 |
September 2009 Futures Meeting NotesAttending the meeting were: Teri Buda, Leanne Clancy, Russ Endo, Wilson Felter, Emily Fisher, Emily Harmar, Nita Hopkins, Koof Kalkstein, Ed Marshall, David Moos, Sharon Mullally, Kathleen Walls. Karen Campbell and Beverly Roberts were unable to attend.
After a moment of silence Koof summarized the structure and process of the committee’s work, describing the creation of the sub-groups and the likely phasing of their work. In the fall sessions, more work and discussion will be in the areas of program and enrollment, as they inform the needs for facilities and land use. As a result of discussion, each area will be further honed. As sessions progress after Christmas, the areas of facilities and development will form a larger focus, with a similar feed-back loop process of refinement of data and of ideas. At the center of all this will be communication with and feedback from the GSFS community, which includes Monthly Meeting, parents and students, faculty and alums. Underpinning all this is the School’s mission and how the Futures Committee work relates to and advances it.
Program Sub-Group Representing the Program sub-group, Wilson and Kathleen summarized their work in meetings, some initial brainstorming with faculty and deliberations over the summer. Based on this work they articulated a set of attributes of the school that they believe we should maintain and enhance to support a strong program, including: intimacy, one-school feel, diversity, a sense of community, accessibility (both socio-economic and physical), Simplicity and a commitment to environmental stewardship. The committee’s discussion strongly supported this list with the addition of caring for the needs of and maintaining connection with the Meeting. Building on these attributes, the sub-group identified a set of ‘straw’ priorities (i.e. very preliminary and meant to generate discussion and feedback), including:
The committee was very supportive of these priorities and spent a fair bit of time discussing ideas and reinforcing concerns about the feel of the school and the value of a campus. Enhancing the social environment for the students was discussed as being an important part of enhancing school life, particularly for the middle school. Continuing in the ‘straw’ priority theme, the group discussed initial views on specific facility priorities, strongly based on early input from the teachers and staff. High priority is placed on a gymnasium, athletic field/outdoor play space and an auditorium/community gathering space. Closely following these, the sub-group identified a Performing Arts Center, Lower School Science Lab, Media/Library Center, Large Cafeteria and possibly an Early Childhood center with its own playground. The group identified a series of attributes and aesthetic aspects that should apply to these facilities as well as to our campus overall, including:
The broader committee discussed a number of these ideas and was supportive of the logic and direction that the sub-group is taking, recognizing that we are early in the process of deliberation. It was generally agreed that a gym could serve as a multi-purpose facility (e.g. auditorium, elements of performing arts, community gathering) for some time. It was pointed out that we should make sure we clearly identify any areas of current deficiency as well as those of enhancement in this process. As next steps the sub-group will continue its development of ‘straw’ priorities, and link with activities in the enrollment sub-group looking at possible impacts of alternative grade structures.
Rosemont School Visit Prior to breaking for supper, the administrative team described to the committee its recent visit to the Rosemont School for the Holy Child. This Pre-K-8, located on the main line, has just completed a ten year process of renovating and upgrading its campus, also on a constrained footprint. Specifically, over three years the school replaced an aging gym, developed a playing field, updated existing facilities and built an integrated new classroom/lab wing. They also moved to a two section per grade structure, and added a three year old nursery. As a result Rosemont is aiming to increase their enrollment from 280 to 365 students, with current enrollment at 330. The total cost of the reconstruction of the school was $18 million, a significant part of which was funded by a bond. The committee discussed learnings about the planning process and areas of commonality and difference between the schools. Visits to several other local schools, or institutions with relevant facility changes are contemplated.
Enrollment Sub-Group Leanne led a discussion of admission and demographic trends in our area and the potential for considering expansion of grade size and/or ages educated at Greene Street. Greene Street enrollment has grown by approximately 15% over the past ten years, while the number of school age children in a several mile radius of the school (which covers the large majority of the school families) has dropped by 10%. Projections for the next five years suggest some additional decline in school age population, but with an increasing percentage of families having a ‘middle class’ income supportive of a Greene Street education.
By rough calculation, 3-4 of every 100 kids living in Mt Airy go to Greene Street, while only 1 of every 200 living in Germantown do so, reflecting a less affluent environment with a greater range of school options. Leanne reported a steady increase in applications and high yield of acceptances which has resulted in expansion to multiple sections in first and second grades with the potential for this to continue.
The committee viewed these trends as positive overall, with the clear potential for expansion through fourth grade. Identifying the benefits of two sections per grade from a program perspective, as well as the staff and facility needs is a next step. Retaining students into middle school was also discussed, recognizing that it may be difficult to maintain expanded class sizes, reinforcing the need to understand programmatically and socially what facility/campus changes would support retention. The current market place for 3 year old care/education was also reviewed. Leanne identified two groupings of options. The first grouping is schools with younger care of which there are very few locally, typically charging fees similar to Green Street tuition. The second grouping is nurseries/day care facilities which are relatively plentiful locally at a lower fee level but with limited offering of educational development. The committee discussed whether and how younger children fit within our educational mission and the potential for extending our educational program to 3 year olds. As a next step the enrollment and program sub-groups will explore these issues further and also try to learn from several other schools that have recently added younger children programs.
Other Topics A brief update was provided by the facilities and development sub-groups. Teri and David have been heavily involved in running a request for proposal process to identify possible architectural firms to support a master planning process. This process will mesh with the work done by the futures committee, commencing early in 2010. The Development Sub-Group is beginning to look at possible approaches to resource development, including sources beyond our traditional reach.
The committee discussed reaching out to relevant communities for more detailed input into our work. We expect these will occur beginning in October, with an initial session with the Monthly Meeting .We have follow ups to our spring introductions with parents planned for the October Parents association meeting on October 20 and with teachers and staff the day after, once the most time consuming aspects of the PAIS self-study work are completed. |
|