Comments on: Foundation Fallacies

By: John B. Tang

John B. Tang — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 07:28:55 +0000

Community members should be asking for an exhaustive investigation of how Title I is being spent. Important issues need to be raised as to whether title I has been spent equitably. For example, many ELL students qualify for Title I, but how many of them are being served by Title I monies. We as community members should also be concerned about how ARRA money is being spent. This is federal stimulus money and it should be transparent to the public as to how it is being spent. There should have been public input as to how this money is being divided into programs. And why was the authority to use ARRA money given to the person responsible for Title I funding? There seemed to be very little process as to how the central office reached these decisions. Reorganization of the central office was another example of top-down approach. Some of it makes sense, some of it does not make sense at all. Take Robb Cowie’s department as an example. How people were lumpsumped together did not make any sense at all. Was this an effort to justify his pay and his promotion. TAG and Student Voice are now part of his department as well. What logic does the district follow?

Let’s ask for transparency, explanation and inclusion of public input in what PPS central is doing!!!

By: Steve Buel

Steve Buel — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:23:19 +0000

Sarah, you are right. This is a tough blog. All the work PPS is doing is tough work. There are so many past errors to rectify it is rediculous. I was impressed by the panel last night at Franklin — district administrators under Carole are really trying to be more empathetic and give the impression of listening. While also admitting past errors. Errors incidentally that people on this blog pointed out prior to the district making them over and over again. I know the district is overwhelmed with trying to fix so many things that have gone wrong and are screwed up. As one of the administrators said last night in a private conversation — we don’t have anything that works. Yet, instead of climbing out of the hole(s) they continue to disregard advice from sources such as the people on this blog who are not in it to be important or make sure their kids get theirs.

For instance, the high school redesign plan presented to improve the equity sitution is pretty much unworkable and not saleable. It would be massively improved if the district would move the “boutique” schools into the comprehensive high schools then three things happen. 1) there is even more flexibility in offerings 2) kids have easy access to after school activities and sports since they are right on campus at the end of the day, not across town, and 3) it avoids huge school closure fights and school closures which will have negative impacts throughout Portland’s neighborhoods.

It is easy to say “I am sorry and I feel your pain.” It is much harder to say, “that is a great idea and we need to make sure it gets done.”

I am just afraid that the new empathetic approach is not much different in the end from the old defensive and dismissive “we have the power approach.”

By: Steve Rawley

Steve Rawley — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:50:23 +0000

Also for the record, the numbers I posted are directly from the Portland Schools Foundation. I haven’t had time to reconcile the differences between those numbers and what Sarah posted.

Suffice it to say, it is exceedingly difficult to get consistent, accurate data on private funding of our schools. Even PSF doesn’t know what schools are bringing in if it doesn’t go through the LSF channels, and they don’t have a reliable way of finding out. They basically call PTA presidents and ask them. Most of us know how difficult and error-prone that is.

By: Sarah Carlin Ames

Sarah Carlin Ames — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:42:03 +0000

One reason I usually refrain from posting on this blog is because people often take the opportunity to put words in my mouth or imply motivations for my words. Carrie did that in this case.

For the record, I read over Steve’s original post, saw the Ockley Green numbers and thought those couldn’t be right. I then looked up the numbers and shared the data and cited my reference.

I did not engage in a debate about his points, and I certainly did not mean to imply that I “think that poor people should be happy with what they get (crumbs).”

Perhaps I should just stop engaging in this blog entirely.

By: mary

mary — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:48:43 +0000

Solve societies’ inequities? Is balancing enrollment and offering similar curriculum at district high schools really an attempt to solve the inequities of society? There will still be plenty of advantages for middle class and up children after the high school redesign. The district does have a responsibility to provide equal opportunity for students within the district. This is well within the district’s scope. Fear not that a successful school will be “brought down.” A moderate decrease in enrollment for crowded schools may ensure your student is not in a biology class with 50 children or a PE class of 80. Parents with adequate financial resources may continue to choose to fund the foundation, pay for Saturday Academy, SAT prep classes, tutors, private athletic coaches and all the private sector enrichments they are currently buying.

By: Steve Rawley

Steve Rawley — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:25:27 +0000

Buel, you’re right, only money used for staffing is channeled through the foundation. I’ve got some numbers on other money raised, but it’s not necessarily consistent or accurate.

By: Steve Buel

Steve Buel — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:27:14 +0000

Clarity, since only Foundation money can be used for staff then it would make sense to raise money for other things like supplies, materials, and computers outside of the Foundation since that money would not have to be shared. Hence, the Foundation money of course would be used for staff only. Wonder what the totals are when all the money raised is counted?

By: Clarity

Clarity — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:12:32 +0000

Just offering some clarity… Most foundations you have named (all that I’m aware of) use their funds for staffing only. They don’t buy supplies, computers, materials. So 1/3 is for nearly every dollar raised. And it doesn’t matter if the employee is a teacher or an EA or other classified staff. If they are a employee, they must pay via the PSF and must pay the 1/3 on top of all expensive… that’s salary and 100% benefits. So a third year teacher making $37,985 teacher will cost a foundation $60,807. No lie! plus 1/3 (see the foundations formula for calculating – it is not a straight 1/3 calculation) minus the first 10,000 = $86,000… for a 3rd year teacher.

By: marcia

marcia — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:44:43 +0000

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

By: Carrie Adams

Carrie Adams — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:56:44 +0000

Sarah Carlin’s comments give me the impression that she thinks poor people should just be happy with what they get (crumbs).

As for Title 1…Sarah forgot to mention that annually Title I schools return (they now call it carryover) hundreds of thousands of dollars due to poor planning by Title I principals and administrators.

From the Portland Tribune in 2003…”Thirty-three of the district’s poorest schools last year failed to spend more than $500,000 in federal money given to them to help their struggling students.” http://www.portlandtribune.com.....y_id=17979

In 2007/08, Title I schools failed to spend $466,553 in Title I funds.

I also find Sarah’s comments odd.

Let’s put this in perspective. The Lincoln High School Long Term Development Committee is looking at building a new $63 million school because Lincoln is “antiquated”.

Meanwhile, Jefferson High School lacks fire alarm horns/strobes, smoke detectors, emergency exit signage, and emergency lighting systems.

In addition, there are 10 drinking fountains and 5 toilet rooms that are not accessible.

Where is Jefferson, Marshall or Roosevelt’s $63 million (conservative estimate, I’m sure) building?