Category — Diversity

How long are we going to talk about the disparities in the public education system?  People have been talking about the over-representation of minority students in SPED and the disproportionate discipline rates for students of color for decades.  PPS comes up with new solutions annually but what are the results?  New reports showing more of the same.

In the last few months, I’ve heard from three different parents who said that their children were suspended or expelled for extended periods of time and they never even received a written notice or participated in a hearing.  All three parents are African American and two of the students are in SPED.

The district claims to be addressing diversity issues in part through ”hiring culturally and racially diverse teachers, aides and administrators and supporting them with mentoring, peer collaboration, skill development and leadership opportunities, while matching their skills to the needs of students in the schools they serve.”

Sounds impressive but what has the district done to move towards that?  Even though the district’s Human Resource Information System (PeopleSoft) has the capacity to track languages, PPS doesn’t track language.  How is that matching educator’s skills to the needs of the students?

PPS is currently in a “partnership” with the Portland Teachers Program and the Bilingual Pathways Program. Both programs were created to increase teacher diversity.  Listen to people involved in those programs and they’ll tell you it isn’t much of a partnership.

I know from my work in PPS HR department that there are many bilingual educational assistants who have teaching degrees from other countries.  PPS could easily create a career ladder program to get them licensed in Oregon but HR administrators have been resistant to doing it.

So what will next year’s plan look like?

Here’s another staffing change at PPS.

How many complaints can PPS rack up before they face serious consequences?

Thursday’s Tribune has an interesting story ( http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=129426691696564500 ) about the district’s plan to either reconfigure or redraw boundaries affecting Sabin K-8, Alameda elementary and Beaumont middle schools.  There are three reasons for this. Alameda is bursting at the seams, while Beaumont has a small number of neighborhood kids enrolled.  And Sabin has small numbers of 6-8 kids in its neighborhood program, while the ACCESS program (also housed at Sabin) continues to expand.

Apparently some Alameda families are not thrilled at the prospect of sending their kids to a different school, one that is about as close to their homes as their present school.

From the Tribune:

“If PPS is successful in a boundary redraw,” Alameda Neighborhood Association president Scott Rider says, “parents who purchased homes in the Alameda neighborhood expecting to be able to attend Alameda Elementary will not have adequate time to make alternative plans, as kindergarten roundup for Sabin school (their new school after a boundary change) is scheduled for Feb. 1, seven days later.They will be blindsided from a lack of transparency and appropriate notice.”

And parent Kristin Childs Rios says,   “We are a house with small children, with one starting kindergarten next year – our intention in buying a house in Alameda, at Alameda prices and Alameda taxes, was obviously that he would attend Alameda Elementary,” she wrote.

She also worries about a potential drop in property value.

Under two of the three plans, three areas within the Alameda attendance zone would be moved to… gasp!… Sabin.  Sabin, of course has a significantly higher percentage of Free and Reduced Lunch kids.  You know, those kids.  Apparently, parents in the area will need to make “alternative” plans so that their child does not have to attend Sabin.  At least that’s what Scott Rider thinks.

How about just going to the kindergarten roundup and checking the school out? 

And as for lack of transparency, meetings about this reconfiguration have been held since December and have included representative parents from all of the schools involved.  The same cannot be said about the Marshall closure.  Of course, that school taught those kids.

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?

The Lincoln women who testified at tonight’s board meeting and encouraged board members to close schools prompted me to revisit some data. 

Lincoln, Grant, Wilson and Cleveland are viewed as “successful schools” but what students are successful at those schools?  The data below is for Lincoln but Grant and Wilson look similar.

• Black students accounted for 6% of Lincoln’s population but 17% of the discipline incidents (08/09)
• 89% of the white students, 68% of the Hispanic students and 61% of the Black students were receiving grades of  C or higher (08/09)
• Students taking above grade level coursework – 57% of White students, 24% of Black students and 36% of free lunch students (08/09)
• Only 50% of the students on free/reduced lunch met the Math AYP target (08/09)
• Limited English Proficient student graduation rate is 25% (07/08)

As for the argument that fewer campuses mean more opportunities for all students….well maybe not at Lincoln.  Black students only make up 3% of the Lincoln students taking AP/IB or PSU courses. 

Still, the women testifying before the board tonight think students of color and poor students should sacrifice so Lincoln students (wealthier white students) can continue to have more than everyone else.

June 16, 2010

Dear Superintendent Smith and Members of the School Board,

I need to be honest – I wasn’t going to write this letter.  I had given up on the process some weeks ago when, after 200+ members of the Marshall Community came together to speak and plead for a comprehensive school on their campus ,Superintendent Smith presented her revised proposal which recommended the slow and painful death of Marshall Campus.  Today however, I received an email from Superintendent Smith, wishing me “relaxation and rejuvenation this summer.”  Please allow me to tell you about the start of summer for so many of us…

Yesterday was the last day of school for students on Marshall Campus.  As the freshmen, sophomores and juniors walked out of their classrooms, many gave their teachers hugs, and asked, “Will I see you this fall?”  My freshman English class spent time talking about their own plans for the Fall…  Many have younger siblings who would have been freshmen next year.  Because of the recommendation to not allow freshmen at Marshall Campus (no matter their interest), many parents are looking to pull these older siblings as well.  After all, what parent would want their children at two different high school campuses? 

Our principals are scrambling around – strongly desiring to create a master schedule with teacher names, classes, and student rosters.  But they too are in the dark.  They have been given estimates on which to create a “Worst-Case Scenario” schedule.  They have to reevaluate program needs, and examine teacher seniority.  These decisions are not easy – especially considering that all of these actions were already completed two months ago; schedules were complete, contract exceptions filed and approved, hiring completed.  They now have to start over.

Teachers know that all this is going on.  We are grasping to find any information we can: seniority within the building, seniority within the district, any rumors whatsoever about whether or not we have a job next fall, let alone if it may be here.  Meanwhile, we have been teaching our hearts out, trying to keep some sense of normalcy in the lives of our students.  Normalcy in a time of grieving. 

Our students, who have been fighting for their schools (whether as individual small schools, or as a comprehensive campus) for nearly two months, are grieving.  They see the news, and see in the Superintendent and Board’s recommendations, that their actions and desires do not matter.  They see that their voice, which asked so strongly for a comprehensive school, and for more time, was ignored.  They see that Benson students got what they wanted by skipping class on a walkout.  They see themselves attending school, getting an education, making their demands on their own time rather than their teachers’.  They see that Jefferson students get a voice in the media because of the color of their skin.  They see that they are ignored because they are poor.  They get the impression that they don’t matter to their own school district.

What many don’t see is the impact of having the freshmen pulled out from underneath us.  Students haven’t realized that they will lose anywhere from 25-33% of their teachers.  Students haven’t realized that they will lose elective classes.  Students haven’t realized that they will lose JV sports.  Students haven’t realized that they will lose out on so much that makes up a high school education. 

All of this in the name of “EQUITY”.  Isn’t that what this is all supposed to be about?  Creating an EQUITABLE education for all students of PPS, regardless of their ZIP Code?  Yet the proposal not only plans to ship these kids OUT of their ZIP code in order to get that “equitable” education – it also aims to provide the current students of Marshall’s three small schools a LESS THAN equitable education as the District “phases out” BizTech High School, Pauling Academy, and Renaissance Arts Academy.  How is this fair?  How is this equitable?How is this right?

By taking our freshmen, many of whom truly wanted to come to one of the three small schools, we are being set up for failure.  The staff we will lose as a result of having no freshmen severely limits the educational opportunities we can offer our students.  The sloppy process being followed here takes away any rights that we as students or staff should have gotten:  students’ right to apply for a transfer passed in February; staff rights to apply for new positions in Phase One passed in early April.  Only in late April did we find out that our schools’ livelihood was at risk.  And only two weeks ago, in early June, did we learn that it was critical, and that the District is placing a DNR tag on our doors.

I cannot imagine being an eighth grader in this neighborhood these past few months.  In February, these students filled out an application stating their desire to attend BizTech, Pauling or Renaissance (or any of the other schools in the District).  Just a few months later, these students received a letter saying that while their school was slated for closure, they could choose again: they could indicate their desire to remain committed to technology, science or art, or opt to go to their “new” neighborhood school: Madison or Franklin.  Then, just a few weeks later, they were sent yet another letter saying that they would not get to go to any of the three schools on Marshall Campus, nor Benson; rather, they would be sent to their NEW “new” neighborhood school of Cleveland, Franklin or Madison.  How confusing this must be for a 13-year-old!  And the uncertainty of not knowing where your friends will be in the Fall Semester must have certainly put a damper on their promotion celebrations.

Our Second Language students are being inundated with letters from the District, as well as from the ESL departments at Franklin, Madison and Cleveland.  They are being led to believe that they must transfer.  Over the past few weeks, countless students have brought in these letters to their ESL teachers, or to our ESL Educational Assistants asking, “What does this mean?  Do I have to leave?”  They love the small classes in their schools here.  They love that they are able to be fully mainstreamed into classes that are still small.  They love that they are part of the community alongside every other student in their small school.  They do not want to leave.

This is awfully late in the year for such drastic decisions.  It is unfortunate that the end of a two year process has to happen so quickly and at a time where those so dramatically affected have lost all opportunities to make a choice about their own future.  As for Superintendent Smith’s hope for “relaxation and rejuvenation” this summer – it is not starting off well.  As I clean my classroom, it is bittersweet; anticipating the summertime (or summer job, in my case), while also uncertain about where I will return to in two months.  Will I return to my students at Marshall, or will I get a phone call mid-summer informing me of my placement elsewhere? 

Emily Paddock
BizTech High School
English/History/Digital Media Teacher
Marshall JV Girls Soccer Coach

Tonight I watched the rerun of last Thursday’s public hearing and work session and I couldn’t help but notice some of the inconsistencies in board member’s arguments. 

Why are board members suddenly questioning whether it makes fiscal sense to close Jefferson when they didn’t ask the same question about Marshall?  Board member Ruth Adkins said her analysis showed that there wouldn’t be enough of a savings from closing Jefferson to warrant doing so.  What did her analysis show the savings to be in closing Marshall? 

Adkins also argued that closing Marshall made sense because the current small schools on the Marshall campus had demonstrated some success.  She said that the district could build on that “success” by closing Marshall and re-opening a new small focus school.  In her mind, it didn’t make sense to open a focus school at Jefferson because there wasn’t a demonstrated need or desire for one and there wasn’t a defined plan for one.   

Ruth sets a very low bar for success at Marshall.  Against community wishes, the campus originally split into 4 small schools.  One school died off right away.  Another is on the federal watch list and it would have to make major changes next year.  Of the three schools on the Marshall campus now, only about one half of the students are at benchmark in math and reading.   Just over 40% of the students living in the Marshall attendance area attend the school. 

As for the argument that a focus school at Jefferson isn’t a good idea because there isn’t a demonstrated need or demand for one…we’ve been saying exactly the same thing about Marshall. 

The district has NO EVIDENCE that there’s a demand or need for a focus school on the Marshall campus.  About 200 people showed up at Marshall’s community meeting recently but you didn’t hear much about it in the press.  Not one person at the Marshall meeting testified in support of a focus school on the campus.

I’ve already written about the district’s shady plan for a focus school at Marshall.  It has no chance of success. 

Let’s pretend for a second that Ruth is right and a focus school could actually build on the success of the small schools at Marshall…how does reducing the size of the proposed focus school “build” on that?  If small schools are successful because of the relationships that are developed in smaller learning environments, how does forcing a larger number of kids out of their neighborhood and into someone else’s large neighborhood school strengthen relationships?

I’m not advocating for Jefferson’s closure.  My point is that the arguments being used for keeping Jefferson open should also be applied to Marshall. 

Both schools need to remain open.  The costs associated with closing them far exceed any anticipated (rarely realized) savings.  Marshall and Jefferson closures would increase the drop out rates and decrease academic achievement. 

As the superintendent’s high school resolution stated (when she was still trying to portray the high school redesign plan as being about equity):

According to a 2006 Alliance for Excellent Education issue briefing, a 5% reduction in the dropout rate of male students across the state of Oregon would decrease crime related costs by $21 million and would increase the annual earnings of this population by $30.

According to a 2009 Alliance for Excellent Education economic report, a 50% decrease in the dropout rate of the seven county Portland Metropolitan area would result in:

• $38 million in increased earnings
• $25 million in increased spending and $9 million in additional investing.
• $108 million in additional home sales.
• The creation of 300 new jobs and an increase in gross national product of $47 million.
• $4 million in increased tax revenue.
• 61% of these additional high school graduates would be likely to pursue some type of post-secondary education.

The bottom line is that poor, minority, English language learners and students with disabilities at both schools are having to carry the budget deficit burden for the entire district.  It’s not only morally wrong but it’s a civil rights violation and legally wrong.    Here’s a brief look at the student populations that the majority of the board are expecting to subsidize the education of wealthier students:

This video was made in response to Superintendent Smith’s original recommendation to close Marshall and replace the three small schools with a small focusless school. 

The video was shown during a community meeting where about 200 people were in attendance.  All expressed support for a comprehensive high school on the Marshall campus. 

Smith said she listened but later revised her recommendation by speeding up Marshall’s closure.  The closure which was supposed to take effect beginning fall 2011 is now effective for fall 2010.

And oh yeah…now there may not even be a focus school.   

Don’t these kids deserve to go to school in their own neighborhood too?