Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Programs Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District lays out ‘layer 1’ academic requirements and the facility needs they create
Summary
District academic directors told the Academic Facility Alignment Committee that Columbus City Schools’ core instruction (literacy, math, science, social studies), special education, ESL and CTE meet state requirements and create clear facility needs: flexible classrooms, labs, technology infrastructure and meeting spaces. Dr. Nelson said about 58% of students with disabilities are not served in their neighborhood school due to space constraints.
Columbus — Columbus City Schools directors presented a district-wide inventory of required academic programming and the physical spaces needed to deliver it, telling the Academic Facility Alignment Committee on April 15 that meeting state-mandated “layer 1” services will shape building design and renovation priorities.
Shelanda Likely Roach, director of literacy, said the district uses a multi-tiered system of support aligned with the science of reading and Ohio requirements for universal screening, progress monitoring and tiered interventions, and added, “The key takeaway is that CCS is not only meeting state literacy requirements, but in many cases we are exceeding them.”
Why it matters: The committee is producing an educational specification (ed‑spec) that will guide how future renovations or new construction allocate classrooms, labs, and support spaces. Committee members and presenters repeatedly tied instructional models — whole-group instruction transitioning to small-group intervention — to concrete facility features such as flexible classroom layouts, breakout spaces and enhanced acoustics.
What directors presented
- Literacy: Shelanda Likely Roach described structured literacy blocks with whole-group and small-group instruction and a daily 30-minute intervention block for targeted supports. She said small groups are typically three to five students and emphasized learning centers and furniture that enable movement and differentiated instruction.
- Mathematics: Joe Hearn, director of mathematics, said the district pairs standards-aligned core instruction with intervention systems and diagnostic tools (I‑Ready) and emphasized the need for classroom flexibility so teachers can shift between whole-group discourse and small‑group work.
- Science and social studies: Brian Morton outlined expectations for inquiry-based, hands-on science and standards-aligned social studies; he said lab and flexible instructional space are essential for experiments, investigations and performance-based learning.
- Career & Technical Education: Jenny Me said many CTE programs require a dedicated lab plus classroom space to simulate industry environments, and that pathway approvals and credential attainment are central to program design.
- English learners and special education: Michael Sain described multilingual supports delivered across 61 locations, and special education directors Donna Taylor and Joyce Albbright reviewed the IDEA-grounded continuum of services. On placement, Dr. Nelson told the committee, “most recent data suggests that about 58% of our students with disabilities are not served in their home school,” citing space and program availability as primary reasons.
Facility implications and recurring needs
Committee members and staff synthesized recurring requirements: adaptable classrooms that support both whole- and small-group instruction; intentional pull-out rooms for interventions and IEP meetings; sufficient electrical and Wi‑Fi infrastructure to support device-based diagnostics and instruction; acoustics that allow simultaneous activities; and dedicated adult work and collaboration spaces for teacher planning and family conferences.
The presenters repeatedly urged that ed‑specs be explicit about the size and function of these spaces so architects can design buildings that support the stated instructional model rather than retrofitting legacy spaces.
What’s next
The committee will continue with ed‑spec work at future meetings, dig deeper into layer 2 and layer 3 priorities in upcoming sessions, and couple the program definitions with planned site tours and pilot projects to test concepts before undertaking large-scale construction.
At the end of the meeting the committee recorded procedural votes to approve the agenda and minutes and then adjourned.
