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.

The Boundary Committee met for its fourth session to continue evaluating potential grade configurations, boundary adjustments, and the district’s financial outlook. District leaders began with updated financial information showing that last year’s ending fund balance of approximately $1.6 million has declined to roughly $900,000 after staffing additions and rising operating costs. While revenues and expenditures are currently close to balanced, the district is not rebuilding reserves and has minimal capacity to absorb additional cost pressures without making reductions elsewhere.

Committee members reviewed the major cost drivers contributing to the district’s projected shortfall. These include approximately $1.3 million to restore five furlough days, contractual cost-of-living increases for licensed and classified staff, rising retirement and health-related costs, transportation increases, and the need to move back toward the Board’s 7% ending fund balance policy. Taken together, these obligations mean the district needs approximately $3.7–$4.5 million in ongoing solutions to remain financially stable next year and avoid further erosion of reserves.

With this financial context, the committee revisited the district’s underlying “math problem,” which is driving the need to examine restructuring. Currently, four out of six elementary schools have two or fewer sections at multiple grade levels. This severely limits the district’s ability to adjust class sizes as a budget tool. For example, if a grade level has 30 students and only one teacher, the resulting class size of 30 is too large for elementary students. Adding a second teacher reduces class size to 15, which is well below what Oregon’s funding model supports and creates an unsustainable staffing ratio. When this issue existed at only one or two schools, the district could absorb it by adjusting class sizes elsewhere. With four out of six elementary schools now in this position, the district can no longer balance class sizes across the system without either restructuring or securing additional revenue. Under the current K–5 neighborhood school model, this imbalance makes long-term sustainability increasingly difficult.

Against this backdrop, committee members reviewed seven different grade configuration and boundary models using updated spreadsheets showing enrollment, sections, average class sizes, and estimated savings. In small groups, participants discussed whether each model helped address the math problem, how disruptive the changes would be for students and families, and the potential impacts on neighborhood schools, the dual-language program, special education services, and transportation. Members noted that while some models yield greater savings, they also entail significant trade-offs, including school closures or major boundary shifts. These changes raised concerns about equity and access, and about the impact restructuring could have on the district’s long-standing commitment to neighborhood schools. No single restructure option fully resolves the district’s financial challenge on its own.

During a previous Boundary Committee meeting, members asked whether a local option levy might be a viable tool for the district. In response, Superintendent Dave Parker and Chief Financial Officer Nathan Roedel provided an overview of a local option operating levy as one possible component of a longer-term solution. The presentation was designed to build a shared understanding of what a local option levy is, what it may legally fund, and how Newberg-Dundee’s current local school tax rate compares with neighboring districts. Committee members reviewed examples showing that the district’s local school tax rate is lower than most nearby districts, suggesting potential capacity should voters choose to pursue this option. This discussion was informational and aimed to help the committee understand how the presence or absence of extra revenue affects the scope and need for restructuring.

Before adjourning, committee members completed two digital surveys: one ranking the structural models reviewed and another indicating whether they believe the district should consider pursuing a local option levy. The committee will reconvene on January 8 to review these results, narrow the remaining structural options, and begin shaping a recommendation to the School Board.

In January, the district will also begin broader outreach to staff, families, and the community to explain why restructuring is under consideration, what options are being studied, and how revenue choices influence the district’s path forward. Superintendent Parker closed the meeting by emphasizing that if additional revenue is secured, the district’s goal would be to maintain our current neighborhood schools and minimize large-scale restructuring. Without additional revenue, however, structural changes will be necessary to ensure financial stability and avoid unacceptable class sizes.