The suburban schools don’t work like Portland. I have called several districts just to check to make sure and they all have equitable programs for their schools. If one gets music, the next gets music etc. If one gets P.E. the next gets P.E. etc. There are alternative (option) high schools for instance in Beaverton, but the five comprehensive high schools are the attendance area high schools and students need a serious reason to transfer from one to another. Portland is the only district I can find where an attendance area high school is not necessarily a comprehensive high school and you can transfer for any old reason. The result as I stated is that the wealth of the neighborhood determines the quality of the school. And the powers that be (the school board, the administration, Stand for Children, The School Foundation, and the editorial board of The Oregonian) continue to support and perpetuate this injustice.

I’ve been reading your blog for a while and can’t argue with much of what you say. However, I am curious where the data to back up this statement can be found:
“Portland Public Schools is the only school district in the metropolitan area where the quality of education in a neighborhood school depends on the wealth of that neighborhood.”

Buying a house in the “right” school district is bankrupting the middle class all over the western world. This is happening in every single town in America. When I was in England the best schools were in the wealthier areas, a fact that is almost too obvious to type. I lived in a trendy, gentrifying area in San Diego (sort of like North Portland) and the schools there were terrifying – metal detectors, 80% turnover etc. Meanwhile, in the wealthier areas, with the same per-capita state spending, they were great. There are the usual explanations for this: parental involvement, higher expectations, strong PTAs etc. Whatever the cause it surely qualifies as a universal truth.