Boundary Committee Updates

Boundary Committee Meeting #1 Summary

The Newberg School District held the first of four scheduled Boundary Committee meetings to explore potential adjustments that could help balance class sizes at the elementary level and address related financial challenges.

Superintendent Dave Parker opened the meeting by outlining the district’s current situation: class sizes vary across schools, and maintaining smaller-than-average classes places financial pressure on the district. Newberg’s current average class size is 20.7 students per teacher, and to align with current enrollment and funding levels, class sizes will likely need to move closer to 23–24 students per teacher. With kindergarten enrollment trending below graduating class sizes, district leaders emphasized the importance of planning proactively for the years ahead.

District Chief Financial Officer Nathan Roedel shared data showing how enrollment and staff-to-student ratios impact funding. Declining birth rates in the county and state are resulting in smaller incoming kindergarten classes, a trend that we anticipate will continue for the coming years. Attendees—made up of staff, parents, and community members—reviewed and discussed the data in table groups to identify key takeaways, questions, and possible next steps.

The goal of the Boundary Committee process is to find a collaborative, districtwide solution—ideally reaching a consensus recommendation rather than a split vote. Board members will rotate attendance at meetings, and the district will continue to share updates, resources, and meeting materials.

Boundary Committee Meeting #2 Summary

The Newberg School District held its second Boundary Committee meeting as part of a four-part process to examine enrollment patterns, potential school boundary adjustments, and alternative grade configurations. The goal remains to develop recommendations for the superintendent and school board by January 2026 that prioritize student learning, equity, and long-term financial sustainability.

Superintendent Dave Parker and district leaders outlined key decision-making criteria, emphasizing student learning and opportunity, access and belonging, safety and transportation, financial sustainability, and community input. The committee aims to maintain high-quality learning environments, preserve successful programs such as dual language and music, and ensure any proposed changes support both students and staff.

District staff presented extensive data, including results from an enrollment study that identified reasons families have left the district—such as concerns around trust, school climate, and academic rigor—and what might bring them back, including improved safety, stability, and communication. Updated information was also shared on enrollment trends, private school attendance, building capacities, and projected housing developments within the city.

Committee members reviewed potential grade configuration models (such as K–4/5–6 or K–2/3–5) and discussed their benefits, challenges, and transportation implications. Participants also brainstormed ideas related to community engagement, dual language programs, and creative funding approaches.

The next meeting will focus on reviewing GIS maps and early boundary scenarios, incorporating feedback from this session to refine models and explore how each option could impact class size balance, neighborhood integrity, and long-term district planning.

The Newberg School District held its third Boundary Committee meeting to review multiple grade-configuration and boundary models, compare the financial and operational impacts, and begin narrowing down the options for further analysis.

Superintendent Dave Parker reiterated the core challenge: class sizes are below what the district can afford, creating ongoing financial strain. Any long-term solution must raise class sizes to sustainable levels while balancing student learning, neighborhood integrity, safety, transportation, and future growth. He emphasized that the committee will provide feedback, while final decisions rest with the school board.

District staff presented spreadsheets modeling configurations such as K–2/3–5, K–3/4–5, K–4 with 5–6/7–8, K–6/7–8, and dual-language magnet options. Each included projected enrollment, sections, class sizes, and preliminary costs. With transportation data still pending, the committee focused on staffing efficiencies and class-size balance.

In table groups, participants discussed advantages, challenges, and logistics. Key themes included:

• Balancing financial savings with levels of disruption for students, families, and staff.
• Equity and access concerns, especially for dual-language placement.
• Challenges with blended classrooms in several models.
• Impacts on neighborhood schools and the value of walkable K–4 sites.
• Districtwide consistency, as some models created different elementary structures.
• Long-term facility needs and supporting growth over the next 20–30 years.
  
  

Members also discussed hybrid approaches, interest in a dual-language magnet at Edwards, and questions about boundary adjustments, including whether to revisit the Ewing Young attendance area.

The meeting ended with a “fist-to-five” activity to identify models to remove. The committee will receive additional data at the December 4 meeting as it continues refining the scenarios. Below is an outline of the next steps in the process.

What Happens Next

As the committee continues this work, it is important for our staff, families, and community to understand the timeline and how decisions will be made. No single model has been selected, and no decisions have been made. We are still in the analysis stage.

Over the next several weeks, district staff will continue refining each viable scenario based on the committee’s feedback. This includes running updated enrollment projections, calculating staffing impacts, reviewing transportation needs, and comparing operational costs. Several models will likely be narrowed or removed as clearer data comes into view.

Once the committee reaches a point where 1–3 options appear most viable, we will package those options into a clear set of materials for public review. This will include visuals, class-size comparisons, pros and cons, cost implications, and program impacts. At that stage, we will take these scenarios out to our schools and our broader community for feedback through listening sessions, staff meetings, and surveys.

That step will happen before anything goes to the School Board.

This work is complex, emotional, and disruptive by nature, so we want people to have the chance to react to the same information the committee is seeing. That outreach will help the Board understand community priorities and concerns before they make any decisions.

For now, the committee is still doing the math, exploring options, and identifying what will and will not solve the core challenges. The goal is to bring forward a clear, well-understood, community-informed recommendation to the Board in January or February. Until then, speculation about specific schools closing or predetermined outcomes is simply not accurate.

We will continue providing regular updates throughout the process to keep everyone grounded in the same information.