also collect that data. >> Are there any changes legally to policy or regulation that are required to pursue these these wings based options? >> Not not to our knowledge.
No. Could could Westminster Foster? >> I concur with Miss Umansky.
I don't think that there are immediate legal restrictions that come to mind, Mr.
>> Seeing seeing no-go backs. I was mayor and I thought Yeah, I think this is great. I mean, I didn't know about this option until you raised it in this man's skin. If you talk
to incident in her previous district allowed in. >> You know, again, just think we have to keep trying to do you new things and so can can kind of walk through like, is
this something you could immediately start considering a of just about that? You how you could immediately start pursuing this or considering it. And what's the board's
role? Do we need to approve If you could share that, please? >> sure. And so are recommended. Next. Steps are to start again. Adding to the architects scope. This analysis since it is so site
by site. Again, we think there's some benefit to first looking at on site options while we contemplate a bigger strategy. If we were to do off Sykes, that's a bigger division-wide And so we're
actually already starting that. I mean, it's again, a tool in our tool belt. You might as well get that analysis done by the Hey, maybe they decide phase occupied is the right move for
that particular school. But we plan to start doing that with the next round of design projects and fy. 26, we've started to draft the language. We've done a very, very high
level. Look at those sites and we think for the elementary school, the acreage, you know, pure acreage. It's a potential to build a new school or trailer site on the existing
fields there. So we think it has possibility to start doing next in the next round. Well, that's very cool. And I also this dovetails with some feedback that I did want to share about communications
process with the community was kicking off a project. >> And knowing that the questions like it, where will my child play? And he's my child have to be outside and
so I incorporating this into dialogue and letting families know but also tightening up that communications pieces. It's going to be really good.
So thank you. I'll take a go back just quickly, could we use existing trailers that we already own around the county? >> To provide the trailers for
on-site swings base. Yes, I think that's a potential. And if we do, new school construction, could we potential and potentially using parts of the school that
exist. Could we potentially use that opportunity to make our schools more secure. Just offer West Potomac has 28 exit doors, which is because it's
so spread out. But if we consolidated, many may be made it more vertical horizontal. your exit doors and easier to secure the building. >> Yeah, I do want to just
cover yet, but they redo key pad or a new bill. You know, we're always going to meet exceed our educational specifications. So if a community can't the feat, if unoccupied renovation is the
way it has to be, they're still going to have a great facility that can be modernized and renovated. I do think with a new bill, there is the ability for more flexibility and more control
over the desire not beholden to the existing conditions. >> Thank you. I don't see any more Kovacs so with that, I'd
like to see if we can achieve consensus on a couple next steps for said like to ask, if there is school were consensus to incorporate to swing space
options. Trailers on site and school construction on site as options and future our peas where appropriate. I see 1, 2,
3, 4, 6, 7, 8, So great. We have consensus on that. I'd also like to see if we can achieve consensus to direct
the superintendent to do an analysis to explore the use of existing fcps assets as potential off-site swing
spaces. Whether we can achieve consensus to direct the superintendent to explore the establishment of potential
off-site swings basis using existing fcps assets. So can
we achieve consensus to express our consensus? I too, that we would be interested in receiving an analysis of potential off-site swings
faces using existing fcps assets. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, great finally want to see if
we can achieve if we can express consensus >> for a >> fcps to make a recommendation to the school board whether to pursue a
comprehensive plan amendment as recommended back to adjust the Florida area ratio. So that Fcps can potentially use trailers on site. And new
school construction that swing space options. So big because adding trailers, a new school
construction might have issues. Implications fact recommended pursuing a comprehensive plan amendment. So we discuss that a little
bit today. But the request is to see if we can express consensus to have a formal recommendation from Fcps and the superintendent. Whether
Fcps should pursue a comprehensive plan amendment as recommended by back. Mr.
Cherry of a preferred alternative phrasing. Then I will. I will move that to next
steps. Next can remove the slice. The next presentation. So finally and something that I think is very exciting for
fcps public-private partnerships. We very close to Prince George's County, which recently used a public-private partnership to build 6 schools in 2 years where they estimated it would take 12 years if they financed it
completely themselves. So with that, I'll turn it over to. this is another adding a tool to our toolbox discussion, Mr. >> Thank you. And so to round
us all out, public private partnerships as construction needs grow and public funding remains limited. Their school systems and government entities that are exploring alternative delivery and
financing models. One of these models as public private partnerships, otherwise known as P threes. So again, to address fiscal demands, fcps
may seek alternative financing mechanisms such as P threes P threes. Our contractual arrangements that are formed between public and private sector partners, which typically involve public owner
in this case of the U.S. Fcps contracting with private partners to finance, renovate or construct operate and maintain and or manage a facility or system or some
sort of combination of those activities. As the cost of construction market continues rise above the inflation rate speed to market is essential because it not only alleviate capacity constraints in
deferred maintenance costs, but also locks in today's construction cost dollars overall P 3 projects are not necessarily less expensive.
They are valued drivers such as speed, the market risk sharing and the financing of projects that may otherwise not be able to be funded. There are no P threes that are the same. Each piece is adapted to individual
institution and develop to achieve maximum value within their reality. In short P threes are incredibly complex, but they are highly customizable. There are long-term engagements that
allow financing opportunities for public entities similar to fcps. So there are many reasons a public institution
may pursue P 3 program. Fcps believes that their current facility planning and design construction and facility management teams are skilled and capable of delivering high quality projects and were able
to manage those facilities on terms. These teams are extremely 100, though, by the ability and available of capital funding to meet and exceed the school board's policies and division needs of
all areas of facilities work. And, you know, we are seeing that impact. The current fcps capital Improvement program is funded mainly by approving a bond referendum and then
selling those bonds with the maximum cap. The funding fcps receives does not consider the changing needs and priorities on establishing an annual budget. And there for this
limits fcps ability to meet division needs appropriately. P 3 is a potential good solution for more financial flexibility P threes also
offer the benefit of leveraging the strengths of each sector. So our hand, the public sector, we bring public interest, focused, regulatory power and project oversight
and then the private sector brings innovation efficiency funding and technical expertise. Together, they can create outcomes that neither could achieve as effectively
by themselves. So the question really bears ask, how does this alternative method compared our current practice for capital improvement projects? Currently the
building and renovation. A major capital projects are not finance through the school system's operating funds. We kind of saw that in beginning. But through Bonds P 3 approach
to renovation and construction of schools would be financed through a private developer. These are different There are different types of packages for P 3 approach and that includes design, build
finance, operate, maintain or am and design. Build finance bridge dbf bridge. Those are 2 popular models and this approach underscores the
relevance of speed to market and that Risk-sharing I spoke you know, those are things that really need to be considered given Fcps prolong renovation cycles and the urgent need to address aging
infrastructure. One potential P 3 is the ability to concurrently implement facilities and have a greater impact to the number of schools at a quicker pace. Fcps is interested in ways that construction timelines
can be reduced because schools can receive updated facilities. Quicker. We also in this presentation want to share some highlights of a
cost-benefit analysis conducted in late 2024. So fcps we acknowledge the comprehensive and detailed analysis conducted by Brailsford and Dan Levy are
being consultant. We hired in evaluating public private partnership options as potential solutions for addressing the challenges of school facility renovations and new construction. And we
found the report to be highly valuable and exploring the P threes to address the facility needs. And the actual inclusion of real-world projects from the cip coupled with the sidewalks and
detailed cost estimates that the Indy did really lends credibility and practical relevance to that analysis by grounding the study. Intangible scenarios BND
provided a clear understanding the U.S. of the financial and logistic implications of this approach. The level of specificity offers of CPS, a stronger foundation for those
next steps. And I do want to say to do this, you know, Fcps we created a framework for conducting the analysis that we had be India evaluate. So we purposely chose the last 6
schools in the current renovation Q and then one new school construction per the idea opted cip really is the basis of this cost benefit analysis. And then time back
to our swing space discussion for those 6 existing schools. We had BND consider the viability of an on-site swing. As you know, that approach would really have an impact on
that speed, complexity and price that they are evaluating. It also kind of did that kill 2 birds with one stone because it's really valuable information as we just plan our capital
projects, knowing the feasibility of on-site swing. So again, as part of this analysis, that included a breakdown of costs and benefits across multiple types
of P 3 packages. As I mentioned before, we have them look at design, build finance, operate and maintain, the dye design, build finance bridge
models. Design build finance, includes the financing and the design. Build team to design and construct the work. And then the design. Build finance, operate maintain does the same thing. But it also
includes capital asset, replacement and maintenance services over the capital. After the projects complete. And typically that's done for the link for the financing term. And in case of this cost
benefits benefit analysis, we did 30 years. The cost benefit analysis. We also perform.
Also describe what a potential timeline could look like. The project definition is the first phase of 4 to ensure a successful P 3 project because P 3 projects are long-term
often 30 years or more. It's imperative that that groundwork be done prior to the partnership selection and negotiations before soliciting a private developer. Fcps. We
recommend performing both a visioning and like that risk tolerance session to define the scope. And risk evaluation early in the process sets the foundation for a successful P
3 development option that really supports our mission and vision through that discussion, the session would probably focus on the critical
project risk Scps desires to transfer to a private equity firm and return for the Associated Financial tradeoffs and other benefits. And so before we can move into phase 2, we really need to finalize
the package of schools and the type of financing that we of CPS may want to pursue. And it's imperative that we understand how the funding of the project they impact future projects such as the potential
for less funding available over the course of the deal, which may actually even impact the cip cycle. So this is more just of a breakdown of last
side, the last slide because within those 4 phases, these the screen are some of the key milestones that may be considered and met an a P 3 package. We begin with the writing all key stakeholders,
public and private on the project goals roles and overall schedule. Next, we will compare the P 3 model against our traditional delivery and look at the value for money, lifecycle savings
and potential for innovation. And as mentioned previously, that risk transfer session also helps evaluate which wrist during the project should be transferred to the private sector. So from there
based on funding risk allocation and needs, we would refine and lock in that project. Scope. One key milestone would be community engagement that helps keep the public informed and alignment
with current fcps procedures. Fcps would then seek formal approval for the P 3 model from the Board of Supervisors. And once the probe the Rfq would be drafted to attract
qualified private partners. FCPS continues the process to select the qualified candidate for partnership of P 3 and from there, the contract is front formalize to move
forward. So together, these elements provide fcps with kind of that foundation for that assessment and making sure it's viable and to really address those key challenges.
So next steps, whether the next steps as we explore alternative financing options for capital improvement projects. Well, to move forward policy, 82 40 red lines, you need to be approved by the school board to
authorize P threes as an available tool for use. Another step would be for the school board to hold important discussions and work with the Board of Supervisors to discuss funding options for
these projects, collaboration between the county and Fcps is crucial to understand of public-private partnership is feasible. And then last staff also recommend that Visioning
session for the work to start defining the goals criteria. Risk tolerance as described in phase one of the proposed timeline. You know, Steph, we recommend using that framework
that we built as part of that cost benefit analysis as a starting point for input from the board. And with that, the
kind of wraps, everything up from my end and I'm happy to take questions, Mr. Moon. >> Thank you, Just a few questions. Thank you again for
the presentation. This ad, if if willing pry the parkers right now. The Hom anymore.
Scores to think I cautious and ready to start renovating on top of what's the Cip? >> It's a great question because we're actually in the
middle of that facility. Conditions assessment that we spoke about in the last cip. So right now we have 8 more schools that we need to finish in the current renovation Q
and then we're developing that next pipeline. So what we had recommended when we're doing our analysis is to say, hey, maybe the first couple schools in the cip let them run their course. There are already
about to start. But if we're serious about doing a P 3 package, one thing we can do is have the private developer take off our hands last set of
schools and that existing renovation que, because then we can start the new renovation. Que much sooner again, without knowing That's about Correct. 6 how much?
>> Money would be needed. You think about the care? >> If guys could pull up from the analysis because we we had it run under design, build
finance and we hadn't run under design. Build finance operation legend Ian 400 million, million.
>> I my next question is, you know. meant what the mounties at this point for next question. You know, do more. And will be using capital
fund. To pay for construction and renovation in center. Up. And 22 nations the PRI apartments. They would find his private part to short fine
would pay that would pay them back. Is that Ahmed up capital funding with agreement from Board of Supervisors? >> Well, I think that's something we would want
explore further. That could be an option right? For example, Prince George's County, their phase one, they had 6 brand new schools built and it costs
approximately 1.1 billion dollars. But it was financed over 30 years. So they were really pain about thirtysomething million dollars a year. So where that
30 million dollars comes from like it, one options that could come off the top from cip funds. And and you, Ali, we would take that deduction to do this package or we could
find other funding sources, you know, and that would be a discussion we would have with the Board of Supervisors. >> With a 1.1 billion project
in George's Cody always do drp duty time believing been through. You only pay Monday when he thought media 30 times 20's with the 900 million, 0st
all, are I putting any interest, probably park tumors. You know, 10 on Dr. >> 2 is for together to make money.
>> Yeah, I agree. I do think we've got to go back and look at the study. They might have had some balloon There are over would pay upfront funding. And so that that was one thing we talked about with
the consultant. They said that could really changes the game on how much you're paying annually if you're willing to pay some money up front or if you truly want to. >> Mortgage that over 30
years, you don't have to have that. large chunk of upfront capital as a barrier it. But then you are tasked with pay more annually. and I guess
critical question is whether we can use of capital funding to do it. And kept the funding to me. You really? Finance pay financing payment. And
secondly. You know, that's not legally possible or a who to prepared to pay out of our
operating fund. man. >> Yeah, my question is a little looking towards the next step because I I'm eager to explore what P 3
partnership color P 3 could look like. You know, today we really focused on how we could save money and be as fiscally frugal as we can. And then there's this whole other
bucket that's about raising revenue. And that involves the bond. Another fee structures and whatnot. But what I really appreciate about this work session today is that it was a time for the board to listen
together and learn about things that maybe some of us do a little bit or not. And when I think about that, we are responsible for 8.7 billion dollars in assets. We
have to be more knowledgeable about this. And so, you know, we've talked as we developed the work with Ms Umansky about, you know, what comes next and can this be a
quarterly thing that our board does? Can we dedicate time to talk about either the saving money part or the raising revenue part or just understand and even go out to
some places and see what's happening and also to other places that are already like having net-zero buildings and, you know, just see some of the disparity and in the spirit of
partnership, certainly including inviting our board of supervisors members. So really see this as a core is core piece of our work. And I hope that as we, you know, get to the end of the school year
and start planning for the next year of work that we can dedicate time to this regularly because there's a lot for us to know. And right
now when so much is uncertain, I think we have to become better. experts but more fluent in these options so we can make better decisions.
Thanks. >> I don't see any other placards all take a turn. It's a message to the review.
memorandum dated April 2020. 25 about P threes. >> I had briefly skim knew I was also told it was still under development. So if there's also a more recent
version, we'd be happy to look at it. >> Packer commends designating AP 3 champion based best practices from Prince George's
County and other locations of use be threes. Is that something that you would recommend as well? Sure did. Pack. >> Stipulate if it's a board
member or staff member, staff member. Sure. I mean, we would definitely have a project champion to do this at such a large project. Fact, also
recommended that the school board and our fcps staff consider a follow on procurement action with the consultant was used. >> Rules for dun Dun Levy to have them prepared presentation to come back and
walk the school board through there. Study. Is that something that you would recommend as well? >> We think that's appropriate. Our goal today was more introduce P 3 is.
There was a very robust and now system that we can dive into and it would probably make sense to have the consultant there. So walk everyone through it.
>> Can you go back to side with the next steps? Can you just elaborate on the 2 sub bullets? They're specifically what you're recommending to the school board for next
steps. >> Sure. I mean, other than updating the policy and coming up with some funding strategies, we really want some board guidance on what
this project could look like. As I mentioned before, there P threes really very we could do 100 schools. We could do one school. They're very customizable. So I think getting some overall guidance
from this board and yeah, I think that could be best done in sort of a visioning or kickoff session where we could talk about what are the things that could define the project. We see it as that risk
transfer session that was described in the cost benefit analysis. The board's appetite for how much we want put into a private developers hand. We could talk about the goals and
the criteria from aboard perspective to really help us blish with that scope of work could be I think that's going to be necessary just to make sure we're on the right track.
>> Can you can you elaborate on the second, sir? Bullet is that sequential following the kickoff or is that done in parallel? It's. >> It's just a side note to
say, really want to make sure we're meeting the goals and the vision. But one suggestion we had was if you're really looking for a starting place because pieced this P 3 package could really vary from
one school to 100 schools. We did come up with a framework that was used for the cost benefit analysis and that could be a starting point. Just to say, hey, you know, we
had looked at 7 schools and actually part of that was intentional. Pg County, Prince George's County. They did 6 schools in phase one and 8 schools in phase 2. starting
with a good logical choice. Yes. Starting with schools in the cip. They're known projects that we've been directed to do as part of our Capital Improvement program. So, you know, having them
analyzed, made a lot of We just know that because of the variety it you kind of want to ground yourself in something this would be a good place to start.
>> So that second bullet is recommending that staff come up with a proposed package that could be put out in this on the street and an RFP. >> Again, we want to make sure we have that by and
envisioning an appetite for risk. All eyes open. But we do think this could be a starting point for that discussion because we did pick 7 schools, you know, very intentionally.
When doing the analysis. >> And those are the last 7 schools in the current renovation queues that correct? >> It's the last 6 schools in the renovation Q plus the first new construction school
in the Cip. >> And so that would enable us to essentially accelerate the development of a new renovation Q, if you to those 7 schools and put them into a P 3.
>> Correct. The thought was right now we have that facility condition assessment going on. We actually just had the solicitation closed and we're reviewing our peas and we hope to a word, you know,
the summer and that means in a year's time we're going to have a nuke. You developed. So really one thing we could do if we want to keep moving now, instead of waiting around for
that new Q, we could expedite the end of the current Q so we could put this in the hands of a developer and then in a year's time will know that next set of schools that we can continue to work through
as part of our tradition. All cip. >> And with that have a positive effect on the 42 in terms of reducing the 42 year renovation cycles. >> It would because we would
be jump-starting and doing those 6 or 7 facilities while we still do our typical cadence of a few projects a year with the Cip. >> as the benefit of P threes
that it brings in outside money is essentially giving us access to a new pool of money beyond school. Once it gets on every couple years. >> It does. I talk a lot about barrier to entry. I mean, you
saw the Prince George's County. It's a billion dollars and it's kind of like when you buy a house, you might not have that money up front. So you mortgage it out. So in the long run, you might be paying
more. But you're limiting that barrier to entry re. It makes it possible to do a large body of work without all the 100% of the capital in hand. I mean, that's how we're currently doing the cip. We have to have all the money in
hand before we then commence on a project. >> was Prince George's County successful and negotiate contractor at the end of the
30 year payback period. They get the school refresh and renew before its and it back to the school system. >> It was. that was we look at
a couple different options in our benefit that will increase the cost. If you're adding in 30 years worth of maintenance and 30 years worth of cash, little asset renewals. So we took a looking compared and
contrasted those. I think that's something we would want to continue to do once we. Finalize the actual scope, should we move forward?
>> And there are legal guidelines for to do P threes with an RFP is that are currently pending before governments and were developed with the Vision Council.
Correct? That's correct. No other first-round questions. So we have a go back for man. >> So the ones pending is that policy to 40 or to different.
Okay. So that's okay. It's in haven't heard. We've got update that policy. And sorry if I missed this, but is there and identify to fund or or
type of fund or that we'd be interested in partnering with. Well, we would put out a solicitation and there are developers that are doing this type of work so they would probably be putting together
some kind of team and it would be. >> A developer with that equity component. And then they would hire design, build teams. That would include the architect, included the contractor so they would do
the financing, purchase everything, upfront design and then build it handed to us. And then we pay out over a certain term. So I've been trying to learn a bit in some of my budget questions reflect
this about the financing and leasing and, you so making sense of some of those numbers. But mean, is to me when I think about kicking it off, it seems like it's got to
be with the Board of Supervisors. mean, there are a partner and the primary funder. And so again, you know, if we really want to do this, like what are the actions steps to? We plan out
meetings we have this joint facilities task force that's going to start up. And really here please. on that. But you know, what does it look like to the visioning? Well, maybe
it looks like going to some schools and getting excited about what the risk is going to pay off as so again, I really would love to sit down, you know, as a board and maybe
this is some of the retreat time, which is to talk about if we really want to do something for our facilities, we've got something really big
and long term. What? >> If there are no more questions and I'll see if we
can reach consensus the next steps that are outlined.
Okay, I'll take a go back. So there's a question that on the consent for Thursday, there's a >> resolution regarding the
bond. Is that related at all to this? this is a new business.
>> So I I just I just haven't had the Princeton Project. just know there's anything that you might want to say because we're doing the same thing we always do, which is asking for the same amount of money that was asked. And so is that what we have to do for
this time around? I mean, we're asking what was most recently approved. I believe there is a joint cip and 2021 between the school board and
the Board of Supervisors that increased. >> Starting in Fy 25 and beyond to 230 Million. So that's what we're basing this
on. >> Just to clarify, I was going to regret what man just said. We have an agreement with the Board of Supervisors
over the amount which has escalated over the last few years. Obviously, if there are other considerations, I think that can be part of the facilities. Task force conversations, although we do
have some fairly extensive Q and a back and forth on what limitations the county sees and that approach to I will
say correct me if I'm wrong, this bond is the first bond that includes next to projects. Is that right? Or is that the following bond? >> Now that that'll be in
subsequent bombs, this one still working off of that posed cash flow in the great.
>> Okay. So I let's the questions I'd like to see if it expressed consensus on a couple issues. So first, I'd like to see if we express
consensus. To receive to staff. Organize a kickoff. What essentially the first bullet, express consensus for
staff to organize a kickoff with Visioning for the work and defining the goals. Criterion risk tolerance to establish a list of projects
for possible P 3 agreement. These are all suitable for the next steps document. We could probably short of that. >> And I'll do that. So I have one question for Mystics. We
have a process. >> if the 3, 6, schools in the remaining Q would be part of that discussion. So. That is I
just know a lot of the schools are already in the construction design phase. So with that in back there. Construction, though, some delays. Now the intent is for
there to be no delays were simply looking at the remaining the very last of the renovation. Que those last 6 schools because of projects are under way. It's already
underway. And in fact, we purposely didn't include the next to schools that haven't started yet because we feel like those will start sooner than we could get the P 3 launch. So we would see no
impact. And would you be able to identify of the packages would be the best fit for those schools? >> Yeah, we we put in a staff
response back in January and it might make sense to kind of go over some of that, too. >> The reason it's hard to pull up numbers and everything as we explored a variety of options like each, we explored
multiple packages and then we explored within those packages, multiple financing and term options. So I do think it makes sense to kind of go through some of those. And then we were kind of
leaning towards 2 of the 3 packages over one of And we can kind of explain the why on some of that, too. I think these are the schools which 7 the son my district. So
definitely would like to look at all those different options. Thank you. Quick question. I know we have a process of next steps, but
this meeting is scheduled to end at 5.30. And we're here. >> Well, we actually have the benefit of having staff that we could, you know, pick their brains. What would preclude us from going going ahead and
given consensus now is that of doing it on the worksheet? We already gave consensus with 2 other sections, at time go
China business to be next steps. Any objection mean? We did it to And this well as station, I think >> there's a difference between providing consensus on
a question that is not pertaining to the need for the board's action and things that we would typically do on next steps, which are things where the board needs additional information. As far as I can
tell from this, this is what staff is saying. They're doing. Why the board has to. Provide consensus for the staff is already doing. don't think staff is doing this
staff staff as >> previously conveyed to me that and despair and that they're looking for direction from the board. This means he can you speak to that.
>> That's correct. I mean, basically, we feel like we put together a lot of information you know, from the more summer to explaining some presidents than we did. The cost benefit
analysis. But we were really just building our own framework and rationale for that. I think to make sure we're on the right track. We would want to work with you on that kickoff envisioning just
to make sure where getting a scope that, you know is the will of the board and works best for our division. >> And to that point, that's the reason why it matters, right? Is that? The board
provides consensus on the board doing something. So what is the board? Just do it right. The first item is that the board's going provide guidance and policies Coker's times, etc. One of these is about working closely with the
Board of Supervisors. One of them is about approving changes to policy. 82 40, those are all aboard. Objectives that have to be done by the board us providing consensus that this table is
not going to achieve those >> So sorry, I was still trying to figure out so. We are not giving any guidance to to staff on these next steps,
the way that we did just a little while ago, giving guidance Dre to go explore, you know, potential sites for swing spaces. I guess I'm a little bit. That's different, right? That's something that's
directing the superintendent. This is our work. >> So >> if staff, if I heard from the cement ski, they're looking fo to give them some feedback on whether or not this is the right way to
go. What is it that you're looking for? Key said once more, I'm sorry, sir. >> Again, because this is such. >> Big projects and it could really vary from one school to
100 schools. We really need some more guidance from the board to move forward. Are you looking as foot you looking to us to say, yes, go ahend do these things. I think we
are something else altogether. Different. We're looking for some guidance from the board on what you're risk appetite is for what types of projects you would want to do. Again, we had recommended as a
starting point, these 7 schools and we kind of gave some reasons why. But I think before we jump into those 7 schools, we want some more guidance. And is this the right track are we looking at
something much bigger or is that too risky for you? I think we just need some general feedback on to fight helping us define the scope, I think is the next step. If you are to work on this more
closely, we could provide some of those more specific questions like, how do you feel about the 6 schools or hate? How do you feel about that? Your appetite for that length of term? You know, we
could put together some of that. But I do think. Just make sure we're on track. We need a little bit more heavy guidance from the board just to go up than to go off in a vacuum, right? You're looking for official board vote which
would not be a next that no, but there's right. So >> even if we voted on this right now would be voting on us doing something for staff. Which makes not a lot of sense. What we could do is
take these next steps which request something from the board topic at the next work session of the work session after depending quickly it can be pulled together to provide
the guidance requested and some of this doesn't have to be done in that form. Some of that can be done governance in the interim and then we've taken the steps that they're asking from us that can't be
done through consensus because we offering consensus to ourselves. All Let's go through the people of placards and then turning this man to
Anderson. >> The other thing is, I mean, I guess my question would be to governance. How fast is policy? 82 40 gonna come to the board because a lot of
these also could be be follow-on motions to that approval of that policy, which is in line with the way we dumb things in the past. My concern creating consensus here is that we've had many
conversations about the fact that we don't use this space to vote on things that the public doesn't consider this a space to watch just for voting. This is purely for discussing these things. And
then the next steps document is a public-facing document. So giving general consensus to direct the superintendent towards a particular direction, I believe is a little bit different than the path that we seem to be going
down here. But I think that for me in artist way forward would be to let's get that policy approved so that we're not doing something outside the policy and we seem to have
a general consensus on that so far. So I don't think that will be a difficult process to to have. And then we can handle some of these next steps as follow-on motions to that that approval. I think
that makes perfect sense and we can put it on new business Thursday so that we don't have a delay. I mean, it may take more than a meeting for 2 people together, but we could have it ready to go.
>> Miss Sizemore Heizer. was going point that this Anderson made so and that that I think. >> This is a lot. And I know there's I really appreciate the work. Colleagues on this
for a long time. But there's many of us we're seeing a lot of this information for the first time without conversations around it. So I'm not really ready to get consensus. I think the processes outlined give more
time for those conversations, indigestion, and we can use the next steps process. But that's kind of where my head is right Mr. Meant.
>> Just picking up those that to the view of 2040. If I come to the meeting. Does policy 82
40 at the present time preclude once PPP. >> Correct. We would need to update the policy to include P threes and we have proposed
that in the red lines. >> Okay. Because Cotton the what 82 40 back looked like when you read the South County
South County South Secondary School, that we 2 P 3 at the time. And you think they wanted because board on action
to do to of House. I-80 to 41 to that was included >> You know, I really don't know. Lance is 20 years ago. All I know is that Division Council has given us the
guidance to update the policy of the I don't have a notes going the we didn't. Yes, yes.
Yes. So thanks for reminding us of the meeting in time Dr, Anderson. So in the consensus in discussion like that, we do have the time to talk about it in like this is when we do the work. So I'm happy to talk a little bit more about this
huge new area. >> But I think yes, we're trying to understand all of this and all of these different avenues. I think when it comes to the P 3 in particular, Ms Umansky and
really down to like 7 schools. So again, this is new for us. So is it helpful for us to doesn't matter what the 7 schools are or maybe we just talk for a few minutes about
this renovation, que, because this has been something that, you know, keeps popping up at the boundaries with the cip and maybe just reiterate where we stand on it because we now
have, you know, the renovation Q, we have Atlantic a tease Q and now we've got some new things in the hopper. So that is like one thing. I'm wondering, but 2 MS Anderson's
point about the action. I like that, right? Like how do we action eyes? These things. But I think if we really wanted to focus on a P 3 approach, could
be in the course of this conversation this afternoon. Figure out like can we ask for something to come back to us? To help us understand better and like even mapped out like I'm looking at the work
sessions. Obviously this year's done the school year. What's in a year? What's 2 years like maybe the Smith, you help us vision. How far
out this work goes? >> I'll take Go >> sure. I think as a resource. We when we done the cost benefit analysis, the
>> consultant had put together a timeline. Now, again, I think at this point a little bit outdated because we, you know, then assume maybe some soon as they had done the d as report, sir, please keep that
in mind with an Asterix on it. But I would just point in that direction is a good resource get a kind of general time frame.
>> I'll take you go back. note that the December rainfall key December 2024, CF, the follow-on motions report on Page. 68. had the draft P 3 guidelines, legal guidelines.
>> Prepared by Division Council and facilities. And so those have been pending before the school board that that shared with the entire school board. At the time it was
released in a Friday letter. right now, 82 40's been red line before governance for a few months. I think which includes the which is the P 3 guidelines. So if governance
adoption recommends, then we can. But these into place and operation allies. It in terms of I would be difficult to put together a time line Ms Mansi
kind of laying out, you know, from the timeline, we aside from the time the school board adopts to 40, including the be 3 guidelines. You know what next steps might look like
over the next few months in terms of kickoff in kind of a sequence of actions. The need to happen so you can get to an RFP stage. >> we outline with the
milestones are and then the consultant did put together a theoretical timeline. So just be a matter of are updating that, if you will. >> All semi go Son found the
other placards except Mr. First give additional. That. Dr Anderson. >> Thank you. Just shy on pack this a little bit and trying
to envision what the next step is. You're looking for the board to speak about, you know, policy got it. We've got that in front of governance and it will come to the full
board eventually scope and risk tolerance. These are conversations that are a little bit outside of us being not fully able to make
decisions regarding funding. So with the next step and be conversations with with that County executive, Dr Reid, do you see a space for that to
be? Will that come out of your collaboration with him? Was it something that we need to bring to the full Board of supervisors? I?
>> You know, I think that it's something that I believe the Board of Supervisors has suggested a joint committee on facilities. And I think it's perhaps something more so to be a conversation with that
group. I certainly can talk to the county executive about it, but I think it's more so as staff to staff or board the board we treat type of conversation. Thank you. Just
trying to figure out how do we move forward? We can certainly move forward on the policy, but I don't think we can answer the other questions. >> If it's going to be. It's
going to be based on information that is determined from this jet soften this joint committee, which is going to be meeting in the fall. >> Per board. Really caught at
the Board of Supervisors. What the board. Thank you. The board matter per the board matter after the budget process concludes this year, I'm OK, so it's going to start
very soon. can't speak to availability, but that was the board matter. >> Okay. Could go back. I don't know. I was still in 2 minutes. We have until 5.30. >> can and they go back 2
minutes. Seeing no other go backs Dr. Anderson. >> Just wanting to go down this list a little bit kick
off with vision in for the work defining goals criteria in this tolerance, the risk tolerance imagine in the summit ski that's related to funding. So let's put that to the side a little bit goals
and criteria. Can you articulate a little bit in terms of what that is going to be? Is that the number of schools, the types of schools? Well shining, it's combining
all those things, right? So when we talk about goals, like, do we want to get all the way down to 25 year renovation cycles? would be. >> ton of schools. So therefore, it kind of exceeds our risk tolerance or might exceed what we would want to
pay. So I think it's right finding that balance of what we want to achieve from it. How much were willing to pay? You know what we're looking in terms of a timeline and so
forth. >> Okay. And to develop a solicitationn you speak a little bit about that? That's sure. And I think that's where staff are start to carry some of that once we can kind of
come to consensus on what this looks like. Maybe it's. >> 7 schools and we decide to do the design, build finance model and we want to do a 30 year term with like a target budget. That's when we would
then take some of that information. Turn it into a solicitation. We put out an rfq. We would get proposals from developers and kind shepherd the project from there. Thank you. It doesn't
seem at least in my understanding that will be able to move on until that conversation begins with our Board of Supervisors partners, which is not likely until
>> the end of this month. And then who knows how long that will take to complete that work. So that's kind of where I'm standing sudden love to hear your thoughts. If you see
it differently. >> Yeah, I I mean, I think there's definitely an important conversation we had with the Board of Supervisors, but already done this South County. And, you know, I've spoken extensively with the
PGA champion on the board of the school board for PG County and they said it was primarily a school board. That school system conversation. There was some with their Board of
Supervisors equivalent. But I think we need to figure out our own risk tolerance internally and how you know what we want the scope of projects to be because this is
a black box. It can be anything as thissy say, could be 100 schools. It could be 10 schools. It could be schools that are geographically concentrated. You know, you could do one and the eastern and the county.
We're in the middle when the north and you can do it any which way and I think once we get the facility condition assessment back and I think that's 2 years from now is
they're 8 or year and a half. >> Should be a little over one year. Okay. A little over one year. So. >> That will provide us for the first time with data so that we might be able to
identify which schools are really in the worst condition, not just by aged since the last renovation, but, you know, overall and that might be a separate group of schools that we want to prioritize
because they're not a NICU at all. Right. And so I think we should have some internal just my opinion. We should have some internal dialogue or kickoff internally so that
then we know like where we are and then we can engage in a thoughtful manner with the Board of Supervisors. thank, you know, just kind of finish rest of my time. It seems to be at least to me that we need
a little bit more information in terms of one of these buckets that we need to give some decision about. Like when we find all those options. >> Is it that if we do X number of schools
geographically, it cost out. I feel like I don't know which is first year the chicken of what do we need in order it? I feel like we need a lot of information in order to arrive
to this or even to have informed conversations of the Board of Supervisors. So I'd like to get a sense of like what's the next potential step? I'm still failure in the
dark here. >> But again, it is a chicken and the egg situation because I don't want to go off and do 50 schools. If you're like, well, that's way too expensive or don't do them there that it
is right. So I think one thing we could do is give the board some guiding questions more specific, like, hey, whats year appetite for removing
maybe from cip funds and reallocating the P threes. You know, Adam, how big of a project are we willing to go down? You know, like maybe some guiding questions would be helpful. Again, I just want
to reiterate the we've done a lot of work to date. I don't want to do too much more until we have just some general feedback that we're on the right path because we can take it in a million different
directions. Now, certainly I just feel I it's not that I think I need to be m informed because you did provide a lot of documents that night. >> Read it very thoroughly. When he first sent it. I just need I just need to be
organized so that I am a little clearer on what is out ask of the board of supervisors because if we want to walk into a meeting with them tomorrow, I would not know how to engage in that conversation in a way that's
going to be productive. Mr. Fresh. Ryan bring us home. I'm gonna miss you. Some child sling my risk tolerance is
mid. that is it'll be the first time where embarking on this in recent memory. And so. Knowing that that's a risk. But I don't want to be too
aggressive of a risk. Secondarily, if we adopt the approach to Miss Anderson noted where we put a new business, the updating of the policy, some of this stuff can be brought to the discussion
of that policy change at the board. A as part of a presentation in anticipation of the vote. I would suggest that we list the revisions to
policy. 82 40 on new business on Thursday, which would enable us to act on it as soon as governance is finished with that. In the interim. Perhaps
our meeting managers or the chair and vice chair or any combination thereof can work Or perhaps tuperintendent
facilitate the board's work on the more specific guidance of the questions that Mis Umansky is talking about. And then by the time we come to a board vote at a meeting on 18 to 40, which will likely be before the joint committees begin
working. We will have something to talk about and to ground are thinking in terms of policy or scope risk, tolerance, funding, et cetera,
and that can help drive the conversations of our 2 members of the committee that work with the Board of Supervisors, at least in this piece of that
work. Mr. Cheetah. >> I like that a lot. And I also just, you know, want to add that big. And if we're really going to do or we
agreeing to dedicate her time to do this because this is a big, big project and it's ongoing and like I'm ready, pretty sure Mr. Guns ready and some other people. But look,
again, would we be willing to dedicate part of a work session a month to this is this the PM Work session or is it a work session quarter? But
also we do have our committee, the CDC committee. Does that take more of a role? You know, other boards user committee is more actively to do this work.
And so like what kind of time commitment to people have to really dig into this. Could this be the thing that this board sinks its teeth into for the next 2 and a half years of this term because we can't do
all the things. And we've talked about, you know, especially with our supervisors possibilities trying to do that differently. So it's not as much of a amount of time that used to
be. I we've come to an agreement about what else we want to pile on. The workload or are some just going to really dig in and maybe that's
the committee and some others and the task force. But I think as we go into summer planning, but the superintendent and she maps out, you know what's ahead? We really need to put down
writing when we're going to talk about this stuff develop a plan. And if the the FCA the facilities, conditions assessment comes back in a
year. Well, that's a great, you know, stake in the ground. Let's back map it. What do we need to have done by then in order to use that information effectively? But I think to
kind of putting it into 2 buckets of save money and be frugal and raise revenue. Those are 2 very different things. And we could spend all of our time just doing those
things really make a huge impact on the school division. So I'd love to hear people's
thoughts on things. Mr. Fresh to go back. Couple things. One, I think that this should be CPD see work and that we
should not be using PM work. Sessions absolutely necessary. >> Secondarily, I'll be very interested to talk to board members and school divisions, perhaps that the networking
spring event. >> The >> school board networking event this month from Prince William and others who do this to see how deeply engaged the
board is in that work because I think once we get to a point of initiation, we should be able to step back from it and trust that staff is doing in appropriately and we can judge that work through the process.
So I want to oversell the work required of the board. I don't want to under sell it because it's a lot for us to internalize and no. Okay. Now I understand what the work is and staff can go do it and I
can provide appropriate oversight during the process. But I have a feeling when we talk to our colleagues from other school divisions, they're going to say, like, I'm I don't understand what you're asking me. You're asking me how deeply am
involved in the and the contracting around the schools other than voting on the contracts that are meetings. So my preference would be that this is the type of thing that
CPD see should be doing. Its chair can update the board at at the monthly meeting. And then when there's bigger ticket items that need further discussion, perhaps there's a
work session similar to this. But I don't want to stay closer to cip cause. I don't want to get in the way of the work that gets us to the cip, which is a significant time
investment by stafft that would be my presumption is that some point we circle back on this front and just. Check to see that things are moving in the direction that we
wanted. And then we've got various yells that speak to this. As just want to really highlight the fact to bring
back the consultant prepared the big lengthy report have a presentation to the board. >> If that can be next step, potentially, Mr. Chairman, do think that's
>> might have talk to the next chair because we don't have any more work such in space. Nor does the chair get to
engage a contract. >> Any other thoughts comments on this or any of issues we discussed today. Going going
gun with during the work session.