OYSTER RIVER COOPERATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT
HIGH SCHOOL SPACE NEEDS STUDY COMMITTEE

June 11, 1996 Oyster River High School 7:00 pm

MEMBERS PRESENT:

John Lewis, Dave Nichols, Dave Penniman, George Rief, Bill Schoonmaker, Ann Welsh, Mike Everngam and student representative Cozzette Carroll.

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Al Elwell, John Randall, John Aber, Cynthia Nizzari-McClain, and David Brown.

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Rief called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

The minutes from the meeting of May 21, 1996 were discussed. Everyone present agreed that the minutes accurately recorded the discussions which took place at that meeting. Accordingly, the minutes of May 21, 1996 were adopted by the Committee.

Emma Rous, a teacher at the High School and co-chair of the Oyster River High School Advisory Council, discussed and handed out copies of a memo dated April 15, 1992 to Owen Beenhouwer from John Powers. The memo contained a list of program-related items which were generated from staff input relating to building design at the High School. Ms. Rous noted that the "wish list" contained in the April 15, 1992 memo is still valid today.

Next, Ms. Rous showed a video produced last year by the High School Advisory Council. The video portrayed students' views of the school's strengths and weaknesses and suggested several changes in programs. Among the changes suggested were block scheduling, mini courses, and team teaching (Ms. Rous emphasized that these ideas were suggestions, not necessarily givens). The video also emphasized the goals of the Advisory Council, among which are the promotion of lifelong learning, the development of an atmosphere of trust at the High School, the formation of the School Senate, and the promotion of community involvement and outreach.

As a result of the development of extended homeroom, Ms. Rous noted, small groups have been forced to meet concurrently in large spaces. The flexibility of space to allow large spaces to be subdivided is one "wish" outlined by faculty. Ms. Rous agreed that the average small group or small class size that would need to use subdivided space was less than 10 students. Additionally, Ms. Rous pointed out that the focus on smaller classes also means a focus on access to research facilities.

Mike Everngam agreed that there was a need for flexibility in space planning, but stated that a balance would need to be struck between flexibility, function and cost. Mr. Schoonmaker noted that to date, schools have worked with a paradigm of all spaces being equal in size and suggested that perhaps it was time to examine various ideas about space size and utility in schools.

A discussion took place on the importance of clustering classrooms by subject; Ms. Rous stated that the Advisory Council did not advocate breaking up departments, but rather was in favor of interdisciplinary courses. She stated that her vision of cluster classrooms was one of larger, more flexible spaces being utilized during the day for different class focuses. Mr. Rief suggested that instead of "cluster" classrooms, that perhaps a model with a center "hub" of facilities with spokes spreading out could be considered. Mr. Nichols noted that interdisciplinary teaching was more likely to occur if classes are spread out (i.e. science class next to an English class, next to a math class, etc..) Both Ms. Rous and Mr. Rief agreed that the thought of teachers migrating throughout the day to different classrooms was not envisioned and that there needed to be some continuity of teachers in one space. Mr. Everngam noted that no space in the High School is currently dedicated to the use of one teacher all day.

John Lewis pointed out that the breakdown in Option "One-A" produced by DRA in 1992 is consistent with the wish list developed by the faculty in the April 15, 1992 memo. Mr. Everngam responded that the Advisory Council had done a lot in the last two years to crystalize the issues underlying the "wish list." Mr. Everngam stated that in his opinion, any option the Committee recommends must support an intensely interactive approach to education.

Someone mentioned that the school at Marshwood was built around an interdisciplinary philosophy of education. All agreed that if Marshwood was built around an interdisciplinary approach, that it would be a good idea to request schematic drawings of the facility to review.

Ms. Rous drew attention to the Hanover School District's concept of providing study areas in each department where students can go during the day to use computers and receive tutoring. Mr. Everngam agreed that study halls should incorporate computer availability.

Ms. Rouse reminded the Committee that the yearbook, and the school newspaper desperately need spaces of their own. Also, Ms. Rous emphasized the need for more display space in the school so that the students' competencies may be encouraged. Equally important, she noted, is that the building design need to be hospitable to kids. The need for a student lounge was noted.

Mr. Schoonmaker asked about the option of having two, smaller eating areas instead of one. Mr. Everngam pointed out that two spaces would mean additional staffing needs for more supervision.

Mr. Lewis reminded the Committee that any option involving construction will most likely take place during the academic year. Mr. Everngam stated that the High School is a fairly conducive building for such construction.

Mr. Rief brought up the idea of having the town library in the High School. Problems with separation of students and citizens were mentioned. Mr. Everngam stated that he did not see a reason to separate students and citizens in any library facility. Mr. Schoonmaker asked if it made sense to take a civic function out of the down town area. Mr. Rief asked Ms. Rous to confer with the Advisory Council re: the idea of integrating the two library facilities into the High School. Ms. Rous replied she would place such a task in Kathy Kentner's (the High School librarian) hands.

Although the Long Range Planning Committee was scheduled to give a report updating enrollment projections, the report was delayed until a future meeting.

Dave Nichols reported on his research concerning split sessions/year round schools. He reported that the only schools he found which had used split sessions had used them in emergency situations. Additionally, he reported that he spoke to Alvern High School re: year round schools. Mr. Nichols reported that while Alvern had originally found the year round schools to be worthwhile, after a few years they discontinued the practice due to insufficient numbers of students to make it work. Alvern had, at the time, a total enrollment of approximately 1200 students. The Committee reached a general consensus decision not to consider either option of split sessions or year round school as remedies for space problems at ORHS.

Mr. Nichols also reported on the NEASC Committee's work. He reported that the NEASC facilities Committee was not in a position to help the Space Needs Committee at this point. He did, however, point out that the list of questions asked by the NEASC re: facilities may aid the Space Needs Committee. Mike Everngam agreed to bring the list of questions to the next meeting. He also agreed to forward to the Space Needs Committee the report issued by the NEASC as a result of their last visit to ORHS.

Mr. Everngam reported on the status of the architect RFP. He noted that the District had consulted with an attorney re: the release of the RFP. The tentative conclusion was that if the District uses the wording "building consultant" instead of "architect" in the RFP, then there would be less likelihood of a contractual conflict. Mr. Everngam stated he intended to get the RFP finished by Friday, June 14.

Cozzette Carroll reported on ORHS student input as to space needs. She reported that the overwhelming comment from students was the need for a student lounge/space. Additionally, she reported that students liked the idea of an open campus, a bigger gymnasium, an auditorium, and dishwashers in the cafeteria instead of styrofoam. Mike Everngam noted that the cost of dishwashers was prohibitive and that he had looked into styrofoam recycling, to no avail. In relation to the student lounge, Mike Everngam reminded the Committee members of the school's role as in loco parentis. He stated he could not reconcile the need for a student outlets with the tendency for destruction. George Rief suggested that if students had some sort of ownership of the lounge, they may be less destructive. Mr. Everngam noted that the best bet for a student lounge was to locate an open area at the intersection of hallways which are open to supervision.

Future meeting dates were set for June 26 and July 17. Additionally, all Committee members were urged to attend the School Board meeting scheduled for June 18, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Middle School.

OROL Home