Category — History

This Wednesday’s Willamette Week included a blurb about proposed changes to PPS English as a Second Language (ESL) program. 

The district wants to cut 23 bilingual educational assistants (EAs) and replace them with 12 ESL teachers.    That would be a mistake. 

The bilingual EAs are often the only ones in the schools able to speak the language of the students and their families.  The district can’t even find 12 bilingual ESL teachers. 

No Child Left Behind requires the bilingual educational assistants to have a minimum of 2 years of college or the equivalent.  When NCLB first passed, the PPS Human Resources department asked all bilingual EAs to submit their transcripts to HR for review.  Many of the bilingual educational assistants were college graduates in their home countries and some were teachers prior to moving to the United States. 

Bilingual EAs submitted their foreign transcripts to HR but they just sat in a box for over a year.  The assistant director of HR refused to use Title I funds to cover the cost of translation and evaluation of the transcripts even though that was an allowable use of Title I funds.  She claimed it wouldn’t be fair to other employees.  Never mind that she didn’t have a problem with administrators hiring their kids for “Limited Term” positions. 

It would have been to HRs advantage to have the transcripts evaluated because the bilingual EAs would have been a natural pool of candidates for a career ladder program.  They were already working in the schools, college educated, committed and BILINGUAL.   

PPS HR administrators have long argued that they can’t find bilingual ESL teachers.  While working in the PPS HR department, I researched the effectiveness of the Bilingual Teacher Pathway program.  The career ladder program is a partnership between PPS and Portland State University.  The PSU website says:

The Bilingual Teacher Pathway (BTP) is a teacher preparation program designed to fill critical shortages of bilingual education/ESL teachers in the Portland metropolitan area. This is accomplished by recruiting and supporting bilingual/bicultural educational assistants so they can become licensed teachers.

My research found that 1/3 of the program participants became teachers, 1/3 left PPS and 1/3 remained in bilingual educational assistant positions with the district.  That meant that the district was investing their resources into a program with a 33% success rate.   

The program has the potential to be effective but like most activities involving equal opportunities district administrators create barriers to equity. 

Those barriers contribute to the rapidly increasing gap between Oregon’s teaching staff and student diversity.  Oregon Department of Education’s State Report Card shows a 30% minority student population compared to a 5% minority teacher population.  What’s worse is that the minority teacher population has remained virtually unchanged since 1998.

The ESL program clearly has problems but it’s not because of having too many bilingual EAs.  They should not have to take the fall for the incompetence of district administrators.

The superintendent and board need to put their money where there mouth is and invest it in the kids.  No more bull shit about how they’ve cut Central Office staff.  It’s actually doubled in the last 10 years.  Keep the bilingual EAs, cut twelve of those Central Office administrators (I could provide a list) and hire the 12 bilingual ESL teachers!

I’m looking for someone from PPS to write a guest post on the proposed changes to the PPS ESL program.  The guest author may post anonymously if preferred.  I will not disclose your confidential information.  Please contact me at carrie.adams@comcast if you’re interested in writing a post.

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?

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.

The high school redesign process is a mess but I have to wonder if that’s intentional.  Closing the achievement gap isn’t that complicated.  The district has had many opportunities to work towards closing the gap but failed to do so.     

Here’s a list of some of the opportunities that the district has missed for better serving low-income and minority students:

• failure to follow through on recommendations from mediation between PPS and the Education Crisis Team
• failure to use almost $3 million in 2008/09 Title I funds intended to be spent on improving the educational program for poor kids
• failure to use at least $500,000 annually in school level Title I funds for the last decade
• a failed district audit  of legally required Supplemental Services for struggling students
• over two decades of failure to comply with civil rights laws for English Language Learners
• decades of unchanging disparities in student discipline, special education, and talented and gifted rates

It’s widely believed that Zeke Smith is running the district now.  What does Zeke know about closing the achievement gap?

Zeke was the Portland Schools Foundation’s Director of Community Engagement in 2007 when they identified Astor, Clark, Faubion, Vestal and Woodmere as  Excellence in Education Award winners for being high poverty schools that were closing the achievement gap.  At that time the Portland Schools Foundation reported:

There is remarkable consistency in the research on the essential elements of schools that are closing the achievement gap – it doesn’t happen by chance.  Six key factors need to be in place for schools to make significant gains:

• high expectations
• leadership
• quality teaching
• ongoing professional development
• community engagement
• accountability

What?  Where does it mention equity in access?  Is that  the 7th key factor? 

It seems to me that the absence of the 6 key factors in this week’s high school resolution was the reason that board members Williams and Gonzalez opposed the resolution. 

Show me a resolution that includes a detailed plan for ensuring those 6 key factors are in place and I might be able to get behind it.

The Portland Public School board is scheduled to vote March 8th on a program that would allow military recruitment, under the guise of science education, of PPS kids in grades K-5.  The program (STARBASE) has been in Portland schools since 1993.  PPS receives just over $300,000 per year for providing access to the kids. 

STARBASE and the district’s claim that there’s a need for this particular program or that it’s an effective way to teach science is weak at best. 

In 2001, PPS was awarded a $4,964,861 five year National Science Foundation (NSF) grant  with these goals:

1. to enable all of the district’s diverse student enrollment to meet rigorous K-12 standards in science and mathematics and prepare for postsecondary education and future careers;
2. to increase the district’s capacity to develop, support, and sustain teacher and principal leadership;
3. to engage families and the community in supporting improved student performance in science and mathematics and improved access to high quality, inquiry-based educational opportunities; and
4. to establish ongoing collaborative partnerships with higher education, business/industry, policy makers, and other key stakeholders in support for exemplary, research-based teaching and learning in science, mathematics, and technology within the context of a large and diverse urban district. 

In a 2004 PPS grant report, PPS makes the following claims about the NSF program:

• In science, NSF schools made a gain of 6% in 5th grade, 6% gain in 8th, and 9% gain in 10th grade, compared to district growth of 4%, 4%, and 9%.
• Minority students improved in science in the NSF schools faster than whites.  The percentage of 5th grade African American students who met standards increased from 36% to 47%, compared to whites that increased from 79% to 81%.
• Hispanic students have traditionally not performed well in math and science.  This year, many of them improved particularly in science.  In NSF schools, the number of Hispanic students who met standards increased from 37% in 5th grade to 46%, from 25% to 34% in 8th, and from 20% to 27% in 10th.

 Inverness Research Associates conducted annual evaluations of the NSF grant.  The October 2006 final report states:

In our view, the Portland USP can readily claim success with developing greater teacher leadership capacity for math and science education improvement in their district. Their theory of action – of how to achieve increased capacity – was sound. First they focused on creating change “from the bottom up,” instead of from the top down. The USP also sought to make lasting changes to teachers’ beliefs, recognizing that ultimately the individual is the unit of change. Changes that reside within the individual teacher, that is – their ways of thinking and teaching and learning vis-à-vis math and science education – are, therefore, lasting legacies.  Schools come and go, and staffs and principals and reform foci also shift frequently in large urban districts. Given that reality, seeking to create changes from the bottom up, and individual-to-individual, are strategies that promise a greater likelihood of sustainability. Also when robust vision, commitment and skills reside locally at the school level, the work of improvement in math and science is more likely to continue in spite of district change. Finally it is important to point out that teacher leadership capacity does not disappear. It is a renewable resource, a districtwide (though often invisible) asset that can be harnessed and directed for worthy purposes.  The development of indigenous teacher leadership is, therefore a wise, ecological model for improvement.

Inverness Research Associates’ final report indicates that the program was a big success.  The conclusion is too lengthy for a blog but these are the highlights. 

Given the relatively small scale of the USP investment, roughly $20 per student per year, it has reaped enormous benefits, leaving behind a host of tangible and intangible assets in the district.  To name the most significant of these assets are: a well-honed, highly respected and very experienced leadership team for math and science; a district-wide group of teachers and teacher leaders committed to math and science improvement; a cadre of classroom teachers with vastly improved skills and knowledge in math and science teaching, as well as skills and knowledge about how to work together to provide and continuously improve high quality programs for students; systems and structures organized to deliver and maintain curricular materials; a strategically designed, well-crafted professional development program; a clearly articulated and commonly held vision for high quality math and science education which lends coherence to efforts for improvement at multiple levels of the system; and finally, the accumulated good will and success of the USP effort which enables people to continue to work hard and with optimism toward their shared goals even in difficult circumstances.

So given PPS own data and reports and an evaluation conducted by an outside organization, the NSF program was effectively closing the achievement gap in math and science and PPS could have easily sustained the effort for $20 per year per student. 

Why is PPS now offering up the very same groups of kids supported by the NSF grant to the military for a mere $300,000 in a weak, non-sustainable so-called science program?  Have they dismantled the infrastructure that was so effective for poor and minority children? 

It just makes my point in the previous post that PPS is unwilling to close the gap.  The bottom line is that PPS poor kids are the district’s contribution to the war efforts.

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.

This post is a follow-up to my recent post  “Why is PPS Partnering With the Department of Defense to Racially Profile Kindergarten to 5th Grade Students?” 

STARBASE is a Department of Defense program that provides 20 hours of math and science classes to K-5th graders on a military base during the school day.  One of my concerns about STARBASE is that poor kids in PPS are subjected to an inferior quality public education program, denied opportunities then tracked into the military system (or prison system but that’s another post). 

The PPS school board will be voting on renewal of the STARBASE contract very soon.  As a parent and education activist, I will be urging the PPS school board to vote NO on renewal of the Department of Defense STARBASE contract. 

I think it’s important though that the board hear from people who have direct experience with the military.  Brian Wilson, a former officer in the US Air Force, has graciously offered to share his thoughts on STARBASE.  This is Brian’s board testimony: 

TO: Portland Public Schools (PPS), P.O. Box 3107, Portland, Oregon 97227

*Superintendent: Carole Smith, superintendent@pps.k12.or.us

*Board of Education (BOE) Members:

            Ruth Adkins, radkins@pps.k12.or.us

            David Wynde, david.wynde@pps.k12.or.us

            Bobbie Regan, bobbie.regan@pps.k12.or.us

            Martin Gonzalez, mgonzalez@pps.k12.or.us

            Pam Knowles, pknowles@pps.k12.or.us

            Trudy Sargent, tsargent@pps.k12.or.us

            Dilafruz Williams, diafruz.williams@pps.k12.or.us

*BOE Student Representative: Henry Johnson, hjohnson@pps.k12.or.us

*BOE Office Senior Manager: Lynda Rose, Lrose@pps.k12.or.us

DATE: February 16, 2010

RE: DoD & Portland STARBASE (Science Technology Academics Reinforcing Basic Aviation and Space Exploration)

1. Introduction

2. (Mis)Representation

3. DoD Largest Polluter in the World

4. Military Social Environment is Chronically Problem-Laden

5. Suicide Epidemic

6. Veterans Experience Serious Problems

7. Bribery To Public School Systems Purchases Pentagon Access to Children as Young as Five

8. My Experiences

9. Conclusion

RE:DoD & Portland STARBASE (Science Technology Academics Reinforcing Basic Aviation and Space Exploration)

1. Introduction

I examined representations from printed and electronic web materials offered by DoD (Department of Defense)* and Portland STARBASE, a “fun academy” conducted at a military base designed for “opening young people’s minds to the military” – specifically at risk 5 to18 year-old Portland Public School (PPS) students (K-12). I am struck by the fanciful rhetoric which, from my experiences as a veteran, former officer in the US Air Force and commander of a ranger-type unit in Viet Nam, and general observer of military life and activities, severely masks the realities on the ground. That STARBASE is represented in lofty terms, of course, is not surprising since its funding derives directly from the Pentagon’s recruitingbudget, and is considered by military commanders as a “cornerstone” in the creation of their public image [DoD STARBASE 2008 Annual Report]. The U.S. Military Recruiting Handbook unapologetically declares that “School recruiting is critical to long-term recruiting success…It means having the Army perceivedas a positive career choice as soon as young people begin to think about the future.” And as DoD admits, STARBASE “is one element in the building of that talent pool” [italics added for emphasis].

*Department of Defense is Orwellian doublespeak for Department of War. Since World War II, scholars identify more than 350 overt military interventions in countries around the world without the Constitutionally required declaration of war, and thousands of additional covert interventions, all illegal.

2. (Mis)Representations

I am particularly struck by the stated goals of STARBASE Portland: “[I]mprove the knowledge and skills of at risk youth in math, science, and technology by exposing them to the technological and positive role models found on military bases and installations,” specifically the Oregon Army National Guard Jackson Armory and the Portland Air National Guard Base. And, “Strengthen youth resistance to negative influences, including substance and alcohol abuse.”

During my four years of active duty employment I was stationed at four different bases in five states ­ three Air Force (TX, MD, LA) and one Army (KY, TN), plus two in Viet Nam, before being honorably discharged at the rank of Captain. Putting public relations fluff and recruiting rhetoric aside for a moment, I cannot think of a poorer setting to which to expose impressionable young children than military bases. Their representations as “technological and positive role models” have clearly not been critically examined!

3. DoD Largest Polluter in the World

The DoD is the largestpolluter in the world, producing more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical companies combined. This includes poisonous compounds such as pesticides, defoliants, solvents, petroleum, perchlorate (from rocket fuel), trichloroethylene (TCE), lead, depleted uranium, and mercury, among others. TCE, used as a degreaser for metal parts, is the most widespread water contaminant in the country, and more than 1,000 military sites are contaminated with it, but perchlorate is a growing contaminant in groundwater as well. The DoD controls more than 31,000 environmental sites officially declared severely dirty at more than 4,600 active and formerly active installations scattered around all 50 states. Yet, the DoD continues to resist orders from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean them up. Of the dirtiest of the dirty, the Pentagon owns 129 of the 1,255 identified Superfund clean-up site. ["Pentagon Fights EPA On Pollution Cleanup," Washington Post, June 30, 2008; "Military Pollution: The Quintessential Universal Soldier," commondreams.org, March 27, 2005; "Communities Seek Accountability For Military Pollution," Press Release (of five Environmental Groups), commondreams.org, March 23, 2009]. This is the record of the same DoD that pretends to offer young children a superb “technological role model.”

The Portland Air National Guard Base hosts the 142nd Fighter Wing, which includes A-15 fighter jets, as well as hosting the 939th Air Refueling Wing. This means lots of fuel storage and inevitable fuel spillages, use of TCE degreasers, solvents, etc., that normally accompany the high tech atmosphere of military and aviation installations.

In sum, military installations are very unhealthy places environmentally, as I can attest to from personal experiences, despite public relations representing the opposite. I served for two years on a command-wide Inspector General staff where we wrote and enforced regulations for bases that emphasized appearances far more than substance, a kind of image-making endemic in our culture.

4. Military Social Environment is Chronically Problem-Laden

Furthermore, I can attest to the fact that the “positive role models” to which you are exposing Portland’s “at risk” youth are quite farcical when you look below the surface. No matter what military regulations dictate or public affairs officers describe, the military social environment possesses serious racism (cf. civilian life), chronic abuse of alcohol and drugs – prescription and illegal (cf. civilian life), domestic violence, rape, mental illness, suicides at much higher rates than found in civilian life, and popular but unhealthy high-fat, high-salt, high-sugar diets offered on military bases by Fast Food chains like McDonalds, Wendy’s, Burger King, Popeyes, etc.

Military bases have histories of violence, especially domestic abuse and homicides (described as a “spousal aggression issue” by the military) ["Base Crimes: The Military Has A Domestic Violence Problem," Mother Jones, July/August 2005], as well as collective murders ["U.S. Army Base Has Bloody History," CBS News, November 5, 2009]. Domestic abuse is believed to be double that of the civilian population ["A Considerable Service: An Advocate's Introduction to Domestic Violence and the Military," Domestic Violence Report, April/May 2001, Civic Research Institute, Kingston, NJ]. And sexual assaults and rape of female veterans by male soldiers is chronic: more than 40 percent of female veterans report being victims of sexual assault, including rape, while serving in the military, with few of the male criminal perpetrators brought to justice ["Sexual Assault In Military 'Jaw-Dropping,' Lawmaker Says," CNN.Com, July 31, 2008].

The stated Portland STARBASE goal to “strengthen youth resistance to negative influences, including substance and alcohol abuse,” is simply an irresponsible resort by the PPS to unexamined representations which ironically expose at risk youth to ever more health and life risks as targeted military recruits. Serious alcoholism and drug abuse continues to plague military life, just as it did when I was in the military 40 years ago ["Heavy Drinking Still Acute Among Young Military Members," Pacific Institute For Research and Evaluation News Release, March 2, 2006; "Wounds of War: Drug Problems Among Iraq, Afghan Vets Could Dwarf Vietnam," Join Together newsletter, Boston University School of Public Health, June 15, 2009; "U.S. Troops Admit Abusing Prescription Drugs," USA Today, December 16, 2009; "Alcohol Abuse Weighs On Army," USA Today, February 9, 2010]. General Peter Chiarelli, Army Vice Chief of Staff, recently admitted “an increase in military violence, alcohol and substance abuse, and an increase in destructive or reckless behaviors” [Oregon Military Department Official Blog, September 15, 2009]. Just in the past week, two soldiers with the Oregon National Guard have been removed from duty for serious substance abuse and erratic behavior, each now facing punishment ["The Military and Substance Abuse," by Mike Francis, The Oregonian, February 10, 2010].

5. Suicide Epidemic

In 2009, suicides among active duty personnel exceeded number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan, and was the highest number since records began to be kept in 1980. For every successful suicide, at least five other active duty members are hospitalized for attempts. Resources of the military and Veterans Administration for dealing with problems experienced by soldiers simply have not been sufficiently allocated ["Suicide Claims More US Military Lives Than Afghan war," World Socialist Web Site, January 6, 2010; "Despite Prevention Efforts, U.S. Military Suicides Rise," McClatchy Newspapers, January 15, 2010; "Investigation Shows Military Suicides Up; Leaders Push Response," CaliforniaHealthline, November 25, 2009, California Healthcare Foundation]. Our society continues to glorify the military and war. However, when it comes to honestly addressing the reality of military life and the costs and traumas of war, our society historically falls terribly short [Richard Severo & Lewis Milford, The Wages of War: When America's Soldiers Came Home - From Valley Forge to Vietnam(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989)].

6. Veterans Experience Serious Problems

Once discharged from the military into civilian life, problems experienced while in the military often continue, or are even exacerbated. The suicide rate among veterans is twice that of other US citizens – 6,500 a year, or 125 a week, or 18 per day. One thousand veterans receiving care from the VA attempt suicide every month. Of the 1.7 million military personnel who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, 300,000 suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or major depression. Another 320,000 suffer from traumatic brain injury or physical brain damage, a majority of whom have yet to receive mental health and disability benefits. These two categories alone comprise 36 percent of the wounds, not counting thousands more suffering from various other bodily injuries. In the six months leading up to March 31, 2008, nearly 1,500 veterans died while awaiting to learn if their disability claim would be approved. And veterans who appeal a VA denial of their disability claim wait an average of nearly four-and-a-half years for an answer. Veterans also exhibit higher rates of unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, overeating, unsafe sex, and higher rates of physical and mental health problems and mortality ["The Truth About Veteran Suicides," Foreign Policy In Focus/FPIF, May 8, 2008; "Suicide Epidemic Among Veterans: A CBS News Investigation Uncovers A Suicide Rate For Veterans Twice That of Other Americans," CBS News, November 13, 2007]. As many as 400,000 veterans experience homelessness during the course of each year ["Homeless Veterans," National Coalition for the Homeless, September 2009].

7. Bribery To Public School Systems Purchases Pentagon Access to Children as Young as Five

That the Pentagon is able to effectively pay a bribe worth several hundred thousands of dollars to PPS each school year in order to access and brainwash its youth, while government funding is being cut for genuine creative learning programs and college assistance, is grotesque. This policy squeezes out other educational and career alternatives while deliberately channeling certainyoung people to the military. I cannot think of a more insidious recruitment scheme under the mask of providing special math and science education for at risk students, a curriculum PPS is already charged by law with providing. DoD STARBASE defines the characteristics of those it intends to target, apparently with the cooperation of five PPS staff: “[B]eing from a single parent household, having an older sibling who dropped out of high school, changing schools two or more times…, having C’s or lower grades, being from a low socioeconomic status family, or repeating an earlier grade.” Educators should spurn this program offer.

What process does the PPS staff undertake for selecting young people to attend a military “science camp” packaged as if it is a fun video game? This is a mockery of the PPS policy of zero tolerance for weapons in the learning environment. PPS school staff, working with DoD STARBASE officials, are likely to disproportionately select low-income students and minority students of color, softening them up for subsequent hard-core recruitment into a “career pathway” toward an early death sentence, i.e., white-washing a “career” of being cannon fodder. What constructive and creative alternatives are school officials exploring and implementing for these youth? That it is those students with the fewest options in life who are selected for this masked military recruitment program is deleterious discrimination.

Children do not possess the maturity of judgment or critical thinking skills needed to carefully analyze all opportunities presented to them. Would we offer children a rifle to shoot at targets without careful thought, even if the child was eager to do so? Would we offer a child a computer to simulate launching of robotic drone warfare directed at targets in far off lands, even if the child finds this a thrill? Would we offer various drugs and alcohol even if children desired same? Would we continue to feed them fast foods without regard to nutrition, knowing the harmful health effects and likely onset of obesity and diabetes? Learning settings require understanding contexts and long term consequences which educators presumably assess before offering them. I am not suggesting that these specific things are being offered by STARBASE, but that the program insidiously opens certain doors to at risk children that likely will not lead to the glorious future represented in the promo.

Children are impressionable, and the glamour of military high technology of “Aviation and Space Exploration” imparts exciting images in young children’s minds, the content and context of which have not been assessed for appropriateness in developing open minds. STARBASE enables further militarization of our culture, distorting our cultural psyche to the detriment of everyone. Remember, that once in the military, a soldier undergoes basic training where the primary skill learned is to operate a firearm and become proficient at killing another human being without first gaining knowledge of the history or context of the killing fields to which the soldier may be thrust.

8. My Experiences

As a security and law enforcement officer at headquarters of a major Air Force command Inspector General’s Office, I assisted in overseeing compliance at dozens of bases with safety, security, public relations and readiness requirements.

In Viet Nam I was commander of a 40-man ranger-type unit where I witnessed the immediate aftermath of low-flying fighter-bomber Turkey Shoots destroying inhabited but undefended fishing and farming villages, leaving hundreds of murdered and maimed Vietnamese in the bomb’s wake. My unit was primarily protecting US Air Force installations during which we survived 18 mortar and rocket attacks.

Subsequently, I was shocked when I realized that our military forces had invaded another country whose people simply wanted their independence from outside colonial powers. The Vietnamese were simply defending themselves from an attacking force of incredible firepower of which I was a part. I was not defending freedom for US Americans, but in fact destroying the deserving freedom of others. It was absurd! The reason I did not understand this reality: I was never taught this history, knew nothing about Vietnamese culture, and was ignorant about the insidious reasons my country was committing an egregious crime against peace. When the Pentagon Papers were published in 1971, it all became quite clear.

Commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity were normal, deliberate policy, despite being in violation of US Rules of Engagement, international law, the US Constitution, and my own conscience. Many of my superiors laughed at the “Rules of Engagement.” I witnessed these crimes more than 40 years ago, yet these experiences remain a permanent imprint, leaving me with a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

In my final assignment in the Air Force, I served as executive officer addressing personnel problems of a 250-man supply squadron: severe racism that existed on our base and in the nearby community, domestic abuse, violence in the nearby community, suicides or their attempts, drunkenness, drug addiction, etc.

Fifteen years later I served as executive director of a veterans outreach center. Homelessness was epidemic; alcoholism and drug addiction were chronic, causing a number of pre-mature deaths; veterans in car accidents died at nearly twice the rate as non-veteran car accidents; a number of “bush vets” lived isolated in nearby forests; many veterans suffered from chronic diseases, including various cancers and early deaths attributed to poisoning from the herbicides the United States used in Viet Nam. On several occasions I disarmed troubled veterans in threatening crises. Eight veterans committed suicide during my tenure there. Upon reflection I began to comprehend just how deep was the traumatic and unnatural conditioning that results from military training without context about the wars soldiers are ordered to engage in. It makes us fierce fighters, oftentimes murderers, as we witnessed peers being killed. Upon reflection, many of us knew deep down the reasons for our involvement in the war as told to us by our elders, schools, churches, families, and government, didn’t hold up to a critique that we wished we had been offered as part of our education as young men.

9. Conclusion

STARBASE is an egregious affront to the youth of our country, our culture, our city. That its assumptions and representations have been accepted without question by professional educators reveal an irresponsibility that is unconscionable. Why has no critical review been conducted by people who are in the know and can properly reflect upon the dangers of exposing young people to images and influences that are likely to have grave consequences on their future lives?

_______________________________

S. Brian Willson,

United States Air Force, 1966-1970, Viet Nam 1969; Honorably discharged as Captain

BA, MS, JD, Ph.D (Hon.), LL.D (Hon)”

Diversity and Development

Under Construction Since 1964

Please check back in a few decades.

The ignorance and arrogance of PPS administrators never ceases to amaze me.  I spent four long years working in PPS Human Resources department complaining about discriminatory employment practices.  In 2005, I  took my concerns to Vickie Phillips (superintendent at the time) but they were ignored.  Clearly, conditions haven’t improved.   

The Bilingual Teacher Pathway program (BTP) is a teacher preparation program designed to fill critical shortages of bilingual education/ESL teachers in the Portland Metropolitan Area.  This is accomplished by recruiting and supporting bilingual/bicultural educational assistants so they can become licensed teachers.  Typically, the BTP graduates are minorities. 

The Portland Teachers Program (PTP) was created for the purpose of recruiting and preparing culturally competent teachers, with a special focus on historically under-represented groups in the teaching profession.  In short, the teachers in the PTP are all racial/ethnic minorities.  

Today –  2010,  PPS includes a discriminatory question on the teaching  application:

Are you or will you be a graduate from Bilingual Teacher Pathway Program?       Yes                No

Are you or will you be a graduate from Portland Teacher Program?       Yes                No

When an applicant  answers  “yes”,  to the BTP question, it is almost certain that the applicant is a minority. 

When an applicant answers “yes” to the PTP question, the applicant is a racial/ethnic minority. 

PPS administrators might want to brush up on civil rights laws.  According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

Pre-Employment Inquiries

Requesting pre-employment information that discloses or tends to disclose an applicant’s race strongly suggests that race will be used unlawfully as a basis for hiring. Therefore, if members of minority groups are excluded from employment, the request for such pre-employment information would likely constitute evidence of discrimination.

It’s no wonder that the district spends a fortune on outside attorneys.  I’ll bet they’re all white too.

The district claims that the reason behind the elimination of student transfers at the high school level is to create equity.   The problem they say is that transfers deplete resources in poor schools because funding follows students when they transfer out.

It’s been over three years since Multnomah County audited the PPS Student Transfer Policy.  The auditor found that the policy failed to meet the board objectives of an open, transparent student transfer system promoting diversity, equity and increased student achievement.  The full audit can be found here.  This is the Multnomah County summary:

In FY02-03, the Portland Public Schools Board of Education (Board) adopted a new policy designed to create a more open and transparent student transfer system and promote equity, diversity and student achievement. The new transfer policy was adopted in response to dissatisfaction with the previous informal system. The purpose of this audit was to evaluate whether the student transfer system met Board objectives. 

The new policy was implemented during a period of declining enrollments and budget shortfalls. In response the Board made difficult decisions to close, consolidate, or reconfigure some schools. Throughout this changing environment Portland Public Schools Board and management (the District) tried to maintain a school choice system with strong neighborhood schools, provide an array of educational options, and invest significantly in its lowest performing high schools.

 While efforts have been made in each year to improve practices, we found that the District’s computerized lottery used to process transfer requests was overly complicated and complex. The student transfer system had management weaknesses and problems with coordination, and it lacked Board oversight. As a result, the lottery and transfer system did not meet the Board’s objectives for openness and transparency. The Board did not sufficiently consider or weigh the effects of the transfer system against competing goals. The transfer system may weaken neighborhood schools and undermine investments in the lowest performing schools.

Since its implementation in the FY03-04 school year, the lottery has become increasingly complex. This made it difficult for the District to communicate clearly and accurately to the 11% of families (approximately 5,000) who apply each year to transfer from their neighborhood school. Up-to-date information on transfer openings at schools was not available to parents. Space availability for incoming students was not decided until after parents applied to transfer. The process became increasingly competitive because the District reduced the number of openings causing fewer students to receive their first choice for transfer.

The student transfer system did not meet the Board’s diversity and equity goals. The system was not able to mitigate the moderate ethnic and socio-economic segregation in Portland’s neighborhoods. In addition, we found that the District’s schools were less diverse in terms of lowincome and minority representation than would be the case if all students attended their neighborhood schools. We concluded that the transfer system has not increased diversity in schools, but actually reduced it. 

The District made calculation errors in the weighting intended to promote diversity in both the FY04-05 and FY05-06 lotteries. As a result, lower income students who should have received a higher priority were at a disadvantage.

The District did not review the impacts of transfers on student and school performance. Doing so may have altered or improved policies and decision-making. We found that higher achieving students were more likely to apply to transfer under the Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) out of the lowest performing schools compared to their peers who were also eligible to transfer but chose to stay in their neighborhood schools. These students were also more likely to have been White, come from a family with a higher income, and have lower rates of absence compared to those who did not choose to transfer. This evidence of a “skimming” effect is consistent with research elsewhere.

Students who transferred out of low performing schools under NCLB were more likely to see declines in achievement in the following year compared to peers who stayed in their neighborhood schools – in both reading and math. The students who stayed at their neighborhood schools were less likely to regress. Our analysis was constrained by the limitations of available District data, but the findings warrant ongoing monitoring and more thorough analysis.

The student transfer process was administered by the Enrollment and Transfer Center and involved staff from many branches of the District’s administration. The process lacked strong management, coordination, and oversight. There was limited reporting on student transfers to the public, District managers or to the Board. Further, the District has yet to take advantage of an opportunity to strengthen and support its school choice and transfer system with a $6.48 million, five-year grant that it received in 2002.

In light of our overall audit finding that PPS’ transfer system did not effectively meet Board objectives and because of the current uncertainty about funding and the future configuration of schools, we recommend that the transfer process be limited for the short-term or put on hold until the recommended changes are implemented. We recommend the Board adopt a policy that clarifies the purpose of its school choice system.

 We also recommend that the Board recognize the significance of having an effective student transfer system by increasing its oversight. Once the District defines an administrative structure that is accountable and the steps that must be taken by management.

The current high school redesign is supposed to address the audit findings but the equity, diversity and achievement problems are far greater than the student transfer policy. 

Where is management oversight and accountability in the high school redesign process, or in the district overall?  How about transparency?  PPS administrators say that no decisions have been made but who believes that?

The elimination of student transfers is a step in the right direction but only if  the high school redesign ensures equity in the entire K-12 system.  The school board should not be voting on pieces of the system redesign when the plan has not been FULLY developed. 

If the high school redesign team were capable of creating the plan it would have been done by now.  They don’t even have a rough draft.  Just “Big Ideas”.