Posts from — March 2010

The Portland high school redesign team could learn a lot from John O’Neill.  He’s been the principal at Forest Grove High School for the last seven years.  O’Neill was featured in Northwest Education’s Lessons From a Turnaround Specialist in the spring/summer 2009 journal.

When O’Neill was hired in 2002, Forest Grove had some of the lowest test scores and the highest dropout rate in Washington County.  Since that time, John and his Assistant Principal Jerry Fitzpatrick have won Oregon Principal and Assistant Principal of the year awards along with national educator and school awards. 

Forest Grove High School is the only high school in Oregon recognized for making significant student achievement gains for low-income and minority students for 4 consecutive years.

O’Neill credits Forest Grove’s success to doing a few important things incredibly well.  They knew that “by choosing only a few new programs to implement at any one time, the chances of doing each one well went up.” 

School staff began the turnaround process by analyzing student achievement, dropout, graduation and college enrollment data then setting a course of action.  Their plan included:

• a school improvement retreat
• improvements in the hiring process
• individualized math and reading intervention workshops 
• an advisory system where teachers act as advisers and student advocates
• staff common prep periods
• a well-developed student/parent orientation program

There’s nothing groundbreaking in Forest Grove’s strategy for improving student outcomes and closing the achievement gap.  It’s a common sense approach that Principal O’Neill says is “100% replicable”.  I think even PPS administrators might be able to replicate it. 

Here’s Forest Grove High School’s profile:

• Enrollment –  1,879
• Free/ reduced lunch students – 45%
• Latino students – 36%
• English Language Learners – 15%
• Special needs students – 14%
• Students meeting or exceeding benchmark in Reading – 78.4%
• Students meeting or exceeding benchmark in Math – 80.8%
• Graduation rate – 89.9%
• AYP status – Not met (Forest Grove met AYP in all but one category – English/Language Arts for English Language Learners)

VOCATIONAL/TECHNICAL PROGRAMS: Vocational programs are available to students in the area of business, childcare, food services, agriculture, drafting and construction. For thirty years, FGHS students have designed, constructed and decorated a Viking House and sold it to the public. Our school is aligned with two regional programs: the Portland Area Vocational Technical Educational Consortium (PAVTEC) and the Business Education Compact (BEC).

ARTICULATED PROGRAMS: Dual credit programs are established with Portland Community College in the areas of English, science, math, business, professional/technical courses, agriculture, health occupations and firefighting in which students earn college credits that align with a technical preparation associate degree.

One More Thing…

I just got to thinking, that I went on in great length regarding the joke of an education my nephew received in Portland Public Schools special education, without telling you what he’s doing now. After the hearing we pulled him out of Marshall due to the same old same old. We gave ‘em one more chance at Lincoln High while we were waiting for them to pay up on the remedy, but within a week we knew that too was a bust.

After he was finished at Sylvan Learning Center Joseph got a job where the idea was for him to develop work appropriate behavior in order to become competitively employed. He’s been there for the last 4+ years as one of their best employees. The problem is that he’s still not doing what he loves most… working with numbers. Last Spring we decided to do something about that.

We put together what is called a “Person Centered Plan”, where the people involved in a person’s life gather with a facilitator to discuss someone’s hopes, dreams, and strengths. When we were finished, we had a solid plan on steps to assist Joseph with getting into the numbers racquet (couldn’t resist). He now is moving in the right direction.

First we got him a calculator/adding machine. He’s learned to make a monthly budget and has done really well with this. We purchased a laptop with a printer and software having to do with accounting type stuff. He’s enrolled at Clackamas Community College, where he’s taking some basic computer classes this fall. By all accounts he’s doing great. This winter he’ll be taking a class on Excel and may get an internship doing some data entry or basic accounting. He tells (yes, he can say most of what he’s thinking these days) anyone who asks him that he wants to eventually work in a bank. For Joseph; he’ll go as far as he wants to go.

Joseph was never unteachable. He was never physically aggressive. He was never any more difficult to educate than any other kid. He was failed by the education system in Portland.

REALLY THE END

 I just read that Diana Fernandez has filed a civil rights complaint against PPS.  What’s one more?  PPS administrators would rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting complaints than correcting their practices.  Didn’t anyone tell Diana that she couldn’t have been discriminated against because staff has had Courageous Conversations trainings?       

I spent four years working in the PPS Human Resources department witnessing the discrimination.  There’s NO commitment to diversity….Just strong resistance!  Show PPS HR administrators a strong candidate of color and they’ll find an excuse not to hire them. 

So I was happy to hear that the district had hired someone to address the diversity issue. 

Superintendent names workforce diversity director 9/22/08

In announcing the hire of Kurt Jun, Superintendent Carole Smith said: “All of our employees must be able to build strong relationships with our students and families, no matter who they are or where they come from. Kurt is skilled and experienced in helping large, public organizations become more diverse and culturally competent, and I look forward to working with him to achieve those goals here at Portland Public Schools.”

Jun comes to PPS from Salem Hospital and Regional Health Services, where he directed its diversity program. In that role, he worked closely with the hospital’s human resources department to promote the hiring and retention of a more diverse workforce. He also built strong ties to the local community and served as a member of the Salem Human Rights Commission.

Previously, Jun managed diversity, affirmative action and civil rights compliance programs for the Oregon Department of Transportation. In these positions, he monitored agency compliance with federal civil rights provisions and worked with state, local and community partners to promote affirmative action and environmental justice on major transportation-related projects. 

Superintendent Smith gave Kurt a glowing introduction.  It sounds like he had the skills and experience required to make a difference.  Kurt lasted a little over a year.  Someone give him an award.  That must have been a year of hell. 

Kurt left in February.  Has the district posted the workforce diversity position?  No.     

If PPS administration really wants to have a courageous conversation, they should be honest and say they like things the way they are and they don’t want to hire people of color or improve education for all kids.

 Position Titles – Administrative Directive 5.60.014-AD  

(1) Systematic procedures in personnel management require that there be consistency in assigning titles for classes of positions in which the work and responsibility are reasonably comparable.

In order to avoid the confusion resulting from the proliferation of different titles:

(a)  It is essential that we carefully control the addition of the new titles to those in general use in the district;

(b)  Titles must not be informally adopted or misused.

(2)  In order to respond to these two considerations, no titles for positions may be designated without the approval of the assistant superintendent for Personnel. In reviewing proposals for titles to be used, the assistant superintendent will give consideration to the level and scope of responsibility and the existing relationship of such titles to present positions. Departments should avoid using unofficial and/or informal titles, which result in confusion; i.e., it is inappropriate to call someone directing a project a “director” when that person’s level of responsibility and salary schedule has been set in the “specialist” classification.

(3)  It is equally inappropriate for stationery or business cards to be printed with other than an individual’s officially assigned title.

How many times has the PPS Central Office been reorganized in the last five years?  You can’t even find anything in the PPS Directory because department names have changed.  People have consistently picked up new titles and Human Resources hasn’t kept up with the changes.  None of the titles listed below can be found in the PPS Job Description database yet they’re all filled Central Office positions.

• Federal/State/Strategic Grant Program Director
• Special Projects Director (Special is always suspect)
• Strategic Partnership Director
• Special Assistant Broad Fellow
• High School Reform Broad Fellow
• Human Resources Regional Director
• Partnership Development Manager
• Funded Programs Director
• Family Involvement Manager
• Advisor to the Superintendent
• Executive Director of Systems

Not surprisingly all of the jobs listed above pay over $80,000 per year.

 Have you ever wondered about Zeke Smith’s qualifications to be PPS Chief of Staff and the lead on the high school redesign? 

The Chief of Staff  job description describes a very high level of job responsibilities but doesn’t list ANY minimum job qualifications.  

Would you expect the lead of a major education system redesign to have a background in education?  Well, Zeke doesn’t.

Zeke’s college background is in theater and international studies. 

District Administrators are required to be licensed but Zeke doesn’t hold any kind of license through Teacher Standards and Practices Commission.  The Oregon Administrative Rules provide the following definition of administrator:

OAR 584-005-0005 (1) “Administrators:” Superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, vice principals, and such other personnel, regardless of title, whose positions require them to evaluate other licensed personnel.

The  PPS 08/09 budget states “Additionally, staff now working in Research and Evaluation, Compliance, Grants, and Project Management will be brought together as a new System Planning and Performance group in the Office of the Superintendent, reporting to the Chief of Staff.” 

Both Carolyn Leonard (Compliance) and Susan Kosmala (Title I) are licensed staff and according to the budget, reporting to Zeke.  That would make him an “administrator”.

Including PPS, Zeke has worked at three different places in the last 5 years.  He left his previous position with the Portland Schools Foundation making less than $50,000 per year.  His current salary as Chief of Staff is $115,000.  The Chief of Staff salary listed in the  2009/10 budget is $124,067 and proposed to be $129,030.

Zeke’s background in theater is certainly paying off.

Due Process…Day 2

As the 2nd day of testimony in Joseph’s Due Process Hearing began, we really had no idea what was to come. The vice principal from Grant was first on our list. He is the one that I told we were going to sue the district, and here he was, being sworn in. There were quite a few observers in attendance, as word got out quickly among the special education community that we had kicked some district butt the day before. I think that many of these folks were frustrated with what was going on in their own disabled children/students educations, and were getting some vicarious pleasure from the proceedings. Day 2 certainly didn’t disappoint.

He started out by saying he was administrative vice-principal at Grant, and was in charge of supervising special education there. He went on to say in that capacity he didn’t know if an Expulsion Hearing ever took place. Next he told me he announced BEFORE the Manifestation Determination Hearing that Joseph wouldn’t be allowed back in that school, which is a direct violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), thus a violation of Joseph’s civil rights. Actually, he wasn’t invited to that hearing in the first place. Next he said the first time he met Joseph was at that hearing, so there couldn’t have been the required disciplinary conference when he suspended Joseph. Another civil rights violation. Next we found out that what we’d gotten from Joseph’s file was his transfer slip and withdrawal form put together to look like 1 form. The ALJ wasn’t pleased with this new piece of information, and made him have Grant fax over the 2 separate documents. Turns out, what was covered up on the withdrawal form was the line where the parent or guardian (us) signature goes. Then he goes on to tell me that the lawyers recently explained to him a rudimentary term related to special ed. Well informed “supervisor of special ed.”, huh? He admitted to determining the suspension and possible expulsion based on 2nd and 3rd hand information. Then he suddenly remembered there was no expulsion hearing. Then he told me he’d said Joseph couldn’t return to Grant DURING the manifestation determination. The lawyer then interrupted, saying; “I think that’s been asked and answered, Your Honor; several times”. I’d like to ad; in several ways. Next, I went about proving that he was unqualified to “supervise special ed.”, but the ALJ stopped me. His testimony ended with the ALJ asking him if he spoke with Joseph when he suspended him. His answer was; “ No. My understanding is that Joe doesn’t talk.” The ALJ didn’t like his answer and replied; “ Well, “speak” is a broad term, communicate with.” She then sort of rolled her eyes and excused him.

Next up was the big, burly dude that Joseph had battered. I did the questioning. He talked about how Joseph used to “get all up in people’s faces”, and how that bothered his peers. No one ever mentioned that to us. They were supposed to, they just didn’t. He talked about a witness to Joseph’s behavior; or more accurately, the sound of his behavior, but he couldn’t remember her name. This was someone he worked with. Strange…

Suzanne interviewed Joseph’s Multnomah County case manager next. He refuted their claim that I yelled at the vice principal at the Manifestation Determination. He also said that the “supervisor of special ed.” at Grant did in fact kick Joseph out of school prior to that hearing. Suzanne then began asking questions about district staff keeping agreements made in meetings. He was answering that they hadn’t, but the ALJ ended this line of questioning, saying that wasn’t in our issues. I think by this point she was doing a bit of protecting the district.

I questioned his current Life Skills teacher at Marshall next. She’d been an ally when Joseph started there, but once we filed for due process that quickly changed. She was able to help out with some of the dates around him beginning there. It became more obvious that someone had indeed falsified that information. Once she realized she was being helpful her memory went on her. She didn’t know if school was in session on Veteran’s day or if that is a day their closed. As she began contradicting the other folk’s testimony by accident she became increasingly nervous. I pointed out how the communication book had been altered after the fact while Joseph was in her class. She had no idea how that could have possibly happened.

We only had one more witness to call, and he hadn’t made it there yet. The ALJ decided this would be a good time for Suzanne to question me. We used this time to make perfectly clear how the district had dropped the ball. We pointed to the lies that were told, the documents altered, and the misdeeds that they attempted to cover up. The ALJ jumped in asking questions. She’d already made up her mind that the district had failed to provide FAPE, and was getting clarification of facts. When she was done with that she asked what we sought for remedy. At that point I knew we’d won! I laid it out there for her. We wanted compensation for all the wasted time in PPS. We wanted them to pay for real academic training outside the district. And we wanted the falsified documentation in his file to be fixed. It was one of the greatest feelings I’ve ever had.

Our friend and advocate finally made it and Suzanne asked him several questions to further demonstrate their sliminess. He also refuted the “angry” label they attempted to lay on me. He was at the meeting of November 6th, and shed a lot of light on what REALLY was said. The ALJ also asked him some questions regarding his understanding of rules and terminology that had been discussed throughout the hearing.

At that point we broke for lunch. Suzanne and I were giddy when we walked out of the building. All the time and energy we put into this process was about to pay off.

After lunch the district’s lawyer was allowed to make a closing statement. She essentially said that we were not lawyers, and did not fully understand the law. True. But we had a damned good understanding of right and wrong.

Suzanne read a closing statement she’d written. It was truly beautiful. I’m typing it here:

“In closing, I would like to make a statement on behalf of Joe. Because I remember when we had a hearing after the suspension that Joe didn’t get a chance to speak. But then we all know that Joe never says much. He pretty much faces his challenges in silence. Though some may have their doubts, we know that someday Joe will find his own voice. In the meantime, we’re having another hearing. And he is counting on us to speak for him. I think he’s figuring that we know what’s best for him, and he’s sure we’ll work it out.
It must be interesting to be Joe. He doesn’t see the world the same way we do, and it’s confusing for him. In Joe’s world, the sounds are too bright, and the lights are too loud. Language and social conventions are a complete mystery. And people are walking around acting like they understand it, only to change the rules midstream and in every minute. It must be stressful. I guess I’d learn to focus on the numbers, the clock, and the calendar too. They’re consistent. If you list things inside the boxes, they take a much clearer form. Two plus two is always four. The formula works up to multi-digits. If you check the clock frequently, you can’t miss the natural rhythm and order of it. Time ticks away at a steady pace; yet both the clock and the calendar hold the potential for highlighting the fact that at any moment something could happen that you hadn’t planned for.
This isn’t to say that anyone should feel sorry for Joe. That would be a mistake. And I think it’s a mistake that folks make all too often. He has his strengths too. For one, he really loves to learn. And, he’s a quick learner. He really likes people. If we’re honest, we’ll admit that isn’t always true for most of us. I think he studies our faces closely, because he really finds us fascinating. That’s been a gift to me.
Joe’s always been kind to me. Certainly, I’ve never been afraid of him. That is except for before he came to live with us. Before I knew him I was sometimes afraid. Mostly because I wasn’t sure I really knew how to be good for him, and because I was ignorant of things like autism. Joe has taught me a lot about autism. And David has taught me. And all the people I’ve met since he came into my life have taught me.

So I face most days unafraid, especially of Joe. I have to wonder if anyone else thinks the school made a mistake when they placed a judgment on Joe’s potential, before they got to know him. I wonder if anyone else thinks he deserved a second look; whether shuffling him around from school to school was just lazy or mean?
We were surprised to hear that they were afraid to teach him. I wonder if anyone else thinks that zero tolerance discipline policies just might be wrong? Or that when we find we’re approaching the jobs we have to do from a place of fear, if it doesn’t lead us to seek out more information, we soon may be guilty of prejudice. I don’t know. And I don’t know if you, or Joe, or anyone else knows. But maybe if we check the time again, someone will change the rules.”

The ALJ had been gently crying halfway throughout, as had most of the people in the room.

To Be Continued…

PPS recent interest in equity and closing the achievement gap has taken me on a walk down memory lane. 

I may not have given PPS credit where credit is due.  They have invested a lot of time and resources into hiding pitiful student performance and the achievement gap over the last several decades.  

My dates may be a little off because I’m not certain when some of their tricks began but I have documentation confirming the dates listed below:

1986-1998 Clear and Intact – PPS only included the scores of students who were “Clear and Intact” when reporting student achievement results.  Clear and Intact students were students who were tested and in the same school for two consecutive years.  The achievement levels of poor students who were more mobile were often left out of the results.

1998 PPS/ODE Change  – PPS and ODE changed cutoff scores to align the Portland Achievement Levels Tests to Oregon Department of Education (ODE) tests.

June 1999 Ed-Flex Waiver –  Oregon Department of Education (ODE) approved PPS request for an Ed-Flex waiver which allowed PPS to use their own definition for Adequate Yearly Progress.  The district claimed that their definition was more rigorous than ODEs but it was actually the lowest standard in the state.  PPS definition only required schools to have 60% of the students at just one grade level to have met benchmark in math or reading in a three year period.  Portland Public Schools increased the percentage of schools reported to be making Adequate Yearly Progress from 55% to 90% by making the change.

1999 to current  Levels Tests – While most people believe that there are standardized tests in Oregon, there are actually multiple levels of the state tests.  The levels tests were developed in Portland and adopted by the Oregon Department of Education.  PPS has been using multiple levels tests since at least 1999.  ODE Level Tests: Questions and Answers (December 1999) states “There are three levels of the test-Levels A, B, and C.  Level A is the lowest level of difficulty.  Level C is the highest.”

Minority students have been disproportionately given easier tests than white students.  District staff have argued that students would achieve the same score regardless of levels but according to PPS Spring 2001 Individual Student Report, “when a test is too easy for a student, students get high RIT scores.”

Spring 2001 Individual Student Report – The Individual Student Report included an “Important Note – If your child had a third grade reading RIT score of 225 or above in 2000, he or she may have a fourth grade score that is the same as, or even lower than, the third grade score.  The Oregon Department of Education recently announced that the third grade reading test used in 2000 may have been too easy for the highest achieving children in the state.  As a result, scores for this group of students may have been artificially inflated last year.” 

2001 School Report Cards – ODE counted “conditionally meets” scores as “meets” when reporting on the percentage of students meeting state benchmarks on the district and school report cards.

 September 2007 PPS/ODE Change - A panel of teachers, professors, principals, business leaders and others reviewed Oregon’s reading, writing and math tests to determine whether they were hard enough but not too hard for students in each grade.  They decided that the math and reading tests were too easy in grades kindergarten through seven, math test too difficult in grade eight and both reading and math tests too difficult at the high school level.  They raised or lowered the scores needed to meet benchmarks to reflect the review.

2007/08 to current OAKS Computerized Levels Tests - Oregon tests students in reading, math, and science using OAKS.  The OAKS online assessment is an adaptive assessment, which means that the items presented to the student vary in difficulty based on the student’s performance on the previous item.  Therefore, the state creates a grade-level item pool rather than a single pre-made test for each grade level. The computer selects questions based on the answer a student gives to a test item, which in turn determines the difficulty of the next item that the computer will select.  All students may take the tests three times per year retaining their highest score.  The OAKS assessment is just a computerized version of the levels test.

2008/09 School Report Cards – Jefferson High School’s Report Card included the test results for the Jefferson Young Women’s Academy.  Jefferson is the only high school to include middle school results on the report card.  They don’t tell you they’ve done that.  You have to compare it to ODE’s 10th grade assessment results.  The inclusion of the middle school scores significantly increased the percentage of Jefferson students meeting benchmarks in reading and math. 

The Jefferson Report Card listed 58.3% of the students meeting reading benchmarks but just 39.8% were 10th graders.  In math, Jefferson reported 41.5% meeting but just 17.9% were 10th grade students.

2007/08 Margin of Error - PPS has an unusual definition of “margin of error” for Adequate Yearly Progress purposes.  Normally people use margin of error to measure the precision of sample data.  In PPS case, there aren’t any samples because the numbers reported are the actual population totals.  Instead of adding or subtracting the margin of error, PPS only ADDS it to the percentage of students meeting benchmarks.  This is done districtwide.  At Jefferson, 8.5% of the limited English students met English/Language Arts benchmarks but PPS added a margin of error of 23.55% making it appear as if 32.06% of the students met benchmarks.

On March 8, 2010, State Schools Superintendent Susan Castillo named fifteen Oregon public schools that made significant progress in closing the achievement gap. 

Selected schools made it through a data screen that identified schools where student subpopulations (minority groups, students with limited English, special education students, etc.) made significant progress compared to the comparison groups (white students, English speaking students, non-special education, etc.). Student cohorts were analyzed using data from 2004-05 through 2008-09. A team reviewed the data and examined both school to state comparisons and within school comparisons. Statewide report card and AYP data was also analyzed. Schools demonstrating the strongest subpopulation growth (and hence the most progress in closing the achievement gap) were invited to submit an application for further review. A Blue Ribbon Panel composed of educators, business leaders, Youth Advisory Team student members and community members reviewed the data and the applications and made recommendations to Superintendent Castillo.

How could the Blue Ribbon Panel have reviewed 2004/05 to 2008/09 data and identified improvement when parents are cautioned against comparing results from those years?  The panel members would have to have been math geniuses to wade through the mess that PPS created but my guess is that the Blue Ribbon Panel wasn’t provided with this background information.

AYP – Another Year Passes in Oregon.

Due Process… Day 1

We filed for Due Process against Portland Public Schools on 12/11/2000. Joseph had attended 3 different High Schools here in less than 1 year, and had yet to receive any real education. We decided to represent him ourselves as we were clear on how he’d been denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and believed we could prove it in court.

We knew going into it that in Oregon it is rare that school districts lose in these hearings. We also were aware that parents representing their children without an attorney almost never came out on top. In order for us to win this thing on Joseph’s behalf, we would need to learn Special education law. That’s what we set about doing. Actually; Suzanne set about doing that. My time was spent sifting through all the evidence we had that demonstrated dishonesty, sneakiness, and incompetence. Believe me, there was a lot. In fact; the closer we looked at what had gone on, we saw more than we realized was there when we initially filed.

Our best evidence was the communication logs that had been going back and forth between home and school(s) for the last year. We discovered new evidence that we didn’t even realize was there until we began to study these logs. Fortunately; PPS was playing a delay game in going to hearing. This gave us more time to prepare, so we didn’t argue about it. We called 13 witnesses to the stand in the 2 days of the hearing. 9 of these witnesses were employees of the school district. Of these, we believed 7 were directly involved in denying Joseph FAPE. You might say they were hostile witnesses. The district was represented by their own special ed. Attorney (the one who had stepped into the picture when Joe was kicked out of Grant) and an attorney from Miller Nash here in Portland. The hearing took place on May 1st and 2nd 2001. It was held at the Child Service Center, which was by no means any sort of neutral site.

From the moment we walked into the room things were interesting. The lawyer from Miller Nash was extremely snippy; refusing to shake my hand. In response I began singing Aretha Franklin’s “Respect” as we set things out on our table. The district’s lawyer snidely asked Suzanne if she “slept well last night?” They were obviously trying to lift a leg up on us, but it wasn’t working. Suzanne smiled at her and said; “I slept quite well, and you?” The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) entered the room and we began.

The district got things going with their lawyer reading a statement from the Director of Special Ed. She said that she believes everyone loses in a due process hearing. She spoke of how hearings drag educators away from their students, are costly, and that Joseph was merely 1 of 6,300 Special Ed. Students in the district. Her guilt tripping wasn’t working so well, as we believed we were representing those other 6,300 kids in exposing those who supposedly cared about their education.

Next, I made an opening statement. I said that although Joseph had learned very little in PPS, Suzanne and I had learned much from them. We had learned that while they weren’t willing to teach him spelling, cursive writing, or keyboards, they were what seemed like eager to alter or conceal documents pertaining to his education. I then briefly laid out how PPS had denied Joseph FAPE. I pointed out that the location of the hearing was totally non neutral, and that the Director could avoid due process by actually providing an education to students. I closed with talking about how the ALJ had apparently summarized our issues based on the district’s pre hearing brief.

Before we began questioning witnesses I spoke about missing pages in the copy of communication logs in Joseph’s school file which we had obtained prior to the hearing. There were other pages that had been altered and I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page literally. They had also added pages from his communication log that were dated after we had filed. It was basically a mess that took 20 minutes or so to sort through before we could start questioning folks.

Then the ALJ swore in the first witness. It’s important to note that she began each swearing with; “Under penalty of perjury…” Though some of these people blatantly perjured in their testimony, none suffered any sort of penalty for doing so. Suzanne was questioning the Life Skills teacher from Jeff; school #1. She told Suzanne that she had determined Joseph wouldn’t participate in regular ed. Classes after observing him for 2 or 3 weeks in her class. She also used an old IEP (they hadn’t seen his most recent one yet) from California to help her with this determination. She went on to grill the teacher regarding what other students in her class were doing academically. Not much. In her testimony she shared that the ridiculous educational goals she came up with were based on the 2 weeks she worked with him (along with the other 15 or 20 kids in her class). She also admitted that she believed he was “mentally retarded” which he is not. She was busted by both Suzanne and the ALJ on several contradictions in her testimony and left the stand with a bright red face.

Next, it was my turn. I questioned the vocational staff person from Jeff regarding what led up to the incident with the beefy big dude Joseph supposedly assaulted. He had been the one who initially set Joseph up with this gig. Although Joseph was not doing well with staying out of his coworker’s personal space, this fellow never reported to us that this was going on. He was supposed to, he just didn’t. He also was involved in some altered math related goal documents. A terrible memory this man has. He was unable to recall much of anything that occurred, and continually asked ME questions to refresh his memory.

Suzanne questioned the next witness; Joseph’s Speech Pathologist while attending Jefferson. Her ability to recall was even worse than the witness before her. Suzanne kept her questioning brief as the “I don’t recall” mantra indicated she wasn’t going to share much of anything.

Joseph’s 4 day teacher from Grant was next on our list, and I questioned her primarily about the day of the incident where Joseph was kicked out of Grant. She shared that although no one from Grant knew or trusted Joseph regarding safety issues at that point, they let him go from the worksite by school bus back to the school unaccompanied following his alleged attack of his supervisor. She also testified that she didn’t remember any disciplinary conference with Joseph which is mandatory for a suspension to occur. Her memory regarding time lines was inconsistent, but over all she was helpful.

The Director of Special Education at Portland Public Schools was next up. I questioned her. Firstly; she referred to notes she would take as being what she used as her memory. Also, right up front she wanted to make sure we knew it was the Teacher’s Union that allowed for Joseph being excluded from Grant. I asked her why all the heavy hitters (including herself) were at the meeting following Joseph being kicked out of Grant. It’s not like we asked her, or the 2nd in charge, or Grant’s principle, or 2 area supervisors to attend this meeting. Her reply was that I seemed so angry that they decided they should act fast. Of course they were 1 day beyond the legal limit for keeping Joseph out of school, but I guess her notes didn’t reflect that. I then asked a lot of questions regarding dates of actions taken following that meeting being out of order, not making sense, and being bogus. She claimed ignorance of any such activities. I asked her about her referral to Eastside Education Center. Again, she was unaware that they’d be totally inappropriate for educating Joseph. Halfway through my questioning she came out with; “You know what? I think you’re badgering me now, and you’ve crossed a line.” I could hear the stifled laughter of the special ed. parents who were there as observers in the back of the room. Me thinks she doth protest too much.

The last witness on day 1 was the area supervisor of special ed. in the Jefferson cluster of schools. Suzanne took her on. This administrator and Joseph’s teacher at Jeff had been in direct conflict as to why he had such worthless goals for a year. They each blamed the other for this screw up. This administrator allowed Joseph’s civil rights to be violated at Grant. This administrator was responsible for back dated important documents. Suzanne didn’t go easy on her. She jumped on the director’s band wagon in attempting to portray me as this frighteningly angry man, but nobody was buying it. Of course like her colleagues she couldn’t remember anything until emails, letters and faxes were brought into evidence. Then her memory would come back clear as a bell.

With all the testimony from these professionals we knew we were coming out on top. The lawyers jumped at every opportunity to admonish, correct, and silence us, but it wasn’t working. The ALJ knew we weren’t lawyers, and afforded us the opportunity to ask questions in occasional backward fashion. Overall day 1 went quite well.

TO BE CONTINUED…

Marshall High

Joseph began at Marshall High on November 8th, 2000. He was to be assigned an aide, I guess to prevent him from beating people up. The District didn’t get it together to find an alternative location for him to receive academics, so we reluctantly agreed he would get these needs attended to at Marshall along with life skills training. At this point we had very little faith that he would be educated in Portland Public schools, but we had nowhere else to send him that wasn’t too expensive. We managed to get him a keyboarding class and a Title I math class, but there wasn’t much else they were willing to do.

An aide finally entered the picture during the week of December 4th. He left the picture the next day and a new aide was brought on board. He jumped overboard a week later, and another aide was enlisted. If you don’t know anything about autism, this is probably the most accurate fact you need to know… People with autism need consistency. Especially Joseph. The aide that stuck with him during his 2 cups of coffee at Marshall is the son of the Director of Special Ed.’s assistant. In early January he wrote in Joseph’s communication log that he realized we were new to Joseph’s situation. He’s gonna tell me I’m new to my nephew’s “situation” who I’ve known from birth? Enough about the aides.

Let’s talk about their attorney instead. She began showing up on cc lists within the District in November. I’m not sure if this was an attempt at intimidating us, but the result was that it really pissed us off. By the end of November we were gaining confidence that this school/situation wasn’t going to work out either. Very few of the agreements they made were coming to fruition, even though they were written into Joseph’s ISP. Tension was constantly in the air whenever we dealt with them. By the end of November we decided to look for our own attorney to go after them in Due Process. We found someone who took care of the paper work in filing. She had good intentions, but there was 1 problem. She thought we should settle with them out of court. We weren’t interested in settling. Beside the way these players had denied our nephew a free appropriate public education (FAPE), they were likely to do the same to other kids unless we exposed what they had done.

Joseph continued to be under educated at Marshall until we could no longer watch his time being wasted. He had learned more at home than in the schools he attended here, so we pulled him out and home schooled him until PPS showed a REAL desire to educate him. We’d experienced tampering with documents, lies, sneakiness, and blatant incompetence. I believe some of it was due to fear and insecurity, but I also believe some of it was a result of our taking PPS to court.

The high school redesign process is a mess but I have to wonder if that’s intentional.  Closing the achievement gap isn’t that complicated.  The district has had many opportunities to work towards closing the gap but failed to do so.     

Here’s a list of some of the opportunities that the district has missed for better serving low-income and minority students:

• failure to follow through on recommendations from mediation between PPS and the Education Crisis Team
• failure to use almost $3 million in 2008/09 Title I funds intended to be spent on improving the educational program for poor kids
• failure to use at least $500,000 annually in school level Title I funds for the last decade
• a failed district audit  of legally required Supplemental Services for struggling students
• over two decades of failure to comply with civil rights laws for English Language Learners
• decades of unchanging disparities in student discipline, special education, and talented and gifted rates

It’s widely believed that Zeke Smith is running the district now.  What does Zeke know about closing the achievement gap?

Zeke was the Portland Schools Foundation’s Director of Community Engagement in 2007 when they identified Astor, Clark, Faubion, Vestal and Woodmere as  Excellence in Education Award winners for being high poverty schools that were closing the achievement gap.  At that time the Portland Schools Foundation reported:

There is remarkable consistency in the research on the essential elements of schools that are closing the achievement gap – it doesn’t happen by chance.  Six key factors need to be in place for schools to make significant gains:

• high expectations
• leadership
• quality teaching
• ongoing professional development
• community engagement
• accountability

What?  Where does it mention equity in access?  Is that  the 7th key factor? 

It seems to me that the absence of the 6 key factors in this week’s high school resolution was the reason that board members Williams and Gonzalez opposed the resolution. 

Show me a resolution that includes a detailed plan for ensuring those 6 key factors are in place and I might be able to get behind it.