|
|
Case Studies
Pine Lake Preparatory School
Click here to download this study.
Setting the Standard for Charter Schools
BACKGROUND
On the first day of the 2008-2009 school year, nearly 1400 students stepped into a new school that is attracting the attention of parents, educators and school officials throughout North Carolina.
Pine Lake Preparatory (PLP) is one of the state’s newest and most technologically advanced Schools. What attracts so much interest, however, is the non-traditional process and partnerships that transformed an idea into an operating school in under 18 months.
THE CHALLENGE
Pine Lake Preparatory was launched as a K-2 (kindergarten to second grade) charter school in 2007 with 245 students attending classes in two separate locations. The success of that initial program fueled the idea of a new K-12 school equipped with the most advanced technologies available for students, teachers and administrators.
“Building a new public school is a long, expensive process under the traditional model,” said John Moloney, Board Chair of Pine Lake Preparatory. “We wanted an alternative approach that would let us move more quickly and economically. Just as important, a different approach would give us more creativity in making technology an integrated part of our campus and the way our students learned.”
In August 2007, the state Board of Education gave its approval for the construction of the new Pine Lake Preparatory school. With an eye to the 2008-2009 school year and architectural drawings donated by local architects and engineers, the Board focused on strategy. “We knew we didn’t want to create a technology system in pieces. We needed a true partner that understood what we wanted to accomplish and could develop a real strategy for getting us there,” said Moloney.
“Consultedge had the capabilities to do everything under one roof. They could design the system, implement it and maintain it, but they could also manage the project. Right from the start, we knew we had top-quality people working with us.”
FINANCING CONSTRUCTION
Charter schools receive no public funding for construction, which left PLP to track down alternative financing sources. “We met with a lot of financing organizations,” said Moloney. “They weren’t enthusiastic about financing the construction of a new campus and then letting us lease it back until we could afford to buy it. Finally, Beacon Partners, a large office and commercial developer, agreed to finance construction of the campus.”
Beacon’s financing covered the buildings and site – but not the technology system. “Finding the financing for technology was just as difficult as finding the money for the site construction,” said Moloney. “Consultedge stepped up and did the research into potential sources of financing but we weren’t able to show several years of financial records. PLP had only been in existence for one year at that point and nobody was too interested in taking on that kind of risk.” Consultedge was able to identify and secure funding for PLP for the entire IT infrastructure. “We had the strategy and the money,” said Moloney. “And, we had a very tight deadline.”
THE CONSULTEDGE SOLUTION
Consultedge took on multiple roles as the project manager as well as the technology system designer and implementer. As project manager, Consultedge held responsibility for the quality and completion of the work performed by subcontractors including two companies identified by PLP as preferred providers of cabling and security services. Consultedge also worked with construction contractors to ensure that the required space would be enclosed and protected to allow installation of the technologies according to schedule.
The voice and data technology system for PLP was designed to provide a robust, scalable infrastructure that would carry the school well into the future without adding unnecessary functionality or equipment before needed. Flexibility was built into the system by designating technology written to industry standards, assuring its ability to support widely accepted application programming interfaces and enabling the future integration of new telephony technologies. The design integrates equipment and software from multiple vendors including the following:
- Avaya Communication Manager (CM) using an Avaya S8300 server platform and a G450 Media Gateway. The flexible, scalable configuration allows PLP to choose the type of telephone connectivity, whether analog or voice over internet protocol (VoIP).
- Avaya IA77 Voice Mail System enabling the assignment of voice mail boxes to all staff members in addition to designated mailboxes for announcements, departments, classrooms and additional functions in the future.
- Juniper Networks SSG 520 high-performance security platform for protection against worms, viruses, Trojans, spam and emerging malware. The SSG520 supports an advanced set of network protection features such as Security Zones, virtual routers and VLANs that allow administrators to divide the network into distinct, secure domains with unique security policies including access control rules.
- Extreme X-450e switches based on the Extreme XOS core-class operating system, a highly resilient modular operating system that provides continuous uptime, manageability and operational efficiency. The X450e’s advanced traffic management function supports large-scale rollout of converged networks that support devices such as IP telephones, wireless APs and other devices connected to LAN.
- Aruba 3600 wireless network controller and Aruba-65 access points to provide wireless access throughout the school’s facilities. Aruba’s Mobile Edge architecture delivers mobility, security and convergence, leveraging a distributed wireless deployment with centralized control.
- 240 computers configured with internal wireless connections, 1GM RAM and 40 GB hard drives. 150 laptop computers configured for students and 90 laptops configured for teachers. PLP is committed to providing each student with a laptop computer.
- 94 IP telephones with initial capacity for up to 150 phones.
UP AND READY
The tight schedule for construction of the school left no room for delays or disruptions. The school and its technology system had to be ready on September 2, 2008 – or 1400 students were going to be left stranded on the first day of school. As the project closed in on September, Consultedge made sure the technology system would be ready for startup by setting up the entire system at its Charlotte technology lab. The setup – not with standard or sample technologies, but with the actual components of PLP’s system – let Consultedge test the system and get a head start on setting the final configuration up quickly at PLP.
“If Consultedge hadn’t been there, I’m sure we wouldn’t have made it on time,” said Moloney. “Any other school would have had to install the technology system three weeks before school started, after the construction was completed and the air conditioning had been turned on. We didn’t have that extra time because of the tight schedule, but we didn’t need it because of Consultedge had already tested the system and could move it over very quickly.”
PLP opened on September 2 for the first day of the 2008-2009 school year. More than 1,400 students arrived for classes and another 3,000 are on the waiting list. “From the first day, we had students and parents telling us how much they love the school. That sentiment carries over to the teachers and administrators who have access to some of the best technology available in any school anywhere. If Consultedge hadn’t done its job the way it did, we wouldn’t be receiving that kind of response,” said Moloney.
PLP’s alternative approach creates a model for other schools. From initial idea through open doors, the entire project took 18 months and 5 people on the PLP Board. The construction cost for the 22-acre campus’ three, two-story classroom buildings was approximately $18 million. “We think this model can be used by other school systems to build new facilities faster and more economically. It depends on the company you partner with and we were very fortunate to have Consultedge with us. It worked for us. More important, it is working for our students.”
|
|
|