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”.

The No Child Left Behind act requires public school districts to provide Title I services to eligible public and private school students.

Title I Overview

This is the part of No Child Left Behind that supports programs in schools and school districts to improve the learning of children from low-income families. The U.S. Department of Education provides Title I funds to states to give to school districts based on the number of children from low-income families in each district.

US Department of Education Audit of ODE

The US Department of Education  audit on Oregon’s Title I program in 2008 produced many findings centered on accountability.  Among other things, there was an almost complete absence of oversight in how some Oregon districts handle services to private school children.  The findings listed below are taken directly from the Title I report (emphasis mine).

Finding (1): The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) has not ensured that its LEAs (school districts) maintain control of the Title I program for eligible private school children and their families and teachers.  For example:

• As part of the process for selecting a third-party provider in PPS, private school officials meet with potential providers without district officials present. 
• PPS provides its third-party providers with a list of possible criteria to use to select students for services, but leaves it to the third-party provider and private school officials to decide which criteria are actually used. 
• PPS gives the third-party provider and the private schools the responsibility of deciding the types of services (i.e., reading or math) that students selected for services receive and how the services will be evaluated.  
• In Woodburn School District (WSD) the private school officials develop the plan for services, the selection criteria, and how the services will be evaluated.

Finding (2): The ODE has not ensured that its districts have consistently met the requirements for consultation with private school officials regarding: (1) the method or sources of data the district will use to determine the number of private school children from low-income families residing in participating public school attendance areas; and (2) the evaluation of the Title I program for private school children.  PPS tells interested private school officials to report free and reduced priced lunch data in October without first consulting with them concerning the different options that may be used to obtain data on low-income students.  PPS’s affirmation form does not include this topic.  In both PPS and WSD the third-party contractor designs the evaluation of the Title I program for private school children.  Neither LEA has determined in consultation with private school officials how the Title I program for private school children will be evaluated, what the agreed upon standards are, and how annual progress will be measured.

Finding (3): The ODE has not ensured that its LEAs have consistently exercised proper oversight in awarding contracts for the provision of Title I services to participating private school children.  A contract that PPS has with a third-party vendor to provide services to participating private school children did not have enough detail to enable PPS to determine that the Title I statutory and regulatory requirements are being met.  The contract has not broken out the specific amount for administration, instruction, family involvement, and professional development that the vendor is charging.

PPS’ handling of Title I services to private school children is the equivalent of handing private schools a check and walking away.  Where is the accountability for that?  Unfortunately, this is typical of how PPS manages its money.  District staff consistently argue that questioned expenses are just a small portion of their budget.  They don’t get it that the pennies add up. 

The PPS 2009/10 budget includes $20.2 million in Title I funds PLUS $14.5 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds.  PPS reports that the ARRA funds will be targeted towards: standards and assessment; data systems; teacher effectiveness; and support for lowest performing schools. 

Schools need the money but they need to use it effectively.  Don’t let the district piss the money away.

Parents:

TAKE ACTION – You have a right to know how your child’s school is spending their money.  Find out if your child’s school is a Title I school.  If so, here are some questions (ask any or all) that you should ask your school principal:

1. How much has the school been allocated in Title I funding?
2. How much in funds did the school carryover from last year?
3. Who was involved in completing the School Improvement Plan (SIP)?
4. Request a copy of the School Improvement Plan or schedule a time to review it.
5. Is the school required to provide supplemental services (individualized help for struggling students)?  If so, who is the provider?  What services are provided?
6. Is the School Improvement Plan and budget aligned? 
7. What parent involvement activities are included in the School Improvement Plan?

Don’t worry about whether you’ll understand all of it.  Most parents don’t understand it.  You’ll get it over time.  The important thing is to ask questions and always follow-up.   

If you need help with any of the information you collect, you can email me by going to the About  page or you can post questions on this blog.  There’s a very supportive online community of parents with tons of expertise and various perspectives.

How many times have we heard from school district administrators that the problems in the public education system are the result of inadequate funding? 

Yet as a parent or community member, you’ve seen the superintendent and administrators waste money. 

•  They hire their friends or family for newly created and unecessary positions. 
•  They redecorate their offices. 
• They carry fancy gadgets that they don’t know how to use. 
• They sell surplus toilet paper because they claim it doesn’t fit their new toilet paper holders.
• They even return unused federal dollars intended to be spent on poor kids 

Wasted will be an ongoing discussion topic on this site intended to help school district administrators  make better budgeting decisions.  

We’ll do this by exposing school system financial waste (your tax dollars).  Hopefully, district staff will take note and make the changes necessary to eliminate the waste. 

That way, the money saved can be spent where it has the most impact. 

Who knows maybe we could help Portland Public Schools save enough money to provide working fire safety systems in all of its schools (not just the ones in good neighborhoods). 

Here’s one example of waste:  Recently KATU news  pointed out that PPS spent $79,247.56 renting hotel space for Administrator Meetings while some PPS buildings sat empty.  The Portland school district could have held their administrator meetings in the empty buildings.   

PPS spokesman Matt Shelby defended the use of hotels for the meetings saying that the cost was just a small part of the district’s overall budget.   

What do you think?  Was that a good use of your tax dollars? 

What kinds of waste have you seen in the public school system?