Comments on: The numbers paint a picture http://ppsequity.org/2009/02/13/the-numbers-paint-a-picture/ Covering the beat of Portland Public Schools Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:00:36 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Neisha http://ppsequity.org/2009/02/13/the-numbers-paint-a-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-25985 Neisha Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:38:02 +0000 http://ppsequity.org/?p=205#comment-25985 Hi all. I'm an on and off poster here. I have a kid at Alameda and live about 5 blocks from the school. The more telling numbers to look at are the "transfer slots and applicants" numbers on the lottery page of the PPS website. I've posted these numbers on the Grant Cluster forum of PPS Equity before, so I won't repeat that now (and I don't have the bandwidth to redo that here today). But, a few years back, as recently as when the current fourth graders were incoming kindergarteners, our former principal would tell parents at the round up that she would make room for any child who wanted to come to Alameda. Since then, there have been fewer and fewer transfers every year as empty-nesters have moved out of the neighborhood and young families have moved in, mainly for the school. This year we're taking four transfers, all of whom are siblings of current students. I believe last year we also took siblings only. Steve, mentioned that boundary changes don't matter as long as the liberal transer policy is in place. I think that's probably right and the cluster populations posted above bear that out, as does Steve's amazing map. Hi all. I’m an on and off poster here. I have a kid at Alameda and live about 5 blocks from the school. The more telling numbers to look at are the “transfer slots and applicants” numbers on the lottery page of the PPS website. I’ve posted these numbers on the Grant Cluster forum of PPS Equity before, so I won’t repeat that now (and I don’t have the bandwidth to redo that here today). But, a few years back, as recently as when the current fourth graders were incoming kindergarteners, our former principal would tell parents at the round up that she would make room for any child who wanted to come to Alameda. Since then, there have been fewer and fewer transfers every year as empty-nesters have moved out of the neighborhood and young families have moved in, mainly for the school. This year we’re taking four transfers, all of whom are siblings of current students. I believe last year we also took siblings only.

Steve, mentioned that boundary changes don’t matter as long as the liberal transer policy is in place. I think that’s probably right and the cluster populations posted above bear that out, as does Steve’s amazing map.

]]> By: anon http://ppsequity.org/2009/02/13/the-numbers-paint-a-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-25848 anon Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:01:53 +0000 http://ppsequity.org/?p=205#comment-25848 The Jefferson attendance area appears large but about half of it has almost no population. A big chunk is industrial land north of columbia Blvd. The Jefferson attendance area appears large but about half of it has almost no population. A big chunk is industrial land north of columbia Blvd.

]]> By: Steve Rawley http://ppsequity.org/2009/02/13/the-numbers-paint-a-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-25845 Steve Rawley Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:39:40 +0000 http://ppsequity.org/?p=205#comment-25845 Oops, left off Madison; I corrected it above. Oops, left off Madison; I corrected it above.

]]> By: Terry http://ppsequity.org/2009/02/13/the-numbers-paint-a-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-25844 Terry Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:35:30 +0000 http://ppsequity.org/?p=205#comment-25844 What happened to Madison? What happened to Madison?

]]> By: Steve Rawley http://ppsequity.org/2009/02/13/the-numbers-paint-a-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-25817 Steve Rawley Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:58:45 +0000 http://ppsequity.org/?p=205#comment-25817 Looking at # of students by area of residence, Jefferson is the second biggest (click on the chart above for a larger view). Lincoln has a large geographic area, but a large part of it is uninhabited (Forest Park). It is the second smallest cluster by student population. Here are the number of PPS students living in each cluster, in descending order: <ul> <li>Marshall: 6104</li> <li>Jefferson: 5701</li> <li>Roosevelt: 5039</li> <li>Grant: 5053</li> <li>Cleveland: 4975</li> <li>Wilson: 4908</li> <li>Madison: 4620</li> <li>Lincoln: 4343</li> <li>Franklin: 4289</li> </ul> Adjusting attendance area boundaries is a little pointless when the largest clusters by residence have the lowest enrollment. Boundary change discussions must be coupled with meaningful reform of our enrollment and transfer system. Looking at # of students by area of residence, Jefferson is the second biggest (click on the chart above for a larger view). Lincoln has a large geographic area, but a large part of it is uninhabited (Forest Park). It is the second smallest cluster by student population.

Here are the number of PPS students living in each cluster, in descending order:

  • Marshall: 6104
  • Jefferson: 5701
  • Roosevelt: 5039
  • Grant: 5053
  • Cleveland: 4975
  • Wilson: 4908
  • Madison: 4620
  • Lincoln: 4343
  • Franklin: 4289

Adjusting attendance area boundaries is a little pointless when the largest clusters by residence have the lowest enrollment.

Boundary change discussions must be coupled with meaningful reform of our enrollment and transfer system.

]]> By: enoughsugarcoatingalready http://ppsequity.org/2009/02/13/the-numbers-paint-a-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-25815 enoughsugarcoatingalready Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:50:19 +0000 http://ppsequity.org/?p=205#comment-25815 Well, seeing that Jefferson is at half capacity,it certainly could use more students, however, if you look at the area the Jefferson cluster takes up compared to that of Grants...to me, it looks like the Jefferson boundary is already considerably larger than Grants. Lincolns appears to be the largest however, I believe it has the fewest minorites. I was mainly getting at how PPS seems to draw their boundary lines...around property values perhaps. Well, seeing that Jefferson is at half capacity,it certainly could use more students, however, if you look at the area the Jefferson cluster takes up compared to that of Grants…to me, it looks like the Jefferson boundary is already considerably larger than Grants. Lincolns appears to be the largest however, I believe it has the fewest minorites. I was mainly getting at how PPS seems to draw their boundary lines…around property values perhaps.

]]> By: mary http://ppsequity.org/2009/02/13/the-numbers-paint-a-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-25814 mary Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:24:07 +0000 http://ppsequity.org/?p=205#comment-25814 Of course boundaries will be based on segregation of less affluent families. Just ask the Rose City Park families about the boundary change to 57th Ave. Granted it did solve the split feeder issue, but the families west of 57th could have been reassigned to Madison. That could've boosted Madison's economic diversity. Do you suppose the district is waiting for rising property values and gentrification to bring class diversity to schools? Alameda is an interesting case. Already very full, their boundary was increased during the reconfiguration. Enrollment data show that in 2006-07 there were 445 neighborhood kids and 233 transfers. For 2007 to 2008 Neighborhood students total 498 and transfers 199. Thats a reduction in transfers from 34% to 28%. What is Alameda's enrollment goal to keep enough FTE for their program? Of course boundaries will be based on segregation of less affluent families. Just ask the Rose City Park families about the boundary change to 57th Ave. Granted it did solve the split feeder issue, but the families west of 57th could have been reassigned to Madison. That could’ve boosted Madison’s economic diversity. Do you suppose the district is waiting for rising property values and gentrification to bring class diversity to schools?

Alameda is an interesting case. Already very full, their boundary was increased during the reconfiguration. Enrollment data show that in 2006-07 there were 445 neighborhood kids and 233 transfers. For 2007 to 2008 Neighborhood students total 498 and transfers 199. Thats a reduction in transfers from 34% to 28%. What is Alameda’s enrollment goal to keep enough FTE for their program?

]]> By: Zarwen http://ppsequity.org/2009/02/13/the-numbers-paint-a-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-25767 Zarwen Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:23:11 +0000 http://ppsequity.org/?p=205#comment-25767 Do you know that Grant grew at the expense of Jeff years ago? I think it was back in the '80's (and anyone out there feel free to correct me if I am wrong), that Boise-Eliot and Tubman were reassigned from Jefferson to Grant. Now Tubman is a 6-12 girls' academy, but as far as I know, Boise-Eliot is still part of the Grant cluster. So if your prediction were to come true, some might view it as Jefferson getting back a piece of their own. Do you know that Grant grew at the expense of Jeff years ago? I think it was back in the ’80’s (and anyone out there feel free to correct me if I am wrong), that Boise-Eliot and Tubman were reassigned from Jefferson to Grant. Now Tubman is a 6-12 girls’ academy, but as far as I know, Boise-Eliot is still part of the Grant cluster. So if your prediction were to come true, some might view it as Jefferson getting back a piece of their own.

]]> By: enoughsugarcoatingalready http://ppsequity.org/2009/02/13/the-numbers-paint-a-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-25738 enoughsugarcoatingalready Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:09:09 +0000 http://ppsequity.org/?p=205#comment-25738 I attended a public meeting last May ( held at Grant High School ) in regards to neighborhood school boundaries-one "example" given by someone from the Transfer and Enrollment Office is Alameda and how it's " overcrowded ",-not due to lottery transfers but moreso just many kids living in the Alameda boundary. I suspect at some point, the Jefferson cluster will be broadened while the Grant cluster will shrink. The "example" given at that meeting leaned towards shifting students from Alameda over to Vernon ( due to a boundary change). Something to watch out for, but I am sure if PPS does this, the boundary will most likely be carved out based on property values ( already seems to be the case with part of the Grant boundary north of Fremont...it ends somewhere around Skidmore ). I attended a public meeting last May ( held at Grant High School ) in regards to neighborhood school boundaries-one “example” given by someone from the Transfer and Enrollment Office is Alameda and how it’s ” overcrowded “,-not due to lottery transfers but moreso just many kids living in the Alameda boundary. I suspect at some point, the Jefferson cluster will be broadened while the Grant cluster will shrink. The “example” given at that meeting leaned towards shifting students from Alameda over to Vernon ( due to a boundary change). Something to watch out for, but I am sure if PPS does this, the boundary will most likely be carved out based on property values ( already seems to be the case with part of the Grant boundary north of Fremont…it ends somewhere around Skidmore ).

]]> By: Zarwen http://ppsequity.org/2009/02/13/the-numbers-paint-a-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-25273 Zarwen Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:57:11 +0000 http://ppsequity.org/?p=205#comment-25273 PPS says da Vinci is located in the Grant cluster? Apparently they don't know how to read their own maps. Sorry to burst their bubble, but that area north of Burnside and west of 28th is indeed in the Cleveland cluster--although, as Steve says, extraneous to any feeder pattern. Unless PPS has already redrawn HS attendance boundaries without telling us? At this point, I wouldn't put it past them---especially in the wake of the recent Marshall/Franklin dust-up that was reported in the Tribune. PPS says da Vinci is located in the Grant cluster? Apparently they don’t know how to read their own maps. Sorry to burst their bubble, but that area north of Burnside and west of 28th is indeed in the Cleveland cluster–although, as Steve says, extraneous to any feeder pattern. Unless PPS has already redrawn HS attendance boundaries without telling us? At this point, I wouldn’t put it past them—especially in the wake of the recent Marshall/Franklin dust-up that was reported in the Tribune.

]]>