Sylvania Schools presents master facilities plan that spotlights preschool and special-education growth

Sylvania Schools leaders and consultants on Feb. 24 presented the district’s Master Facilities Plan, a 14‑month study that forecasts district enrollment through 2028 and lays out four scenarios to address rising preschool and special‑education classroom demand.

The Collaborative consultant Rachel, presenting for the planning team, summarized engagement and modeling that shaped the plan. “After a 14‑month process, we have a presentation for our community members…in regards to our Master Facilities Plan,” Rachel said, outlining enrollment projections, classroom‑capacity options and potential facility strategies.

The study matters because it identifies near‑term facility needs driven by a growing preschool population and a rising share of students requiring individualized education plans (IEPs). That pressure, the consultants told the board, will require either reconfiguration of existing space, additions or modular classrooms unless the district adopts redistricting or other systemwide changes.

Key findings and numbers: the district collected more than 1,700 survey responses and held over 25 in‑person meetings as part of the planning process. PowerSchool projections and historic trends show district enrollment peaking around 2028. Preschool is the fastest‑growing cohort: the report used recent averages (8–13% annual growth ranges cited) to set a projected need of about 12–14 preschool classrooms districtwide by 2028. At the time of the presentation the district already had roughly 239 preschool students for the current year.

Special education space also drove much of the projected demand. The team reported that several classrooms and support spaces have been repurposed districtwide — e.g., libraries, teacher lounges and former sensory rooms — to meet growing needs and that purpose‑built intervention and sensory spaces are becoming a higher priority.

Class size assumptions materially change how much new space is needed. The planning team tested three occupancy strategies — Sylvania Schools’ contract class sizes (K–3 at 25; grades 4–12 at 29), a committee‑preferred smaller‑class model, and Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC) guidelines. Using the contract sizes (the approach the facilities committee endorsed), the district would need fewer additional classrooms over the next few years than under the smaller‑class scenario. The consultants recommended the contract‑based standard to preserve flexibility while enrollment peaks.

Where growth concentrates: using the contract occupancy model, Sylvan Elementary (identified in the presentation as “Sylvan”) was the only facility projected to be over capacity at peak (2027). Several schools (Central Trail, Arbor Hills, Maplewood, Timberstone Junior High, Whiteford) were shown close to capacity; others (Highland, Strandahan, McCord, Northview, Southview) had projected surpluses under that scenario.

Four scenarios. The plan presents four high‑level strategies for the board to consider: - Continue decentralized preschool (add preschool classrooms at multiple elementary sites) and use a mix of new construction and modulars where needed. The consultants estimated adding six permanent classrooms at an existing school at about $3.6 million, versus roughly $1 million for modular units, and said modulars can come online in under a year while new construction typically takes about two years after funding approval. The facilities committee and surveyed parents generally supported a blend of approaches depending on timing and location. - Centralize preschool in one early learning center by converting an existing district building (Sylvan or Whiteford were identified as candidate buildings under the plan’s stated criteria). Conversion order‑of‑magnitude estimates ranged from roughly $4.6 million at the low end to $12–13 million if deferred‑maintenance and broader upgrades were addressed. A new early learning center built to the program specification was estimated at about $14.6 million. - Redistricting to rebalance enrollment and use existing surplus classrooms without major new construction. The master facilities committee and many parents expressed conditional support for redistricting if it reduced construction needs and costs. - Reconfiguring grade bands (for example, moving to a P–4 / 5–6 / 7–8 model or creating an intermediate school) to free elementary classroom capacity for intervention and special education. The report flagged that grade‑band changes would produce broad impacts across schools and would necessitate sizable additions at some junior high sites under some options.

High school consolidation analysis: the study examined the one‑high‑school option briefly. Combining both high‑school populations at projected peak (about 2,700 students in the model) would require large additions, disrupt athletics and career‑tech operations at candidate sites, and carry substantially higher costs. Using OFCC cost benchmarks in the presentation, an illustrative estimate for a single new high school was given in the range of approximately $166 million (an earlier, larger enrollment projection produced a $174 million figure cited in the presentation).

Facilities condition overview: the consultants reported that eight of 12 buildings were originally built before 1970 but that district facilities are generally worth investing in rather than replacing. The facilities condition assessment showed deferred‑maintenance ratios well below the OFCC replacement benchmark (66% of replacement cost); the presentation cited highest ratios around 38% and lower values near 31%, concluding no building met the replacement threshold.

Next steps and board action: Rachel and district staff characterized the plan as a road map for future decisions. Superintendent Motley told the board the presentation was for information and that the board would have time to review options: “No action will be taken this evening in regards to the master facilities plan,” Motley said. The board will continue to monitor enrollment and consider the four scenarios and related cost and timing implications.

The presentation materials and a recording will be posted to the district’s master facilities plan website for community review, the consultant said.

Ending: The Master Facilities Plan frames specific capacities, conversion costs and timelines for the board’s consideration. The document highlights preschool expansion and special‑education spaces as the primary near‑term pressures; the board will weigh centralized versus decentralized preschool, redistricting and grade‑band changes as it decides whether to pursue additions, modular classrooms or construction funding in future levy cycles.