Task Force Members
Members of the task force were selected by the Board and Steve Williams.
The following entities were represented:
Community Members: Jim Hendryx, Ellen Bandelow, and Dennis Reeder
Parents: George Gubbins, Mark Prewitt, and Tonya Prewitt
District Classified: Craig Christoff, Debbie Wolfer, Olga Cantu and Maggie Guerrero
District Licensed: Val Howell, Cherene Mills, Marlene Kirkpatrick
Administrators: Casey Woolley, and Irene Novichihin,
Board Members: Eric Morris, and Dave Vancil,
Chief of Staff: Margarita Roberts
Maintenance: Lorin Stanley
Facilitator: Patricia Ramirez, Director of HR & Operations
Woodburn Independent Reporter: Lindsay Keefer
The Instructional Space Task Force was formed to research possible options to address the need for additional instructional space, given our ever increasing student population.
Federal funding does not pay to build schools. Currently, State operating funds pay the loans acquired to construct the annexes. At this time, we have exhausted general funds available for construction. The options presented will not increase property taxes, they deal with overcrowding without asking tax payers to pay more.
|Design Core Capacity:||The original number of students the building was designed to accommodate, which includes cafetorium, restrooms, library, gym.|
|Pre-fabricated components brought together and placed on post and beam foundation|
|Pre-fabricated building (typically two rooms) that can be relocated|
Standard Construction Main Building:
|Not portable or annex|
Design Core Capacity
|Design Core Capacity||425||525 Main Bldg.||525||300||575||400||No Core Area except R.R.’s||960|
Our schools have exceeded their maximum occupancy level. The evidence is clear as noted on the following chart.
Number of Classrooms per School
|StandardConstruction Main Bldg. Classrooms||20||24||22||15||31||20||46||2||1|
The Woodburn School District student population continues to increase on a yearly basis. Our current enrollment is as follows:
Below you will find projections for the current and six years out:
Relocation of District Administrative Offices
A number of properties were suggested and visited by Board members, Superintendent, DO staff and members of the task force. Below are possible prospects:
The property has been reviewed by engineers and architects. The Simon Property is being taken into considered as a District Office Administration building. This move would free up the current District Office space to be use by French Prairie for classrooms and office space. Also, if the Simon Property is purchased, the Welcome Center would move into that space along with the District Office Administration offices. This would free up the Welcome Center Aztec Street property for other uses.
This property was being considered for the Bridges Program and/or District Office. The advantage and disadvantage of the building is that it is gutted. For about $500,000 in renovations, we would gain 10,000 square feet of space.
Both of the above options would need to have a cost analysis of remodeling/construction costs.
|Will give French Prairie (5) five moreclassrooms||Doesn’t address Design Core Capacity of French Prairie|
|Would consolidated the District Office and Welcome Center||Would be view negatively in the current economic atmosphere|
|Eliminate the need for renting outside meeting rooms||Cost of remodeling or construction|
|Would free up the Aztec facility for other use or sale||Cost of Building Purchase|
Woodburn High School has two unused workshops that could be converted into a number of classrooms. A suggestion was made to sell the machinery and equipment in those shops to surrounding school districts that might have use for it. This option would need to have a cost analysis of remodeling/construction costs.
|Would produce a minimum of (4) four classrooms||Doesn’t address Design Core Capacity at High School Campus|
|Utilizes existing underutilized space||Would need to find new storage area for the High School Campus|
|Would reduce the roving teacher issue||Chemeketa Community College has been using this area to provide shop classes.|
The advantage of a multi-track system is that it expands the seating capacity of a school facility. For example, a school with a seating capacity of 1,000 could potentially enroll 1,500 if it uses a three-track system (each track having 500 students and one track always on vacation). The school’s seating capacity has been increased by 50 percent. In practice, however, three-track plans typically expand the seating capacity by about 33 percent. If a school with a seating capacity of 1,000 uses a four-track system, it could potentially enroll 1,333 students, increasing its capacity by 33 percent. In practice, four-track plans typically expand the seating capacity by about 25 percent.
|Would increase capacity by25% to 33%||Doesn’t address Design Core Capacity District wide|
|Relieves pressure on theDesign Core Capacity District wide||Added burden of moving staff and equipment in and out of buildings|
|Relieves parking congestion||Moving equipment causes damage to buildings|
|There is no other option that gives the District this gives us this much space.||Will negatively impact our community and families; professional development; external recreation programs; youth intervention programs; student testing; academic performance|
Open Enrollment/Non-Resident Enrollment
Under the open enrollment bill, students could go to a school in a different district if officials there say there is room. Legislators argued over whether that would affect only a relatively small number of students or would lead districts — particularly in the metropolitan areas — to actively lure students so they could get extra state dollars and keep their classrooms full.
The impact of non-resident enrollment on the Woodburn District can be controlled by the decisions the Board makes with regard to Oregon State House Bill 3681.
Opening Charting School
Excelsior Prep Academy is due to open their doors in 2012-13 to 75 to125 middle school students.
The impact of the Excelsior charter school is negligible at this time.
These recommendations include a caveat that these are temporary solutions/recommendations for a school district that met the “tipping point” several years ago. Given the economic climate, we recognize that we cannot expect the community to approve a school bond; however the current school building capacity is not conducive to teaching and learning.