Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Class Size topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oregon City board narrows staffing priority to K–3 as members weigh trade-offs
Summary
Board members and staff debated how to spend a limited budget to address class sizes and support staff, coalescing around prioritizing K–3 reductions and a mix of licensed and classified positions while noting projections and many uncertainties.
Board members and district staff spent the work session probing options for using limited one-time funds to reduce class sizes and add support staff, ultimately signaling a shared priority for K–3 while acknowledging trade-offs for middle and high school needs.
Superintendent-level staff presented class-size scenarios and estimated full-time-equivalent (FTE) impacts, saying reductions from 30.5 to 29.5 or 28.5 students per class in middle and high schools would translate to roughly 1.7–5 FTE depending on the scenario. For elementary grades, staff said lowering K–1 ratios to 27 or 26 would add approximately 2–3 FTE, while a drop to 24 would be about 5 FTE. The presentation noted these are projection-based estimates and that FTEs could include special education and instructional assistant hours as well as licensed teachers.
"This is based on projections. It's a really big estimate," the presenter cautioned, urging the board to state programmatic priorities so staff could rerun numbers and plan recalls or unassigned hires ahead of August enrollment.
Directors exchanged views about the best return on investment. Several argued that investing in younger grades (K–3) would produce longer-term gains, pointing to early-grade literacy and statewide accountability measures for third grade and eighth-grade math. Others flagged transition years (sixth and ninth grades) and the value of adding classified support to help with behavior and caseloads.
One director noted the arithmetic: prioritizing K–1 reductions in one scenario would consume more than half of the identified pot of funds and leave limited resources for IA (instructional assistant) support districtwide.
Board members also discussed using the tiered problem-solving language in the proposed collective bargaining agreement (CBA) as a mechanism to trigger supports when classes meet thresholds, with some preferring money be reserved for those triggers and others wanting to deploy funds immediately to return staff to buildings.
Staff recommended the board select a programmatic priority (for example, K–1 or K–3) so that staffing allocations could be determined and principals could plan with principals and Doctor Crane (staff lead). The board coalesced around prioritizing K–3 support with a combination of licensed staff and classified IAs, while asking staff to prepare refined scenarios once August enrollment is clearer.
The next procedural step is for staff to rerun the numbers under the board’s stated priorities and present updated staffing proposals, potentially recalling some employees and leaving them temporarily unassigned until school start to allow flexibility.
