Reflections on the Small Schools Task Force Process
There is a special board meeting this morning at 10 a.m., which you can view HERE.
In addition, the Long Range Planning Committee will meet today at 6 p.m. at the district office. This meeting is open to the public; however, as is customary for this type of meeting, public comments will not be accepted. During tonight’s session, the committee is scheduled to review the work of the Small Schools Task Force.
Instead of offering my own commentary, I have shared messages from task force members in their own words. These are just two of the 12 perspectives, each offering valuable insight. I deeply appreciate their willingness to share their experiences.
The events over the last week have been incredibly difficult to process. Thank you for your kind words and understanding. The outcome of this situation is far from what we had hoped for. We volunteered for the Task Force because we care deeply about these schools and believed we could make a meaningful impact by collaborating with the LRPC and District personnel. Having that opportunity taken away has been heartbreaking, and we are all still grappling with how to be heard.
I am happy to share my experiences on the task force, provided that my words are not taken out of context or used to support an inaccurate narrative. I simply ask that you remain authentic in how you present what I share.
From the beginning, I joined the task force with the assumption that everyone had the best intentions. I worked to eliminate negative assumptions from my thought process and aimed to create a report that would offer better solutions to the District than closing schools. I feel my intentions remained consistent throughout the process, despite encountering some questionable moments along the way.
During our first meeting, we established ground rules. These were more like verbal agreements intended to protect the process and allow members to speak freely without fear that their words would be publicly displayed. For example, we agreed not to share specific details about who said what during meetings. I believe this is the primary reason these meetings were held behind closed doors. Task force members volunteered to help, not to be criticized by the community for their opinions. Although some of us expressed a desire for greater transparency, the entire group would have had to agree to make the meetings public, and that did not happen. Also, the ground rules felt set and non-negotiable.
Because of the private meeting format, our primary tasks were focused on data collection. It was made clear that we could not provide recommendations in this format, as decision-making would require public meetings. However, we were allowed to propose alternative solutions to school closures without favoring one over the other. This concession felt like a win, given the initial restrictive rules.
Although the lack of transparency and limited voice in decisions were frustrating at times, we accepted these constraints and continued forward.
The first several meetings, which focused on discovery, went smoothly in my opinion. The task force and Steve from 3J Consulting would sit at a conference room table, with 4-6 District personnel seated along the wall and someone from 3J taking notes. Kathy Ludwig was often present, which demonstrated her commitment. These meetings typically included roundtable discussions, presentations from the District, and Q&A sessions.
These sessions were highly informative and helped dispel some negative assumptions in the community about how the District operates. It became clear to me that the District and LRPC genuinely have the best interests of students and schools in mind. While some decisions may appear financially driven, it was evident that the District puts significant effort into ensuring academic success and student happiness. That said, I continue to give more credit to our amazing teachers for these outcomes than to the District, though their efforts undoubtedly play a supportive role.
Towards the end of the discovery phase, we began community outreach meetings. As you both observed, these meetings raised many concerns and questions from the community. While the intent of these meetings was good, their execution had flaws, leading to backlash and frustration. For example, a decision was made at some point not to answer questions during these meetings. The three of us don’t recall this decision being discussed, though it’s hard to remember every comment made during 8-10 hours of meetings.
By the end of the discovery and outreach phases, we were ready to begin drafting the report. The report-writing phase started with extensive discussions about the group’s positions and key points to include. Steve from 3J allowed us to create the outline and contribute information to a shared document. We worked collaboratively during meetings and through roundtable discussions. As the deadline approached, we emphasized the need for 3J to organize the document and compile the information while preserving our message. Although the timeline felt tight, I was confident we could complete the report if everyone added their contributions to the shared document.
At the last meeting, which I missed due to illness, the group received notice of a lawsuit. Although we operated under strict guidance not to provide recommendations and believed we were following the rules, the citizen who filed the lawsuit felt otherwise. Upon further examination, it seems that once we began drafting the report, the meetings should have been made public. While the citizen had every right to file the lawsuit, its consequences were detrimental. The law holds task force members personally liable for fines up to $1,000, and without full support to continue, the task force would be disbanded, preventing us from presenting our work to the District.
Carrie can provide more details about the meeting discussions and members' reactions, as both Ersala and I were out sick. Much of the discussion occurred via email afterward, and some task force members decided to withdraw. The three of us and others offered to take full responsibility to complete the work, but without representation from each school, the task force could not proceed.
I have personally drafted many valid points supporting the case to keep small schools open, offering solutions for both annual and capital cost increases. I plan to email these directly to School Board members and include them in a separate report that several other task force members are compiling. Unfortunately, this will lack the impact of a complete report, presentation, and unified support from the task force and LRPC.
I hope this provides a clearer understanding of the process. While I may have omitted some nuances, this reflects my perspective on how events unfolded.
This process has been one of the most draining and difficult things to navigate. The data provided for us by the district was meant to be regurgitated and not scrutinized. None of the Flo Analytics data given disclosed margin of error. Community input and data that contradicted analysis was dismissed. SSTF Teacher Listening Sessions were not shared with us the SSTF.
The SSTF was given a notice the first day of our Thanksgiving break to pause any work being done in effort to complete our report.
After ten days of pause, the district informed us of penalties we, as individuals, may receive from the Oregon Ethics Commission for holding private meetings. Private meetings that the district insisted on day 1. We were told about letters of reprimand and fines up to $1,000, this ultimately disbanded our efforts as a Task Force. I called the Ethics Commission to verify these claims. If found in violation of public meeting laws, we would receive a letter of education. No fines are issued on first offense. Penalties were exaggerated by district resulting in our task force into forfeiting a concise report and dissolving our group. None of which helps our children in securing the education they deserve.
Discoveries made outside the realm of district data leads me to conclude that not only are small schools financially feasible and sustainable they are also top performers academically and emotionally.
The smallest of these schools, Bolton, outperforms in both of these areas across our district and in the state. The size of these schools are dependent on boundaries drawn. The Bolton boundary is drawn to be the smallest school in the district and is now being considered for consolidation based on size.
Inflated renovation costs would have you believe that Bolton is in dire need of its lion share of any Bond that may pass. (district defined) Deferrable renovations make up 2/3rds of the total cost. If Bolton does in fact need a considerable amount of bond funds to bring facility up to par, this only reflects the district’s neglect of stewardship.
If the district closes any of the small schools the total projected savings is only $1.4 million per school that figure doesn’t account for added transportation expenses. Which begs the question, are small schools the answer to a 14 million dollar problem?
Communication from the west Linn wilsonville school district.
(Copied directly from the email)
West Linn Small Schools Consideration and Task Force
On December 3, the Small Schools Task Force (SSTF) concluded its final meeting and their Findings Report will be presented to the Long Range Planning Committee on December 18. The report will be a public document and available for community members to review. It will be posted to the district’s SSTF webpage alongside all other materials that the SSTF received and reviewed during its process.
Clarification Regarding Small Schools Task Force
There appears to be some misunderstandings regarding the role/purpose of the Small Schools Task Force, their meetings, and their final report. We hope to clarify these here and encourage community members to access the district’s website for accurate information.
1. SSTF is not a decision-making group
As described at all public meetings, the SSTF was not established to be a decision-making group nor was it tasked to bring forward recommendations to the Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) or School Board. The SSTF, a 12-member parent volunteer group, was set up to engage the community and pass forward findings representing feedback collected from the community. SSTF meetings consisted of receiving information about the district (all of which is available on the SSTF webpage), determining the format for the community engagement forums, and discussing how to assemble and pass forward the community’s feedback (findings). District staff were present at meetings initially to provide information and thereafter only upon request of the SSTF.
2. SSTF held Community Engagement Forums to gather input
With the facilitation of 3J Consulting, the SSTF held five (5) Community Engagement Forums and one (1) Town Hall upon request from parents. SSTF members were present at each of these forums to engage with the community and collect the feedback provided at these public sessions. All members of the community were able to attend any of these sessions, regardless where they resided, whether they currently had children in the schools, or if the forum location was their child’s home school. Notice of these engagement forums were sent to all school district families well in advance, including the invitation to the online virtual forum and the online feedback form option.
3. SSTF concluded based on their own determination
On December 3, the SSTF held their regularly scheduled meeting. At this meeting the district staff answered questions about a patron’s formal grievance regarding the SSTF process, per ORS 192.610. [Note: the patron’s grievance is subject to a formal process outside of the school district’s control.] District staff left the meeting and the SSTF held their own discussion to determine next steps to conclude their work. On Monday morning, December 9, the 3J Consulting facilitator reported to the District that the SSTF as a group made the determination to conclude their work/task, present their findings based on the December 3 meeting, and would not need the final December 10 meeting date. The District informed the LRPC of the SSTF’s decision and work completion. Therefore, having successfully completed their role and purpose, the SSTF is formally dissolved. The findings report will be presented to the LRPC on December 18.
Thank You to our SSTF Parent Volunteers
The SSTF consisted of 12 parent volunteers representing all six primary schools in West Linn and one Long Range Planning Committee member. They dedicated an incredible amount of interest, time and energy to collect information, engage with the community, and bring back the feedback for a findings report to the LRPC. The engagement forums allowed for the voices and opinions of more than 300 attendees to be collected. We thank the SSTF members for their generosity of time and important contribution to the process. All SSTF-related documents, including community input gathered through the community engagement forums and online surveys, can be reviewed on the SSTF webpage.
Sincerely,
Kathy Ludwig, Superintendent