Frequently Asked Questions
Why do we need a new bond program?
On September 5, 2005, GCISD voters approved a bond program that has positively impacted every school and facility over the past four years. The bond package addressed critical needs in several areas including replacement of an aging elementary school, additions and renovations to several campuses, and upgrades to operational systems such as HVAC and electrical. The 2005 Bond Program is in the final phase, and now is the time to begin looking ahead. Currently, GCISD is assessing facility needs to serve our changing student population, implement the latest technology, provide upgraded safety and security measures, and perform important facility maintenance. The District budget is not designed to fund capital improvements. In addition, changes in the economy, new instructional mandates, and the limitations of the state funding process have further impacted the District’s ability to provide quality facilities for existing, expanding and new programs and services.
Isn’t work still being done in the 2005 Bond Program?
Yes, work continues on the final bid package of the 2005 Bond Program. This phase includes the addition of a secured entrance at O.C. Taylor Elementary, expansion of parking at the Professional Development and Education Center (PDEC), and renovations to the Administration Complex. Much of the work in these bid packages is being funded through surplus monies resulting from previous projects being completed under budget. Work at O.C. Taylor and the PDEC is complete, making the Administration renovations the final project in the 2005 Bond Program. Approximately 70 percent or more of the work at Administration is being funded with money received from the Texas Department of Transportation in conjunction with the widening of Highway 26. The Administration renovations are expected to be complete in spring 2010.
How do I know that the money from the 2005 Bond was used as promised?
Through favorable pricing, interest earnings, and prudent management, the District has been able to maximize every dollar to complete every project promised in the original bond proposal. Furthermore, the program has been delivered under budget – approximately 30% less than originally proposed – and with a smaller impact on taxpayers than expected. At the time the referendum was passed, the debt service tax rate (the rate used to repay bonds) was projected to increase by 3.3 cents, from 22.9 cents to 26.2 cents. GCISD has been able to implement the 2005 Bond Program at a lower tax increase – 1.2 cents less – than originally expected.
The savings within the program has enabled GCISD to accomplish additional key improvements beyond the original scope. These projects include the addition of five classrooms and a science lab at Cannon Elementary, installation of a secured entrance at O.C. Taylor Elementary, and renovations of the former Instructional Service Center for Timberline Elementary’s pre-Kindergarten program and a JPS School-Based Health Clinic. A summary of projects accomplished over the past four years are available in the 2005 Bond Report Card, which can be found online at www.gcisd-k12.org under Site Shortcuts. Project details are available on the 2005 Bond website, http://gcisd.huckabee-inc.com.
Why are we considering an election now? Shouldn’t we wait until the economy improves?
Several factors are considered when determining when to plan a bond election. Community attitudes are key in this decision, and results of the District’s community attitudes and awareness survey indicate that renovating and improving existing facilities are priorities for our patrons. Of those who responded to the random telephone poll, 54% said the economy is not a reason to oppose a bond election, and 58% said they would not oppose an election just because it could increase taxes. Additionally, the District’s financial advisor has reported that current interest rates are favorable for long-term bond investments, and that rates are projected to remain low in future months. Finally, District budget constraints, limitations on the state funding process, and requirements for new or expanded instructional programs must be considered. These are a few factors that indicate now is a good time to consider a long-term bond program.
Who is involved in the planning process and what information will they review?
A 52-member Bond Planning Committee comprised of district patrons, current/former parents and non-parents, and employees began meeting in August to consider items for a possible bond package. Members represent various aspects of the District in terms of geography, age, ethnicity, parents and non-parents, business leaders, employees, and beliefs. Over several months, the committee will review results of a community attitudes and awareness survey, projections for enrollment, student population trends and growth/changes within the community, economic trends and the financial impact of a bond election, information regarding District facilities, and information about educational and technology standards. In February, the committee will present its recommendations for a bond package to the GCISD Board of Trustees.
How much is the District considering and what does that mean to me as a taxpayer?
The District’s financial advisor presented the Bond Planning Committee with several tax impact scenarios during the September 24, 2009, meeting. Scenarios ranged from a $58.5 million measure with no tax increase to a $120 million proposal, which would result in a monthly debt service tax rate increase of 4.06 cents per $100 valuation. Based on the average taxable home value of $264,554, the maximum one-time tax increase would equal $107.40 annually. Other scenarios were an $80 million measure, resulting in a tax rate increase of 1.41 cents; and a $100 million proposal, which would equal a tax rate increase of 2.73 cents. Citizens age 65 years and older who have properly applied for an received a Homestead Exemption would not have a tax increase as a result of a bond program.
How can I stay informed during the planning process?
Patrons are encouraged to visit the Bond website, http://gcisdbond2010.com, for regular updates on the planning process. Meeting agendas, minutes and presentations made to the Bond Planning Committee will be posted on the website as available.
Why is the cost for roofing so much?
Roofing comprises $31,626,568, or approximately 25 percent, of the recommended bond program. The bond requests include five different types of roof structures to fit the various types of building structures throughout the District. For built-up roofs (includes roofing, decking, insulation, etc., standard for commercial structures), the budgeted cost is approximately $10 per square foot, which would be $1,000 per roofing square (100 square feet). The cost is more for metal roofs. Industry standards for school and commercial properties are more restrictive than residential standards. For example, school buildings must meet the I90 Wind Lift requirement, which means roofs must be designed to sustain wind speeds up to 90 mph. School buildings also are subject to energy and compliance codes above what is required for residential structures.
The sports package has $4.5 million for artificial turf on the middle school competition fields. Is turf the best choice for the middle school fields or is there another option?
If you take out the cost for the turf, you have to put back in dirt fields and the related maintenance costs, drainage needs, etc. Also to consider is the ability to use turf fields more often as they are less impacted by rain and are more durable than natural grass. For example, a natural field becomes muddy and unusable in heavy or sustained rains, which impacts physical education classes and extra-curricular practices, events and competitions. Additionally, natural grass fields develop ruts, dips and other imperfections that make the fields unusable and could increase the possibility of injuries. Currently when fields are unusable, programs "double up"on the usable fields or are unable to continue with the scheduled activity. GCISD has three turf fields -- Mustang-Panther Stadium, the competition field at CHHS, and the competition field shared by GHS and CTMS (both were approved by voters in the 2005 Bond Program) -- that also are used when not already scheduled.
Other factors to consider include providing equity across the middle school campuses, the ability to expand the number of events, maintenance and longevity, and return on investment. Additionally, GCISD fields are used almost daily and year-round for both District and non-District events. City Parks and Recreation Departments have a joint agreement with the District to use GCISD fields for youth leagues and the fields are available for rental by qualifying non-District groups. To add to the usage, the District is expanding its soccer program to an intramural league at middle school. The subcommittee discussed the turf request in detail and indicated that the usage benefit for all students (both athletes and non-athletes) was a key element in the decision to include the turf in the recommendation.
1:1 Computing Initiative
Given the average life of a computing device is 5 years, are we requiring taxpayers to spend $11.5 million every five years?
No, the cost to replace 8,000 devices is less than half of that amount – approximately $5.2 million
How is it possible that 8,000 portable computing devices will not affect current and future Operating budgets considering the requirements for ongoing distribution, tracking, repair, maintenance, software and professional development?
a) The devices will be distributed and tracked just like textbooks so no additional staff is necessary.
b) Routine repair and maintenance will be handled mainly through students in the CTE program and A+ courses. Complicated repairs will be handled through the device warranty.
c) Minimal, necessary software will be purchased with the portable computing device (word processing, spreadsheet, presentation and browser programs). We do not anticipate the need to purchase additional software during the normal life of the device.
d) The Technology Department as well as the Curriculum and Instruction Department already provide technology integration training. These groups will concentrate their current resources to train teachers how to integrate this technology into their classrooms.
It was stated that completely eliminating the portable computing device program would not reduce the Technology costs by 11.5 million. Why?
Some items that were not recommended would need to be added back to the recommended list because their function was covered by utilizing portable computing devices. For example, adding devices to accommodate online testing ($4.47 million), adding back 2,000 computers that were eliminated with portable computing devices ($2.17 million), adding new mobile carts and replacing old mobile carts ($1.05 million). Without a 1:1 program, approximately $9 million would be added back to the cost.
What is the overall cost of providing portable computing devices for just high school?
$7.65 million (there would be additional costs to replace the function of portable computing devices at middle schools)
What is the portable computing device base cost per unit?
$625 per unit (does not include the infrastructure to support and connect to network)
Why do these portable computing devices cost so much more than what you can buy in a retail store?
The portable computing devices that we purchase are enterprise level devices that have solid-state drives (no moving parts) and other components that increase their durability and provide reliable integration across the District. There is a higher initial cost but will increase longevity and reduce hardware repairs.
What is the initial overall cost of upgrading the infrastructure/network for the portable computing device program?
$2.84 million (includes wireless expansion, servers, learning management tools, disaster recovery needs and additional necessary services)
Will a portable computing device really last 5 years?
The District is considering a five-year bond cycle. The 1:1 devices will need replacement on a regular cycle just as desktop or laptop computers need replacement on a regular cycle. It is expected that with the proper care and maintenance, such devices will last through the bond cycle.
Will students be able to use their own laptop/portable computing device at school?
The District will explore this possibility strongly. Certain requirements do exist to ensure accessibility and to protect the integrity of the District network. Requirements would include, but are not limited to, virus protection, software licensing, and student management controls. Additionally, the District is considering options for families to rent or purchase the District-issue devices from GCISD.
How are you going to monitor portable computing devices so that students don’t download inappropriate material, viruses, etc.?
The District already utilizes vigorous antivirus and antimalware programs as well as internet filters. In addition, the protection programs can be exported to student portable computing devices to make them more secure.
What will prevent students from playing games or accessing other non-school related material on their portable computing device during class?
Classroom management techniques and teacher-student engagement will ensure the proper use of portable computing devices in class. Students will also sign an agreement outlining the proper use of their portable computing device.
How will we accommodate families that cannot pay for the portable computing device insurance fee?
There are a number of ways to provide insurance scholarships. One option is for the District to self-insure the devices and use a portion of the funds to provide scholarships.
How many “scholarships” are you planning to help those who cannot pay for insurance?
We have not determined the final criteria for awarding insurance scholarships at this time.
What is the damage/loss rate for portable computing devices in school?
There are no published data regarding damage or loss rates. We anticipate it to be below 0.5% based on our conversations with schools that have implemented a 1:1 initiative.
My middle school student loses things and breaks things on a regular basis. Won’t middle school students have a higher damage/loss rate than high school students?
We do not anticipate a higher damage/loss rate for middle school students.
How are damaged/lost portable computing devices handled and will it add to the overall cost?
Insurance will cover the costs of any damaged or lost devices. It will not add to the overall cost.
If a student’s portable computing device stops working will the student be able to get help before, during and after school? Will students be able to access and do their work at home?
We do not anticipate a student will be without a working portable computing device. If their device is malfunctioning and it cannot be easily fixed, they will be given a loaner portable computing device until their device is fixed. The devices will be equipped to allow students to access certain software from home. An Internet connection is required to access the District system, which allows for virtual collaboration with teachers and among students. For students without Internet connectivity, one option being considered is a “virtual desktop” that students could check out (much like a library book) that would allow them to work from home without the need to access the District network. Once students returned to school and accessed the network, their files would be uploaded automatically. Additionally, textbooks can be loaded directly onto the devices.
When a student does not have his/her portable computing device in class, are teachers burdened with additional work for class assignments and homework to accommodate this student?
There will be loaner portable computing devices so that a student will not necessarily be without a device in class.
Is there physical room to process portable computing devices for ongoing maintenance and repair at each school?
Software repairs/updates/imaging will be managed on the virtual network and pushed to each device automatically. Therefore, software- and network-related maintenance will not require students to physically bring in their devices for such repairs in most cases. For the times when manual repair is needed, we will need to carve out space for this function. One option is to repurpose an existing computer lab that will not be needed with the 1:1 initiative.
Where are 8,000 portable computing devices going to be stored over the summer?
We have a number of options for storing portable computing devices at each campus but the final storage solution has not been determined at this time.
How will you handle the student who habitually forgets or loses their portable computing device?
In the same manner with which we currently handle students who habitually forgets or loses their book or homework.
We seem to work just fine with paper-based testing, e.g.,TAKS. Why can’t we continue in the same way with End-of-Course exams and keep the portable computing devices out of the equation?
Online testing provides the benefit of testing as late as possible in the course so as to maximize instructional content for students. Most districts currently do not have the technology in place to accommodate simultaneous testing of students (i.e. end-of-course exams at secondary levels). This is the case for GCISD. Without adding technology, one option to accommodate online exams would be to stagger test times to allow students to use existing computer labs and laptops. Using this process at GCISD’s high schools, the end-of-course testing process could take 6-8 weeks to complete online. Such a lengthy testing period would impact instructional time.
Online testing cannot be mandated by the state until at least the next legislative session, which is summer 2011. State leaders have been discussing this direction for several years. Most course exams are being piloted online and, while paper testing is still an option, District leaders anticipate that online testing will be required for all courses in the foreseeable future.
Would the 1:1 program replace textbooks?
Probably not in this bond cycle, but expected during the next bond cycle. Currently, not all textbooks are available in electronic form and some are not in a user-friendly format. The textbook publishing companies are involved in this process and the quality continues to improve. All new textbook adoptions for core subjects currently include an electronic version. When the time comes, electronic textbooks can be loaded directly onto the 1:1 devices.
Can you explain how the students would use these in the classroom and what the subcommittee and District hope to achieve in terms of student performance and benchmarks?
Access to information and project-based learning in real time are two major benefits. Students using 1:1 devices are incredibly engaged in their class discussions, work or projects and are using their devices to be more efficient and to enhance their understanding. They are able to use virtualization to collaborate with teachers and other students in real time, not just during the scheduled class period. Several state and national studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of 1:1 learning and research indicates that discipline decreases while the levels of engagement, motivation and academic achievement increase with the use of a 1:1 program. Common threads among the research indicate engagement and student achievement.
Having portable computing devices in the classroom will/should change teaching methods and strategies. How are you going to help teachers update and relearn teaching practices to integrate this technology?
The subcommittee and the District consider training for teachers to be the biggest and most crucial step in making this initiative a success. Training will help educators learn how to use these new technology tools for effective and meaningful instruction. Also, some of our students go to homes without a computer and we want all our students to have the same kinds of tools they need to be successful in college and beyond. So providing training for teachers to help bridge that gap is critical.
What is the plan for implementation?
It would be a phase-in process. First would be upgrading the District’s technology infrastructure to support the devices. Then an appropriate management system would be determined and teacher training would begin. The soonest students would begin using the devices would be the fall of 2011, starting with high school in the first year then adding middle school in the second year.
