Category — Dishonor Roll

Seems the superintendent was caught stretching the truth. 

It’s a bit like saying that it would cost $1.5 million to reopen Kellogg because the district would have to get permits and bring the building up to code then sending documentation claiming the $1.5 million included the cost of staff.

Did you see the story in today’s Oregonian about how the high school redesign is really just more of the same?  Close a school, tear apart a community, waste thousands in taxpayers dollars and deliver the same shit.  How do you think Marshall families feel when they read this: 

Superintendent Carole Smith said she didn’t do more to balance enrollments because residents made it clear they value neighborhood schools. Gathering a socioeconomic cross section of students at every high school would require many students to travel well beyond their own neighborhood, she said.

Zeke Smith, her chief of staff, said: “The primary goal of the high school process was to provide a well-rounded high school program to every student in his or her neighborhood. Throughout the process, we heard that Portlanders value diversity — but they placed a higher value on going to school close to home.

Smith should just be honest and say that she closed Marshall so that she could say she’s done something about facilities and now the district needs to pass a bond.  I don’t know how Smith and her crew sleep at night.

At the October 12th school board meeting where the board voted to close Marshall, Superintendent Smith made a point of saying that it would cost $1.5 million to reopen Kellogg because the district would have to go through the permit process and bring the building up to code.  We asked PPS for the documentation that Smith used to come up with that figure.  This is the district’s response:

Tonight just before the school board meeting officially started a woman’s voice could be heard saying, “wouldn’t it be great if we had a pedal we could push when people were testifying and they would fall through a trap door?”  Nice.  I don’t suppose anyone would own up to saying it.

Portland Public Schools ESL Director is being provided with an Intervention Coach in response to the district’s 13-year history of failure to comply with civil rights laws and to improve the ESL program. 

Where’s Smith’s Intervention Coach?  Why does Smith get a glowing appraisal and extension of her contract when she’s failed to meet all of her performance benchmarks?  Were there benchmarks that the public didn’t know about?

I guess when you have leaders like Trudy, Bobbie, Pam and Ruth, you have to expect that the leadership bar is set extremely low.

Sam Adams has to be the sleaziest and worst mayor in Portland’s history.  I don’t know how he managed to escape being recalled twice. 

It’s not just because he’s a liar with questionable ethics and morals.  He’s silent on the most critical social justice issues (police shootings, excessive use of force, education, gang violence…) and spends all of his time on transportation and sustainability. 

The only form of transportation that I care to see him ride is the one that takes him the hell out of Portland permanently.

Adams failed to return calls to parents and community members in the Lents Urban Renewal Zone (a truly blighted area) while making plans for the wealthy.  Have you seen  this?  Marshall closes on one side of town while Lincoln prepare for a new school.  PPS presentation begins on p. 36.

PPS just released the most damning ESL report that I’ve ever seen.  It’s a must read for anyone interested in social justice.  How can PPS be found in noncompliance for 13 of the last 17 years and nobody has been held accountable? 

The audit results are reflective of the inability of Superintendent Smith and the school board to effectively lead the district as a whole.  District leadership wouldn’t know a system redesign if they saw one. 

Here are some highlights:

The PPS district has been out of compliance with federal and state rules governing the provision of services to ELL students for 13 of the past 17 years, approximately 80 percent of the time between 1994 and 2010. Investigations and reviews by the federal Department of Education and the Oregon Department of Education have found recurrent problems in a number of areas despite PPS promises of corrective action and multiple efforts to improve compliance. Recurrent problems include:

• Poor delivery of English language proficiency instruction
• Inadequate access to core academic classes
• Using unlicensed staff to provide instructional services and lack of appropriate professional development
• Inappropriate methods for identifying eligible students and exiting proficient students

LACK OF SUSTAINED COMMITMENT AND LEADERSHIP

PPS has not made a strong commitment to improving the district’s approach to ELL instruction. While the district has been both responsive and diligent in addressing compliance issues identified by the federal and state governments, these actions have been largely exercises in compliance rather than a systematic effort to develop a clear vision for change and a defined strategy to achieve it.

Lack of a defined strategy.

My discussions with district officials indicates that the district has not fundamentally altered the way instructional services are delivered to ELL students over the past decade. Although the district has prepared biannual ELL plans required by regulation and expended significant effort to administer programs in accordance with federal and state provisions, the district has not identified and communicated a clear vision and strategy on how ELL students will achieve English proficiency and increase achievement. School officials I talked to do not clearly understand their respective roles and disagree on the best strategy for improvement.

According to the ESL director, the biannual ELL District Plan prepared by the department and submitted to the Oregon Department of Education is the central document that should guide the delivery of services to ELL students. As required by ODE, the plan defines the goals and strategies of the program and describes practices for identification, assessment, placement, and scheduling of students. However, my discussions with Deputy Superintendents and school principals reveal little knowledge of this plan and its contents. Consequently, those officials with primary responsibility for improving the English language proficiency and academic achievement of ELL students have not participated in the development of the district plan to carry out the program nor understand the practices the district is committing them to.

Frequent leadership changes and no recognized internal advocate. During the 17 year period of compliance problems, the district has employed five different Superintendents, three different ESL directors, several permanent and interim academic officers, and a variety of different area directors and deputy superintendents. The current ESL director with a tenure of five years has more seniority than any central management level employee dealing with ELL at the PPS.

Organizational limitations. The ESL department at PPS is a central office staff organization with no direct authority over the delivery of ELL instructional services at schools or the supervision of ESL teachers in classrooms. The ESL department director and staff report to the Chief Academic Officer, while school administrators (principals) report to three different Deputy Superintendents. The ESL department establishes policy and practices for ELL instruction, provides professional development opportunities and a variety of support services to ESL teachers, and is the central point of contact for federal and state monitoring. However, the quality of teaching and instruction and the faithful implementation of district policies is the responsibility of principals and their direct superiors, the Deputy Superintendents.

While this organizational structure and reporting arrangement is common to other districts and other PPS academic programs, the oversight and assessment of teacher and school performance in improving ELL achievement is made more difficult, particularly if schools have a strong tradition of site-based management.

INADEQUATE MONITORING AND ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

PPS has not developed and implemented effective monitoring and accountability systems for the ELL program. I found little evidence of consistent and rigorous on-site monitoring at schools and few mechanisms to ensure schools are accountable for ELL performance results. (Huge understatement)

Trudy Sargent has been the most disappointing board member throughout this entire redesign process.  She was nominated to represent the Marshall area but when asked about that her response was “well, I live on Mt. Tabor.” 

She’s been unresponsive, rude and disrespectful to Marshall parents, staff and community members.  Her statements at last week’s board meeting demonstrate her inability to think critically.  Check out how she responds (1:53) to the concerns about student achievement.  “There’s lots of red on this chart and red is not very good.”  That’s deep Trudy.  Please slow down so I can catch up.   

As for having an intelligent discussion, she opts out (3:01).  “I’m not going to try to answer all of the very good comments and questions that my colleagues have raised.”  Why not Trudy?

Last spring Tony Hopson pleaded with the superintendent and school board to “give us four years.”  Superintendent Smith has used that request to justify her school closure agenda for Marshall. 

Smith’s been meeting with members from the black community behind closed doors for over a year.  Who is “us”?  Who is willing to publicly sign off on the high school redesign?

Once again the school board will be relying on blind faith if they vote to approve Smith’s proposal to close Marshall.  Do you see an implementation plan here? 

Summary of key elements of operational plan for implementing the recommendations:

Action Steps/Timeline

TIMELINE EVENT

November 2010 Student Assignment – gather feedback from parents, students and PPS staff

November 2010 Student Transition – Develop detailed process for integrating students with new schools

November 2010 Notify all district partners (after school programs, state and county etc..) of school closure

December 2010– December 2011

Student Transition – Implement detailed process

December, 2010 Student Assignment – Finalize new boundaries

December, 2010 Student Assignment – Determine where students will be assigned

December 2010 Student Assignment – Inform families of new boundaries/assignment

December 2010 Reassign staff – Decide upon approach to staff reassignment

December 2010 Reassign staff – staff meetings with affected parties staff reassignment

January 2011 Update/Revise enrollment projections

March 2011 Update/Revise budgets / (new accounting codes etc…)

March 2011 Reassign staff – staff reassignment implementation

January – June 2011

Facilities – Determine new use of Marshall facility

November 2010- August 2011

Facilities – Prepare receiving schools for increased enrollments and core program requirements

November – December 2010

Facilities – Ensure all legal requirements with City are met

December 2010 – April 2011

Facilities and SPED – develop plans to accommodate needs of students with special needs

December 2010 Transportation Plan – finalize transportation plan for affected students

March 2011 School moves – Develop comprehensive plan for moving staff, equipment and materials

January – March 2011

School/ Program moves – find location for teen parent program, clothes closet

December – August 2011

School/ Program moves – work with county to relocate health clinic and/or SUN program

December – August 2011

School/Program moves – determine if and how SUN program can be located at Franklin and/or Cleveland

April – May 2011

Student Cumulative Records – develop plan to transfer and/or store student records

June – July 2011

Student Cumulative Records – implement