Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Futureforward topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tigard‑Tualatin board hears 'FutureForward' plan for bond, boundary work amid declining enrollment
Summary
The district presented its FutureForward initiative — four coordinated teams linking strategic planning, facilities/boundary work, innovation and bond planning — describing a $421,000,000 bond, falling enrollment (10,600 students), and a goal to raise average school utilization from about 69–70% to roughly 75–80% while engaging the public on potential consolidations and program design.
The Tigard‑Tualatin School District board heard a presentation on the district’s FutureForward initiative that links strategic planning, facilities and boundary work, innovation programming and bond planning to address declining enrollment and reshape school programming.
Superintendent (speaker S2) told the board the initiative blends four teams — an innovation team, a strategic planning team, a bond team and a boundary team — so the district can align programming and facility design ahead of major capital work. He said the bond team is focused on projects that include four elementary schools and Fowler Middle School and identified a bond figure of $421,000,000.
Why it matters: The superintendent said the district’s student population is about 10,600 now and the demographer projects continued declines. That shift is already producing uneven building utilization, he said, with the district average “about 69 to 70%” and some schools near 50% while others exceed 100%. The district’s target, he said, is roughly 75–80% utilization to preserve program quality and staffing flexibility.
The superintendent described timelines and sequencing: the strategic plan is expected to be completed “middle of the year next year,” boundary work is aimed for winter 26/27, and the bond team will use those outcomes when finalizing building designs. He emphasized that boundary work and program decisions will be used to avoid surprise closures and to give the public time to weigh in.
Board members asked for clarification about consolidation options and criteria. The superintendent outlined several approaches the district is considering as illustrative options — converting a campus to a magnet program with an application process, repurposing or renting unused buildings, converting a school to a K–8 model, or, as a last resort, traditional closure with student reassignment — and said no decisions have been made. He stressed the district’s intent to present multiple feasible options and to solicit community input before taking action.
The presentation also highlighted outreach to date: staff have run roughly 17 unique listening sessions, nearly 200 in‑person participants and more than 250 survey responses; preliminary themes include enrichment, class size and academic rigor. The superintendent said innovation work — including popular programs such as two‑way immersion and CTE — is intended to keep families in the district while boundary and facilities work addresses capacity and equity across schools.
What’s next: District staff will continue public engagement this summer and fall and bring refined recommendations to the board. The superintendent said the timeline for bond design and construction could shift as project schedules and external factors change, but board review and community input will remain central to decisions.
