Go "Recon"figure
Sam Adams
The Portland Public Schools Configuration Strategy has been proposed to the school board by Superintendent Phillips. Stark questions rise to the surface: school closures or reconfigurations? Will the newly reconfigured schools be K-8 models, or will young kids be put in with older, middle schoolers? Are schools of between 400-600 students on the large side of small, or are they big, impersonal schools? Is this whole process really about money - creating a corporate model of education - or are we developing an educational model for a strong and stable future?
Opinions appear to fall into one of two camps: the strategy either sounds intriguing or it sounds awful. I think it’s intriguing, and hopeful.
Like so many Portlanders, I have been involved in the funding and achievement-gap battles for over a decade. I’m looking for a plan that will provide strong schools offering high quality education for students throughout Portland. I want the district to spend its dollars efficiently, and get effective results for all students.
When I review the “Reorganizing for a Stronger Future” plan, I am struck by several attributes:
• The goals reach for strong and stable schools, equitable levels of core curriculum, reasonable class sizes, and greater continuity for families and teachers.
• A multi-year phase in with strong commitment to collaboration, preparation, and implementation.
• Determined attention to improving low achievement, whether by a student, an identified population, or a neighborhood.
• Schools with only 2 to 3 classes per grade, fewer transitions for students, and more continuous parent involvement.
• No one model is applied to the entire district; efforts are made to configure the schools in ways that fit their neighborhoods.
• Planning for now, and forecasting for the future.
• Facilitated opportunities for communities to develop proposals in four regions of the district.
I respect that change is hard to embrace, and people are especially, and appropriately, protective when it comes to their children. But Portland school districts have been undergoing change for well over a decade.
Too much of it hasn’t been healthy change: budgets have been cut; parents have become lobbyists and campaigners; and programs and teachers have been lost. The City, County and business community have been patching support together to apply like duct tape, struggling to keep the school years and the class sizes somewhere close to acceptable. Some individual schools have parent populations with the resources available to buffer the negative impact of these changes. But all of our schools, which means our students, families, and educators have been working hard to achieve academic improvement while enduring change through inadequacy and instability for a long time.
The changes I see when I look at this plan are deliberative, intentional and hopeful. These are designed with the present and the future in mind. They are planned with educational goals in mind, and are attentive to kids, families and neighborhoods. I think maybe, just maybe, we may turn this situation around and establish a stable foundation for our schools.
Think about all the energy Portland citizens, especially the parent communities, have dedicated to our schools in the last decade. It’s incredible. Think about the creative potential that exists if we can remove the climate of crisis. On April 20th, the Legislature will meet for a Special Session, and there is strong belief that will lead to excess Lottery dollars heading for Oregon schools. That is one step in a positive direction. Here in the Portland Public district, the next few weeks will be filled with conversations between the school board and citizens. I hope those lead to good suggestions for changes to the reconfiguration proposal, and thoughtful ideas for preparation and implementation.
We aren’t out of the woods yet, but I swear, I think I just saw a clearing.
Posted by Sam Adams on April 10, 2006
(17) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Education, Front Page
Comments by site visitors
The goals may sound good, but as always, the devil is in the details. Three board members tonight courageously went on the record with their grave concerns about these proposals.
Opposing this plan isn't about resistance to change, it's about resistance to top-down, poorly planned changes that will have huge negative impact on our city.
K-8 might work well, but it worries me that the principals have not been involved-- the actually planning has yet to begin for how to provide a quality curriculum. Will our 6th-8th graders get the variety of classes they have now, including electives, multiple levels of math (hard to provide when fewer classes per grade)?
It's nice that the phase in will be gradual for some parts of town, but what's up with closing Humboldt? This is a high-poverty school that has closed the so-called "achievement gap," with 91% of 3rd graders meeting or exceeding benchmarks--and they want to close it this fall and ship the kids across I-5 to fill up the new K-8 magnet at Ockley that has failed to attract enough transfers.
As for the touted "community decision process"--talk about Machiavellian. It sounds so good, but having been through more than one PPS community process, I am here to say--it will be so bad. Instead of leaving it up to the community to decide about closures and boundary changes, which is impossible to do without it getting really ugly, the district staff and area principals should come up with some carefully thought out alternatives. Then present them to the public, answer questions, and take input. Then make a final recommendation.
Three weeks crammed full of meetings on both the budget and the reconfigurations is way too fast to make a good, carefully thought out decision. I support the Board members who are in opposition to these proposals.
Posted by: Ruth Adkins | Apr 11, 2006 12:24:51 AM
I have to agree with Ms. Adkin's comments concerning opposition to the proposal as it now exists. Lack of accurate factual information in the proposal coupled with a timeframe that discounts the importance of parental, neighborhood, and community input, illustrates that this has little to with improving Portland schools. Rather, it disregards many of our children for the sake of creating perceived efficiencies to a tax-weary voting base. Yes, change is difficult and often necessary, but change for sake of change really gambles with many of the PPS programs/schools that have a demonstrated record of serving our children, families, and neighborhoods well.
Obviously something needs to change. Without substantive, courageous, forward-looking reforms in education funding at the state level, schools in Portland and around the state will continue to be short-changed.
Posted by: Sara Tufa | Apr 11, 2006 9:57:13 AM
Intriguing and hopeful? Commissioner Adams, those aren’t sufficient reasons to support a plan. We shouldn’t reconfigure our schools based on our hope that it will make things better. We need evidence for how the reconfigured schools would improve learning or close the achievement gap, improve parent involvement, or balance the budget. Just saying that these improvements will occur does not make it true. For example, the closures and reconfigurations will not balance the budget, or provide substantial on-going cost savings. And if you think they do, you’re not paying attention. Also, we need details about how the changes could be successfully implemented before making the decision to move forward with them.
One thing we all (and especially CITY OFFICIALS) need to question is the fact that hundreds of children will be forced to cross major arterials like Highway 99 and 82nd Avenue to get to school as a result of this plan. The school district does not provide bus transportation to children within a mile of school even if they have to walk across a state highway to get to school.
As a result of school closures and other district policies that were approved last year, there was a significant increase in the number of children having to walk across Highway 99 to school. The new closure and reconfiguration plan as currently proposed would put many more children in a potentially dangerous situation every day when they walk to or from school. Many parents don’t have the option to walk or drive their children to school every day where a school bus isn’t provided. But even at a signaled crosswalk with a parent present, crossing a state highway or other major arterial can be a dangerous (and potentially deadly) situation for children, especially during rush hour traffic. These situations should be minimized not multiplied.
Your support of this plan because it is “intriguing and hopeful” reminds me of a comment made by a parent at an information session a few weeks ago for the 4 new “small schools” that were approved for Jefferson in January. Because many of our questions about the schools couldn’t be answered (basic things like what course offerings are planned for the new schools) one mom said it sounds like sending your child to one of the new schools would have to be a leap of faith.
Well, I’m sorry but that’s no longer good enough for me. Having a hopeful and intriguing plan is not enough. The Jefferson reconfiguration was supposed to increase achievement and enrollment at Jefferson. But for the incoming 9th grade class only 34 students have applied to transfer in to one of the 4 new schools at Jefferson and over 300 Jefferson neighborhood students have applied to transfer out. Over the past three years, Jefferson had made larger improvements in test scores than the rest of the district, for both struggling students AND those exceeding benchmarks, but the current state of uncertainty and upheaval at the school can’t possibly be a good learning environment for continuing those improvements. [Read more here, http://www.neighborhoodschoolsalliance.org/node/283#comment-159]
I disagree that opinions on the Superintendent’s plan to close schools and reconfigure the district fall into two camps: either intriguing or awful. I think change is needed, and there are intriguing aspects of the Superintendent’s plan but unless we slow down, listen to public input, make necessary changes, and have a feasible implementation plan to do it right, then the outcome could very well be awful. I’m not willing to go along with that, and as one or our elected representatives I don't think you should either.
Posted by: N. Breedlove | Apr 11, 2006 10:53:19 AM
Sam Adams-
How many of the ten closing schools have you visited? How many of the facilities slated to become kindergartens have you visited?
Have you walked and driven the routes from the closed and closing schools, across highways and major arterials, to get to the new consolidated schools?
How many of our substandard PPS trailers have you entered, in a District which has a 90% building occupancy goal? How many affected families, students, and homeowners from the closures of Terwilliger, Multnomah, Collins View, Brooklyn Neighborhood, Meek, Smith, Edwards, Kenton, Applegate, Richmond Neighborhood and Whitaker have you talked to?
Before you go off making damaging public statements, you should do your homework!
Posted by: Steve Linder | Apr 11, 2006 11:55:56 AM
Sam,
That clearing you see may simply be a devasting clear-cut. The closure proposals are not the result of a holistic study with community participation. The closure last year devstated our Kenton Community. a part of the city that once had faith in your judgement. To support this latest round of closures, done by PPS breaking its promise last year to do it better, is simply morally and ethically wrong. Even two or three of teh school board members now see this clearly. There is no definition of what would constitute a success in the rush to reconfigure. The result will be the same kind of fiasco as has happened with the "redesign" of the Jefferson High School. We need to stop the rush judgements (one that keeps changing based upon how much political clout a certain school can apply over others). We may need change, but not in the way PPS prosposes. Otherwise will will continue the downward spiral in Porltand Public Schools. Don't be fooled by PPS propaganda.
Posted by: Richard Watson | Apr 11, 2006 3:56:45 PM
I'm afraid that you see a different proposal than I do. While comprehensive reconfiguration, given time, accurate data, and true public participation (rather than preconceived conclusions) can be a good thing, this proposal has none of those benefits. First, it's not comprehensive -- it's a scattershot blast at a number of schools that, as a general matter, are performing well. K-8 may be one way to solve problems with middle schoolers, but the K-8 approach that may show empirical benefits in other districts is very different from the K-8 that we're talking about in this proposal, and it says nothing about the effect no K-5th graders or the effect on the community as a whole. Without comprehensive planning, there's no way for us to know whether these proposals are going to work long-run, or whether they're yet another band-aid that is going to have to be changed again in the near future. We have the time to do this right, this time. Let's do it right.
Second, under the current approach, there is not time. The proposal, contrary to your suggestion, is not "deliberate." Rather, as several of the Board members have recently pointed out, this is a rushed plan which, even on "approval" would lack everything but the very sketchiest details. A bare bones approach to public education is not the approach we need to take, particularly when these proposals will generally cost money in the coming year, and when they may actually cost money in the long run (at least in everything but the Superintendent's most rosy-eyed dreams).
Third, accurate data is not supporting this proposal. There are too many ways to go after this, but here are a couple: (i) The proposal argues that closures are being proposed quickly for schools that are in the most desperate situations, but that's incorrect -- Humboldt, for instance, is on a nice upward arc of academic improvement. Why close it in two months? (ii) The proposal argues that it will save the cost of capital improvements at some schools. Nonsense. First, several of the schools proposed for closure are being moved from buildings that are in good shape. That's insane. Second, the PPS can't ignore necessary improvements if they are going to maintain or lease their building stock -- one of the proposals for the "savings" generated here. (iii) The closure of Rieke is based on alleged "low/declining enrollment." This is utterly misleading; Rieke's enrollment has been one of the most stable enrollments in the Wilson cluster over the last 15 years, and it's consistently near capacity. To suggest that it's low or declining is just wrong.
Fourth, despite the spin put on it by the district, this proposal presumes solutions to problems, rather than offering a range of solutions for community discussion. Rieke is just one example: That's not a "goal" -- that's a prescription. There is no explanation for why closure is an appropriate solution, and there's no clear articultion of what the closure is expected to solve (it won't address and would likely prevent many solutions to the "problem" of overcrowding in Lincoln / West Sylvan; if there's overcapacity in the Wilson cluster, right-sized Rieke is not part of that problem). If we're serious about a community solution -- and we should be -- and if we want to make sure that the solution is the best one possible, then the Superintendent should (a) articulate the *problems* that need to be solved, (b) set forth several possible solutions that meet different community goals, and (c) allow the discussion to occur in a guided format that doesn't force a particular solution down the community's throat. Maybe closure of Rieke is the best option to certain problems, but I need to know the problem before I'm told what the solution should be, and the solution should be a real solution, not a blindered focus on a particular bare-bones outcome.
The "reconfiguration" plan has a few ideas in it that deserve discussion, but for now the board needs to stop, think, and vote against this hasty and (as yet) poorly-conceived blunderbuss approach to as-yet poorly defined problems.
Posted by: J. Dobbins | Apr 11, 2006 6:25:33 PM
Terry Parker: “What is almost totally left out of the school closure conversation is the damage closing schools does to neighborhoods. That includes an exodus of working class families from the inner City to the suburbs and Vancouver. The superintendent’s recommendations do not appear to take any of that into consideration…”
ME: I am working hard to support families with children to stay in Portland. I agree that neighborhood schools are best. But we cannot afford all the school buildings we have now. When I met with the Superintendent she stated her desire to keep as many schools open in each neighborhood as possible. That is why she is looking at the K to 8 options. I agree with that approach.
Ruth Adkins: “Three weeks crammed full of meetings on both the budget and the reconfigurations is way too fast to make a good, carefully thought out decision. I support the Board members who are in opposition to these proposals…”
ME: If slowing down the process will produce better results, then slow down. If slowing down is only to delay tough choices, then proceed.
N. Breedlove: “Intriguing and hopeful? Commissioner Adams, those aren’t sufficient reasons to support a plan…”
ME: My blog highlights what I like about the proposed approach; I will not give my ‘support’ until I hear more public comment. Hence, my blog post. Thanks for your comments.
Steve Linder: Sam Adams-How many of the ten closing schools have you visited?...Have you walked and driven the routes from the closed and closing schools, across highways and major arterials, to get to the new consolidated schools?... How many affected families, students, and homeowners from the closures…have you talked to?
Before you go off making damaging public statements, you should do your homework!
ME: Over the past 14 years I have visited many of the schools slated for closure. When I met with the Superintendent, I, too, stated my concerns about safe routes to schools. As transportation Commissioner, I offered to help.
Over the years, I’ve talked to hundreds of families affected by school closures. I know it is painful.
For 13 years I have worked to avoid school closures. I have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to pass multiple school funding campaigns. I have spent hundreds of hours working on this issue. I co founded a statewide advocacy organization that successfully got over a billion more from the state legislatures for public schools than initially proposed by democratic governors.
Yet, here we are short of money, again. Only, now, our voters are financially exhausted. I am looking for a world class and fiscially sustainable PPS.
Your comments are useful to me. Keep them coming.
Thanks,
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Apr 11, 2006 9:25:56 PM
Sam,
Please listen to what people are telling you: every comment on this blog is non-emotional, rational, based on the (very few) facts we have about how the current proposal will be implemented and its impacts on Portland. This is not about pain, or about resistance to change that is in the best interests of the community. It's about taking enough time to make the sure the choices are right and not just tough. These proposals could and should have come out months (!!) ago.
This attitude that the community is balking because of the pain concerns me--I have seen the district frame the community response in just this way over the past several years, precisely to then be able to disregard the response as simply emotional and without other valid points.
Posted by: Valeurie Friedman | Apr 12, 2006 10:31:25 AM
Sam,
We are "short of money" only because we choose to be. We have allowed corporations to shirk their fair share of the costs of public education, yet there is money to extend light rail, extend the streetcar, and, dare I say, T-R-A-M.
The current road that PPS is taking is totally unacceptable to me, and I don't have any kids in school anymore. The reason that it is unacceptable is that there really is no due dilligence in formulating these closure plans. In fact, we had a "leaked" plan that was different than the announced plan. This tells me thatit is "shoot from the hip". We need to slow down to develop an holistic approach to public school education.
Besides lacking due dilligence, there is a lack of accountability. Case and point is the Jefferson High "redesign" which is turning out to be an abject failure. Yet the Superintendent keeps going on her merry way, just like she did in Lancaster PA.
The good news, however, is that the tide may be turning with the newest school board members, plus Dilafruz finally asking the right questions of the Supe.
Quite frankly, with the exception of Eric, you commisioners have been too passive over the past year, not wanting to get involved in PPS "turf". But I am sure you you recognize that, like fire protection, police, and parks, neighborhood public schools are essential to city liveability. Don't let PPS destroy our neighborhoods. If you do, you won't get my vote next time.
Posted by: Richard Watson | Apr 12, 2006 11:16:41 AM
Sam,
As the Commissioner for Transportation you should be working to promote walking and biking to school, not making it easier to bus children all over town.
When you met with the Superintendent to state your “concerns about safe routes to schools” did that help? Did anything concrete come from this? Kindergartners are still crossing MLK.
When you met with the Superintendent did she tell you why she was closing schools? No one from PPS at the community meeting last night could say why she is closing Kellogg School.
When you say, slowing down is “only to delay tough choices”, I ask again, to what end are you closing schools. What data is being used to make these “choices?” As a School Board Member recently, bravely pointed out, the “reasons” for closing schools seem to be changing every month.
Which closing schools have you visited? Have you visited these citizen’s new “receiving” schools, how did they compare?
Why is PPS still not getting enough money from the state? If you have been working on this for 13 or 14 years, it has failed. The funding we get from the state is unconstitutional low. Stop asking Portlanders to pay for more. I agree with Jim Hill’s position on funding and tax reform.
Visit more schools and talk with more parents before you support further destruction of Neighborhood Schools. These quality schools are the reason for our past success and are an essential element in differentiating our district from our tough suburban competition.
Are you going to attend any of the community meetings for closing schools?
Posted by: Steve Linder | Apr 12, 2006 11:58:20 AM
Sam,
We here in the Grant cluster are trying to make sense of Vicki Phillip’s plan but it does not make sense even according to her criteria, either saving money, or making education better for all, or even improving a failing middle school (Fernwood is not failing and is not on her list of the bottom 10 middle schools).
The idea of growing a K-5 school into a K-8 school may make sense, especially in schools that have in the past been K-8s and that have space. Fernwood, however, has been physically altered to be a middle school only. There is going to need to be major costly changes to create exits for Kindergarten rooms, bathrooms fitted for small children, and 6 classrooms created on the ground floor to accommodate K-2 as required by law were there are currently only 3 classrooms. Remember also, all these structural changes need to be made in a building where every room has asbestos and lead so there is the added cost of abatement. This is a building that is rated in the worst condition 5 by the school district, and is not even up to current seismic, fire and life safety requirements for its current students much less Kindergarteners.
These obstacles are huge and costly and we haven't even scratched the surface of what is needed to create even an adequate elementary school, a playground, safe access to that playground that does not require small children to cross a delivery driveway, safe entrance to the building that is visible from the office...
Fernwood is no place for small children, and is going to cost millions of dollars to retrofit for a safe elementary school. Where is the money going to come from? This is not a proposal or a plan it is a ridiculous costly idea that needs to be shot down. Taxpayers will be outraged if this “plan” is approved.
Posted by: Ann Fishburn | Apr 12, 2006 12:51:09 PM
Come out and listen to citizens defend Portland’s Neighborhood School System, and make your feelings known at one of the Community Meetings scheduled for this month.
For a current schedule of Portland Public Schools meetings go to the Events link on: www.NeighborhoodSchoolsAlliance.org
Posted by: Steve Linder | Apr 12, 2006 3:59:02 PM
Sam,
Also don't be misled by the slogan "strong and stable future". They are words without meaning manufactureed by Vicki's spinmasters.
The results prove she has already wrought instability and weakness.
Research her track recod in Lancaster, PA to see that she did nothing but wreak havoc there.
Look at the result of her Jefferson High School "redesign" - a grade "F" if I ever saw one.
Look at the fact that she closed Kenton School last year and moved the kids to Chief Joseph. They are so overcrowed that they cannot add a sixth grade, much less transisiton to the K-8 model now being touted. These kids are now at a disadvantage with no hope for K-8.
Finally, I find the arrogance of PPS Staff, especially the Communications Department to be unworthy of public support. You need to be asking more questiosn as to why North Portland is being abused. That is why we elected you!
Posted by: Richard Watson | Apr 12, 2006 4:34:54 PM
Sam,
You stated: “I am working hard to support families with children to stay in Portland. I agree that neighborhood schools are best...Yet, here we are short of money, again. Only, now, our voters are financially exhausted…”
It is not just issues with schools as to why families are fleeing the inner city. There is a lot of discussion about affordable housing, but when property taxes are added to housing costs, property taxes that include supporting fire and police pensions, urban renewal costs plus levies and bond payments for everything under the sun, the cost of living in Portland is no longer affordable for many families. Add to those costs some of the highest sewer rates in the nation, the tapping of garbage service charges to fund pet projects, parking charges going up to subsidize trolleys, taxes on phone services, etc, etc, etc, and families just move out. Wages are not keeping up with taxes let alone inflation. The fact is that you and your counterparts in the City, County and at Metro have done little to “reduce” taxes and fees and make Portland an affordable place to live. Just look at what is being proposed for the up coming November election. Local governments again have their hands out with more money requests. I can not agree that you and others are doing every thing you can to retain families and diversity within the Cit, rather you continue on a spending spree.. Since only about five percent of the revenue collected by the state comes from big corporations, and the state is responsible for funding schools, if I was in your position I pressing state legislators to collect more revenue from big business for schools rather than increasing taxes on individuals and small businesses locally.
Furthermore, Portland does not have a self-sustaining economy. It is totally propped up with everything subsidies for big developers and downtown and bicyclists and transit and the tram and and and… Density housing requirements are less than family friendly and self induced congestion because motorist paid transportation dollars are siphoned off for other modes rather than supporting the family car use are also driving families to the suburbs. Monies spent such as for curb extensions that add to congestion are just being wasted all over the City while road maintenance goes begging.
Personally I am not opposed to a K-8 concept. It is the current implementation plans that are a disaster and destructive. Closing schools without local support that have been an integral part of neighborhoods for the better part of a century is just plain wrong. On a City level, it would be like closing City Hall, turning it over to vandals and consolidating all services into the ugly Portland Building. Just as City Hall is part of Portland’s identity, icon name sake schools such as Rose City Park and Kellogg are part of neighborhood identity. Furthermore, Ms. Vicki and previous superintendents continue to pump money at twice the per student average into the Jefferson cluster to save those schools while recommending icon schools be closed in working class neighborhoods. I view that as nothing more than political maneuvering and nothing less than discrimination to the working class neighborhoods where schools are being closed. Just look at the feelings of devastation in Kenton when the school was closed. The criteria of closing low performing schools and poorly attended schools Ms. Vicki herself put forth is not even being met. Her specific recommendations for closing schools are helter-skelter at best. Making the decisions behind closed doors is even worse. Having been brought in from Pennsylvania, Ms. Vicki with her over inflated salary simply does not understand Portland well enough to be in that position. And who is this Cathy Mincberg who gets on TV and decries the age of Portland schools? Is she part of the decision that a new school can be built in New Columbia using money that could otherwise be used to keep neighborhood schools open? Again that sounds like discrimination towards the neighborhoods that have schools slated for closure. It is all happening all too fast. The public input seems like it is just window dressing and the recommendations appear to be a done deal.
As I have stated before, two schools have already been closed within the boundaries of my neighborhood, and two schools have been closed in adjoining neighborhoods. My neighborhood has already received its fair share of school closings. If the one remaining well performing school in my neighborhood with over 400 students is slated for closure, my property will be devalued and the neighborhood quality of living will be reduced. If this school remains on the closure list, I will do everything possible to defeat any school levy put forth by PPS. I am simply tired of paying taxes for services for somebody else or for another neighborhood when my neighborhood is void of those services. I apologize for such a long post.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 12, 2006 5:35:52 PM
Sam -
I KNOW that you hate to be reminded of this - but the schools are NOT the business of city government. Get city government, money and noses out of the situation and let those entities whose job it IS, deal with it. Yes I know how good schools improve the appeal of an area/city (however didn't the mayor say the tram was going to do that for us?) - but if the city would tend to the business that it was and is chartered for and keep it's nose out of business it's NOT chartered for, we might even get good government and a decent city out of the deal.
That said, the plans for the schools has ignored all the rather obvious cost saving measures, save one. Getting rid of the middle schools, building and extra admin staff - going to a K thru 8 setup was the one smart move that they made. The major other moves that SHOULD have been made were:
Get rid of ESL, go to full immersion, it works in California, they save millions of dollars and the kids come out ahead, way ahead of where our ESL kids are.
Cuts in PERS, change the entire system from this day forward to the same type of 401K that most of us have live with.
Get tough with the union - contract talks are coming up (expect the board to cave in like it always does) - we should put a good contract on the board and when the union doesn't accept it run the schools without union teachers. They can be just as good (or better) and you don't have the union B.S. to contend with. The union no longer (IMHO) looks out for kids, only for the union (not even for teachers, only for itself).
Those cuts plus the K-8 thing would have solved this 'crisis' (which isn't and never was a crisis).
Posted by: Mmmarvel | Apr 13, 2006 10:57:41 PM
It doesn't take much political courage to support a school closure plan that doesn't (directly) impact 99% of Portland voters.
Per VPs plan, Portland is about to lose ALL of it's small schools. Does this sound good to you?
Who has our back?
G. Nisbet
Posted by: Nisbet | Apr 20, 2006 11:51:56 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
What is almost totally left out of the school closure conversation is the damage closing schools does to neighborhoods. That includes an exodus of working class families from the inner City to the suburbs and Vancouver. The superintendent’s recommendations do not appear to take any of that into consideration. She is too immersed within her own agenda. In my neighborhood, two schools have been closed within the past ten years. Two more schools in adjoining neighborhoods have also been closed. The remaining school has over 400 students where the majority of students are meeting goals. Now the district wants to close this historic school so Miss. Vicki can work her priorities such as luxury mini classes and new teaching materials.
Personally I feel my neighborhood is being picked on because it is a mixed mostly white working class neighborhood that has no clout and can not use the race card for attention. To put it bluntly, if the last remaining open school in my neighborhood closes, I will adamantly oppose any new taxes on homeowners for schools including working to reject any new funding levy PPS may come up with
I was born and raised in Portland and for the most part grew up in the neighborhood where I currently live. When I went through the PPS system, schools were overcrowded, most schools were K through 8 with primary feeder schools, class sizes ranged from 30 to 40 students and there were also funding issues. Given the current school funding crisis and the overburden of taxes placed on the backs of the middle class; 30 students per class seems appropriate today. Anything lower is pitting teachers against neighborhoods. Two
questions must be asked; Will the schools ever be satisfied with the funding they receive? Will big business and corporations ever be taxed their fair share to fund schools?
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 10, 2006 7:22:32 PM