Skip to main content
Portland Public Schools officials are pushing forward with seismic retrofits at 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 last 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 slated to receive targeted upgrades to specific, dangerous parts of their buildings. The district is also asking for grant dollars from the state for both Beverly Clearly and Ainsworth.
The district has budgeted $75 million for the nine projects out of the $100 million allocated in the bond to seismic work, with the assumption that the state would award the two grants. (That’s to ensure the district doesn’t overpromise and then run into hidden costs.) If projects stay on budget, it’s expected the district will have money left over for other buildings.
The move to proceed with work at the nine buildings has caused a stir among some seismic safety advocates in the district who are concerned the district overcorrected its formula to determine the order of the retrofits. That formula was initially controversial because it weighted risk as 35% of the total consideration for which buildings should receive seismic upgrades, a number advocates said was too low. In response, the district pivoted to weighting risk at 90%, with the other 10% split between deferred maintenance needs and enrollment, which could be a factor in school consolidations later on.
But the latter formula faced some pushback because it appeared the district had cut out other considerations, such as poverty rates, and significantly reduced how much weight it gave to the likelihood a school would be closed as the district consolidates.
Advocates have since asked for more transparency in how the district selected schools based on the new formula, and why the district chose to exclude equity from the formula entirely. (At a November meeting, district officials said most Title I schools, which have high rates of students from low-income families, 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 work 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 attendance boundaries have been put in place. (In a Jan. 14 interview with Superintendent Dr. Kimberlee Armstrong, she indicated school closure conversations would begin “immediately” districtwide, and continue for the next 18 months.)
Parent advocacy group Safe Structures PPS has continued to push the district to deliver a districtwide plan for all buildings in need of seismic retrofits, even if PPS cannot fund all the upgrades right away. 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 that plan as it prepared to start public forums on school closures.
School Board member Rashelle Chase-Miller asked Franco if, in choosing to proceed with the nine schools listed, 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.
