Category — Did You Know…

Pop Quiz

Which high school promised this? 

• A small, personalized learning environment 
• Self-esteem and leadership skills development
• Rigorous college-preparatory curriculum
• Focus on business entrepreneurship, sports/entertainment management, and law enforcement/forensics
• Purposeful involvement in community service to develop life and leadership skills
• After-school, Saturday & summer enrichment opportunities
• Support for academic and non-academic needs

Answer: Jefferson Young Men’s Academy 

How did that turn out? 

After one year and spending at least $30,000 in grant money on student recruiting efforts and planning, Jefferson High’s Young Men’s Academy has enrolled 42 students in grades six through nine. Doesn’t seem like much compared with Portland Public Schools’ 2005 goal of eventually attracting 400 Academy students in grades seven through 12. But it is a fivefold increase from last year’s recruitment of eight students—numbers so low that the district delayed the school’s opening from fall 2006 until fall 2007. This year’s enrollment of 42 is apparently enough to open what’s now being called the John H. Johnson Leadership Academy for Young Men, named after the late magazine publisher from Chicago. 

But there were more problems….. 

Carole Smith,the newly hired superintendent who often said the academies at Jeff would be “great,” later said administrators were doing what they could, but she avoided talking about “details.” (sound familiar?) 

And then the Young Men’s Academy closed after struggling for 2 years….. 

Low enrollment prevented the school from fulfilling its mission,” said Toni Hunter, Portland Public Schools assistant superintendent of high schools. “The Young Men’s Academy never exceeded 55 students and continues to decline. 

 So district administrators promised Advanced Placement classes at the new, new Jefferson but implementation was postponed for one year and then another year and now the superintendent is promising AP or IB classes for 2011. 

All of the broken promises have prompted parents to ask  whether anyone would be held accountable for making sure this never happens again.

What do you think?

Dear Honorable Mayor Adams, City Commissioners, Superintendent Smith, School Board Directors, Planning Commission members, and Community: [Read more →]

This past fall Superintendent Smith reorganized the Central Office  and reported that 10.5 Central Office senior level and support positions had been cut resulting in $1 million savings. 

Some of the so-called cuts didn’t make sense at the time.  Smith said the organization had been streamlined to reduce the layers between the superintendent and the schools.  “In the past, assistant superintendents oversaw area directors who oversaw PK-8 schools or high schools. Now there are four PK-12 regions, each led by a deputy superintendent and supported by a region administrator.”

What that means is that assistant superintendents are now called deputy superintendents and area directors are called region administrators.  There’s no change in the number of layers between the superintendent and the schools. 

A quick review of Smith’s 2009/10 Central Office Organizational Chart might look lean but keep looking.  Smith’s org chart is 15 pages long and doesn’t identify most Central Office administrator positions.  One could easily get the impression that the district is being run by 13 the individuals shown on the org chart but there are 37 Central Office senior level administrator positions missing from that org chart.  I was generous when reviewing the district’s structure and didn’t include a few PPS Directors located off-site or staff identified as managers.  None of the Central Office positions listed below appear on the current org chart:

1. Advisor to the Superintendent (2 positions)
2. Director – SPED & Interventions
3. Chief Information Officer
4. Director – Special Projects
5. Director – Administrator Hiring/Performance Management
6. Administrator – Regional Program (4 positions)
7. Director – Leadership Development
8. Director – Strategic Partnership
9. Director – Procurement & Distribution
10. SPED Legal Counselor
11. Director – Accounting/Payroll Services
12. Director – IT Operations
13. Director – Employment Services/Assistant Executive Director
14. Director – Workforce Diversity
15. Director – Labor Relations
16. Director – HR Legal Counsel
17. Director – Family Support/School Choice
18. Director – Federal/State Grants
19. Director – Research and Evaluation
20. Broad Fellow – Special Assistant
21. Broad Fellow – High School Reform
22. Director – Funded Programs
23. Director – Nutrition Services
24. Director – Comp/Benefits
25. Director – Government Relations
26. Director – Curriculum
27. Director – ESL (Relocated to Roosevelt Campus)
28. Director – Facilities and Assets
29. Director – Compliance
30. Director – Migrant Education
31. Director – IT Client Services
32. Director – IT Application Services
33. Director – Security Services
34. Director – School & System Performance

A bad hard copy of a 1999 PPS Central Office Organizational Chart shows 24 senior level Central Office positions including 3 chiefs, general counsel, 6 area directors, 3 assistant superintendents, executive director of human resources, 7 department directors, comptroller, lobbyist, and a system project officer.  Even then a performance audit recommended streamlining the Central Office. 

Don’t be fooled.  PPS at least 50 senior level Central Office positions today compared with 24 in 1999. 

The reality is that the PPS Central Office now has almost twice as many administrators managing a system with a declining student population.  How has that benefited children?

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.

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.

I’m glad that so many people are able to see through Superintendent Smith’s disingenuous claim to be redesigning high schools in an effort to close the achievement gap and address equity concerns. 

It’s bad enough that PPS screws poor kids out of an even marginally adequate education but to use poor kids in their plan to close schools is shameful.

That said, there may or may not be a need to close schools.  District administrators are so dishonest it’s hard to know what’s the truth.   

Last year 63% of white students and 35% of black students were on track to graduate in 9th grade.  On track being defined as earning 6 or more credits with grades C or above by the end of their freshman year. 

There was a 31% difference in Math and 27% difference in the English state test results between white students and the lowest subgroup.  African American students continue to be suspended or expelled at almost 3 times their population rate.   

Other than changes in school assignment, what’s in the high school redesign plan to address the achievement gap?    

PPS administrators would rather shake up entire communities than try smaller, common sense approaches to closing the gap. 

Here’s a radical idea worthy of trying….school principals could USE the federal Title I dollars allocated for their schools.  Even crazier…they could use it according to their School Improvement Plans.  That’s the plan that they were supposed to have created in collaboration with parents and staff.  According to a PPS Title I-A Report dated 1/26/10:

Each school is required to complete a School Improvement Plan that contains strategies to increase the student achievement of educationally disadvantaged students.  The plan must include a needs assessment, prioritization of needs and SMART (student-centered and specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time bound) goals for the school.       

Who from PPS administration has followed up on the School Improvement Plans?

For years, PPS Title I school principals have failed to use the Title I money allocated for improving the academic program for disadvantaged students.  Title I funds are allocated annually.  Historically, the amount remaining at the school level at the end of the school year has been between $500,000 and $750,000 collectively.

Scott leads the list of schools with unspent Title I funds.  In 2007/08, Scott had almost $73,000 remaining at the end of the year.  The amount left unspent in 2008/09 decreased to $49,674.  Even so, less than half of Scott’s black students met benchmarks in reading or math.

At the district level, Title I underspending looks even worse.  

For the 09/10 school year, the district was allocated $18,883,118 in Title I-A funding and $14,569,092 in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Title I funding.  In addition the district carried over $2, 845,562 from the previous school year for a total budget of $36,297,772 for this school year.

It’s not likely that the district will use the almost $3 million carried over from last year because the 09/10 allocation is even higher than last year’s.

The carryover from 08/09 includes $180,000 for optional parent engagement and $1,200,000 for AYP School Support.  What services could have been provided with that?

The amount remaining at the end of the 08/09 school year for each Title I school is listed below.  Amounts listed in () are negative amounts meaning those schools overspent:

Astor $6,544

Beach $7,562

Boise Eliot $4,954

Chief Joseph $31,476

Clarendon $54,882

Humboldt $(629)

James John $7,739

Markham $2,628

Rosa Parks $8,833

Ockley Green $(358)

Peninsula $16,493

Sitton $10,761

Arleta $16,149

Atkinson $32,306

Bridger $5,936

Clark $27,829

Creston $9,316

Faubion $5,280

Grout $13,788

Kelly $4,876

Irvington $(988)

King $33,178

Lee $11,023

Lent $(5,064)

Lewis $10,261

Marysville $8,438

Rigler $39,088

Roseway Heights $4,535

Sabin $9,573

Scott $49,674

Vernon $7,402

Vestal $13,806

Whitman $6,864

Woodlawn $2,142

Woodmere $14,874

George $11,956

Beaumont $11,505

Hosford $19,669

Lane $3,378

Jefferson HS $33,896

BizTech $31,351

ACT HS $17,500

SEIS HS $9,764

POWER HS $24,962

PAIS HS $4,380

Renaissance HS $26,784

So you see, PPS has had the money to improve the quality of education provided to poor children but they’ve failed to use it.  They’ve also failed to include all of the required partners in creating School Improvement Plans. 

In addition to the problem with Title I spending, PPS lost $617,000 for English Language Learner students because they failed to comply with civil rights laws.  English Language Learner students are also kids at the bottom end of the achievement gap.  PPS had more than 20 years to comply with the Office for Civil Rights findings but failed to do so.

Now, we’re expected to believe that PPS is sincere about closing the achievement gap.  Not a chance.

The No Child Left Behind act requires public school districts to provide Title I services to eligible public and private school students.

Title I Overview

This is the part of No Child Left Behind that supports programs in schools and school districts to improve the learning of children from low-income families. The U.S. Department of Education provides Title I funds to states to give to school districts based on the number of children from low-income families in each district.

US Department of Education Audit of ODE

The US Department of Education  audit on Oregon’s Title I program in 2008 produced many findings centered on accountability.  Among other things, there was an almost complete absence of oversight in how some Oregon districts handle services to private school children.  The findings listed below are taken directly from the Title I report (emphasis mine).

Finding (1): The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) has not ensured that its LEAs (school districts) maintain control of the Title I program for eligible private school children and their families and teachers.  For example:

• As part of the process for selecting a third-party provider in PPS, private school officials meet with potential providers without district officials present. 
• PPS provides its third-party providers with a list of possible criteria to use to select students for services, but leaves it to the third-party provider and private school officials to decide which criteria are actually used. 
• PPS gives the third-party provider and the private schools the responsibility of deciding the types of services (i.e., reading or math) that students selected for services receive and how the services will be evaluated.  
• In Woodburn School District (WSD) the private school officials develop the plan for services, the selection criteria, and how the services will be evaluated.

Finding (2): The ODE has not ensured that its districts have consistently met the requirements for consultation with private school officials regarding: (1) the method or sources of data the district will use to determine the number of private school children from low-income families residing in participating public school attendance areas; and (2) the evaluation of the Title I program for private school children.  PPS tells interested private school officials to report free and reduced priced lunch data in October without first consulting with them concerning the different options that may be used to obtain data on low-income students.  PPS’s affirmation form does not include this topic.  In both PPS and WSD the third-party contractor designs the evaluation of the Title I program for private school children.  Neither LEA has determined in consultation with private school officials how the Title I program for private school children will be evaluated, what the agreed upon standards are, and how annual progress will be measured.

Finding (3): The ODE has not ensured that its LEAs have consistently exercised proper oversight in awarding contracts for the provision of Title I services to participating private school children.  A contract that PPS has with a third-party vendor to provide services to participating private school children did not have enough detail to enable PPS to determine that the Title I statutory and regulatory requirements are being met.  The contract has not broken out the specific amount for administration, instruction, family involvement, and professional development that the vendor is charging.

PPS’ handling of Title I services to private school children is the equivalent of handing private schools a check and walking away.  Where is the accountability for that?  Unfortunately, this is typical of how PPS manages its money.  District staff consistently argue that questioned expenses are just a small portion of their budget.  They don’t get it that the pennies add up. 

The PPS 2009/10 budget includes $20.2 million in Title I funds PLUS $14.5 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds.  PPS reports that the ARRA funds will be targeted towards: standards and assessment; data systems; teacher effectiveness; and support for lowest performing schools. 

Schools need the money but they need to use it effectively.  Don’t let the district piss the money away.

Parents:

TAKE ACTION – You have a right to know how your child’s school is spending their money.  Find out if your child’s school is a Title I school.  If so, here are some questions (ask any or all) that you should ask your school principal:

1. How much has the school been allocated in Title I funding?
2. How much in funds did the school carryover from last year?
3. Who was involved in completing the School Improvement Plan (SIP)?
4. Request a copy of the School Improvement Plan or schedule a time to review it.
5. Is the school required to provide supplemental services (individualized help for struggling students)?  If so, who is the provider?  What services are provided?
6. Is the School Improvement Plan and budget aligned? 
7. What parent involvement activities are included in the School Improvement Plan?

Don’t worry about whether you’ll understand all of it.  Most parents don’t understand it.  You’ll get it over time.  The important thing is to ask questions and always follow-up.   

If you need help with any of the information you collect, you can email me by going to the About  page or you can post questions on this blog.  There’s a very supportive online community of parents with tons of expertise and various perspectives.

The district failed to honor the Office for Civil Rights agreement and PPS was found in noncompliance with civil rights laws again in 1999.  That pattern has repeated itself over the last 15 years.   

It’s no surprise that the state cut federal funding to PPS in November 2009.  Read the history of this issue at:

PPS’ Program for English Language Learners: A History of Persistent Problems