HS Redesign resolution: a few suggestions
February 26, 2010 9:40 am
Here is the body of a letter to the Superintendent, School Board and Redesign Team. This version contains a few more points and questions that I wish I had thought to include in the original. My thanks to others out there whose research helped me write this.
First, thank you for the work you are doing to improve our local high schools. It is both urgent and long overdue.
The Resolution that Supt. Smith unveiled on Feb. 8 is a start. From here, it looks as if it is undergoing some revisions. I would like to propose a few more:
1) Strike the language about focus option schools. It is unnecessary anyway, as this issue is already covered in the Board Policies. Those focus options that are thriving in the District have done so because community members came to the Board and pushed to get those programs, not the other way around. If there is community demand for a particular focus option, then it makes no sense to use a building with a capacity for 1500 to serve only 200-400; I seem to recall that was the rationale for so many of the elementary closures over the past 10 years. Focus options can be either co-housed within neighborhood high schools OR set up in the smaller, unused buildings—although I would be very careful about choosing the latter, as we now have many overcrowded K-8s that would benefit from the reopening of some of those buildings such as Rose City Park and Kellogg.
2) Strike the language about closing high schools. It is causing a great deal of unnecessary stress and anxiety to Eastside families that have already lost their elementary and/or middle schools and are still dealing with the fallout from that. Furthermore, it is a highly polarizing strategy that, in and of itself, will solve nothing. Also, the increasing numbers of children in the primary grades will be high school age in only 8 years and, according to every population forecast, no matter how conservative, more are coming. Seattle School District found out the hard way that it costs more to close buildings and reopen them later than to keep the buildings open and running. Should we follow their example, or should we be smart about this?
3) Work on the language concerning transfers. If every high school really does have 1100 or more students within its attendance area, then closures are unnecessary. Franklin HS has already shown us that a robust curriculum can be offered with a student body of only 1000. PPS also posted a document on their website less than three months ago that shows 1100 as the “magic number.”
4) Work on your budgeting process. If is it true that only $4.5 million is necessary to provide equity of curriculum across the district (and I am VERY curious about where that number came from), then it is time to stop throwing money away on expensive consultants and put it into the schools, where it belongs. Even if the amount needed is actually higher, it would be worth the time and effort to research exactly what the necessary amount is and how it could be accomplished. For example, taking advantage of efficiencies such as sharing faculty between buildings would reduce the overall number of FTE (and therefore $) needed to meet the goal and would also be a much “greener” choice than bussing children across town. Another idea would be to overhaul the Portland Schools Foundation and restore its original mission: balancing resources between rich and poor neighborhood schools. (If anyone is curious about my ideas on this one, I would be happy to address the issue in a separate post.)
5) OR, set this whole thing aside and turn your attention to the K-8s, where it is also long overdue. If the problems in those schools aren’t fixed, then anything you do to the high schools will fail anyway because the children arriving in 9th grade will be too unprepared. Calling a meeting once every two years to hear parents air their grievances is a pointless exercise unless someone in the District has specific responsibility for following up. After four years, we haven’t seen a whole lotta follow-up.
Zarwen is a parent, taxpayer, former teacher, and frequent commenter on education blogs.
filed under: High Schools, K-8 Transistion
March 1st, 2010 at 9:21 am
Susan, we wanted to create a document that representatives from all 8 eastside schools (including Benson) could agree upon. There were some issues and differences of opinion regarding transfers and boundaries. So, we ended up with the best compromise we could get.
March 1st, 2010 at 9:56 am
Who were the reps from each school?
March 1st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
There are some interesting PPS jobs posted: Director Office of School Modernization, Capital Projects Manager, Facilities Assistant Director of Operations, Government Relations Director.
Are these new positions? Where did Doug Capps go? Was another new position created for him?
March 1st, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Scott, I think some of my trouble with the Close the Gap people comes from their idea that we can redesign the schools based upon the present as a starting point. Might seem odd, but I believe the starting point for a redesign should be one where all schools are made whole with all students attending their neighborhood school and then stating what programs this would entail. You then move from that position as your starting point.
It isn’t fair for schools who have been politically favored for 20 years to argue they should be able to maintain the advantages they have been so unfairly given. The idea as stated in The Oregonian that you “shouldn’t mess with what is working” just perpetuates the inequities by skewing the process.
If we all started in the same spot then I would be one of your biggest fans. And you know what, we could really look at whether we need school closures and what directions we need to take to get to a decent, equitable education regardless of the economic state of a neighborhood.
March 1st, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Steve – what is your opinion on changing the “money follows the student” funding structure? The more I think about this it makes sense but I don’t know if this is a slippery slope or not. If under-enrolled schools were funded based on their boundary area could this bring families back? I need to re-read the CTG information so forgive me if this is in there but where do the Grant parents stand on the fact that within your own school there has been an achievement gap and what solutions have you looked at and have you already started this work?
Steve your last paragraph is something I say a lot in regards to special education. Kids in special education deserve the same treatment and opportunities but are starting in a different spot that requires more time, understanding, and support.
Also – what insight can the K8 veterans give us on school communities coming together and the potential fall out and catfights? How can we prepare for this? It is a necessary step but this clash of cultures is part of what will drive people to charters and focus schools.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:40 pm
True equity wouldn’t be based on the money following the student. But, as I have contended too many times, we don’t have a definition of a good education which would allow us to equalize educational opportunity based upon the needs of the students.
March 1st, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Neisha, Scott, anyone?
Who are the representatives who contributed to the community resolutions? What were the concerns re boundaries and how does the compromise help ctg’s goals?
What’s ctg’s definition of a neighborhood school?
My official, 100-year old neighborhood has students assigned to one K-5, one middle, three K-8s and two high schools. None of Portland’s high schools have just one “neighborhood” in its catchment.
I’m also a home owner in the Grant part of the neighborhood, so please let’s stop saying ctg is Grant parents. ctg doesn’t speak for me, but am certainly open to learn more specifics from the group.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:39 am
Susan, Good questions and good point. On the flip side…I’m a Grant parent but don’t live in the neighborhood.
Are the Close the Gap and Parents for Sensible…Facebook group the same?
Other than a few exceptions, why is the work being done anonymously?
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Hi all, if the school districts primary concern with the high school redesign has to do with keeping students engaged and increasing the graduation rate, then much of the discussion should include overall student support ( and not necessarily in FTE lingo ), and getting the community at large more involved with this.
As a single parent of 2 ( 6th and 9th grade ) I feel I do a pretty good job of asking them about their homework ( I do this daily ), helping them if they need my help, checking in with teachers every so often, etc.. but I still feel I should be doing more but am already stretched thin. I see far too many kids from low income homes who don’t have someone in their lives to ” check in on them ” on a regular basis. I’m not trying to disrespect these parents, it’s reality here, folks…these parents are exhausted and adequate resources just aren’t there. Perhaps they don’t have another parent to help share the load, etc..
The school district can re-arrange course offerings and make attempts at leveling the playing field for all students all they want but it’s going to take more than just that to keep students in school and thriving.
I do feel that the way we teach ( to the test, for i.e., ) is a big part of the problem ( esp. when it comes to engaging students ) but I’m not an educator and that’s a whole seperate discussion that someone like Steve B. could better tackle ( which we all know he has umpteen times! ). Perhaps once the core basics get put in place ( school locations/ size/ magnet schools, etc..) this issue that I feel goes hand-in-hand with school success, will be addressed.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:00 pm
The fact remains that at every high school in Portland and all across our country there is an achievement gap between students of color and white students.
Boise-Eliot has done some amazing work raising the test scores of their 80+% African American student body being taught by 80+% teachers through professional development called (I believe) “Courageous Conversations.”
If you talk with the counselors at our high schools they will tell you that it is in fact relationships and connection and outreach that keeps a student interested and engaged in school. Read Sunday’s article on Century High School, here is more information about how relationships and outreach affect the achievement gap and increase graduation rates. These are things I’ve learned from reading the CTG google group.
There has been a lot on CTG: national research, NCLB information, AYP, funding and ODE requirements. It seems to me that CTG is at least trying to hold PPS accountable to their stated mission in this redesign which is to close the achievement gap and raise graduation rates.
And it was on that site that I found a copy of the document that PPS handed out at all the community meetings (even the Vestal meeting last week) which says PPS can guarantee that core program at 1100 students. If PPS really can provide that full comprehensive program at 1100, then no school would have to close and no student would have to ride Tri-met past their own school to get to their new school.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Who is ctg?
How does the deletion of the boundary language in the community resolutions acheive it’s goals.
What’s ctg’s definition of neighborhood school?
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:30 pm
vargasgarcia,
I’m not seeing any of the info you wrote about on the ctg website. Are you talking about the grant google group?
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Yes, I’m talking about the Close the Gap, Not the Schools Google Group (is that CTG? Did I get that wrong). The docs I mention are in the files section. I know parents from Cleveland and Franklin and Jeff that are on the group. I don’t think it’s a Grant-specific group. Anyone can join it. Just concerned parents, like most of us.
As for the deletion of the boundary language, I understand that because some schools, like Franklin, wanted there to be boundary changes to boost their catchment, and other schools didn’t want there to be massive redrawing of boundaries, AND in order to reach some consensus across the community, the language was deleted. At this point, PPS hasn’t shown anyone that this is absolutely necessary.
They state 1100 enrollment is adequate for the “full meal deal” as Trudy Sargent called it. Perhaps it’s not. Perhaps it would cost way more than the $4.5 million to have the full comprehensive program across all schools today. But PPS is throwing numbers around that seem to change with nearly every meeting — we’re still waiting for the latest red-line version of their resolution to hit the website (they said it would be up for the community by Sunday evening or Monday morning). I think it’s time to ask them to bring on the data to support their resolution. How does it address the achievement gap or the graduation rates?
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:08 pm
vargasgarcia,
http://www.closethegapnotthesc.....tions.html
does not have files section.
Can you post a link?
Community resolutions were written by concensus via web group? Not by the signers of the cover letter?
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Susan, you are right. I’m following the high school redesign on Close the Gap and on the Grant Google Group and here and now it would seem I’m confused as to where I’ve read what I’ve read.
It was on the google group.
My apologies.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Dear Close the Gap Not the Schools: Cut the Crap. We’re Not Fools!
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:03 pm
wow.
So much for PPS Equity welcoming “all civil discussion.”
Anonymous Too, to whom do you address your rant?
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:05 pm
vargasgarcia,
It is confusing. I read the “we paid the premium” post on the grant google group. Probably have missed some good info because I unsubscribed. Too bad info is being posted more on the grant google group than on the ctg website.
Still would like to know who wrote the community resolutions, if it included more than the signers of the cover letter.
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:07 pm
vargasgarcia, Who do you suggest? Got names?
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Is your beef that there aren’t names or is it that you disagree with their desire to keep schools open and bring the full comprehensive curriculum to all schools regardless of the neighborhood?
It would seem to me that everyone I’ve encountered on these sites are all trying to hold PPS accountable, parents trying to make sure their student and every student gets a comprehensive high school education (some thoughtfully, some angry, some frustrated). That’s my take.
I don’t need names, not even yours. I’m just grateful that so many have joined the discussion to make sure this redesign goes through fully formed and not half-baked like the K8.
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
I do want names. I don’t want to give my voice to the “we paid a premium” and “you can’t change boundaries because that lowers my real estate values” believer. Because before it became a more pc movement to keep all schools open, that was the message leading the charge.
So, yes, I want to know who and why and to what end the boundary language in the community resolutions was deleted. Until then, I’ll keep speaking for myself and not give my political power to a group led by someone I have a enormous disagreement with regarding a core value of what public education should be.
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:39 pm
You all might be interested in the discussion on this topic on Jack Bog’s blog, including good, common sense contributions from Sue Hagmeier and Paul Gronke.
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
I don’t think anyone would want you to give your voice or political power away. It’s a community. All voices should be welcome and heard. Voices that may have started as Mama Bear / Papa Bear protecting “my child” may have grown into a more inclusive and equitable voice as they learned more. Some who have started out angry have turned more thoughtful. People can and do change their perspectives as they learn more about what is happening around the city. I’m just saying, I hear concerned parents and community members in all these voices. I hope PPS is listening.
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:48 pm
“Mover Mike” also has a tongue-in-cheek response to Jack Bog’s post here:
http://www.movermike.com/educa.....ure-a-lib/
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Portland is a community. ctg is a group. Mama/Papa Bear protecting their cub, their school – that I can understand. Demanding a public school district make decisions based on how much income tax people pay on their homes is something I can’t agree with or silently support. People learn and grow every day. That’s why I’m trying to stay informed.
So, someone from ctg: what’s the intended consequence of deleting the bounardy language? Who wanted it deleted and why?
S and Z, Thanks for the posting the Jack’s Bog site.
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Susan,
Why, if you wanted to stay informed would you drop off the Google group? I appreciate the discussion and community, neighborhood involvement, and I’ve only seen a handfull of comments about housing values. It is a discussion. When any one fails to listen to other views their OWN views become one sided.
The authors of the CTG have posted and signed their resolutions. If you were still part of the google group you would know that.
Leesa Cooper
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Leesa,
I dropped the google group because it wasn’t informing me, just frustrating me. After posting my disagreement about the importance of property values re the hs redesign, posts popped up about the grant google site being for people who were like-minded. I wasn’t like-minded on that issue.
I’m only familiar with a few signers of the community resolutions, which are available to all through the ctg website. The signers I know are all Grant parents.
How I keep myself informed is through venues that are public (when I joined the grant google group, it had just been decided that press would not be allowed access).
So, I’m still asking who were the other school community members and what were the concerns regarding boundaries? Which is a question, not an opinion.
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Bringing it back to what Steve B says, we don’t have a definition of what a good education is that will allow us to equalize opportunity for all. I want to talk more about that (new thread perhaps?) I appreciate getrowdy’s comments on relationships and the reality of the overstretched and disenfranchised parents. Let’s talk about that. I am visiting the Midwest now where I grew up and reminded as I look around how Portland still has a long way to go just to be equitable citizens beyond the schools. Let’s bring that to the Mayor.
I don’t know perhaps we need to have a non-PPS organized meeting of the minds here because the response from some ctg folks that they have “done more” to bring this to the board just bums me out. Makes me feel like a real jerk spending the last year plus of my life emailing board members, pissing off my poor husband to attend 3 community meetings a week, rebutting rude people that say they will never ever send their kid to Jeff if boundaries change, and reading policy till my eyes are bloodshot just to be told I am chopped liver. I know it is not personal but can we just not do that, please. The dialogue has been great really and I have learned a lot but the boasting has got to go. One person gets angry and the response is that PPS Equity does not welcome civil discussion?? I am not ready to go “all in” aligning myself with a group that I am not completely certain has my clusters (Jefferson) best interest at heart. Listening still but had to get that off my chest. I will probably regret pressing send, but here goes….
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Susan, thank you for making this post more informative for all. At this point, I don’t see signing on with the ctg group to be any more useful than rubber stamping the district’s plan.
Your questions are reasonable and the fact that you’re not getting answers warrants caution. Why should anyone sign on with a plan that the ctg group is unwilling to publicly stand behind?
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:20 pm
The CTG google group has posted every response that members have sent to public officials. Reading both the original letter and the pps, city government, and board members responses to legitimate questions is invaluable to me.
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:25 pm
So, who were the other school community members and what were the concerns regarding boundaries?
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Since the PPS school board is neither addressing the opening of new schools nor school overcrowding, then one must wonder why they are so committed to a review and revision of our
current high school attendance boundaries.
The only reason the PPS board feels the need to redraw boundaries is to allow the board to engineer their goals of diversity.
Specifically, the resolution clearly states that attendance boundaries will be drawn
to promote a more equitable integration across all campuses considering factors such as income level, educational attainment of the community
that students live in, racial diversity of a student’s neighborhood, and percentage of students who are not native English speakers.
These boundary changes help support and justify the PPS board’s perceived “need” to close schools to in order to achieve the Holy Grail of parity. And utilization of a consultant (SEER Analytics) gives the Board the opportunity to avoid responsibility for the ultimate decisions.
According to the PPS board, the achievement gap is all about demographics — racial and ethnic background. Therefore, the only way to resolve the achievement gap under this definition is to evenly distribute students by race and ethnicity which drives income status.
CTG views the achievement gap differently. Rather than redrawing boundary lines, the focus should be on investing resources — money, teacher training, and other improvements — across all the schools, regardless of student demographics.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Oh. I just thought ctg didn’t want our kids to mingle.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Ellyn, does CTG believe that all high schools should have equal opportunities (either 1) all class offerings are equal or 2) the needs of kids are equally met)? In otherwords, now the big 4 have more offerings etc. since they have more kids. So, does CTG believe that in dividing up the resources it should be equal throughout the district? This doesn’t seem like a holy grail to me, but more of a fair system of public education? What is their position on this issue? Thanks. Nice to see you here.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:09 pm
“…to engineer their goals of diversity…”
i kind of thought that was what Grant was doing by “taking in” the students from Jeff and other “poor” schools. (We are rich at Jeff, by the way, in very many ways. You have no idea.)
I actually had a Grant parent tell me, nervously (this was a few years back), that without the students from Jeff, Grant wouldn’t be as diverse. Then she asked, how would the school be able to offer as much, if North Portland students went away?
yeah, it was that kind of conversation. I’ve seen this one coming for a long time, sorry.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:20 pm
The latest responce from the CTG google group.
Below I have pasted an email reply from Amanda Fritz to my email asking her to get involved in her role as a member of City Council and in particular as the commissioner in charge of the Office of Neighborhood Involvement. She says that the impact PPS’s redesign may have on the City is not her concern, and suggests that having the same students who went through the K-8 debacle go through a PPS high school redesign upheaval will help build character. If you disagree with her, please let her know. –
“Thank you for writing to me again. I hope you are continuing to follow the Portland Plan, and to advocate for the continued inclusion of public schools within it.
For 17 years, I was a parent in Portland Public Schools, and I participated vigorously in many struggles concerning our precious public schools. Public schools are hugely important to me. Your story regarding your son’s challenges, and having done well despite the schools reorganizations, strikes many chords within me. It seemed every year, there was a new threat of closure or reconfiguration, while my kids were going through. Certainly, every year except the last, there were cuts. My kids also did well regardless. In fact, in some ways I believe the challenges made them, and me, stronger.
While I agree neighborhood schools are vital centers of community vitality, the School Board’s elected leaders are charged with making the difficult decisions on school configurations and locations. I trust the parents, teachers, and administration of Portland Public Schools to help the School Board reach good solutions. I know from experience that I cannot now dedicate sufficient time and energy to engage and intervene. My focus must be on the matters I am charged with leading by the City Charter – already, there are not enough hours in the day to accomplish all the urgent items on my To Do list.
I attended a session at Cleveland High School to be informed of the process. I continue to read multiple school-related emails from the various mailing lists I’m still on. I am monitoring the process, however the leadership to direct the outcomes is in the community and on the School Board. Please focus your advocacy to the elected leaders who make the decisions on this matter, on the School Board.
Sincerely,
Amanda Fritz
Commissioner, City of Portland “
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:25 pm
I like Amanda Fritz, but this is a typical copout. The mayor didn’t mind working on the dropout problem. He didn’t say it was a school problem only, but a community problem. Same with school closures.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:27 pm
The above is the kind of group CTG is. Parent informing parent.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:52 pm
To Carrie Adams,
why would you think CTG wouldn’t want our kids to mingle? I’ve been on their site from close to the beginning when they were concerned about Grant closing, to when they were worried about another failed PPS implementation a la K8, to now when they press for more transparency, data to back up PPS enrollment numbers and Focus school desire, and they do have media who’ve joined, as well as some board members. But I’ve never heard anyone, not one, write anything about not wanting the kids to mingle. Have I missed something? You make them sound elitist and exclusive and that has not been my experience. Just like this site, it’s a forum for discussion and sharing and informing.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:14 pm
And thank you Zarwen for stating so succinctly and clearly what so many of us question about Carole Smith’s resolution. Hopefully the data Zeke Smith said would be up the PPS High School Redesign two days ago, will be up tomorrow. It’s clear that we want to see the data behind their enrollment projections, the data behind their required 1350 comprehensive enrollment, perhaps even some data around the need for Focus schools. Oh yeah, some data supporting that $4.5 million PPS says it would take to get the full program up and running in all our schools. Seems pretty overdue if you ask me.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:48 pm
You’re welcome, but don’t hold your breath on the data!
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Ellyn,
Thanks for posting your comments on ctg’s goals vs. boundary revisions.
My take is that boundaries around the overcrowded and critically under-enrolled K-8s should have been dealt with years ago. I would like to learn exactly what the district plans in the way of boundary revisions before taking redrawn boundaries off the table.
And, sorry folks, but just have to ask again: who were the representatives from all 8 eastside schools (including Benson, but why would Benson care about boundaries?) and what were their concerns re boundaries that resulted in a compromise of deleting almost all boundary language?
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Has ctg explicitly condemned obscene comments such as the “We paid a premium” post?”
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Stephanie,
I’m feelin’ you girl! Just want you to know that I’ve learned a lot from your posts and admire your ability to keep our special education kids in everyone’s discussions and thoughts. Please keep pissing off your husband 😉
We’re all going to need to find common ground, but that includes common ground with PPS admin and board.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Bill,
No.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:14 pm
I’m not part of CTG at all, but I’d just like to caution people against leaping to conclusions about a group based on a few unappealing googlegroup postings.
A few years ago I was part of a school group defending ourselves against a stupid Vicki proposal and we had a lively googlegroup going that was very helpful. But every now and then somebody would post a silly or offensive statement. Rather than have those remarks hijack the otherwise productive discussion, we collectively chose to ignore them and move on.
I’m not vouching for anybody or anything here. Just reminding us all of the joys of wide open posting.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Rita,
Absolutely. My experience while on the grant google group was that the “paid a premium” poster was one of the leaders.
Can anyone from ctg clarify?
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:29 am
By the way, I just took the PPS survey on the redesign. http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AAJ7T8SM3
For those of you who haven’t taken it yet, it claims to be asking for input on criteria for siting high schools. My particular favorite was the part that asked my opinion (ranging from not important to very important) of a criterion (yes, PPS, that is the singular of criteria) focusing on the “Best use of existing campuses. Locating schools to make optimal use of current facilities, minimizing the need for temporary space expansions and allowing for future growth based on viable enrollment projections.”
What the hell does that mean? Am I crazy or can that be interpreted pretty much however they want to? Shall we count up all the unspoken assumptions embedded in that little question?
March 3rd, 2010 at 6:34 am
Seems to me the best use for existing campi (just kidding, Rita)would be a school since that is the present design.
March 3rd, 2010 at 6:36 am
Maybe I missed this but who paid for the Don’t Mess With My School yard signs?
Does the Close the Gap group have a spokesperson? If so, who is it?