Skip to main content
Portland Public Schools officials are pushing forward with seismic retrofits on nine schools, even as some advocates have expressed concern that the district has not thoroughly shown its work in selecting those buildings.
In particular, some parents are frustrated that the district is moving ahead with upgrading school buildings before getting public input on which schools to close amid shrinking enrollment. District officials maintain that the schools selected for seismic upgrades aren’t candidates for closure.
As it successfully stumped for its $1.83 billion school bond in May, the Portland School Board passed a resolution pledging seismic retrofits for eight to 10 schools “assessed to pose the greatest risk of injury or death in a significant seismic event.” That resolution also asks the district to deliver a seismic plan for how it will make dozens of other buildings safer in an earthquake.
At a Tuesday afternoon School Board facilities committee meeting, district officials disclosed that they’ve started designing the retrofits of nine school buildings they identified in November. Beverly Cleary K-8 and Rose City Park Elementary School are the two schools receiving full upgrades, while Ainsworth, Beach, Capitol Hill, Kelly and Richmond elementary schools—and Vernon and Winterhaven K-8s—are schools receiving targeted upgrades to specific, dangerous building parts. The district is also asking for grant dollars from the state at both Beverly Clearly and Ainsworth.
The district has budgeted $75 million of $100 million allocated to seismic in the bond to these nine projects, with the assumption that the state will award those two grants. (That will ensure the district does not overpromise and then run into hidden costs.) If projects stay on budget, it’s expected the district will have some outstanding money for other buildings.
The move to proceed with those nine buildings has caused some stir among seismic safety advocates in the district, who are concerned that the district overcorrected its formula to determine the order of retrofits. That formula was initially controversial because it weighed risk as 35% of the total consideration for what buildings would receive seismic upgrades, a number advocates said was too low. In response, the district pivoted to giving risk a 90% weight in the process, with the other 10% being split between deferred maintenance considerations and enrollment, which could determine consolidations later on.
But the latter formula faced some pushback because it appeared that the district had cut out other considerations, including poverty rates, and significantly reduced how much weight it gave to whether a given school could be closed as the district consolidates.
Advocates have since asked for more transparency as to how the district selected schools based on the new formula, and on why the district had chosen to exclude equity from the formula entirely. (In a November meeting, district officials said the majority of Title I schools, which have high rates of low-income students, have already received at least some seismic upgrades.)
“I expected the formula would get tweaked again and instead you’re moving forward with a formula that is completely tone deaf,” said Afton Wilcox, a public commenter. “I don’t know if you’re rushing the process to receive your grant dollars, but all the funds in question and allocation thereof need to clearly and transparently address meaningful retrofits, save the most lives, [and] provide disaster resources to communities that don’t get retrofits.”
Wilcox added that the district shouldn’t pick which schools to upgrade until it’s heard from the public about which schools to close. “Unreinforced masonry and other high risk buildings should be considered for consolidation,” Wilcox said.
Even as it grew heated, the discussion of seismic upgrades revealed that PPS has begun working behind the scenes to smooth the path for school consolidations—the next item on the superintendent’s to-do list now that Jefferson High School’s boundaries have been put in place. (In a Jan. 14 interview with Dr. Kimberlee Armstrong, she indicated school closure conversations would begin “immediately” districtwide, and continue throughout the next 18 months.)
Parent advocacy group Safe Structures PPS has continued to also push the district on delivering a districtwide plan for all buildings in need of retrofits, even if PPS cannot fund all those upgrades right now. That plan, advocates have noted, was due Sept. 1.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Dr. Jon Franco, PPS’s senior chief of operations, said the district was working on its that plan as it prepared to start the public forums on school closures.
School Board member Rashelle Chase-Miller asked Franco if, in choosing to proceed with the nine listed sites, the district had thought through consolidations and deferred maintenance “and determined that it makes sense to be investing time and money into these buildings.” Franco said it had.
