| Time: | 7:00 - 9:30 pm | |
| Location: | Ed Center Auditorium | |
| Present: | Members: Susan Ban, Co-chair; Phil Barnhart, Mike Fox, Beth Gerot, Dave Hauser, Mac McFadden, Bob Nardo, Jan Payton Oliver, Art Paz, Chris Pryor, Emily Schue, Craig Smith, Virginia Thompson, Co-chair; Jim Torrey, Ann Vaughn. Staff: George Russell, David Piercy, Tom Henry. Coordinators and Facilitator: Evie Matthews, Laura Munkres, Margot Helphand. | |
| Absent: | Members: La Homa Bautista, Bonnie Costabile, Paul Duchin, Bern Johnson, Marty Kaufman, Marilyn Thielke. | |
| Notetaker: | Donna McNeil, Volunteer Secretary | |
| Time | Topic | Presenter |
| 7:00 - 7:10 |
Review of AgendaMargot reviewed the evening’s agenda:
|
Margot Helphand |
| 7:10 |
Welcome and Introductions/Public CommentSusan welcomed and introduced Jim Carlson and Clair Von Bloem of LCOG.There were no public comments. |
Susan Ban |
| 7:15 - 8:00 |
Lane Council of Governments presentationMr. Carlson presented graphs and charts and discussed statistics gathered by LCOG regarding a number of trends and factors to consider in school planning:
|
Jim Carlson |
| Question: Re: the number of classrooms used for
non-instructional purposes. The data does not provide the detail.
The district has made conscious decisions to allow community uses in school
buildings; some rooms may be being used for instruction-related purposes,
such as IMCs and offices. We do have a capacity when we look at it on paper.
It may be important to get more detail.
Question: Re: the accuracy of population projections, particularly the increase in Hispanic populations, and the type of families being recorded. If they are young and have young families, how does that affect the schools project? Clair Von Bloem indicated that the estimates are provided by the Census Bureau. It was noted that in the 1990 census the two most under-reported populations were the homeless and Latino. Serious steps are being taken by the Bureau to remedy that in 2000. Question: Re: the proportion of students in alternative schools in relation to students in the entire district? Dennis Urso responded that it is about one-third and not growing. Even schools like Fox Hollow French, which has a tremendously popular program, is flattening. |
||
| 8:05 - 8:30 |
District 4J Perspective on Growth, etc.Enrollment Data is captured on September 30 every year. Urso presented data on the years 1990-1999. These figures focused on the district itself after the big picture of the previous presentation. Trends in the elementary grades are on a downward slope. In the upper grades, the slope is upward. This reflects a population bubble going through the schools. The overall population, though, has gone up and then gone down in the 90s. A trend line would show over ten years the trend is up, but over five years, the trend is going down. It was noted that if Special Ed numbers appear to be getting smaller, it is in part due to the practice of mainstreaming. The handicapped census has increased perhaps from 1,500 to 2,000, Urso estimates.Elementary Schools: Some alternative elementary schools have grown tremendously while others have stayed the same. Neighborhood schools such as Edison, though a very popular school with a powerful program and good reputation, is declining in population. Adams declined in enrollment then grew with the addition of Willard. Secondary Enrollment: Secondary enrollment has been growing. High schools such as Churchill, Sheldon, North Eugene are growing. The trend is definitely up, while at the middle school level the trend has been growth, that now seems to be leveling. Urso said enrollment in private schools show the same kinds of trends. Regarding transfers to other districts, Urso says that he doesn’t see 4J students transferring out. The largest growth is in the Bethel area, at a rate that is out-stripping probably any of the other fifteen districts in the county. Urso noted that while the population increased 30% within the District area, enrollment has increased only about 1.5%. Jim Carlson noted there’s a lot of stability in the central area, and the density of students is going to continue to be lower and lower. |
Dennis Urso - 4J Evaluation Specialist |
| 8:30 - 9:00 |
DiscussionMargot introduced this time as an opportunity to think and talk about the key things that the committee needs to keep in front of them.
|
Margot Helphand |
| 9:00 - 9:05 |
Update on Task GroupsEvie reported that all the task groups have met once. The task groups are large with twenty-plus members. Most minutes have been posted to the web. SFC was given copies of minutes from all but two of the task groups that have met, plus the list of members. In the next week, all the information will be posted to the web. It was observed that many of the task groups seem to have a lot of 4J staff on them; some have many public sector representatives. Task groups need to be sensitive to and solicit others and ask who we’re not involving and to whom do we need to reach out. One thing is to look at the membership of each group to notice geographic representation as well. Evie stressed that no one was eliminated, except two latecomers who wanted to be on a committee that was already large. Groups and the SFC need to be encouraged to look at the research, the wonderful books and resources that have been provided to help them think outside the box. |
Evie Matthews |
| 9:05 - 9:15 |
Vision and Principles
|
Virginia Thompson |
| 9:15 - 9:30 |
Spady PresentationsMs. Ban, Ms. Thompson, and Mr. Henry had recently attended a presentation by Bill Spady of the "future of education", and shared their impressions with the group. The text of their reports is show separately. |
Susan Ban, Virginia Thompson, Tom Henry |
| 9:30 | Margot adjourned the meeting and thanked everyone for their presentations and for coming. | Margot Helphand |
| < Return to Schools of the Future Committee | ||
|
Schools of the Future | Site
Map | Search