Comments on: Carole Smith’s Plan: What’s Wrong (and Right)

By: Anne T.

Anne T. — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:58:20 +0000

Carol Smith’s declaration that she will not close schools but
“We may have exciting opportunities to co-locate programs in a shared space with a business or community partner. We will need to think outside the high school “box” about what a school should look like.”
is classic Orwellian doublespeak. Veterans of school closures know that PPS tried to tell us our neighborhood schools were not closed, just moved or “consolidated”. They told us a school is much, more than just a building. As some have said, that’s like someone coming and confiscating your house and forcing you to live some place else all the while telling you that a home is much more than a house. There are school closures coming all right, probably in early 2009.

By: Peter Campbell

Peter Campbell — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:40:06 +0000

Forgot to cite the source for the CA story. It's from the LA Times. Here it is. Here's the Texas story.

By: Peter Campbell

Peter Campbell — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:28:22 +0000

Apropos of this discussion, here’s news from California: “One in 10 high school seniors in the class of 2008 failed to pass California’s exit exam by graduation, the lowest rate of passage since the test became mandatory to earn a diploma three years ago, according to data released Tuesday by the state Department of Education.”

This is a clear indication that OR will likely follow the same path. The same path that Texas followed, where drop-out rates rose after the state adopted high school exit exams. Is there a single state where exit exams have led to lower drop-out rates? No. Making high school more stressful and even less relevant is no way to make schools attractive places where young people want to be.

By: Zarwen

Zarwen — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:44:25 +0000

Susan,

There is a discussion here about Rose City Park:

http://joesschool.blogs.com/ol.....peech.html

By: Susan

Susan — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 02:30:41 +0000

I wish I had more energy to read through this speech and gleam the positive and become more inspired. Unfortunately, I read statements like this and feel district decision-making is being driven more from the facilities viewpoint than from striving toward academic achievement. In all honesty, my feelings are colored by having our strong and successful neighborhood school closed so the space could become a swing space for Laurelhurst, Hollyrood/Fernwood and Beaumont during their rebuilds and remodels. Perhaps I’m seeing through a very smudgy, narrow lens and perhaps Rose City Park’s closure was a good thing for the district at large, but I read the statement below and think: Benson is centrally located and accessible from MAX. It’s doomed.

“But I’m not proposing that we close any high school campus.
Why not? There are at least three main reasons:
1) If we are successful in winning support from our community for a capital levy to repair, renovate and rebuild our schools, we are going to need the space. Full modernization of a high school, or building an entirely new school, takes more than a summer. We will need every bit of “extra” space in our high school system as swing space, so that we can shut down part or all of a high school for a year while it is rebuilt or remodeled.”

Peter, I sincerely hope that Smith spent the first year listening. Sometimes it seems like she spent it hiding.

By: Zarwen

Zarwen — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:12:11 +0000

Another clue was her use of the term “swing space.” “Swing space” is just another name for a school that has been shuttered!

By: Peter Campbell

Peter Campbell — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:55:10 +0000

I like, respect, and admire Carole Smith. Part of what I like about her is her careful use of language. She’s very strategic in how she frames things. She spent the first year of her tenure “in listening mode.” This speech at the City Club was her first real utterance as Superintendent. So what she said was no surprise, albeit in slightly obtuse/strategic language: “I’m not going to close any high schools right now, but I reserve the right to make dramatic changes to high schools as we know them.” This gives her lots of options without inciting a riot. Smart.

By: jalex

jalex — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:48:51 +0000

Everyone,

Thanks for more insight into the slightly coded terms Smith was using in her speech.

So, in summary, you are saying her “not giving up on those schools” is essentially a way to lessen tension, or deflect attention from closings as PPS starts to modify its overall high school design?

By: Lakeitha

Lakeitha — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:46:00 +0000

Be clear about the distinction between schools and programs. WE have been trained to understand this difference. So in essence, Jefferson would not be closed, but would become part of PCC (partnerships). Still “OPEN” but not a comprehensive (or gates) neighborhood high school.

By: Steve Rawley

Steve Rawley — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:43:30 +0000

Considering Carole Smith's staff has already more or less recommended closing Benson High as we know it, I find her assurances ring a little hollow. Certainly, she doesn't want to start the high school design discussion with a massively controversial question of which high schools to close. But closing high schools is clearly not off the table. School board members have made it clear that more school closures are possible, and frankly, that renders any staff assurances to the contrary moot.