Category — ESL

My first language is English and I can’t figure out what the hell is going on on the ESL department’s directory page:

http://www.pps.k12.or.us/departments/esl/1131.htm

Do I read left to right, right to left, laying on my side, standing on my head?

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

The ESL Redesign Commission as stated by Carla Randall consists of the following persons:

And so it begins…

Tuesday, November 30th the PPS School Board will discuss and take action on the English Language Learner Audit Report. I hope to see educational advocates, parents, students and community members present. It is time to do right by ESL students.

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.

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)

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:

PPS administration has attempted to frame the high school redesign issue in a way that pits low-income area schools against each other.  They would be happy to see Marshall attack Jefferson, Roosevelt or Benson but why should we?

Each of those schools have suffered from PPS actions or inactions.  Those schools along with Marshall have been underfunded, denied resources, mismanaged and neglected while Lincoln, Wilson, Cleveland and Grant have benefitted. 

The question isn’t why does Jefferson or Roosevelt get resources that Marshall doesn’t?  The question is why does Lincoln, Grant, Cleveland and Wilson continue to get so much more than everyone else? [Read more →]