bbryanpe Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Proceedings of the 20-Year School Facilities Planning Committee District #2 Yellowstone County Billings, Montana October 12, 2004 (Page 1 of 4) The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Co-Chair, Barbara Byran in room 213 at Lincoln Center. Members Present: John Eisen, Barbara Bryan, Matt Brosovich, Ed Workman, Donell Small, Peggie Smith, Randy Hafer, Tim Cranston, Ludlow Howe, Tim Cramer, and Mike Marnin Members Absent: Larry Brewster, Greg Krueger Guests: None Handouts: Article: “Are small schools wave of future?” General Concepts of planning Committees 1997-Present Draft Report Outline, Volume I: High Schools Draft, Facility problem Statement Draft, Shared Beliefs Special Meeting With Trustees Prior to this meeting, the committee met jointly with the SD2 trustees, School/Community committee members, and previous planning committee members in the Board Room at 5:30. The purpose of the earlier meeting was to bring together the individuals concerned about the overcrowding issue in our high schools. Barbara and John gave an overview of this committee’s goals, the creative problem solving process being used, and the Shared Beliefs. The need for effective communication with the public was stressed and all those present were urged to attend the scheduled Thursday "School Lunch” series of informational meetings. Superintendent Svee handed out a summary of previous planning studies and their results, and Barb and John answered questions about our committee’s progress and focus. Public Comments None Approval of Minutes Matt motioned and Barb seconded to approve the minutes of the September 28, 2004 meeting. The motion passed. New Member Tim Cramer of the Lookwood Steering committee was welcomed as a new member of this committee, appointed by the School/ Community Committee. Efforts are still underway to name a Heights resident to the committee. Shared Beliefs Barb presented the most recent draft of the committee’s Shared Beliefs. Tim Cranston suggested that we add something to the beliefs reflecting that solutions to facility problems should support other district efforts to comply with the “No Child Left Behind Act” and other district efforts to improve achievement and proficiency. The beliefs were so modified. Donell motioned and Randy seconded to approve the resulting “Shared Beliefs” statement. The motion passed. A final copy is attached to these minutes. The Shared Beliefs summarizes the beliefs of the committee members about the status of K-12 school facilities and the context for appropriate solutions. On the basis of these beliefs, the committee will develop a statement defining the problems it is trying to solve, identify reasonable alternatives to solve the identified problems, develop criteria for evaluating the alternatives, evaluate the alternatives using the established criteria, and recommend solutions to the School District 2 Board of Trustees based on the evaluation. Facility Problem Statement Barb presented a draft Problem Statement developed based on problem lists emailed to her by committee members. It was suggested that we limit the statement to facilities issues for now, rather than getting into “non-facility” issues such as public perceptions about the school district. The text of the draft statement is: Billings’ public high schools are over crowded, and are in poor condition, and do not provide sufficient variety in the size of learning environments and the means of educational delivery to meet the educational and social needs of all our students. The educational and cost consequences are significant. Solutions to our facility problems are limited by the district’s financial ability to operate and maintain school facilities adequately over the long term within budget limits. Committee members were asked to send comments and suggestions on the statement and listed supporting facts to Barb for further refinement of the statement. A new draft will be considered at the next meeting. Community Involvement A suggestion was made to consider the Student Councils’ input and help in educating the student body regarding the planning process. Possibly some students could attend our meetings. Input from teachers or principals would also be useful. Also, Tim Cranston suggested that we consider adding three ex-officio (nonvoting) board members to our committee, so as to better involve the board in our work. Matt moved to table this matter, Donell seconded, and all voted in favor. Tim and Barb will be in touch to further consider the issue of board involvement. Cost-Benefit Analysis Ludlow, Mike, Matt and Randy will continue working on a cost-benefit methodology for evaluating alternatives. They will report their progress at the next meeting. Draft Criteria for Analysis of Alternatives Barb suggested that members email her their suggested criteria for evaluating high school alternatives. She will compile a master list, eliminate redundancy, and prepare a draft list for further consideration. Draft Report Outline A draft report outline was handed out to give an overview of what we have to do in order to create a comprehensive report on our work for the community. Committee members are asked to review the draft outline and comment on it as work progresses. Subject matter in the outline includes: 1.0 Process Overview 1.1 District Planning History 1.2 Current Planning Process 2.0 Current High School Situation 3.0 Shared Beliefs 4.0 Problem Statement 5.0 Planning Criteria 6.0 Identification of alternatives 6.1 All Possible Alternatives 6.2 Rejected Alternatives 6.3 Most Promising Alternatives 7.0 Evaluation of Most Promising alternatives 8.0 Recommendations The committee is hopeful that they will reach item 6.3 in the outline by the end of December. MISCELLANEOUS School Tours The school tours for this week were cancelled and Peggie suggested that we wait to reschedule until we find out if conducting the tours might be something the Student Councils might be interested in doing. Barb will reschedule the tours and ask the principals if a few students can come along so that we can get their perspectives. City Sustainability Matt reported that per information from Ramona Mattix, City Planning, that with current water rights, Billings can sustain a population of 250,000. With no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. with a motion from Peggy, and a second from Mike. The next meeting will be October 26th. Recorders: Donna Obie Co Chairs: Barbara Bryan Barbara Bryan____________________ John Eisen ____________________ Attachments: Shared Beliefs Approved 10/26/04 SHARED BELIEFS Twenty-Year School Facilities Planning Committee Billings School District 2 October 12, 2004 The following statements summarize shared beliefs of committee members about 1) the status of K-12 school facilities in Billings School District 2, and 2) the focus of the committee’s work to plan for future use of those facilities. On the basis of these beliefs, the committee will develop a statement defining the problems it is trying to solve, identify reasonable alternatives to solve the identified problems, develop criteria for evaluating the alternatives, evaluate the alternatives using the established criteria, and recommend solutions to the School District 2 Board of Trustees based on the evaluations. 1. Changes in high school function over the years (related to curriculum changes, government mandates, and other factors) have resulted in high school overcrowding. Current enrollments at West and Senior high schools exceed the functional capacities of the schools. Enrollment at Skyview is approaching the school’s functional capacity. 2. Lincoln Center and the Career Center have potential for greater use as educational facilities. 3. In light of the failure of the 2003 high school bond issue, solutions proposed by the committee should be bold, innovative, comprehensive, flexible, adaptable to changing circumstances, and responsive to community concerns. 4. Solutions proposed by the committee should give preference to the use of existing district-owned buildings. New construction and the use of non-district facilities should be considered only when existing district facilities cannot provide a complete solution. 5. Solutions proposed by the committee should: A. Improve the condition of our existing schools so that the buildings enhance, rather than detract from, the educational experience B. Enhance the district’s ability to meet student proficiency and achievement goals C. Improve high school graduation rates D. Enhance post-high-school opportunities for all students E. Incorporate smaller learning communities (either through smaller schools or the school-within-a-school concept) F. Be educationally and developmentally sound for all grades G. Not require that schools be identical in size, design, or emphasis 6. Solutions proposed by the committee should be cost-effective and clearly documented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.