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.

Boundary Committee Final Meeting Summary

The Boundary Committee convened for its final meeting to confirm recommendations for the School Board and reflect on the full scope of its work. Superintendent Dave Parker opened by reminding members of the committee’s purpose, which was to determine the most responsible path forward for school structures and boundaries if additional revenue is not secured. The work was guided by shared criteria, including student learning, community input, safety and transportation, neighborhood integrity, financial sustainability, and future growth.

District leaders reiterated the core challenge facing Newberg-Dundee schools. The issue is not simply enrollment loss, but the structural reality that several elementary schools now have only two or fewer sections per grade level. This limits the district’s ability to adjust class sizes to manage costs. Compounding this challenge is a long-term decline in birth rates across Oregon, with graduating classes significantly larger than incoming kindergarten cohorts, a trend expected to continue for several years.

Updated financial targets were reviewed. To restore a full school year, fund negotiated contract costs, cover rising PERS, transportation, and operating expenses, and move back toward the Board’s policy for a healthy ending fund balance, the district faces a gap of roughly $3.7 to $4.5 million in ongoing funding. To fully meet reserve targets, the need is closer to $7.4 million. Committee members acknowledged that while the current system of neighborhood elementary schools with average class sizes around 21 students is producing strong academic outcomes, it is not financially sustainable under current funding levels.

The committee reviewed results from its ranking process and confirmed a clear preference for a K–4 elementary, 5–6 intermediate, and 7–8 middle school structure paired with a dual language only model at Edwards Elementary. Under this scenario, English-only students currently at Edwards would be reassigned primarily to Dundee, Crater, and Joan Austin, with minor boundary adjustments to reduce travel time and disruption. This configuration is estimated to generate approximately $2 million in savings. Members recognized that even with these changes, additional budget reductions would still be required to reach long-term sustainability.

The committee also strongly affirmed support for pursuing a local option operating levy. By a 25 to 1 vote, members agreed the district should move forward with asking voters for additional funding to help maintain neighborhood schools, protect programs, stabilize class sizes, and avoid deeper cuts. District leadership emphasized that the levy is intended to sustain, not expand, current operations and to provide stability over time as costs continue to rise. If approved, the levy would pause the proposed restructuring, although future adjustments may still be necessary if enrollment or costs change.

Table discussions highlighted the importance of clear and accessible communication with the broader community. Members stressed the need to explain the district’s financial reality in plain language, outline what has already been cut in recent years, and present a unified, fact-based message. There was also agreement that levy messaging should be hopeful and forward-looking, emphasizing the opportunity to preserve strong schools and invest in students rather than relying on fear-based arguments.

The meeting concluded with consensus that, while none of the options are ideal, the recommended package represents the most responsible and defensible path available. Committee members volunteered to help present the recommendations to the School Board and assist with community outreach. District leaders thanked the committee for their time, honesty, and willingness to grapple with difficult trade-offs, noting that these challenges reflect broader statewide pressures on public education.

Parents and Community Members,

I want to share an important update about the restructuring work connected to our Boundary Committee and the class-size and financial pressures we are facing as a district.

Why we started this work

We created the Boundary Committee because we could see a structural problem getting worse: declining enrollment and elementary grade-level teams that are often too small to create stable, balanced class sizes. When a school has two (or fewer) classrooms at a grade level, there is very little flexibility. You cannot balance class sizes as easily as larger grade-level teams can. That’s how you end up with extremes: one class climbing over 30 while another sits under 20, with limited ways to correct without moving students.

A hard truth about our finances

Over the past year, we have not been building the reserves a stable district needs. One reason is tied directly to our elementary structure. Because class sizes are uneven and many grade levels are already small, we have limited ability to reduce staffing in elementary schools without creating class sizes that are educationally and operationally unacceptable. In other words, the same structural issue that creates class-size volatility also makes cost reductions harder to achieve. That reality limits flexibility and increases risk when we take on major system changes.

What we learned

At first, we hoped boundary adjustments might be enough. What we realized was that boundary adjustments alone do not reliably solve the underlying issue. The core challenge is that the number of students at a grade level is too small. Stabilizing class sizes typically requires larger grade-level teams, not just different boundary lines.

Why we are slowing the timeline

The restructuring models improve class-size balance on paper, but a districtwide grade reconfiguration is a major operational and instructional shift. Trying to implement it for Fall 2026 would force nearly all execution into a very tight window between late spring and the start of school. If we are honest about what it takes to do this well, that is not enough time to deliver a change of this magnitude without unacceptable disruption for students, families, and staff.

I want to be clear about what I shared at the board meeting: I am recommending that the district continue planning for a possible districtwide reconfiguration beginning in fall 2027, rather than implementing changes in fall 2026.

In the late spring and summer, we will continue structured engagement with staff, families, and community members, and I will bring the Board the specific details needed for informed consideration, including any proposed boundary reassignments, staffing plans, transportation impacts, and budget implications. There are several factors, including the consideration of a levy, that could change the options available to us and slowing the timeline gives us the space to do this work thoroughly, incorporate feedback, and see how key conditions develop.

This does not make the underlying problem go away. Class-size pressure does not pause just 

because the timeline slows. It means we will keep working through options as part of our budget development, staffing decisions, and long-term financial strategy, while taking the time needed to do this right.

Thank you for your continued partnership and support.

David Parker

Superintendent, 

Newberg-Dundee Public Schools

Padres y miembros de la comunidad:

Quiero compartir una importante actualización sobre el trabajo de reestructuración relacionado con nuestro Comité de Límites y las presiones financieras y de tamaño de las clases a las que nos enfrentamos como distrito.

Por qué comenzamos este trabajo

Creamos el Comité de Límites porque vimos que un problema estructural estaba empeorando: la disminución de las inscripciones y los equipos de nivel de primaria que a menudo son demasiado pequeños para crear clases estables y equilibradas. Cuando una escuela tiene dos (o menos) aulas en un nivel de grado, hay muy poca flexibilidad. No se puede “equilibrar” el tamaño de las clases como lo hacen los equipos de grados superiores. Así es como se llega a situaciones extremas: una clase con más de 30 alumnos y otra con menos de 20, con pocas posibilidades de corregir la situación sin trasladar a los alumnos.

Una dura realidad sobre nuestras finanzas

Durante el último año, no hemos estado creando las reservas que necesita un distrito estable. Una de las razones está directamente relacionada con nuestra estructura de primaria. Dado que el tamaño de las clases es desigual y muchos cursos ya son pequeños, nuestra capacidad para reducir la plantilla en las escuelas primarias es limitada sin crear clases con un tamaño inaceptable desde el punto de vista educativo y operativo. En otras palabras, el mismo problema estructural que crea volatilidad en el tamaño de las clases también dificulta la reducción de costes. Esa realidad limita la flexibilidad y aumenta el riesgo cuando emprendemos cambios importantes en el sistema.

Lo que aprendimos

Al principio, creíamos que los ajustes de límites podrían ser suficientes. El comité aprendió lo que nosotros también hemos observado: los límites por sí solos no resuelven de manera fiable el problema subyacente. El principal reto es que los grupos de estudiantes en un mismo nivel de grado son demasiado pequeños. Para estabilizar el tamaño de las clases se necesitan equipos de profesores más amplios, no sólo límites diferentes.

Por qué estamos ralentizando el calendario

Los modelos de reestructuración mejoran el equilibrio del tamaño de las clases sobre el papel, pero una reconfiguración de los grados en todo el distrito supone un cambio operativo y educativo importante. Intentar implementarlo para el otoño de 2026 obligaría a realizar casi toda la ejecución en un plazo muy ajustado entre finales de la primavera y el inicio del curso escolar. Si somos sinceros sobre lo que se necesita para hacerlo bien, ese tiempo no es suficiente para llevar a cabo un cambio de esta magnitud sin causar trastornos inaceptables para los estudiantes, las familias y el personal.

Quiero dejar claro lo que compartí en la reunión de la mesa directiva: recomiendo que el distrito continúe planificando una posible reconfiguración en todo el distrito a partir del otoño de 2027, en lugar de implementar cambios en el otoño de 2026.

A finales de la primavera y durante el verano, continuaremos con la colaboración estructurada con el personal, las familias y los miembros de la comunidad, y presentaré al Consejo los detalles específicos necesarios para una consideración informada, incluyendo cualquier propuesta de reasignación de límites, planes de dotación de personal, repercusiones en el transporte y consecuencias presupuestarias. Hay varios factores entre ellos la consideración de un impuesto, que podrían cambiar las opciones de que disponemos, y ralentizar el calendario nos da el espacio necesario para realizar este trabajo a fondo, incorporar comentarios y ver cómo evolucionan las condiciones clave.

Esto no hace que el problema subyacente desaparezca. La presión del tamaño de las clases no se detiene sólo porque el calendario se ralentice. Esto significa que seguiremos trabajando en las opciones como parte de la elaboración de nuestro presupuesto, las decisiones sobre la dotación de personal y la estrategia financiera a largo plazo, mientras nos tomamos el tiempo necesario para hacerlo bien.

Gracias por su continua colaboración y apoyo.

David Parker

Superintendente, 

Escuelas públicas de Newberg-Dundee