Skip to main content

Olympia School District

Creating opportunities and shaping success for all students

Meeting Summaries

Meeting Summaries

Meeting Dates: The committee met eight times (from September 25 -  November 1, 2023). Meeting summaries and related data are posted below:

  • Meeting 1 Minutes: 9/25/23
    Committee Convened: 5:30 PM.

     

    Welcome and greetings from Superintendent who introduced Shannon Bingham (SB) from Western Demographics, Inc. (WDI). Shannon Bingham (SB) and Flo Analytics representatives Kate Doiron and Charles Rynerson.

     

    SB welcomed committee members, stated the districts Squaxin acknowledgement and introduced OSD Board of Education President Darcy Huffman. President Huffman greeted the committee on behalf of the Board and turned it back over to Shannon.

     

    SB presented the committee charge and presented information from a PowerPoint.

     

    Approximately 30 voting committee members introduced themselves
    Five Ex Officio/non-voting members introduced themselves

    SB provided a committee process overview and stated that committee members would be able to submit research requests that would be processed by WDI. SB explained that confidential polling will be used to collect feedback. Final reporting will be provided with ranked strategies and scenarios. SB presented typical efficiency actions that districts consider, explained key concepts such as school consolidation, boundary optimization and fractional staffing and illustrated typical parameters used for decision making. SB then responded to questions.

     

     

    Questions/Comments:

     

    Committee member: Have decisions already been made or is this an open process?
    SB: No. This district has not made decisions yet. Data has been collected on facilities and enrollment because that is standard operating procedure for an efficiency study.

     

    Committee member: Is there going to be some consideration as to the fact that some schools are over-represented in the room? Have you tried to recruit from schools that are not represented tonight?
    SB: We tried to get 2 representatives per school. A process was used to impartially review applications. The district was as balanced as possible in attempting to select committee members by their elementary, middle or high school affiliation. The district did not get as many staff representatives as it would have liked.

     

    Committee member: Have you gone back and looked at how schools you’ve worked with and how they are doing post-changes.
    SB: Occasionally. For the most part, recommendations achieve all original strategic goals about 85% of time. Few changes of this gravity are perfect, but in general, most efficiency actions are effective in hindsight. Some districts decide not to act on recommendations or to take as many as three years to implement. Regarding morale, most districts try to foster a soft landing for students and staff and provide supports.

     

    Committee member: When efficiency actions fail, how much time and effort is required for remediation.
    SB: The vast majority of efficiency actions that my company has addressed have been successful. M I have seldom been in error by more than 1% on forecasting associated with changes. I have not worked with a district who has regretted closing schools or changing boundaries. When making a closure recommendation, the resulting outcome must produce viable enrollments for at least a decade.

     

    Committee member: Conversations around closures, wondering if it is going to be broader in scope.
    SB: It is the Board’s responsibility to deal with budgetary issues. That will be addressed in their conversation about how they want to deploy resources. But, WDI addresses limited HR and budgetary impacts as part of the committee process, but priorities in these two areas are up to the Board. I do provide an opportunity at the end to communicate other things you think are relevant.

     

    Committee member: What type of transparency are you going to provide back to schools?
    SB: Whatever I provide to you will be public. If you made a research request and I provide the research, it will be shared.

    SB: Given time constraints, I may be able to provide raw data, if you want to do your own analytics if the data is not considered intellectual property by Western Demographics or FLO Analytics. If student or staff data is personally identifiable (like Free/Reduced lunch), it will not be provided. Facility information and information that would generally be in the district’s budget, can generally be provided in raw form. Several committee members requested data from FLO.

     

    Committee member: Clarify what our roles are specifically. How should we deal with issues that are against our personal best interest (such as decisions impacting our child’s home school)?
    SB: We want you to vote your conscience. We understand that sometimes that will be based on your unique position in the district. And other times that will be for the larger interests of the district and because we have broad representation on the committee, we hope balance will be achieved.

    FLO Analytics presented its demographic and enrollment forecast results via a power point presentation.

     

     

    Questions/Comments:

     

    Committee member: What access does the committee have to raw data, forecast spreadsheets and calculation rubrics? To what extent does FLO consider this material proprietary? Does FLO provide error analysis using previous years’ data that would ratify the viability of its methodology?
    FLO: FLO generally considers its calculations and work books proprietary and provides summary reports of the outputs. SB confirmed that Western Demographics has the same policy, but strives to assist committee members by providing raw data and other material that might facilitate additional analysis from committee members. FLO does not conduct known prior year forecasting simulations and the Pandemic makes much of this irrelevant.
    FLO: FLO conducts its district-wide forecast first and backwards reconciles individual schools to the overall estimates. Once basic cohort trends are established including a birth correlation to future kindergarten, FLO overlays the housing development. Then we do it by grade.
    FLO: The Pandemic and housing costs have had significant effects on school enrollments and forecasting.
    FLO: The district will provide our complete, interpreted report.

     

    Committee member: Regarding housing, how does pending, permit, future status affect timing.
    FLO: Planners and developers are generally optimistic regarding their forecasting. FLO used street view to see if each development was under construction.
    SB: SB offered a time frame to FLO’s estimate categories:
    future 5 years out,
    proposed 3 years out,
    permit 2 years out,
    current 1 year out.
    FLO: Flow addressed the largest housing category in Figure 8. Apartments have been the leading category for a while in Western Washington. Some of Olympia’s largest apartment properties may be delayed because didn’t get their low income tax credit.

     

    Committee member: In figure 17, how do we compare the 23-24 projection and it to the SY23-24 October enrollment? Is it possible to get an update?
    FLO: Timing of the study is challenging because of when data comes in. It will either be a year old or hot off the presses. FLO has not contracted an update.
    SB: If FLO can’t update, Western Demographics may be able to show actuals and apply current year differences to future years.
    The Superintendent and FLO may explore an update, but timing is an issue.

     

    Committee member: How do you integrate development into the model?
    FLO: FLO adds students produced by new housing to its base cohort model and makes adjustments.
    Committee member: How are we addressing transitional K and pre-school. They effect the number of students a building serves.
    SB: Those programs that are based on funding and they tend to be a partial cohort. Most school demographers don’t include them in forecasting and that differs from district-to-district and state-to-state.

     

    Committee member: Washington State does have state funded PK. When we talk about shutting down schools, we need to look at having space for PK.
    FLO: Agreed. Need to consider assumptions about expansion of programs.
    Committee member: What role do real estate market trends play? (Migration stats)
    FLO: FLO follows market trends and the forecast reflects affordability. Housing age also plays a role in students generated.

     

    Committee member: High school numbers—are those FTE or headcount?
    FLO: We are using headcount.

     

    Committee member: What is FLO’s role moving forward.
    SB: You will probably see FLO again as presenter. They are waiting to see how they can be of use to the committee.

    Committee members were asked to provide what research requests they have to WDI.

    WDI presented introductory presentation material via a power point addressing generational changes in family size and child production including regional and national data on birth rates and family size. This presentation will continue at the next meeting.

     

     

    Final Questions:

     

    Committee member: Are we going to be able to look at building capacity? How are we going to do that without looking at PK?

    SB: Beginning at next week’s meeting, the committee will review capacity data. Preschool information may also be available.

     

    Committee member: Would it be possible to get the slides?
    SB: Yes, the district will provide them.

    Approximately 11 research requests were submitted to SB.

    The committee adjourned at 8:05 PM.

  • Meeting 2 Minutes: 10/2/23
    Committee Convened: 5:36 PM.

     

    Welcome and greetings from Shannon Bingham (SB) from Western Demographics, Inc. (WDI).

     

    Five new members introduced themselves. Mr. Bingham acknowledged the Squaxin tribal ancestry of the district. He reviewed the committee charge and alluded to future meetings in which small group table exercises would augment the data presentations. SB continued to present from a PowerPoint addressing generational changes in family size. Slides showing cultural and social issues related to forecast declines in birthrates were presented. Economic drivers including housing were also presented. Millennial and Generation Z age group indicators were presented suggesting that these cohorts have indicated an intention to have smaller families than prior generations. Recently released data on school-aged children/kindergarten counts were also discussed the emphasis on the durability of these trends and an expectation that they will continue indefinitely.

     

     

    Questions/Comments from committee members with answer from SB/WDI:

     

    How are you accounting for the fact that a fifth of housing is occupied by Baby Boomers.

    Many seniors are choosing to retire-in-place, in their existing homes, rather than move into some other sort of housing or assisted housing. The home health care industry is supporting this trend. Large-scale transitions in which senior neighborhoods transition to young family neighborhoods are rare. If transition happens, it tends to be slow and decades-long.

     

    The age of housing is the bigger predictor of school-aged population. As neighborhoods age, they tend to produce fewer children. Many seniors are, however, transferring some of their home equity to their children, but they liquidate their dwellings in order to achieve this. The children of those seniors are generally buying more economical housing in denser, newer neighborhoods.

     

    Can you speak to the analytics FLO provided?

    I will be showing a comparison analysis of FLO’s predictive data with the actual data we are seeing.

     

    Some of what you are sharing is counterintuitive to my observations. Do you have data that compares national-level data to Olympia?

    Mr. Bingham named several other comparable capital cities and college towns elsewhere in the Country that have aging houses, affluent demographics and fewer children. He is seeing the same trends there.

     

    What is an FTE?

    Full-time equivalent. It is a percentage of which a person fills a job or role. So, for example, when children attend school halftime, they are a .5 FTE.

     

     

    More from Presentation

     

    SB presented maps of the district boundaries which displayed the concentration of students in each part of the district. He discussed the feeder system concept in which a few elementary schools “feed” to a middle school and multiple middle schools feed to a high school. He discussed mixed grade-level classrooms.

     

    Tracks or rounds are the number of classrooms at each grade level. If there is one first grade, one second grade, and so on, that is a one-round or one-track school. If there were two classrooms at each grade, that would be a two-round or two-track school.

     

    SB continued presentation and discussed school capacities. He displayed preliminary utilization percentages for each building.

     

     

    More questions from the committee with answers from SB.

     

    Can you explain the coloration on the charts for schools vs. the percentages?

    I’m showing schools below 200 (pink), 300 (yellow), 400 (green). On the right side, shading is if it is in the 50’s (pink), 60’s (yellow), 80’s (green).

     

    Can you explain what capacity figures mean?

    The district provided three approaches. One takes into account space for special ed (lowest capacity), there is also a middle and high approach that are maximums if all space is used.

     

    Do these capacity numbers take into account and include portables?

    These figures include current portables.

     

    A committee member asked a question about the capacity methodology given the viability of housing the stated number of students at a specific school.

    Mr. Bingham addressed the concern and suggested that the capacity figures may be more tailored to programs at a later meeting.

     

    Madison ES has a transitional kindergarten (pre-school program) how does that come into play?

    I don’t know. I’ll research that for the next meeting.

     

    Can you speak to ORLA?

    ORLA was not forecast by FLO as it is driven by admission demand and not demographics. No observations of comparison included here.

     

    What grades does that program include?

    K-12.

     

    Please, further clarify the coloration on the charts and the meaning of those colors.

    We should be looking at small schools that have low utilization rates. Consider the colors like traffic lights: Green is go/good, yellow is slow/consider, red is stop and think.

     

    I am a little frustrated about maybe the coloring being premature [before further conversation].

    I am trying to give a little bit of interpretation on very complicated information. So, for some it will seem too fast and others will want to have more information and slow down and analyze more. I will try to be respectful of that in future interpretation.

     

    Ask that the color-coding be more color-blind friendly.

    Yes, we can work on that [for next and future meetings].

    BREAK

    Reconvened:

     


    The presentation continued with an explanation of the basis for capacity calculations provided by staff: Elementary school is 25:1 where each elementary room is counted, including portable classrooms; Middle schools and High schools are 28:1 as class size with Special Education being 10:1. There is also an 80% efficiency ratio applied to middle and high school capacities to facilitate teacher planning periods. It is National practice for many teachers to remain in their classroom for their planning periods, for office hours to assist students and lesson prep. Most capacity formulas take certain rooms out of the calculation, for example dedicated spaces like gymnasiums. Capacity (facility) and staffing models tend to differ. Mr. Bingham may generate figures more in line with staffing needs in a subsequent meeting. Most districts own their portables.

     

    Is maintenance cost more on portable than on fixed structures?

    Yes. Portables are more expensive to heat and maintain. They are more difficult to secure.

    Presentation resumed:
    Mr. Bingham addressed the differences in middle school size among the four OSD middle schools - three smaller middle schools and one large middle. Middle schools require math, science, language arts, social studies, and an elective program (art, music, physical ed, technology, world languages, and others). Large schools are able to offer an elective program with adequate staff and frequently these are full 1.0 FTE in the building. In small middle schools, the district must subsidize elective staff and there is a higher cost per student than at larger schools. 625 student is generally the threshold for elective program subsidy. The forecasts of enrollment show two middle schools already in the 400’s and forecasted to drop into the 300’s. Middle schools in the 300’s are difficult to staff. These smaller programs require teachers have to assume multiple roles, teach in multiple content areas and prepare for multiple daily lessons.

    At high school level, FLO projects Olympia High School would lose students over the next 5 and 10 years. Capital would increase and then decrease during the same time period. Open enrollment may be useful in managing the forecasted changes. Olympia HS and Capital would be more comparably sized by the end of the period according to the demographic trending, but open enrollment may moderate this.

    Q for FLO

    What is happening with the feeder from adjacent district (K-8) with projection for high school? Do we have any idea on how that would help?

     

    Who decides how to draw districts?

    Generally, this is set by state legislature. The last time there was considerable changes was in the 1960’s in the Western U. S. as districts transitioned from more historically agricultural geographies to more suburban geographic boundaries. We now have laws that promote choice and families can choose which district to attend. Some districts regulate that more closely than others using school capacities.

     

    Are districts allowed to merge?

    It would likely require two elections and then ratification by state legislature to make change.


    The presentation continued:
    SB covered age and size of school buildings. Olympia school buildings were built 1923-2015. Floorplan examples were provided. SB noted that building condition is very good in this district. Even the lowest rated buildings from a facilities condition perspective are in good condition compared to many other districts. However, each building receives a rating and those were provided to the committee. Some buildings have a relatively lower rating than others. Historic expenditures for building improvements were covered.

     

    Are there estimates of what percentage of these were actually new construction vs. long-term maintenance?

    Mr. Bingham agreed to collect and relay 30-year expenditure data. In general, new schools are constructed using bond funds and maintenance projects use annual funding generally referred to as “capital reserve” in some states.

     

    I don’t understand the Avanti and ORLA quintiles?

    It looks like an error may have been made there, I [SB] will check. I may have just flipped them.

     

    What is behind lower expenditures on middle schools?

    A staff member commented that there had been expenditures just outside of the 10-year horizon.

    Presentation continued with attendance area data (percent of students attending school that live in boundary for that school).

     

    Does the difference have to do with specialized curriculums?

    It seems like there is deliberate specialization.

    Presentation continued with free and reduced lunch data percentages is a good indicator of socio/economic diversity. An error in the FRL data for elementary was observed. The rates should be twice that shown and will be corrected.

     

    What is the email we can use for asking questions?

    shannonlanebingham@gmail.com

    The meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.

     

     

    The following questions/comments were submitted after the meeting adjourned

     

    Capacity of each building is not taking into account special programs (JAMS, CSI, etc) Special education needs/classroom/therapy space etc. How do we factor that? What is the cost efficiency for each building?

    • Programs
    • Transportation
    • Building maintenance
    • Cost of staffing

     

    How much is each building subsidized?

     

    Is it possible to get the recent dates on remodels or additions of mini-builds for each building?

     

    Two questions:

    • Can you show the virtual academy breakdown + out of district #’s
    • Overlay quintile breakdown by geospatial component (tract, etc.)
    • LD investment by neighborhood

     

    Request for projections for ORLA & possibly Avanti

     

    Observation of FRL error in elementary data.

     

    Three questions/points:

    • Can we get more data on portables? Who has them? How old are they? Etc. etc.
    • As far as building conditions go, do any of them have heating/AC as a parameter?
    • Since buildings are renovated every 30 years, can we have some more data on expenditures in the last 30 years?

     

    What is the Home School Service area count for the High Schools?

     

    Given we are facing potential scenarios of consolidating to large school sizes – is there research reflecting social or educational outcomes for students?

     

    Incoming transfer counts. What is the % of transfers on IEP/504 that have a cost?

     

    Transfers into and out of district broken down by grade level & by school path.

     

    Building maintenance expenditures.

  • Meeting 3 Minutes: 10/9/23
    Committee Convened: 5:35 PM.
    View Survey Results

     

    Welcome and greetings from Shannon Bingham (SB) from Western Demographics, Inc. (WDI). Mr. Bingham acknowledged the Squaxin tribal ancestry of the district. New committee members were introduced.

     

    SB indicated he received 18 research requests which he has completed 85% of work on. He is posting all the information related to the research requests to the website. It will be there to browse and may generate other research requests. He anticipates hosting office hours so that committee members can ask questions and explore data with him.

    SB briefly listed the items in the evening’s agenda and mentioned that a group exercise and survey will be part of the evening’s processes. Five small groups will be formed before the small group exercises. SB mentioned that the group process would not address all criteria and indicated building condition and socioeconomic status criteria will be addressed in subsequent meetings. He will show building ratings based on the WDI approach with support in several regards by OSD staff.

    SB presented from PowerPoint and queries to a Geographic Information System (GIS). The GIS was used to examine boundaries and student density for those boundaries. The tool allowed SB to toggle between elementary, middle and high school boundaries and student densities with various map overlays. SB noted that middle schools have different number of elementary schools feeding to them. Some have two elementary feeders, while another has four elementary feeders.

    SB indicated he is hoping to determine whether the committee members feel the current grade configuration is fixed, or if it has some flexibility. A lot of districts are looking at grade configuration as a useful school efficiency tool if educational goals can be achieved. Some districts will modify individual, small schools from K-5 to K-6, for example to achieve enrollment goals. Some families prefer to have middle school aged students in middle schools that have highly specialized core instruction (math, science etc.) rather than K-8 settings where instruction might be more interdisciplinary.

    The committee members interspersed questions and comments throughout the presentation. Those are documented on the table that follows.

     

     

    Questions/Comments from committee members with answer from SB/WDI:

     

    If you move the boundary, how do you know the number of students in a target area will be consistent moving forward? [What is the durability of boundary changes?]
    Some of district’s partial grade-level round situations have been around for 3-4 years. Changing these is typically durable for about 5 years. Changes of this type is not an uncommon approach for school districts.

     

    What does academic research say about academic outcomes for grade configurations?

    There is no real definitive research pro/con for K-8s. For the most part, there has been a consistent declaration of “no harm” done. Research has been diluted by fact that majority of K-8’s are run by charter schools and demographics are not consistent situation to situation.

     

    For Boston Harbor and Madison, why does one pull from all over the place?
    It is about residential density. District staff answered: There is a special education program and another program that pulls kids from across the district.

     

    Can you change the contrast for the schools displayed on screen?

    Yes. [took a moment to adjust]

     

    Based on capacity we were looking at before, is there room for group of kids in Garfield?

    Yes. For this area of the district, the ratio of number of seats available in buildings to children in those neighborhoods is high. About 2:1.

     

    Is there a possibility of getting large parcels on a map that would show residential density?
    SB agreed to send a parcel map and Thurston Co. zoning map on top of school boundaries.

     

    The zoning matters too, so, for example there is zoning of one house per five acres.

    GIS software was used to show areas of the district with five-acre house lots.

     

    There is a squiggle boundary between McKenny. Why is that?
    SB – I do not know. The line is clearly jagged and based on parcels.

     

    Can you map the new development?
    SB will contact FLO analytics.

     

    Walkability scores are based on current boundaries, so if we change boundaries, it will change?

    Yes. I will be able to give a number when I complete the research request related to this.

     

    A lot of them are riding with parents even when they could easily walk to school. Why?

    After 9/11 and the pandemic, parental comfort with walking to school has declined. Also walkability is low when there are no sidewalks which is the case in some parts of the district.

     

    When you do the research on kids who live in walking, is it going to compare attending vs. residing?

    SB will address this in the 26th and Bethel area.

     

    By buses, do you mean city buses?

    She [another committee member] is alluding to city buses, and she’s saying they walk. SB asked administration: At high school do students get bus passes. Reply: Bus passes are free.

     

    What is walkability? Doesn’t it have to do with density and is it a fair metric for efficiency studies?

    It is a standard metric for scoring when looking at school efficiency. It may not be fair, but it is factual when looking at rural areas. Some committees would weight it low and make it less of a consideration.

     

    To me, it is important to keep kids who can walk.

    You are going to get a chance to do ratings on this kind of thing.

     

    Our density planning for the City is already indicating many areas as built-out.

    Maybe you can help me look at that and provide data to the committee.

     

    What’s your guidance for thinking about schools with students outside their boundary [like ORLA]

    ORLA is not a neighborhood school, anybody can attend ORLA. There is an equilibrium for that kind of program in the district when marketing and recruitment are fairly static. I’m currently not proposing doing anything with the schools that are program-based and do not have an attendance area, like ORLA. I’m working with them directly. Q: to administration: How does the bus serve the community for ORLA? A: We do not have buses that go out into the neighborhood, we use a shuttle that goes around the district and collects students who transfer from routes associated with their neighborhood schools.

     

    When you say it is market-driven, does that mean that you are always going to see level enrollment?

    It is just FLO’s assumption, maybe we can talk more about that after the meeting. I would like to explore forecast for ORLA that reflects their plans.

     

    Re: Boston Harbor, you say it was built as a one-track school. Are you taking into account staffing when you say it is efficient?

    That is correct. It is pretty full given the student body it was built to accommodate. It was just built small to serve the immediate neighborhood.

     

    Would it be possible to make Centennial a four-round school?

    If we had enough enrollment.

     

    How do rounds relate to the number of students per grade level?

    If it were a 3, 4 or 5 round geographic area, it could be 75 kids per grade level, 100, or 125.

     

    Some classrooms are used for early learning. Would proposed changes impact that?

    I would want to make sure I understand the district plan for early learning and maintain the same level of service regardless of the building configuration. I strive to do no harm to preschool enrollment levels. The Superintendent added: One person who can help is Tom Parnel who focuses on our early learning program. We can bring him to talk to the group.

     

    Is there anything legal we need to be concerned about having multiple age groups in a building?

    No, there is not. There are some things we have to do for pre-school like they have to be on the ground floor, have multiple egress and toilet access requirements. Other levels have some certification restrictions that most districts accommodate.

     

    If we close elementaries, how does it effect middle schools? Have we considered other configurations like making middle schools grade 5- 8?

    A 5-8 can work. We could also have elementaries run K-6. There is always a feeder effect and we try to consider the context of elementary and middle school relationships.

     

    What are the viability concerns associated with K-8’s?

    There are strong opinions one way or another in many districts, others are more flexible and inclusive. K-8s are not popular in college towns or capital cities, but they are popular among charter schools and in rapidly developing areas.

     

    As you look at schools with mini buildings, are there missing facilities for elective programs? Things like shop.

    There would have to be some retrofitting and we are exploring viability of the ones we have.

     

    Some of our middles schools have special programs and curriculums. When you’ve worked with other districts, do the programs move with the change?

     The idea is we want to maintain the most consistent level of service as possible. So, yes, preservation of existing programs is generally assumed.

     

    Have you looked at the whole district being PK-6?

    I think that would pull even more kids out of 450-student middle schools which seems to be going in the wrong direction. My interest in it is situational.

     

    If the district had some middle schools and some K-8’s would that create an equity issue?

    There is not research, but there is a lot of anecdotal information. If you had 2 and 2 (east and west), families with strong preferences would have choices of program for their students.

     

    What happens buildings after consolidation?

    There are a lot of options. We are currently focusing on addressing immediate goals and challenges and alternative use would be a strong consideration after a basic strategy is identified.

     

    Do you have a sense of how many families will choose K-8 vs choose middle school?

    I think 85-90% would go where they are told to go based on their attendance area. For the most part in heterogenous districts where there are several grade configuration options, we tend to have very low rates of students deviating from boundaries. The district would strive to create quality sports, clubs, activities. It is a management issue. The appeal of K-8 tends to be very strong.

     

    If we had two desired programs in a small geographic area, are we strictly limited to offering programs in one facility?

    We could run two buildings on a single campus with one administration. There are creative options that could be considered.

     

    Small group discussion: 7:42-7:50 p.m.

    The committee members were asked to take a survey and given time to do so. There were a few additional questions.

    The meeting adjourned just after 8:05 p.m.

  • Meeting 4 Minutes: 10/19/23
    Committee Convened: 5:38 PM.

     

    Welcome and greetings from Shannon Bingham (SB) from Western Demographics, Inc. (WDI). Mr. Bingham acknowledged the Squaxin tribal ancestry of the district.

     

    SB provided an overview of the 35 research questions that were previously submitted and the data and analytics that have been compiled to respond to those questions. He indicated that at this meeting he will be presenting some scenarios for committee reaction. Based on the responses to a survey at the end of tonight’s meeting, he will be running enrollment numbers, boundary situations, economic diversity, etc. for the scenarios that the committee wants to review in more detail. He also reviewed the results of the survey from the prior meeting.

     

    He shared initial financial analysis indicating if an elementary or middle school was closed there would be approximately $1 million in annual savings. If three were closed, it would save about $3 million. Three school closures would put about 1.7% back into the budget.

     

    Break 6:50-7:03

     

    After the break, more details about possible efficiency strategies were presented. These were presented with the intention of the committee members providing their feedback on these potential strategies via a survey. The survey allowed committee members to examine core and ancillary parameters. An overview of the difference between the parameters was addressed.

     

    Mr. Bingham further addressed school district geography and instructional programs, consolidation barriers like feeder structures and long-term new housing potential. P-8 challenges were addressed. K-6 (6th grade retention in elementary) challenges were discussed. SB stated that if the survey doesn’t address concepts important to committee members, 3x5 cards were available to submit items of concern.

     

    The committee divided into groups for 7:43-7:52 p.m.

     

    Time to take the survey was given at 7:53.

     

    The committee members interspersed questions and comments throughout the presentation. Those are documented below.

     

     

    Questions/Comments from committee members with answer from SB/WDI and or administration members:

     

    What is the intent for use of the potential savings? Would we want to look at improving service at the schools to bring level of service up?

    Last year about $7 million was cut out of the budget, but class sizes were also raised across the district. This year we are looking at a $3 or $4 million budget deficit. Annual savings would be used to preserve programs and salaries.

     

    What is included in the $1 million/school closure savings? Are you going to speak to where the $1 million comes from?

    Administration, office staff, instructional support, utility and maintenance costs. Cost savings are lower if the building is retained by the district and needs heated and security patrols.

     

    Has there been consideration of modifications to buildings that would be receiving students as part of this change?

    There could be some one-time costs that would be offset by many years of operational savings or the sale of another building.

     

    How do you balance socioeconomic status at schools?

    I use free and reduced-price lunch data to try to keep it balanced.

     

    Can we see a cost per student, not just a cost per school?

    WDI will try to collect that.

     

    Frustrated that this is a lot of work to save $3 million. Is cost savings achievable in another way?

    The scale of the savings is more tangible when you explore our cuts to the 4th-grade music program last year.

     

    Did you say research doesn’t support K-8 schools?

    There is very little academic research on K8s. They anecdotally work well for low- and moderate-income areas.

     

    What qualifies a school for Title I funds? Is there is a percentage threshold that qualifies the school for Title I funds?

    School-wide supports kick in at 35% FRL.

     

    My concern is the $1 million/ elementary school will not be realized.

     

    Clarification of 2006 decision…LP Brown boundary then was to bring enrollment back up because it was low enrollment at that time.

    Balance FRL and restore enrollment. Clarification of 2006 decision…LP Brown boundary then was to bring enrollment back up because it was low enrollment at that time.

     

    What is the difference between combinability and consolidation?

    Combinability is when circumstances are conducive to combine with another site that is close by.

     

    What does school enrollment look like if students weren’t going to schools close to where they live?

    I’ll show that on Monday.

     

    Are those specialized programs not part of our consideration?

    Currently, they are not.

     

    What does “program” refer to?

    K-5, 6-8, 9-12 or K8, 9-12, etc.

     

    Is the timeline for the study 10 years?

    Yes. Both what FLO prepared and what WDI has been charged with is a 10-year forecast.

     

    K-8 content-driven instruction is where K8’s tend to fail if the district doesn’t adequately invest in it. So, it would be to some extent trusting the district.

    Yes.

     

    Do you keep track of the ones (P8’s) that you have been involved in?

    Most of them have been extremely successful.

     

    ORLA already has this kind of program. If we’re going to have two P8s, maybe we make the proposed K-8 schools into programs like ORLA.

    Comes down to do we just want to close schools? Or do we want to do some creative changes?

     

    If we did K8, what would class sizes be? And how many preps would be involved for teachers if we go to K88:

    SB will look into this.

     

    P-8 and K-8, if we were to make a single place in the district where all the preschools would go, would that make more room elsewhere for the K-8s?

    Yes, it would open seats.

     

    Have you considered putting more grades at middle schools?

    If we put more students at middle school, then it would make elementary schools even lower utilized.

     

    If we took the JAMS program at Jefferson which pulls kids from all over the district, it would eliminate some of the roundabout traffic.

    I need a database with CSI and JAMS in it.

     

    You could put both the CSI and JAMS program at one school. You have McKenney and Centennial are all large. Could you redo the Washington boundary?

    Those attendance areas are east of I-5, you could only consider combining those two into one.

     

    Maybe. Washington is close to being full, so there is not a lot of seats there. And transportation would be significant.

     

    When moving middle school programs, could you move one into ORLA.

    Perhaps JAMS or CSI. Would have to figure out what the perspectives are on that.

     

     

    The committee members were asked to take a survey and given time to do so.

     

    The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

  • Meeting 5 Minutes: 10/23/23
    Committee Convened: 5:34 PM.

     

    Announcement prior to the meeting: Request that everyone sign in.

     

    Welcome from Shannon Bingham (SB) from Western Demographics, Inc. (WDI). Mr. Bingham acknowledged the Squaxin tribal ancestry of the district.

     

    SB began with plan for evening that includes about 25 minutes for group discussions. Guest speaker: Thomas Parnell introduced. He provided information on Early Childhood (EC) services in the district and referred to data on slides about EC. He addressed licensing. He indicated that pre-school students could be in a PK-8, if there was some retrofitting for bathrooms.

     

    SB discussed the research requests and responses compiled. He acknowledged that there has been a number of requests related to JAMS and CSI. He explained that when the committee is in small groups, each group will work on a bundle of schools. He reviewed the committee’s survey responses from survey conducted at the last meeting. Items addressed include:

     

     

    Schools the committee felt could benefit from retaining 6th grade

    SB shared data the numbers of 6th grade students in each school and FRL. He asked the members to consider this as a bundle component.

     

    P-8 bundle survey results:

    • Jefferson/Garfield/LP Brown has a potential for $2 million savings. Also involved would be Hansen/LP Brown; McLane. LP Brown/Marshall/Jefferson also would re-boundary. This would create a symmetric P8. Overall, FRL percentage would increased. Garfield and LP Brown would come offline.
    • Roosevelt/Reeves: Reeves is on a bigger site and retrofitting expense is estimated at $11.5 mil and there are bond funds ($7 mil) that could be accessed. Although Roosevelt is a newer building, there is not enough acreage on that site for expansion. This scenario also involves Madison and Boston Harbor. This would create a two-round elementary level and a four-round middle level.

     

    Conventional middle school consolidations:

    • Reeves (analysis does not yet account for CSI and JAMS). But the assumption is that the students will follow the program to wherever it is moved. Consideration is to close Reeves and move those students to Jefferson and Marshall.
    • Close Jefferson scenario would consolidate students into Reeves and Marshall. This scenario seems to work best.
    • Close Marshall scenario would consolidate students into Jefferson and Reeves. Results in Cooper Point riding past Jefferson to Reeves which is a long ride.

     

    Combination options for elementary schools was reviewed.

     

    Break 7:11-7:19

     


    After the break SB finished reviewing the results of the committee’s input via last week’s survey and explained parameter scoring for buildings. An envelope with documents was distributed to each of 5 groups for discussion. Each group is charged with creating bundles of scenarios for conventional grade configuration and modified grade reconfiguration.

     

    Broke into groups for 7:40-8 p.m. and had small group discussions.

     

    The committee members interspersed questions and comments throughout the presentation. Those are documented below:

     

     

    Questions/Comments from committee members with answer from SB/WDI and or administration members:

     

    Transitional vs state-funded pre-school… does district have plans to expand?

    The district does not have expansion plans. If it has more families, it would be open to expanding. The goal of transition to make the transition to school as natural as possible.

     

    For pre-k, wait list? How many on it?

    If we have enough students on a waitlist, we would consider opening another program. Right now, we have 9. They are non-handicapped students.

     

    What does regular Early Childhood program mean? I think people would use it if they knew about it.

    An ECC is a district program concentrating pk students. This would be unlike in-home daycare center like Serendipity Academy, for example.

     

    I’m curious about a pre-school center. What are your thoughts about that?

    There are pros/cons for doing that. To have a location and a school culture based around that, is positive. There might be some advantages to transportation if students are centralized.

     

    How many slots in the district? If we had access to all-day quality pre-school?

    Unknown.

     

    It seems like daycare is full and it is hard to find daycare. Why couldn’t TK also be tuition-based?

     

    We are statutorily not allowed. We must coordinate with the private PKs.

     

    It sounds like we are just talking about bundling and consolidations. Are we going to talk about other scenarios?

    There will be some boundary optimization scenarios discussed at the start of the next meeting. SB provided information on some opportunities for half-round “repair.” Used Madison in an example.
    What is the magnitude of potential savings optimizing boundaries or changing grade configuration.
    To be presented at next meeting.

     

    In P8 Scenario (Garfield/Jefferson), does it change their elementary/middle school trajectory?

    They would go to McLane and Marshall. LP Brown goes to Marshall/Hansen, with exception of a small group.

     

    Is there room for that many students at Hansen?

    We would have to use some portables which adds about 175 seats.

     

    Do you know how much money we would save if we get rid of a portable?

    Cost a little bit more to heat and cool. And there is a little more a of a safety/security perception difference between portables and main building. Don’t know how much beyond the utilities.

     

    What is capacity of Marshall?

    About 590?

     

    Didn’t we just put a ton of money into Roosevelt?

    Yes.

     

    What are we assuming that there will be some opting out, choosing to attend other schools?

    Yes.

     

    How many students would this effect?

    This proposal may involve closing 3 schools but that is up to the committee and Board. About 1,000 children/10% of the district’s clientele would be affected in one year if three schools were closed.

     

    Did you look at closing Boston Harbor?

    Yes. That is in the considerations.

     

    What does the conventional middle school consolidation scenario do for high school feeder patterns?

    It would create a split feeder situation.

     

    Can a school be split in terms of feeder pattern?

    Yes, however families may be concerned about established friendships for cohorts of students being split [at the time of the grade progression to the next school level].

     

    Do you know what the walkability for Washington is?

    From Committee member: it is very walkable.

     

    Why are the specialized programs [ORLA} not being looked at?

    It wasn’t in the original charge. Generally, in efficiency studies choice schools are not included, the focus is on the neighborhood schools.

     

    What is school utilization?

    Enrollment divided by capacity.

     

    The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m.

  • Meeting 6 Minutes: 10/25/23
    Committee Convened: 5:38 PM.
    Announcement prior to the meeting: Request that everyone sign in.
    View Survey Results

     

    Welcome from Shannon Bingham (SB) from Western Demographics, Inc. (WDI). Mr. Bingham acknowledged the Squaxin tribal ancestry of the district.

     

    SB discussed data concerns expressed by some committee members regarding the lack of detail in the cost savings data. He explained he used the data provided by the district. However, he indicated that he could work with district staff to develop more detail over the weekend.

     

    Question: How should “right sizing” be determined?

    It is not the committee’s role to conduct budgetary feasibility for the district. The committee role is to focus on efficiency. Generally speaking, schools under 300 students are expensive to run. Right sizing attempts to develop efficiency based on economies of scale. Larger schools are also able to offer a higher level of service due to more staff being present in buildings.

     

    Seems like the schools in there are clearly in there as examples. I think we can move forward. It would be great to have a spreadsheet on P8/P6 analysis.

    Noted.

     

    Question: We have spent a bunch of time and the numbers are going to come pretty close to the cost savings estimates originally provided. I don’t think the additional budget numbers are going to be that helpful. More data is not going to help.

     

    Question: We should vote.

     

    Question: These aren’t widgets, these are kids. The data and the community deserve as much effort as this room can give. I don’t understand why those schools were chosen. I recently learned there is a committee member that has a direct relationship with a board member. That means there are three people from one school. I’m concerned that this conflict of interest has not been disclosed. I have spent a year on this to make sure this is happening in good faith. I don’t agree with moving forward. We have members of the board with children in schools we are talking about. How are we supposed to be a board advisory committee when they are already in the room. I have no faith/trust in this process. Especially voting on options.

     

    Question: Does this cost us to prepare the scenarios.

    No.

     

    Question: I’m fine with working with “horseshoes and hand grenades” [aka what we have]. A: To me, it makes sense to address $3 million given for one scenario and the per school cost estimates originally provided.

     

    QUESTION TO COMMITTEE

    Show of hands to do the work and come back with a set of samples on Monday and to eliminate pages 14 & 16 from conversation tonight.

     

    • Vote: 16 of 30 voting members in favor of more data provided on Monday.

     

    SB reviewed bundles that he prepared and showed estimated annual savings and estimated one-time costs. Reviewed questions/comments made on note cards and committee charter.

     

    Break 7:10-7:16.

     

    After the break the committee worked in small groups to identify additional school bundles that they would like to see at the next meeting. Those additional scenarios were added to the survey prepared for the end of the meeting. The committee members all responded to the survey before leaving.

     

    The committee members interspersed questions and comments throughout the evening. Those not included above are included below.

     

     

    Questions/Comments from committee members with answer from SB/WDI and or administration members:

     

    I’m dubious about estimated savings for P8. For example, seems like they could still end up having two principals. Griffin School District has two principals.

    What I’ve seen is there are true economies of scale with more students in the building.

     

    What is the available funding for Reeves to make it viable for P8?

    It depends on how big we want the program to be. Data from the table was referenced.

     

    What does Anchorage not like about 7-8’s?
    The revolving door issue of students only being there 24 months.

     

    If the program didn’t go with the school, wouldn’t the kids revert to their neighborhood school?
    In general, kids seem more bonded with the kids in their extra-curriculars (or program) than their neighbors. Maybe half of them would.

     

    Re: 4A, does that mean that McKenny students are moved to other facilities?
    Yes. McKenny in Centennial and/or Pioneer. But would need to have more conversation with people who know those neighborhoods.

     

    Re: Lincoln. That is going to be a tough sell.
    Many districts have moved students to their newest buildings with fewer maintenance issues.

     

    Is Lincoln on the table or not on the table? Over 27% of the entire district we are not looking at. Why aren’t we looking at Avanti, for example? JAMS and CSI can be moved wherever we want, so trying to understand why we aren’t discussing those.
    CSI and JAMS are schools within schools. Lincoln’s Options program is 100% associated with identity of the school. CSI seems westside centric. By Monday I will have a geographic distribution for JAMS and will be able to say which area it is linked to.

     

    If the choice enrollment students at Lincoln (about 200) return to their home schools… Everyone is going to argue that the identity of their schools is important.

     

    What is the number for an elementary and middle that they don’t have a subsidy.

    About 675 for middle and over 450 for elementary.

     

    Concerned that moving LP Brown students to McLane is a traumatic event that will set them back 3 years.

     

    Would it be possible to see the numbers for that on a spreadsheet?

    I have a note to address “put everybody back.”

     

    Looking at some of the data you’ve provided for research studies: ORLA has 265 who are from out-of-district completely. So, district loses $3 million, if we lose them.

    That is research item #46 if anyone wants to look at it.

     

    The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:10 p.m.

  • Meeting 7 Minutes: 10/30/23
    Committee Convened: 5:30 PM.
    Announcement prior to the meeting: Request that everyone sign in.
    View Survey Results

     

    Welcome from Shannon Bingham (SB) from Western Demographics, Inc. (WDI). Mr. Bingham acknowledged the Squaxin tribal ancestry of the district.

     

    SB explained randomization process for group work. Explained agenda would include presentation of a lot of data. At the end of the meeting, the committee will take a survey. Score sheets associated with the survey were provided for committee members to take notes during the meeting.

     

    SB noted that the scoring tonight is not the final scoring. Wednesday night we will have further discussion, scoring and ranking. The final survey (Wednesday night) will be used has a framework for a motion for what goes to the Board. For committee members who wish to state a position on various issues and scenarios, they on record you may offer a letter tonight, Wednesday night or via email. The invitation for the position letters is open through Thursday noon. That timeline allows for giving the Board adequate time to review what is submitted. Letters provided to SB will be anonymous/confidential and do not reveal individual member’s identity. The letters were scanned and processed by 3pm Thursday.


    SB reviewed the survey results from the prior meeting’s survey/poll. Kate, the district CFO, spent a tremendous amount of time preparing analytics on possible financial savings for each scenario under review. S. B reviewed the analytics. Scenario 11 has estimated savings for boundary optimization, but the changes would affect 35-40% of district. For that scenario, the most saved would be $496K.

     

    Break 7:14-7:30

     

    When returned from break worked in small groups to identify pros/cons.

     

    Group Report outs on the Pro/Cons:

     

    Pro/Cons for first archetype (grade configuration)

     

    Group 1:

    • Pro - Potential for keeping the most elementary schools operating;
    • Con - Some areas would have middle school in a P8 while others would be in a traditional middle school.

     

    Group 2:

    • Pro - (for p8) Sense of community and sense of belonging;
    • Con - (for 5-8) Would have to close 4 elementary schools and create a broken feeder at Pioneer.
    • Pro - longer time in middle school to build community. Retaining 6th grade is developmentally appropriate.
    • Con - 7-8 Too short of time to build community.

     

    Group 3:

    • Pro - Longevity in building community building.

     

    Group 4:

    • Pro - Easier to sell to public;
    • Con - More of impact on middle school students as far as service and geography.

     

    Group 5:

    • Pro - Fewer moves for children in P8;
    • Con - Fewer electives.

     

    Group 6:

    • Pro - Longer time to build relationships; Con -- shorter time with middle school.

     

    Changes that do not affect grade configuration

    1. Con - more schools close
    2. Pro - simpler to implement and affect fewer tot studs;
    3. Pro - Most straightforward; Con –transportation.
    4. Pro - Savings; Con more targeted impact on specific communities.
    5. Pro - Saves money; Con doesn’t keep students in their home area.
    6. Pro - Savings & opportunity to have higher support; Con -- closing schools.

     

    Changes that effect choice/option program

    1. Pro - Does not take high poverty schools off line.
    2. Con - District would lose an unknown number of students to adjacent districts.
    3. Pro - More social equity
    4. Con - Less variety in instructional styles.
    5. Pro - Sense of fairness
    6. Con - Loss of FTE.
    7. Pro - Impacts members of residential community least
    8. Con - Reduces academic options.
    9. Pro - Makes neighborhood schools more efficient
    10. Con - Lose students
    11. We didn’t finish conversation. We got stuck with uncertainty of whether students would stay in boundaries.

     

    The committee members interspersed questions and comments throughout the evening. Those are included below.

     

     

    Questions/Comments from committee members with answer from SB/WDI and or administration members:

     

    Why isn’t school student performance included in the analysis that we are reviewing?

    Most school efficiency processes (75-80%) don’t use that. Others do. If you feel that should have been a consideration, you are welcome to share that in a letter. But, it has not been mentioned until now.

     

    I didn’t come prepared with a letter. How long do we have to submit one?

    It is my intention to post all of the letters. If I get something by Thursday morning, I will include it in the packet.

     

    Will you provide the report back to us? Will we have access to the scores?

    Yes.

     

    So, there are no committee members presenting to the board?

    I don’t know. If you’d like to suggest that to the board, you’re welcome to do that. I’ll have 45 minutes to present what the committee has reviewed and produced in the 24 hours of meetings.

     

    Board response: I’d be open to that, probably on the 9th. The board has a two-hour session and will need time to talk. The board has all the information you get, the board gets as well. We have access to the drive.

     

    I am concerned about how many times Boston Harbor closure is mentioned. It creates long commutes. I’m concerned about the impacts of the commute. It will take a commute of an hour/day. From a health perspective, this is detrimental. I feared this committee was “rubber stamping.” It was good to see the data, but I still have that concern.

     

    Is there anyone else producing data on this topic?

    No. Other than in-house staff, SB/WDI or FLO, it is my understanding no one else is preparing or analyzing data.

     

    Some estimated savings numbers are shown as negative numbers. Does that mean we lose that money?

    No. The negative number shows dollars going back into the budget.

     

    What is the level of detail included?

    Everything we thought was appropriate to include as potential savings was included.

     

    Wish we had this level of granularity earlier.
    The business office in the district is short-staffed. The initial estimates did not have the confidence of this group, so the CFO’s office produced the detail that the committee requested.

     

    Can you give a brief explanation of what is on the summary (2) tab?
    The column headers were reviewed.

    Kate indicated it was what we are currently funding per student at each school.

     

    Would the cost of transportation change?

    We would have to hire a transportation consultant or have the routers and schedulers spend a week running hypothetical scenarios. It would be better to have that done after we have narrowed the number of options under consideration.

     

    It could change our perspective on some of the scenarios if there was significant cost for transportation.
    It costs about $60K per route. The transportation department has viewed the scenarios and indicated preliminary costs would not be overwhelming. More analysis would be forthcoming.

     

    It seems consistent that closing a single school yields about $1 million savings. So, the options change the amount based on the number of schools that close.
    Correct, the savings vary based on how many schools would close.

     

    Looking at bundles 5, 8 and 9, you used the average. You couldn’t quite estimate the ones for ORLA.
    ORLA and Avanti are based on averages.

     

    Think about students at ORLA. My child won’t be attending a district school, if ORLA is closed. If it is closed, you’ll lose a lot of people like me. They’ll go to home school, or private school or another district.
    I assumed a loss of 30% for my calculations. (70% retained). That is just a guess.

     

    Is the savings experienced just from State and Local funding sources?
    Yes, The savings is the in-elastic funding. The elastic teacher and other staff funding follows the children. Overhead is the principal savings.

     

    I do not understand the savings described in the original savings slides that refer to subsidy.
    The original savings figures addressed in-elasti staff costs of school of various sizes as a subsidy from the mill levy. The round figure of saving $1 mil includes utilities, food service and other costs. SB reviewed “Subsidy Recovery Savings” tables for more explanation.

     

    The problem with the numbers on ORLA is it is like three different schools there. We’d probably get at least 70% of Montessori staying in district.

     

    From District staff member: Really have 4 programs. We have roughly 240 in the Connect program. We have about 100 Online students last year and have about 200 now. Most districts with the Profile of OSD, have at least 3-4 specialized programs like ORLA.

     

    For Scenario 8, we envisioned that there would be consolidation to two schools from three. We assumed you would close Lincoln in this scenario.
    SB asked committee for clarification of the scenario as they proposed it. [No questions or interjections followed.]

     

    In Scenario 3 where you address K-5, 7-8 district-wide, it includes closing an elementary. So, savings would be more than $2 million.
    That sounds correct.

     

    On all the Jefferson closure scenarios, did you find a place for JAMS to go?
    Yes - It would need to stay on the west side.

     

    The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:10 p.m.

  • Meeting 8 Minutes: 11/1/23
    Committee Convened: 5:38 PM.
    Announcement prior to the meeting: Request that everyone sign in.

     

    The facilitator Shannon Bingham (SB) from Western Demographics, Inc. (WDI) commended the committee for their commitment and attendance at this and the prior meetings.

     

    Welcome from Mr. Bingham. He acknowledged the Squaxin tribal ancestry of the district.

     

    SB described agenda which included: data items, parameters for 11 scenarios, pro/cons from committee, group work for discussion, ranking of top 5 scenarios, survey of committee members for order of preference, review of the survey results, recommendation for Board with motion. He noted that the Board would like 3 representatives from the committee for tomorrow’s board meeting. During public participation at the meeting on Nov. 9, members are also welcome to speak. There is no open public comment time at the work session tomorrow so only the presenters and board members will be able to speak.

     

    As the survey from last week was being reviewed, some committee members expressed concern that scoring of survey items had been interpreted differently by the members with a specific concern that the order of preference was determined by overall group weighting multiplied by overall group scores instead of weighting responses for each individual survey, one response one at a time. It was decided that Janeen from WDI would prepare a rank order survey item for members to quickly verify that items and committee respondents are commonly interpreting how to rank the scenarios. The ranks collected on the new survey were reviewed. In order of preference the following scenarios were most to least preferred (top five): Scenario 3, 4, 1, 8 and 1A.

     

    After some discussion regarding what was meant by scenarios 9, 10 and 11. SB polled the committee regarding an “Add Alternate” recommendation. The add alternate phrasing was decided to be: “specialized programs should be consolidated into fewer facilities” (3 into 2). A vote was taken. There were 27 yes votes for including “Add Alternate” and 4 no votes.

     

    The committee members took the survey/poll on the remaining scenarios for further consideration. The results were reviewed. The committee was asked to react to the results that were reviewed.

     

    A committee member proposed a preamble for use when presenting to the board. A committee member noted that there was never consensus of the group. That was acknowledge by SB and he replied that it was clear that the scenario scores that were the output of the committee represented a majority opinion. SB indicated he would make sure to share that it was the opinion of the group that the outcome would be described as a majority opinion on ranking the scenarios. He further elaborated that the preference of participants evaluating multiple options needs to be communicated. The “majority opinion” descriptor persisted to the end of this conversation.

     

    SB proposed: The CAC majority opinion to be provided to the Board is that the scenarios ranked highest by the group for consideration are 3, 4, and 1. Additionally, the group recommends the options programs be combined into fewer facilities. Vote was taken as to whether the committee supported this statement:

     

    Vote: 25 in favor.

     

    Request from committee member: Show of hands for if you feel like the budget should look at other ways to be efficient. Response from another member: If multiple people write a letter with the same sentiment, that will make it clear.

     

     

    Comments and questions from committee members during the meeting are noted below.

    • The Committee needs to be very deliberate about wording going to the board. I think it is important to share that none of us want to close schools. This is a very sensitive topic.
    • Is it your intent that only self-nominations or can we put in someone else’s name? SB responded: Proceed as you see fit. But make sure anyone nominated is willing and available.
    • Are people interested in seeing just the west side or just the east side [for scenario 1A]? SB indicated: We will address that in the survey later.
    • I want to make sure that the scores reflect what our intention was. Had we known the average weight was going to be used, we may have answered differently. Concerned that original individual responses are not reflected in the results.
    • As I received more information, I my opinion changed.
    • One of the consolidate programs options was meant to locate all of the programs into one site. SB responded: We can discuss that if any of the consolidated program items rank to be further considered.
    • It seems like scenarios 8 and 10 will survive. Can we talk about those two and see what those mean. SB asked: Can anyone articulate how a consolidation of the specialized programs into one building will functionally operate? Consider whether all the grade levels will work well in one facility.
    • I don’t think it was all three, but maybe put two of the smaller ones in the same building. I think we wanted more information, and we never got it. Could we put ORLA and Lincoln together? It is hard to put this off the table. It was noted: Avanti has high school age kids, and Lincoln does not.
    • I hear the concerns for implementation concepts. I think to discuss apples to apples, we must put those concerns aside. 7-8, for example is a new idea. To keep integrity of process, we need to keep those ideas out there.
    • There was discussion about how many students are in each of the specialized school programs. Do we want to revise scenario #8 to put ORLA and Avanti in a building together? In scenario #8 we are proposing for ORLA and Avanti to be combined into a single facility.
    • Avanti has a very large space.
    • If we are trying to optimize everything, we need to optimize specialized programs.
    • I still don’t know what anyone means by 1A.
    • When considering the option program consolidation question, remember that Lincoln students are one of the lowest socio-economic schools (SES) in the district. And we discussed that SES was an important metric to us.
    • Regarding the 7-8 option, there was concern expressed that junior highs are less focused on community and have a more structured approach. The students are barely there and then they’re gone.
    • As a committee, I want us to consider that there aren’t any of us who want to close schools. I don’t think this is going to solve our problems. We don’t have a small school problem. We have a salary problem. We are over committed on salaries. If the goal of the district is to create larger, more fully resourced schools. This will do that. This isn’t going to save the district any money. I wonder if there is some value of us collectively saying that to the school board. If others don’t agree, come forward and say so.
    • I am fine with closing schools if that means preserving programs and electives. It bothers me that we cut music last year. I looked at the research on school closure. There is no long-term negative effect on students with closing schools. There is an initial effect. But long-term there is not an effect.
    • I don’t necessarily want to close schools, but I see the benefits.
    • What happens in this room doesn’t exist in a silo. We don’t want to get into the weeds on budget, for example. Chicago closed schools 10 years ago and those communities never made it back. 60-61% of us want to keep kids at schools close to where they live.
    • If we drop the bottom two [scenarios] and re-rank. I don’t think either one of those are what we really want.
    • In private business, I’ve encountered a RIF twice. To meet budget needs, you’re going to have to reduce the number of schools. But think about where you are going to reduce salaries such as front office support staff. Yes, it is tough.

     

    The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:15 p.m.