Category — History

I ran across an interesting video from a PPS boundary meeting held last January.  In it, the PPS representative says that the district doesn’t have projected enrollment data broken down by section.  They were using K-5 trend data from the past 10 years to make boundary decisions.

Considering the number of portables that PPS has purchased AND the last minute school assignment changes (Rigler), you would think that PPS might want to look at the PROJECTED data.

Here’s the video:

School Board Meeting, March 14, 2011

Here’s something you should be concerned about.  In Portland we are developing a school system that is similar to the separate but equal schools in the South in the 1950’s. Only the determiner is not color of skin but financial circumstance.  And the main differences are manifested not just in things which have been discussed for the last few years, but in the curriculums within the schools themselves.

We have two types of curriculum. In schools in more well-to-do neighborhoods where we don’t have to worry about test scores we often have a vibrant, comprehensive and relevant curriculum.  But in lower socio-economic neighborhoods we often have a test-driven curriculum focused on having students pass the state tests. In effect, the first educates children for what they need in the world and engages them with interesting and relevant material. While the test-driven curriculum does neither, driving kids from school and shortchanging them so they aren’t as prepared when it comes time to take their place in the world.

To a huge degree this discrepancy is a product of the reform movement. Individuals and organizations seem perfectly happy to use test scores to determine decisions in schools or classes which their children do not attend. But they would storm this building if you tried to put a test driven curriculum in their kid’s school or classroom, particularly one based on making sure grade level competencies are met. 

Kind of like in the 1950’s when the white school boards would buy new books for the white schools and send the used books off to the black schools.  We create the worst curriculums in our lower socio-economic schools while the power structure’s neighborhood schools have a far more beneficial curriculum.

You might say, “Don’t we have to make sure kids pass the tests?”  I guess, the answer would be yes, but at the cost of a decent education?  At the cost of not getting enough help for those kids who are way behind, or the kids who are already at grade level but sit through mind-numbing lessons to make sure they pass competencies they already have? That price is too high.

Recently I read that Finland and South Korea, two countries at the top of world education, not only don’t have a lower-grade testing system, but work hard to make sure that the SAT type tests they do have DO NOT affect their curriculum.  We could do that in Portland. We could set up a fair and equitable system where all students get the education they need. Here is what we could do:

1)    No longer judge principals and staff on their test scores, but on the quality of education they have in their school and classrooms.

2)    Limit test prep by creating district-wide, grade by grade test prep lessons using the best information we have, and then tell principals this is what is to be taught and no other test prep work should take place.

3)    Go back to the way we prescribed curriculum several years ago by using a time system – a certain number of hours of social studies, science, PE etc. in each grade. The standards system the state uses now is easily manipulated.

 And finally 4) Focus our improvement plans on getting principals and staff to identify the problems within their school and classrooms and work on fixing those SPECIFIC problems.

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.

Bulldog1 has mentioned a few times that PPS was fined for illegal use of the 1995 bond funds.  I checked it out.  This excerpt is from an Oregonian story by Betsy Hammond printed twelve years ago today:

Portland’s school board, excoriated by its teachers Monday for spending too much on other priorities and too little on teacher pay raises, found out it will have to spend still more millions on expenses other than teacher salaries.

It turns out that the district probably acted illegally when it used bond proceeds to pay $6 million for the new Forest Park Elementary School and $2 million to renovate district headquarters, Superintendent Ben Canada said. Although the district told voters in advance it would use some of its $196 million in bond money for those purposes, it promised in legal documents to use bond money only for computers or school building repairs, Canada said.

The upshot is that the district will have to repay the $8 million to the bond account from its yearly operating funds, he said, something that will cost it an estimated $1.2 million a year for the next 10 years.

In a $350 million budget, $1.2 million represents less than 1 percent of the money available. But the district says it is operating on the thinnest of margins. And Nancy Arlington, lead negotiator for Portland teachers, has said much of the difference between what teachers want and what the district is offering comes down to $900,000 a year.

So news that the district will be shelling out operating dollars for past construction came as another blow to the city’s teachers, who showed up en masse Monday to criticize the school board as being slow and stingy in negotiations.

Does anyone believe that superintendent Smith will be any more responsible or competent in managing bond funds than superintendent’s Bierwirth and Canada?  What’s her record on accountability or credibility? 

She was prepared to close Jefferson last spring.  A few short months later, she plans to build a new school for Jefferson. 

Last spring, Smith recommended closing Marshall Smith and placing a focus school at the campus.  She assured freshman considering Marshall that they could continue at Marshall through their senior year.  A few short months later, she recommended closing Marshall completely.  Those students have now been assigned to a new school.  Marshall is the district’s newest high school and the school making the greatest gains for at-risk students.

Smith makes a public statement about the cost to reopen Kellogg being $1.5 million because of having to bring it up to code.  When asked for the data used to support that statement, we were told that the $1.5 million figure included the cost of staff.

I requested allpost school closure reports detailing district savings from the closures.  I got a single report that looks like it was put together in 15 minutes.  No analysis has been done to show actual savings (if any).  The analysis failed to mention the $11 million spent on portables because of school closure related overcrowding.  PPS has disrupted the education of (by Matt Shelby/Carole Smith standards) way more than 40% of the district’s students yet the superintendent doesn’t have proof that they’ve saved money by closing schools.

Smith may claim that the high school redesign was a long, well thought out process but if that’s true, why did PPS just receive a $7 million grant that targets Marshall?  That’s $7 million in addition to a $6 million grant that targets Marshall for the next couple of years.  Where will Marshall’s share of grant funds go?  The Marshall transition team was asked the question but they haven’t answered it. 

The high school redesign started out as being about equity then evolved into being about financial savings and wound up being about creating swing space for an enormous bond.  A bond that promises everyone something even if they don’t really need it. 

In the Oregonian this past week Smith was called out for lying  about the potential impact of the bond.  This is just one of her many and she happened to get caught.

The board may have approved renewal of Smith’s contract but the fact that they did it without public input is telling.  They know that she doesn’t have the public’s trust or approval.  It would be foolish for them to go forward on the bond with Smith as superintendent.

In 1995 Superintendent Jack Bierwirth wrote the explanatory statement for the bond measure that was on the ballot.  Here’s what he promised:

• Improved classroom technology – To compete and succeed in the new global economy, today’s students (the workers and the citizens of tomorrow) must understand and know how to use modern computers and advanced technology.  The Portland School Bond Measure will provide $44 million to ensure direct computer access to every student in every school.  It will furnish four to six new, high quality computers in every classroom.  It will create new educational computing networks linking students, classrooms and schools.  And it will give up-to-date technology training to both students and teachers. 
• Increased Neighborhood School Safety – Students, teachers, parents and other neighbors who use our school deserve safe classrooms, playgrounds and facilities.  The Portland School Bond Meeasure will provide $69 million for school safety and code compliance.  Seismic strengthening will make schools much safer in the event of an earthquake.  Improved fire protection and emergency lighting will also enhance school safety.  In addition, safety funding will help schools comply with indoor air quality standards and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
• Necessary Long Term Maintenance – The Portland School Bond Measure will protect our existing billion-dollar investment in our schools, with $61 million in major maintenance, and $22 million for building improvements, equipment and emergency repairs.  Schools across Portland will benefit from major repairs to boilers, plumbing, windows, roofs, floors and electrical systems.  In addition, smaller maintenance and repair projects in each school will further enhance classroom learning and protect our public school investment. 

Superintendent Smith promises:

• All 85 schools will receive one-time student safety, security and building system updates, such as: replacing roofs, updating boilers, improving accessibility for disabled students and adults, and increasing student safety and security by installing new fire alarm systems, making seismic upgrades and providing secure access at entryways.
• All schools will receive updates to classroom learning environments and updated teaching technology. Every K-8 and middle school (37 schools) will have an upgraded science lab, and 33 elementary and K-8 schools will have covered playground areas for outdoor physical education and recreational use. Six high schools not being rebuilt will have classroom updates to support rigorous teaching and learning, and will receive updates to their sites, such as landscaping, seed money for field upgrades, lighting, signage, walkways and renovated entrances.
• Schools across the city with high-priority needs — out-dated educational environments and safety and structural concerns – will be rebuilt. Three high schools and five elementary and K-8 schools will be rebuilt and modernized, so PPS students have the same technology, equipment and up-to-date learning environments as students in neighboring school districts with newer buildings. The schools are Cleveland, Jefferson and Roosevelt high schools, and Faubion, Laurelhurst, Markham, Marysville and Rigler elementary and K-8 schools. In addition, Lincoln will undergo comprehensive planning and design to prepare it for rebuilding in the next voter-approved bond.

So what was the result of the 1995 bond measure?  I don’t think I could articulate it as clearly as PPS own auditor (KPMG).  Here are some highlights:

• One of the areas of consideration per PMI standards is that of quality management.  Quality control is presently left to the contractor that provides the construction services.
• Cost management at PPS is difficult since there is no standard methodology in place.  The Master Program Budget establishes a budgetary baseline, however, the accounting of actual expenditures to budget is not clear. 
• Master Program Budget does not have a corresponding document for actual expenses.
• Without a comprehensive Program Oversight function, it appears that decisions have been made unilaterally with respect to the scope of projects under the Program.   Decisions regarding whether or which projects will be deferred from the original bond program authorization are made without Board or executive level approval….One such decision was the increase of funds to upgrade the BESC.  In the 9/17/1996 Master Program Budget, $2,167,607 was allocated for BESC improvements to be performed by PPS personnel.  Conversely, in the June 26, 1998 Master Program Budget, $5945,645 was allocated for BESC improvements, and only $163,233 to be performed by PPS personnel.
• Bond estimates need to be updated.  The original budget, established in connection with the bond issuance included a number of assumptions and estimates pertaining to the level and scope of work that would be accomplished.  In many cases, the original estimates were based on a comprehensive assessment performed on schools approximately 5 years earlier.
• The CM/GC method of construction management is not unique.  It is a method that is frequently used on large construction projects.  Of concern is not that the CM/GC methodology is incorrect for this program, rather it is a concern that more than one methodology is in place to manage and control the entire program.  Work managed under Heery International is conducted one way and work conducted under A.P.E. is conducted another.  The methods are not compatible. 
• The schedule narrative lacks detail.  The information provided is mostly general in nature and does not address specific issues. 
• Section 4: Budget and expenditures – The last sentence indicates the budget for the 42 schools contained in the three-team scope of work.  This leaves the other 69 facilities, which are part of PPS’ responsibility, unaccounted for in this section.  At a minimum, reference should be made to PPS responsibility to accomplish the remaining facility work.

Superintendent Smith may argue that the current administration can’t take responsibility for the mistakes of past adminstrations but the mistakes look very current to me.  Smith wasn’t competent enough to get the district through the high school redesign.  She could never pull off a successful construction bond.

Too many people in this “model city” are silent on discrimination.  Poor people continue to be pushed to the edges of Portland while PPS and city resources remain closer to downtown.  Where is the outrage for what’s taking place in southeast Portland? 

Hats off to Ron Herndon who has always stood up for poor kids.

My parents are the kind of parents that save everything from their children’s childhoods.  I just ran across this old PTA Handbook from the 1968/69 school year.  It was interesting to look through it and see how things have changed.

It’s true when we tell our kids that they have so many more days off than we did when we were kids.  Here’s Grout’s 1968/69 school calendar:

Opening day of school – September 9th

Professional day (school closed) – October 11th

Veteran’s Day (school closed) – November 11th

Thanksgiving (school closed) – November 28-29th

Christmas holiday (school closed) – December 21st-January 1st

Spring vacation (school closed) – March 15-24th

Memorial Day (school closed) – May 30th

Last day of school – June 9th

Grout Elementary was a K-8 in 1968 and the school had:

• 1 principal
• 1 administrative assistant
• 2 secretaries
• 2 PE teachers
• 3 custodians
• 1 librarian
• 1 school nurse
• 1 speech pathologist
• 1 social worker
• 1 remedial reading teacher
• 24 regular classroom teachers
• 9 subject specific teachers

Grout offered music, foreign language, art, home economics, industrial arts, speech, drama and typing along with math, science, reading, and PE.

For the past 20 years, I’ve heard the annual claim that the superintendent has protected the classrooms from cuts and reduced central office staff.  That’s bullshit. 

Our schools (except the Lincoln, Grant, Wilson and Clevelands) offer nothing while the central office adds deputy superintendents, chiefs, POSAs, TOSAs, project/system managers and communications staff.  What could our schools have looked like if the classrooms were truly protected from cuts?

This year’s incoming Freshman class at Marshall would have been its largest in years but then Carole Smith got involved. 

Prior to board approval of Smith’s recommendations for high schools, Smith announced that Marshall wouldn’t be taking incoming freshman.  Parents of those students were sent letters saying that their kidswould be going to the recommended feeder schools.  The counselors from the new feeder schools then forecasted Marshall freshmen. 

A few weeks later, Smith announced that Marshall would be taking incoming freshmen but Marshall students still wishing to attend their new feeder schools could do that.  Kids were then re-forecasted for the fall.   

In a period of about a month, Marshall went from it’s largest incoming freshmen class in years to no incoming freshmen and now they’re at about half of where they started before Smith’s involvement. 

Do board members pay any attention to this?  Every time the school closure issue comes up the superintendent and board members blame the schools for declining enrollment.  I’m sure that’s much more comfortable for them than accepting responsibility for their own actions.

PPS closed Clarendon Elementary School in 2006 and the building has sat empty (except for homeless people) since that time.  The building is falling apart, covered with graffiti, windows are boarded up, smells like piss and a homeless person is sleeping there. 

The property is adjacent to a nice little park with an abandoned playground.  Is this what we want for our neighborhoods?  

  Welcome

Enter with care and love. 

If it looks like piss and smells like piss…

Second bathroom.

1 Bedroom.

Who knows what happened here

Working on making a skylight

Watch your head

There’s paint in the dust that runs along the outside wall.  Clarendon was built in 1970.  Lead paint was banned in 1978.  Are children being exposed to lead? 

Don’t want to guess what’s smeared on the windows

Where are the children?

The Clarendon building has an interesting history.  Like Whitaker Middle School and Marshall High School, Clarendon is one of PPS newest buildings.  This is from PPS Historic Building Assessment:

While Clarendon does not meet the 50 year standard for National Register eligibility and is not considered exceptionally significant, the following eligibility determination is provided for future district planning purposes. Given the uniqueness of both the design and planning process used to arrive at the design choice, the Clarendon School is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C. As the first Portland school planned in a decentralized and collaborative manner that involved citizens, school administrators, and teachers, Clarendon set an important precedent for community involvement. It is therefore associated with a significant historical pattern or trend in educational facilities planning and policy thus meeting the standard of National Register Criterion A. The building is also eligible under Criterion C, as a unique school building type in the City of Portland. No other hexagonal unit schools were constructed in Portland either before or since the Clarendon building was erected. The building retains much of its historical integrity on the exterior and interior.  You can read more about it here.

I thought I would follow Carole Smith’s example of moving forward on high school redesign implementation prior to a board vote.  

Carole’s contract is up for renewal this October.  Assuming that the board votes for non-renewal… 

What are the top THREE characteristics you would like to see in our next superintendent?