Posts from — September 2010

In 2007, PPS was awarded a  5-year ($6 million) Voluntary Public School Choice grant targeting Marshall, Jefferson and Roosevelt.  We’re only halfway through the grant and the superintendent has decided to close Marshall. 

The grant narrative is 54 pages long.  Here are the highlights:

Project goals – generated by needs, supported by data, and consistent with scientifically-based research, best practices, and successful national models – are to:  (1) expand and enhance choice options and access in high-need and low-performing schools and neighborhoods, (2) develop and implement choice beyond secondary school using the K-16 model and linked to the community-led Connected by 25 initiative, (3) expand the role of parents in school choice and their access to information, (4) expand support to students to ensure success before, during, and after choice, and (5) complete a comprehensive web-based choice process for replication outside of the district and state.

 Upon completion, Portland Public Schools will be able to: 

•             accommodate the academic plans of students and their families in all four quadrants of the city, including district and non-district school settings,

•             offer a comprehensive array of scholastic opportunities linked to improved achievement,

•             develop partnerships with higher education to fully implement a K-16 model,

•             align schools and programs to the community-led Connected by 25 initiative,

•             increase parent and community access to educational options through technology,

•             expand quality choice options across and beyond school district lines,

•             improve and expand targeted professional development for instructional staff,

•             provide focused supports for students as they adjust to new school environments, and

•             finalize a student-needs-driven lottery and choice system that will be provided to the U.S. Department of Education to distribute upon request.

Objective 1a.  Replicate or initiate a minimum of two successful focus choice options operating within the district onto school campuses within the three clusters that previously have been underserved by choice during each year of the grant project.  The process for the selection of program, targeted school site, and optimal timing will be developed within the first six months of the grant period by the Project Director, School Choice Advisory Team (SCAT), Parent Resource Committee, Program Initiation Coordinator, and the Choice Expansion Team, representing all key constituents including parents, students, and the community. 

Objective 2a.  Phase II will contribute to the increase of the high school graduation rate across the school district by 5% and of the targeted high schools (Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Marshall) by 10% by the end of the grant period.  The project will add a minimum of two focus options per year within the geographical areas supported by the targeted high schools, intended to provide increased opportunities, innovative and strategic approaches to curriculum, direct links to higher education and meaningful work, closer relationships between students and instructional staff, and significant increase in rigor and relevance. 

Objective 2b.  Phase II will contribute to the increase in enrollment in higher education within one year of high school graduation by 5% across the district and 10% for the targeted high schools.  At the current time, there is a significant gap in the percentage of students from targeted district high schools who graduate from high school in the Spring and enter college in the Fall as compared to their fellow students in more affluent and academically successful high schools. Phase II of Portland’s Voluntary Public School Choice project will implement both programs and safeguards so that all students may select their home schools as credible options and that all of these schools operate on a level playing field, preparing their students for academic success through high school and into college.   

Objective 2c.  The percentage of high school students who enroll in and successfully complete college-level courses (through dual enrollment and/or college classes) will increase by 20% each year of the grant at the targeted high schools (Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Marshall).    

Phase II of Portland’s Voluntary Public School Choice program will focus significant resources on ensuring equity in neighborhood choice by supporting less successful local high schools in their long-term plans to attract students (neighborhood and beyond) to innovative and rigorous focus options that include access to higher education.  Current choice options allow high school students in more prosperous areas to access colleges and universities, but these opportunities are limited at Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Marshall High Schools. 

 Quality of the Project Evaluation                                                              

The evaluation of Portland’s Phase II project will provide information that will assist in expanding the district’s school choice program while assuring that teaching and learning are improving. Some key questions that will be addressed by the evaluation include:

•             Does the Portland Public Schools school choice program promote educational equity and excellence? How is such equity and excellence demonstrated and promoted throughout the district?

•             Are opportunities for school choice equitable for all student populations? Are opportunities previously less available to higher need and lower performing schools and neighborhoods similar to opportunities for other schools and neighborhoods throughout the district?

•             Is adequate support promoting student success available through all stages of the school choice process, including before, during and after choice?

•             How do student transfer choices and district transfer policies and options affect student achievement? How is student achievement similar or different based on such school characteristics as school improvement status (under NCLB guidelines) and the types and quality of support available in the schools?

Will the superintendent be giving the federal money back?

The superintendent and board members are showing themselves as the cowards that many believe them to be. 

What is the rationale for closing Marshall but leaving Jefferson open?  The school hasn’t sustained enrollment for decades.  It hasn’t met AYP.  The community is divided about what they want in the Jefferson neighborhood.  The current plan (at least as reported so far) is weak.  It looks like more of the same old shit at Jefferson.     

All 3 schools at Marshall met AYP (along with Franklin and Lincoln) last year.  Enrollment is almost twice that of Jefferson. 

The Marshall cluster has been clear on what we want for our neighborhood.  That’s the reason that the the superintendent dropped her plan for a focus school on the Marshall campus.  She didn’t have any choice once it became clear that it wouldn’t attract students and that she had exaggerated David Douglas’ interest in the school. 

The Marshall cluster is the largest cluster in PPS so the closure will affect the most students and staff.  ALREADY Marshall students are being turned away from Franklin and given the excuse that the school is full.  To be fair though, not all students are being turned away.  Most of the students being turned away have IEPS or histories of discipline issues.   

Why should Jefferson community members be satisfied with the latest proposal?  Jefferson students won’t be getting the same quality of education as students at Grant, Lincoln and Wilson.  

How does the superintendent’s current proposal meet the goals of the high school redesign?  Does anyone remember what the goals were?

I’ve added a new category to this blog…Grant Monitoring.  Given PPS history of not using grant funds as they were intended to be used, I thought it would be helpful for the community to assist in monitoring grant funds.

PPS school closure history has already cost the district to lose $1.1 million.  Do you remember when Beth Slovic wrote about this? 

The district is headed down that path again with the Voluntary Public School Choice grant.  The grant targets two of the schools that are now facing closure…Marshall and Jefferson.

Since before school got out last spring, we have been hearing nonstop about “budget shortfalls” and “funding cuts” (which is really another way of saying “personnel cuts”–most of a school district’s budget goes into the payroll).  I wondered how this will affect the High School Redesign.  So I decided to ask the people in charge.  Here is a copy of my message to them: 

 Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 1:59 PM

 Subject: Expenses of HS Redesign

 Dear Superintendent and School Board Members:

I note that the completion of the HS Redesign is on the Superintendent’s agenda.  Last spring, the costs of implementing any plan were estimated at $14 million.  Has that number changed since then?  Regardless of what the costs are, where will the money come from?  Does it make sense to lay off teachers to “redesign” anyone’s high school education?  Will any HS plan go forward if there is no money to fund it? 

Yours truly,

Zarwen

NE Portland parent and taxpayer

 To date, I have received not one word of response from any of the recipients.  I wonder why???

I’ve recently started a new job so I’m re-prioritizing how I spend my “free” time.  Much of my energy this year will be spent supporting the Marshall community.  I’ll only be publishing new Cheating in Class posts every other Monday (unless PPS does something especially stupid or newsworthy). 

Anyone interested in contributing a post is welcome to email me to discuss it.

So what’s the big deal about a vote of “no confidence” if it doesn’t mean anything? 

Steve Olczak remains at Benson, Fred Locke continues to wreak havoc at Marshall and Pat Thompson was promoted to a central office position. 

I don’t know Pat but based on my experiences with Steve Olczak and Fred Locke, I can say that they are definitely deserving of the votes of no confidence.

Why is it so hard to get rid of a bad administrator?

Correction – Pat Thompson’s name was incorrectly spelled in the earlier version of this post.  I regret the error.

Last week I complained to a friend that PPS is hiring another central office employee to work in communications.  The position reports to Lolenzo Poe and it’s funded through a school choice grant.  My friend reminded me that PPS doesn’t consider grant money to be real money so the position doesn’t count. 

Do you think grant funds should count?  Should the district be held to the same or a different standard for the use of grant funds as opposed to general funds?

The Grant parents are back.  No, they aren’t pretending to be concerned about other schools again.  This time one of their own has been criticized. 

On Wednesday,  Willamette Week made Vivian Orlen (Grant’s new principal) Rogue of the Week for an ill-advised office makeover.  Orlen says the office changes were intended to increase transparency.  Her supporters argue that transparency is a good thing.  That makes me laugh.

It was the Grant Google group that revoked my membership for sharing what was being said in their members only group.  These same people met with the mayor behind closed doors. 

And isn’t it a little hypocritical for Grant parents to say that they support transparency then attack Willamette Week for writing the story. 

So for the Grant parents that value transparency, here’s some Grant data:

How is it that Black students make up only 24.1% of the student population but 55.2% of the Student Discipline Incidents?  More than 1 in 3 of Grant’s Black students have been involved in a disciplinary incident. 

Student achievement data looks even worse for Grant’s Black students.  In 2008/09, 95% of the White students met reading benchmark but only 45% of the Black students met benchmark.  Math results are similar….83% of White students and 32% of Black students met benchmark. 

And what  opportunities are available for Grant’s Black students?  In 2008/09 Black students made up 24.1% of Grant’s student population but represented only 6% of the students enrolled in AP/IB classes. 

It looks to me like it might have been a better use of district resources and Orlen’s time if she’d spent it trying to figure out how to eliminate those disparities. 

(All of the data above came from an August 2009 Grant Data book produced by PPS)