Category: Facilities
April 13, 2008
by Steve Rawley
The candidates for Portland City Council and Mayor are starting to talk about schools, and already there has been some interesting talk.
Willamette Week is posting video of their joint endorsement interviews, which have so far included candidates for commssioner #1 and #2, as well as mayoral candidates Sho Dozono and Sam Adams.
Jim Middaugh, a candidate for commissioner #2, raised some eyebrows at PPS with his response to the PPS Equity candidate questionnaire, in which he claims city staff of the Schools, Families, Housing Initiative helped avert a school closure. This prompted Matt Shelby from PPS to note “I’m not aware of closure plans, or even discussions for that matter, involving any of our schools.”
(Middaugh, like all other candidates who have responded to the questionnaire except Fred Stewart, carefully avoids talking about holding the district accountable to the Flynn-Blackmer audit.)
In the Willamette Week interview, Middaugh declares that schools are his top priority, and he cites his work on the Schools, Families, Housing Initiative as an example of how the city can help schools.
What he doesn’t mention is that in the first of two rounds of this grant, only one small project was funded that will actually be school-based. I’m not saying the other projects aren’t worthy, but there’s only so much a million dollars could do even if all of it were spent on our schools. One $14,000 grant isn’t much to crow about.
But I don’t want to pick on Midaugh. The fact that he has kids in PPS is one positive he would be wise to play up.
The mayoral candidates are also jumping on the schools bandwagon, and also tip-toeing around any serious issues, like the glaring inequity documented over several years by the Neighborhood Schools Alliance, and more recently by me and the Jefferson PTSA.
Sho Dozono is vague about schools, as he is with pretty much everything, but thinks businesses and non-profits should be more involved. Sam Adams is all about “fundraising” (how about revenue raising?), and seems to have tuned in to the Jefferson High School “charrette” fiasco, with no awareness of the community fallout that followed this top-secret plan to demolish Jefferson and essentially cede the property to PCC.
In the Willamette Week interview, Adams talks glowingly of a Jefferson High fully integrated with PCC.
It’s surely not be a bad thing for some students to earn college credit while they go to high school. But this demonstrates how out of touch Adams is with his constituents in North Portland, who have been cool to the idea of demolishing Jefferson High and rebuilding it as an extension of the PCC campus.
Of course, this idea is consistent with the developer-centric ethos of Adams, much of City Hall, and PPS, so we shouldn’t be terribly surprised.
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
8 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 1, 2008
by Steve Rawley
You won’t hear me say that very often, but with Friday’s editorial, “Firing up the bulldozers”, the Oregonian’s editorial board correctly questions whether Portland Public Schools should “reverse course on any recent program changes to avoid costly fixes or unnecessary facilities upgrades.”
The O cites the hasty reconfiguration started by “Hurricane” Vicki Phillips, the inadequacy of many former elementary school buildings to handle K-8 schools, and the temporary housing of eighth graders at Madison High as reasons to rethink things before committing to radical, long-lasting and expensive physical plant changes.
Most surprisingly, the O acknowledges “anecdotal enthusiasm among the stroller set,” which augurs an end to declining enrollment in the district, as long as we can keep our “schools attractive enough for families to stay.” This is the demographic change that those of us with young children in the district are keenly aware of, but is not accounted for by the PSU demographic studies PPS depends on.
We may finally be seeing baby steps in the right direction from Portland’s elites on public school policy. I’ve been asking for a few weeks now for the district to state the reason for continuing with Phillips’ K-8 conversion. I appreciate that the Oregonian editorial board is asking the same question.
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
Comments Off on On the Same Page with the Oregonian
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
There is a concise, well-stated letter to the editor from Michael Wells in the Tribune this morning, with some common sense advice for Portland Public Schools.
“It would be extremely shortsighted for the public schools to let property go, only to have to buy land in an inflated and crowded market in five, 10 or 20 years,” writes Wells, noting the “influx of 20- and 30-something professionals into our city.”
I think Wells is right about there being a creative-class baby boom coming, and I don’t think the PSU demographic forecast accounts for this. And Wells is also right about where these people are settling: close-in east-side neighborhoods.
Will the coming big facilities push be another land grab for developers, or will the district plan wisely and hold on to “surplus” property to account for future demographic growth?
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
19 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
February 6, 2008
by Anne Trudeau
Neighborhood Schools Alliance members Lynn Schore and Steve Linder contributed to this report.
In the past few months there have been numerous newspaper articles about the deplorable state of Portland Public Schools (PPS) school buildings and the potential bond needed for covering a $1.4 billion bill for repairs and construction. Before the PPS School board makes any decisions on a bond or major facilities initiatives, some critical questions need to asked and answered. Here is a start for that list of questions.
Facilities plans
Despite the fact that two extensive facilities reports were done in the last 8 years (Long Range Facility Plan and the KPMG study) PPS paid Magellan K-12, a consultant company from Texas, nearly 1 million dollars to perform a complete facilities assessment. Magellan is a driving force behind the proposed 1.4 million dollar facilities tab and the need for a bond. The full Magellan plan is unavailable to the public.
1. Why did PPS pick Magellan?
2. Why is the Magellan plan unavailable to the public?
3. If Magellan K-12 claims to have a vision for “21st Century” schools why does their website state that their last publications and conference workshops were in 1998 and 1999?
3. Does Magellan have any ties to any PPS employees, in particular do they have any ties to Cathy Mincberg, PPS’s Chief Financial Officer who is from Houston?
4. What was wrong with the last two major facilities plans?
Equity
In Houston, a few days after a bond was passed, a group of families along with a state legislator filed a legal challenge in federal court. “In the federal lawsuit, the families allege that HISD provides inferior academic programs and facilities for schools in predominantly black and other minority communities. The lawsuit also accuses HISD of violating the Federal Voting Rights Act and the Texas Open Meetings Act.” –Houston Chronicle
5. Did Magellan consult for Houston Independent school District on their latest bond?
6. How is the PPS and our School Board going to insure that funds for facility construction and repairs are distributed in an equitable fashion, and provide quality facilities for all students?
Numbers
A December 15, 2007 article in The Oregonian states that the expected 1.4 billion dollar tab is for 89 school campus and 14 administrative offices and then at the same time says the bond is for 311 “PPS buildings”. The study cited in the article compares our buildings to suburban districts which were built more recently.
7. What makes up the difference between the 311 PPS buildings and the 103 schools and offices?
8. Are trailers included in that total?
9. How do PPS facilities compare to other urban districts?
Rosa Parks as a model for the future
The board and Foundation call Rosa Parks their model for future school building. Yet Rosa Parks started as a K-8 during construction, went to K-6 for its first year and now is being converted to a K-5. Many schools surrounding Rosa Parks were closed. The building is at 105% capacity right now, and middle schoolers will need to be bussed all the way to George. (Their former middle school, Portsmouth, was converted to K-8, and doesn’t have space.)
10. What assurance does that public have that future planning will be based on sound data?
More closures
Big bonds like this in other cities have resulted in disruption, closures, and consolidations.
11. Are closures anticipated before 2010?
12. Will closures and consolidations be a part of any new construction?
13. What buildings and properties will be permanently lost (sold) to pay for this 1.4 billion dollar bill?
Selling the bond
Numerous local newspaper articles have appeared since October regarding PPS facilities.
14. What is the public relations budget for this bond?
15. Has PPS made any specific efforts to “sell it”?
Building Maintenance and PPS Workers
Custodian and maintenance had to fight to maintain current wages or get basic cost of living increases; the skilled trades workforce, including carpenters, plumbers, and electricians, has been drastically reduced; the entire custodian staff was fired illegally, and maintenance budget has been reduced so that only emergency repairs are being done.
16. Wouldn’t it make better sense to take care of our existing buildings by increasing the maintenance and custodial forces?
17. What is the PPS maintenance and repair budget?
18. What is the maintenance plan for the infrastructure, especially the boilers?
Establishing Trust
Whitaker Middle School was closed many years ago amid promises to build a new school for that neighborhood. Students were initially bussed 7 miles each way to Tubman, and are now bussed to Ockley Green or dispersed among other neighborhood K-8 schools.
19. Will the promises to the community around Whitaker be fulfilled?
Citizen input and truly democratic decision-making
The citizen oversight committee includes representatives from corporations and corporate groups, including PDC, PGE, Nike, and PacifiCorp.
20. Why is the “citizen” committee so heavily weighted by corporate representatives?
Portland parent activist Anne Trudeau helped found the Neighborhood Schools Alliance.
8 Comments
February 4, 2008
by Steve Rawley
Udate: I fixed the link to the flier. Sorry to anybody who tried to download it earlier!
Also braving the cold wind and rain at the Last Celebration was Neighborhood Schools Alliance member Steve Linder, who distributed his flier (644KB PDF) which details the common-sense criteria for good neighborhood schools:
- Schools to which more children can walk or bike
- Schools designed to fit growing neighborhoods, with room for art, music, computers and PE
- Well sited schools, adjacent to parks, with playfields meeting Oregon’s State School Acreage Standards
Ironically, many of the schools closed in recent years have met these criteria, with their students shuffled off across major arterials to inadequate facilities.
The free-market fetish at PPS has left major swaths of Portland, such as the Kenton area, without an elementary school. And, amazingly, they are often the areas expected to gain school-aged population over the coming years.
It’s time to rethink our facilities planning. Linder’s document is a good starting point. Everybody at Portland Public Schools who has anything to do with facilities planning should read it, as should all concerned community members.
Steve Rawley published PPS Equity from 2008 to 2010, when he moved his family out of the district.
Comments Off on Common Sense in Facilities Planning
Next Entries »
