Attending the meeting were: Teri Buda, Karen Campbell, Leanne Clancy, Russ Endo (by phone), Wilson Felter, Emily Fisher, Emily Harmar, Nita Hopkins, Koof Kalkstein, Claire Lomax Ed Marshall, David Moos, Sharon Mullally and Kathleen Walls.Three architects from Digsau also attended the latter part of the meeting.
We began with a few moments of silent worship.
Koof started the meeting off with a reminder of the process and a description of the evening’s agenda, which began with updates from the facilities and development subgroups:
Master Planning RFP Process
David updated the group on the RFP process to select an architectural firm to work with us on the Master Planning phase of work. Having solicited proposals from ten different firms, the subgroup, acting as a selection committee, narrowed the choice to four finalists, each of whom presented their work and approach to the subgroup. This process has led to the selection of the Digsau group as the architects. The group was selected for the quality of their work, general approach and its applicability to our diverse community and the aesthetic sense they provide. Assuming commercial terms can be worked out it is hoped the firm can begin working with us at the beginning of the year. In that regard the subgroup will look to add two additional members, from the Futures Committee or elsewhere. Ideally one will be a parent, the other a teacher at GSFS.
Development Update
Emily Harmar reported that the school has received a generous grant to support the master planning process. In addition, the development subgroup has begun working on developing several pathways for development, including identifying friends of the school and their spheres of influence or networks and outreach to our alumni. The subgroup is also beginning to discuss some of the messages and positioning that should be used as we start reaching out beyond the school.
Financial Implications of Program Enhancement and Enrollment Changes
Teri, Wilson and Koof provided the committee with initial financial information about the revenues and costs which might result from a two sections per grade model (as well as a brief discussion of the economics of a 3 year old program.) It was pointed out that the school manages a modest tuition, with low increases by running a very disciplined and tight operating budget. This means that there is no capacity to take on significant additional expenses (e.g. from adding facilities) without additional sources of revenue. Teri and Wilson described one potential scenario of teacher/program additions that would go along with a two sections/grade model. If the school were able to fill all of these sections, these additions could be fully funded, as could a number of other initiatives, such as additional administrative support. However, the financial capacity to do this would be constrained should significant vacancies occur (due to under-enrollment or general attrition and/or drop off of enrollment in middle school.)
Community Feedback - Green Street Meeting
Sharon and Russ reported on several meetings held with Green Street Monthly Meeting.They found meeting views on what to maintain and prioritize for the school mostly very consistent with those heard in other parts of the community. The Meeting is keen to identify ways in which the school can share resources, both with other schools in the neighborhood and with the neighborhood community. They value defining, without walling off the School/Meeting campus. Some Meeting members expressed concern about the Futures process, the role the Meeting plays in it and a desire to clarify the Meeting’s oversight role over the school.Russ and Sharon will be meeting with other Meeting members at the upcoming ‘Breakfast with a Friend’ to further pursue input.
Community Feedback – Parents
Kathleen and Koof summarized the feedback from two sessions with parents: one sponsored by the Parents Association; the other with parents less involved with the school.Most of the points were consistent with the straw priorities articulated by the Committee, with strong support for a multi-purpose facility, playing field and learning center. In addition, desires to keep the school accessible (avoiding high tuitions and a prep-school feel) and maintain its neighborhood feel were expressed. Parents are generally ambivalent about a 3 year old program. Improving drop-off/pick-up logistics (e.g. through additional drop off possibilities such as on Germantown Avenue) were brought up.Emily Harmar summarized relevant output from a PAIS preparation survey of parent’s views of the school which reinforced the attributes of the school and the potential benefits of expanding the size of the middle school.
Community Feedback – Teachers
Wilson described the feedback from several faculty discussions, as well as more detailed interactions in class clusters. This process along with providing strong support for the general priorities developed provided greater specificity in a number of areas such as what elements might make up the proposed Learning Center, an element strongly supported by teachers. It was strongly suggested that, with expansion of the middle school, 5th grade revert back to the lower school. There were also suggestions
of explicit assessment of the value of space devoted to a playing field (and its applicability to all grades) versus more covered space (in serving the needs of students. The teachers also viewed a 3 year old program ambivalently, noting the potential distractions to the broader goals of the school. Finally, they expressed their strong desire that the school remain demographically diverse; not one that is developing an 'elite' identification.
We then moved on to a lively discussion of the current draft distilling views about preferences and priorities for the school. A large number of useful suggestions were provided which will result in a redrafting of this summary and its publication to the community. It also serves as a useful guide for the master planning process.
The meeting concluded with a moment of silence.
