EDUCATIONAL FORECAST: Temperatures are rising in the Portland Public Schools district, but not in a good way. IMAGE: Jonathan Hill |
Portland Public Schools Superintendent Carole Smith is no “Hurricane Vicki,” a schools chief whose whirlwind tenure in Portland brought hurried decisions and even swifter timelines.
If anything, Vicki Phillips’ successor is more like El Niño—an episodic event that builds over time, brings rising temperatures and ends with long-lasting consequences.
Smith’s proposed redesign of the district’s 10 main high schools is a good example of this slow but troubling pattern.
The problem facing PPS is this: It has too many buildings for the 11,000 students in its high schools. Thirty years ago, it had 15,000 students and the same number of campuses, whose funding depends on the number of pupils enrolled. But rather than tackle the building surplus directly, Smith has framed the redesign as a debate about educational equity. Her goals include reducing the district’s dropout rate of 31 percent to 46 percent, depending on how you calculate it, and narrowing the achievement gap between white and minority students.
One need only look to North Portland’s Jefferson High, with its 435 students, to see how small schools struggle to offer the full range of courses parents and teenagers want.
Two years ago, when PPS began its high-school redesign, it decided it would be too hard to persuade Portlanders simply to close a school. “Because Portland hates that,” Smith says. Instead, she created an expansive public process to discuss the “values” of equity and equal opportunity that Portlanders espouse. In her mind, the process then became “a value-add” rather than a “take-away.” On March 8, the School Board is scheduled to vote on a 10-page resolution that enumerates these values.
The redesign’s terms remain vague. But they wouldn’t result in complete closure of any campus. Instead, two or three neighborhood high schools would reopen as smaller magnet schools known as “focus” schools.
Yet PPS’s high-school redesign is supposed to begin implementation in 2011. And as students wait and wonder what next year will look like at their neighborhood schools, the trouble with PPS is that it can’t articulate well—or hardly at all—how the means of this redesign will help it achieve all those laudable ends of equity and equal opportunity. Shifting students between buildings isn’t enough, although the teachers union calls it an improvement.
“That’s not equity,” says Rebecca Levison, Portland Association of Teachers president. “That’s a math equation.”
That few details about the proposal are available is no accident. The district says it wants to ensure there’s “community buy-in” for the redesign’s most basic elements.
One detail that is available calls for curbing a liberal transfer policy which lets high-school students leave their neighborhood schools to attend others in the district. Since funding follows the student, this “school choice” policy has eroded offerings at some schools—most notably Jefferson High, which keeps about one-quarter of the 1,550 high-school-age students within its attendance boundaries. And it’s led to what some consider overcrowding at others like 1,600-student Grant High, which has 1,450 students living within its boundaries.
Another plan element calls for converting the high schools that are closed into smaller “focus” schools. Those schools would offer different themes like art or environmental science, but not the breadth of programs available at community high schools, like competitive sports.
From these elements emerge many problems.
One is the “focus” schools. Successful focus schools at the primary-grade level—like overcrowded Sunnyside Environmental School and Da Vinci Arts Middle School—have emerged from grassroots efforts led by committed parents and teachers. The opposite is happening with high schools now; the district is leading the effort without clear understanding of the demand. And two years into the process, Davis, Hibbitts and Midghall Inc., with a $30,000 federal grant, is only now surveying Portland teenagers about what themes might interest them.
A second problem relates to the district’s self-imposed desire to redraw neighborhood boundaries to ease economic and racial segregation among schools. PPS’s track record when it comes to that social engineering is poor. When it redrew boundaries to create new K-8 schools under Phillips, schools such as Clarendon-Portsmouth K-8, Astor K-8 and George Middle School became arguably more segregated.
Then there’s a third problem of staffing. PPS’s teacher hiring and assignment process is notoriously cumbersome, despite positive tweaks in 2008. Depending on what themes PPS proposes for its focus schools, it remains unclear if there will be staff to teach the themes. (On the plus side, PPS and the teachers union tentatively agreed Feb. 13 on a new three-year contract after 19 months.)
The degree of uncertainty surrounding the public discussion to date has made Portland parents nervous. They point to Phillips’ hastily executed K-8 conversions as a reason to be skeptical of Smith’s district-led change.
They’re right, in at least one regard. The K-8 reforms’ biggest failure was they came loaded with promises—of increased enrichment courses at the middle grades, higher test scores and improved student behavior. Practical matters like overcrowding at schools like Rigler, the lack of lockers at others like Bridger, and some schools’ inability to provide high-school-level courses to middle-school students continue to overwhelm the gains that have occurred.
Smith may be right when she says coming out and saying high schools must close would have meant more unrest.But it’s also true that the lack of connection between PPS’s goals and its means of trying to reach those goals has let skeptical parents undermine the entire process with a single catchy slogan, “Close the gap, not the schools.” That message now appears on lawn signs, a Facebook page and an online petition calling for abandonment of the process.
That’s not the answer, although one can hardly blame parents for reaching that conclusion.
process is actually an exercise in exclusion and obfuscation. The
school board and the superintendent have been playing a game of "hide
the ball" with their intentions and their plans. We are less than
three weeks away from the school board's vote, and we do not have even
a hint of what the final plan will look like.
Our elected City officials and PPS are two separateentities with two separate governing bodies. On the other hand, each has declared education and the schools to be a priority, if not
the priority, for the City. It would seem odd if now the high school redesign issue is suddenly outside of the City's areas of interest.
1. In the mayor's State of the City speech, he said:
"These three pieces of Portland – our economy, our schools and
our sustainability – need even more of our collective focus. Let’s be
really clear; these are deep structural civic issues."
2. Education is a key component of the city's economic development strategy, known as the "Portland Plan" (http://www.portlandonline.com/?c=51747&a=286833):
"Schools and neighborhoods benefit from city/school district
collaboration."
3. In the State of the City address, the mayor boasted of "YouthPass"
program passed unanimously by City Council in which the City of
Portland provided 13,000 TriMet passes to PPS high school students (but not to the students in any of the other five districts in the city).
4. In 2003, 2004, and 2005, the city and county imposed a personal income tax in Multnomah County to help fund a budget shortfall in Portland schools. As you recall, putting the tax was a concerted
effort in which the mayor at the time took a lead role obtaining the
funding for the schools.
With all the support and funding that the City of Portland has
provided to PPS, it would be unseemly for PPS to now exclude the City
from any say in the process.
I understand that the high school redesign process is a contentious
issue. However, it is a contentious issue that spill over into all
areas of Portland life: livability, jobs, economic growth, and civic
pride. It is an issue that demands leadership from all levels of
government. The issue is simply too big for a part-time volunteer
school board to handle on its own. We demand leadership from the Top. Sam and Company, where are you?
It is a pleasure to read such an intelligent, knowledgeable analysis of the problems with the Portland Public Schools' high school redesign efforts. Thank you for your efforts in trying to understand what is going on and stating it in such a clear way.
One of the most troubling aspects of your article is your suggestion that the Superintendent has been dishonest in her presentation of what it is trying to accomplish, and, unfortunately, I suspect you're right. If the problems the Superintendent is trying to address are that they have too many schools, that it costs too much to keep them open, or whatever the real reasons are for this effort, it seems to me the Superintendent needs to state her reasons and get on with supporting her position in a fair and honest manner.
Instead, the Superintendent has billed her effort as creating greater equity, that she has to close schools to even out course offerings, that it is necessary to close the achievement gap, raise graduation rates, etc. And parents who see the holes in the Superintendent's arguments have no choice but to argue against the arguments the Superintendent actually makes. It is difficult to argue against arguments that the Superintendent never articulates. It's possible we might even agree with her real arguments, but she's never given anyone a chance to do so.
The Superintendent's Resolution states that it would cost $4.5 million/year to offer its "core curriculum" to students at all current neighborhood high schools. The Superintendent has not presented any cost analysis of her proposal. We have no idea what the cost is of closing 2 or 3 high schools both in hard dollar amounts, the costs of additional transportation, pollution, etc. and the other soft costs of destroying neighborhoods where their high school is an anchor of the community. At the very least, we need an honest appraisal of costs before the Board approves the Superintendent's resolution.
I noticed the cover story in this week's Willamette Week is about the Bicycle Transportation Alliance asking for $600 million over 20 years for bicycle infrastructure. I am a cyclist and I support improved bicycle infrastructure, but if you gave me a choice of spending an additional 4.5 million/year for high school education or $30 million/year for bicycle infrastructure, I'd have to choose education and I think so would most other people.
The Board needs to reject the Superintendent's Resolution, in no uncertain terms, until the Superintendent is honest about her goals and until there is an honest cost analysis of her proposal.
Thank you for this piece. Luckily, citizens weren't as easily manipulated as PPS had hoped. After K-8 we must have looked like a bunch of rubes but we caught on quicker than they expected.
Keep asking questions and demanding real, data based answers.
This fight has just begun in earnest.