Category: Equity
March 18, 2008
by Steve Rawley
Average teacher experience (in years) in Portland Public Schools: 14.2
Number of schools with average teacher experience of 12 years or fewer: 17
Number of these schools in the Jefferson, Madison Marshall and Roosevelt clusters: 15
Number of these schools in the Cleveland, Grant, Lincoln and Wilson clusters: 0
Number of schools with average teacher experience of 16 years or more: 21
Number of these schools in the Jefferson, Madison, Marshall and Roosevelt clusters: 5
Number of these schools in the Cleveland, Grant, Lincoln and Wilson clusters: 15
Source: PPS
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
4 Comments
March 18, 2008
by Steve Rawley
On the theme of equity, which has become a very popular word at PPS, I’ve been thinking more about the K-8 transition.
The locations of the remaining middle schools seems to be entirely capricious, which is typical of the entire K-8 transition, but, not surprisingly, the only two clusters to lose 6-8 schools entirely are clusters hit hard by the enrollment drain of open transfers: Jefferson and Madison.
Ironically, these two clusters have unique issues that could have been avoided entirely if they’d kept 6-8 options.
In the Jefferson cluster, Chief Joseph only has room for Pre-K-5, and there is no place for sixth graders to go, besides one of the K-8 schools or the 6-12 gender-segregated academies at Jefferson. Robert Gray, on the west side, has been the default middle school for Chief Joseph for years. Why should these kids have to take TriMet across town for middle school?
We also could have avoided this problem by keeping Kenton open, instead of merging with Chief Joseph. The Kenton building, now leased to a private religious school, could have housed K-8 or a comprehensive 6-8.
In the Madison cluster, the K-8 schools are too small to house eighth graders, so they’re sending them to Madison. These students may be lucky compared to eighth graders at schools like Beach, in the Jefferson cluster, where there were five eighth graders enrolled last fall.
So I ask again: where’s the equity in all this? Why are students in the Jefferson and Madison clusters denied not only comprehensive high schools, but comprehensive middle schools, too? How is it equitable for the Cleveland and Wilson clusters to have two comprehensive middle schools and comprehensive high schools, while our Jefferson and Madison cluster kids get nothing?
Pushing ahead with the K-8 transition is moving us away from equity, not toward it.
Here are the middle schools by cluster:
Cleveland: Hosford, Sellwood
Franklin: Mt. Tabor
Grant: Beaumont, da Vinci Arts
Lincoln: West Sylvan
Marshall: Binnsmead, Lane
Roosevelt: George
Wilson: Gray, Jackson
Jefferson: none
Madison: none
Thoughts?
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
17 Comments
March 13, 2008
by Steve Rawley
After broadly hinting that we need to close two high schools in the press in January, Portland Public Schools abruptly pulled back from discussing the future of our existing ten high schools publicly.
The need to focus energy and resources on completing the questionable K-8 transition seemed to be the reason, but Beth Slovic at the Willamette Week published an e-mail yesterday that points to another reason.
The e-mail, from outside facilities consultant Bill DeJong, criticizes the leaders of Carole Smith’s high school team (not mentioned by name, but presumably Leslie Rennie Hill and John Wilhelmi) for not moving quickly enough toward the kind of change he would like to see — i.e. school closures.
Superintendent Smith sent an e-mail last evening explaining that the high school discussion and facilities discussion are on separate tracks. It is a reasonable position, worth supporting in the face of outside consultants who would rush us toward school closures.
“The work is urgent, but it must not be frenetic or imposed quickly upon the community to meet an artificial timeline. Any changes will require community vetting and ownership, as well as thoughtful planning before implementation; this much we have learned from past school closures and reconfiguration,” wrote Smith.
Smith acknowledges that our “liberal transfer policy” has a role in some high schools sitting “half empty, while others are bursting.”
She also responds indirectly to DeJong’s criticism: “Decisions about the size and location of our high school buildings, while important, will come as the result of this strategy. The buildings cannot drive the strategy. For that reason, and very consciously, I have asked the Portland School Board not to include our high schools in this winter’s facilities discussions.”
Agreed.
So let’s talk about high schools.
I’m willing to accept that we would be better off with fewer high schools. Eight high schools would give us an average size of about 1,400, enough to fund a full curriculum. (All five of Beaverton’s neighborhood high schools have more than 2,000 students.)
There are a couple preconditions I would like to add to the conversation, in addition to the “buildings cannot drive the strategy” bit.
- Siting of schools must be based on where students live, not where they’ve transfered.
- Comprehensive highs must be the centerpiece of our high school strategy. This is key to equity. These schools must be available to all students, in the neighborhoods where they live. Special focus options should be centrally located, like Benson, and as is done in districts like Beaverton. They should not be co-located with neighborhood programs, and definitely not substitute for comprehensive schools in poor neighborhoods.
- The “liberal transfer policy” must be examined in light of equalizing programming across the district.
- Siting must not be influenced in any way by the commercial value of the land of existing facilities.
Smith closes her e-mail, “It’s high time to have that conversation, and I hope you will join us.”
I couldn’t agree more. Maybe the first step is to fire the outside consultants who don’t seem to get that we want and orderly process. The next step is to lay all the cards on the table. Anybody who’s paid attention knows that we’re talking about closing at least two high schools.
Let’s get it all out in the open.
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
29 Comments
March 12, 2008
by Peter Campbell
I’m relatively new to Portland. I moved here from St. Louis, MO last year. One of the many reasons my wife and I chose to move to Portland was its status as a progressive landmark in a sea of conservative mediocrity. But, after living here for almost a year, I’ve seen that things are not quite what I expected them to be. I’m disappointed, but I still believe in Portland and I still believe in Portland Public Schools. Maybe I’m a naive romantic idealist, but I still believe that great things can happen in this city because so many incredible people live here and are passionate about this city’s future and, in particular, its schools.
There’s a lot we can learn from other states and from other school districts who have managed to stand up against No Child Left Behind, who have spoken up for high-quality education that is not slave to test prep. Lots of folks claim there’s nothing that a single school district can do in relation to a federal law. But there are plenty of examples that show this simply is not true:
A DuPage County Illinois school district — Carol Stream Elementary District 93 — is considering not administering mandatory state exams to students who haven’t yet mastered English. District 93 officials say they’re willing to break the law this spring to shield students from the frustration and humiliation of taking an exam not designed for them. “The board believes it’s appropriate to do that,” District 93 Superintendent Henry Gmitro said. “While there may be consequences for the adults in the organization, we shouldn’t ask kids to be tested on things they haven’t been taught.”
What can the PPS Board do? The board can learn from its peer organization and take a similar stand for children.
Several school districts around the country joined with the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, and filed a lawsuit against the federal government. The suit rightly contents that, amongst many problems with NCLB, one of the most egregious aspects of this horrible law is that it asks states to pay for all the extra testing out of their own budgets. This was an important act of defiance. The law suit was initially thrown out. But in January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the NEA and the other plaintiffs that states and local districts simply can’t be required to spend their own money to comply with the federal law.
What can the PPS Board do? The board can issue a statement of support, outlining why they believe the NEA suit is an important step in supporting high-quality public education for all children.
The PPS board can also learn from what state governments are doing and urge legislators in Salem to take similar actions.
Connecticut is bucking NCLB via a lawsuit similar to the NEA suit. According to the state web site, “If Connecticut follows the federal government’s suggestion and cheapens its testing model – eliminating writing assessments altogether, using only multiple choice in the added testing grades – the state will spend about $9.9 million. Even under this cheaper testing model, Connecticut is left with a $4 million unfunded mandate.”
What can the PPS Board do? The board can issue a statement of support, outlining why the Connecticut suit is an important step in supporting high-quality public education for all children. The board can also lobby state legislators and ask them to consider a similar lawsuit.
The Virginia State Legislature just voted to withdraw from participation from NCLB – the legislation now awaits consideration by Gov. Timothy Kaine.
What can the PPS Board do? The board can issue a statement of support, outlining why Virginia’s action is an important step in supporting high-quality public education for all children. The board can also lobby state legislators and ask them to consider a similar withdrawal.
Apart from simply following the lead of other districts and other states, PPS can also take the lead on policies that support high-quality education for all children. What might some of those policies be? Here are a few to get started:
- end the transfer policy and make every school a “choice” school
- revise, slow down, or end the mandated common curriculum and empower teachers through high-quality, site-based professional development
- expand art, music, foreign languages, and PE and make these so-called “enrichments” available to every child, not just those who attend schools with wealthy parents
- end the test prep that starts in pre-K and adopt a developmentally appropriate curriculum for our youngest learners
You can do it, PPS! I believe in you!
Peter Campbell is a parent, educator, and activist, who served in a volunteer role for four years as the Missouri State Coordinator for FairTest before moving to Portland. He has taught multiple subjects and grade levels for over 20 years. He blogs at Transform Education.
3 Comments
March 10, 2008
by Steve Rawley
Here’s a radical thought:
The arts — dance, drama, music, visual arts — belong in the core education of every child. An
arts-rich education improves student achievement, attitudes, and attendance. Schools committed
to the arts report lower dropout rates. Sustained involvement in the arts highly correlates with
success in mathematics and reading, especially among economically disadvantaged populations.
When the arts become central to the learning environment, schools become places of discovery,
promoting respect for cultural diversity and creating a strong sense of community through shared
experiences.
Who said that? Our friends who run the Beaverton School District.
The Beaverton School District strives to ensure excellence in education for all children by
providing a variety of arts experiences, a comprehensive and sequential fine arts program, and
equity of opportunity.
(Emphasis added.)
This is from Beaverton School District’s Fine Arts Position Paper (29KB PDF). It is a refreshingly common-sense attitude toward fine arts education, one we find utterly lacking in Portland Public Schools.
Instead of a comprehensive and sequential curriculum, we have a confusing patchwork of offerings at the discretion of site administrators. We are not properly building foundations in the elementary years to feed into specialized fine arts programs in the secondary years (band, orchestra, chorus, etc.). But even worse, we are not building well-rounded learners.
Allowing site administrators to choose from a cafeteria of “enrichment,” without centrally coordinated curricula goals, virtually guarantees that our children will not be adequately educated in the fine arts. It also guarantees that inequity will not only persist, it will continue to be hidden in the weeds of a poorly-planned, poorly-implemented “system” of fine arts education.
Given research showing the benefits of fine arts education on attendance, achievement, attitude and drop-out rates, a budget truly focused on equity would insist on a centrally-coordinated fine arts curriculum at all of our Title I schools.
Instead, the proposed 2008-09 budget adds a small amount of FTE across the board, simply reinforcing existing inequities in arts education.
We can — and should — do better than this.
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
6 Comments
February 27, 2008
by Steve Rawley
I’m trying to see Carole Smith’s first budget in the best possible light. I know we don’t have the kind of funding needed to do things right. I also understand Smith’s desire to stabilize things. With those things considered, it’s nice to see a budget that doesn’t have any obvious cuts, and that actually adds some staffing to reduce kindergarten class sizes and restore some curriculum that was lost with the cuts of the ’90s and the switch to K-8.
But if you refer back to the superintendent’s presentation to the school board February 11 (296 KB PDF), a couple of salient points stand out. First, we’re apparently going to “examine everything through the lens of race and equity” from here on out.
Second, Smith quotes New Age business guru Meg Wheatley on integrity: “If we say one thing but do another, we create dissonance in the very space of the organization…What we lose when we fail to create consistent messages, when we fail to ‘walk our talk’ is not just personal integrity…we lose the partnership…that can help bring form and order to the organization.”
My thought at the time was that she is setting the bar very high for herself. Either people concerned with equitable distribution of public investment are going to be incredibly pleased, or they’re being set up for incredible disappointment.
So let’s examine her budget proposal through the lens of equity.
Two things jump right out at me.
- We are going full steam ahead on K-8 conversions, without clarifying the purpose of this conversion, and while maintaining middle school options in some clusters and not in others. This means that we are going further down an inequitable path. The fact that the budget will pay for algebra and library books at K-8s does not make up for the fact these schools will continue to have a vastly reduced middle school curriculum compared to traditional middle schools.
- The additional funding for “enrichment” in K-8 schools, while mandating three units a week a week of art, dance, theater, world language, music, or PE, continues to leave us with a confusing patchwork of offerings, and perpetuates the existing inequities. Schools that have little or no enrichment will get some, but schools that already have it will get more.
Requiring a prescribed amount of “enrichment,” chosen from a cafeteria of options by site administrators, perpetuates a system that effectively hides inequity.
We need a core pre-K-12 curriculum in art, music and PE across the board, not at the discretion of site administrators. And no school should have more “enrichment” than another.
We also need a comprehensive middle school option in every cluster, not just the wealthy ones.
Was this proposed budget reviewed through the lens of equity? If so, I’m not seeing it.
It is a fact that students affected by poverty need more investment, not less. Where in this budget are we investing in our poorest neighborhood schools? Why isn’t the extra “enrichment” money distributed in proportion to need rather than across the board? Why aren’t we guaranteeing free pre-K and full-day K to our poorest schools instead of maintaining the current patchwork? Will the budget include restoration of the music department at Jefferson High School, a putative arts magnet? Why aren’t we reopening Rose City Park instead of putting Madison cluster eighth graders at Madison High?
I’ve got a lot more questions; these are just the start.
I understand the budget process has just begun, and I’d like to be optimistic about our chances of moving toward equity. But I’m not seeing it in the first cut.
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
40 Comments
February 23, 2008
by Steve Rawley
By now most of us are aware that completing the transition from K-5 and 6-8 to K-8 is one of Superintendent Carole Smith’s top priorities. I think the rationale is that things were left in chaos, and we need to get it right.
But Terry Olson, who, like me, doesn’t think K-8 is necessarily a bad idea, thinks maybe we should put the brakes on the transition, rather than going full steam ahead.
“The bottom line is that Portland rushed into school closure and reconfiguration without a well thought out plan for what was to follow,” writes Olson, a retired middle school teacher. “And, perhaps more importantly, without a clear understanding of what genuine school reform looks like.”
It is obvious the process was not well conceived, planned or executed.
I’m still confused about why we need to make this transition. Terry lays out some good things about K-8 schools. But these aren’t the reasons Vicki Phillips stated. Her rationale was to increase test scores and “enrichment” in the lower grades by economies of scale, i.e. the higher full-time-equivalent ratios made possible by larger schools.
We now see those reasons are bunk.
Portland Public Schools needs to clearly articulate the rationale for transitioning away from middle schools. And if any cluster gets to keep a comprehensive 6-8 option, all clusters should get this option.
If equity is truly the overarching goal of Superintendent Smith’s administration, and if stability is truly important to her, this may be her first test. Can we cleanly and fairly finish the job Vicki Phillips started? Perhaps. But first we need to take stock of the situation at hand. Then, if we decide it really is the right thing for our district, we need to proactively design a process to move forward.
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
1 Comment
February 20, 2008
by Steve Rawley
We know that the completing the K-8 transition is one of the top priorities of Carole Smith. We all know that to date, the transition has been rocky. Many schools do not have space. Some comprehensive middle schools seem slated to be kept open, while some clusters, like Jefferson, have had all their middle schools either closed or converted (despite having one school without enough space to even add sixth grade).
I was unable to attend the meeting last night at Rigler… Who went? How did it go?
I’ve set up a forum for this topic, since it’s probably going to be a hot one for a while. Feel free to start new topics there, or leave comments here.
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
39 Comments
February 15, 2008
by Steve Rawley
A big shout out and welcome to Nicole and the folks from the Peninsula and greater Roosevelt cluster communities. Nicole’s been posting over on the forum, with some good information about the sun school program and the 08-09 budget.
I’m looking forward to learning more about the things they’ve got going on at Peninsula school.
As far as I can tell, we all want the same thing: first-rate, equitable educational opportunities in every neighborhood and for every student in PPS.
Welcome!
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
2 Comments
February 13, 2008
by Steve Rawley
Neighborhood Schools Alliance founding member Lynn Schore sends along a column from the Wichita Eagle about the Wichita School District’s $350 million facilities bond.
Metro columnist Mark McCormick describes a thirty year period, from 1970 to 2000, in which no new schools were built within the city’s Assigned Attendance Area (AAA), a predominately black area, but eight schools were built outside of it. The Wichita school board voted in January to end busing, and now they’ve got to actually build schools where students live.
Portland Public Schools could take a lesson from the Wichita experience. Wichita’s busing is analogous to Portland’s open transfer enrollment policy. Both were designed to give black students access to equal educational opportunities, and both have led to massive divestment from poor and minority neighborhoods.
Like in Wichita, Portland suffers continuous enrollment drain from lower-income neighborhoods, with the educational investment following students into whiter, wealthier neighborhoods. And like in Wichita, this has contributed to lower property values in our poorest neighborhoods. This constitues a form of theft from the least fortunate members of our society, well beyond the actual school funding dollars.
“It has become fashionable to talk about busing as something that didn’t work,” said Wichita Branch NAACP President Kevin Myles to the Wichita school board Monday night. “Busing was never intended as a final solution.”
Couldn’t we say the same about open transfer enrollment? While it might have given black kids a chance back when it was initially implemented as a means of desegregation, it clearly now has black and lower-income kids more segregated, and trapped in second-tier schools.
“Open transfers” are effectively ending by default anyway. Who is going to bank on getting their kids into Alameda, Grant or Lincoln? Let’s be honest about why families transfer from one neighborhood school to another. It’s not because they want their children to have to commute across town. It’s because we don’t have equitable offerings in our poorest neighborhoods.
The solution? Build it, and we will come. The facilities bond that is expected in November must be focused on rebuilding our poorest clusters to draw enrollment back, and it must be coupled with a focus on rebuilding the educational programs in those clusters. Then there will be no need for the neighborhood-to-neighborhood transfers that continue to divest millions from our poorest neighborhoods, robbing property value and educational opportunity from our poorest citizens to benefit the richest.
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
8 Comments
« Previous Entries Next Entries »
