Would we tolerate letting principals decide whether or not to offer reading at their school?

I don’t have a problem letting principals and teachers determine the details of curriculum and delivery.

But whether or not all children have access to core curriculum should be non-negotiable.

I still don’t get it. Removing principals from the decision-making process is not going to create equity. So, I do agree that David W’s statement “The resulting disparity in ‘enrichment’ is not a result of district level inequity, it’s a program choice made at the school level” is lame.

But Beaverton has had the benefit of growing enrollment, which has diminished some of the negative effects of Measure 5. With all high schools over 2000 students, and many elementary schools with over 500 (and at least one over 1000), there’s not much threat of school closures or cutting programs due to low enrollment.

In Portland, even without the open transfer policy, we’d have only about 1000-1200 students per high school. Yes, it would be better if students went to school in their neighborhoods, and we got to that level at schools like Jefferson. But it would still be more expensive in Portland than Beaverton to provide the same programming.

To understand why the state legislature (fully in Democratic control) and two Democratic governors haven’t done anything to change school funding, you have to understand that rural districts have done quite well.

It’s the urban districts, and any district that is losing students, that have been hardest hit.

I agree with Zarwen that what is keeping Portland in this horrendous situation is in large part due to site-based rather than district policies determining educational opportunities for students, and of course the transfer policy – among other things.

Beaverton has rebounded faster because they don’t have these self-defeating policies, there is no need to flee the district because your child must attend a “have not” neighborhood school or because you weren’t lucky enough to win the lottery to get your child into a decent neighborhood school.

Equity is the foundation upon which all Beaverton district policies revolve.

It is simply inexcusable that there are “have” and “have not” neighborhood schools in PPS.

Obviously, we all know urban schools deal disproportionately with issues of poverty, etc., and have hence suffered more.

That’s not to excuse the mess policy makers have made of PPS. But Portland has been hurt more than the rest of the state by Measure 5.

FYI, the “higher up” that I referred to was higher than Area Directors. 15 years ago, there was uniformity of “enrichment” offered, at least at the elementary level. That was district policy, not building or cluster policy.