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”.

I’ve never forgotten my first visit to Whitaker Middle School in June 2001.  It was shortly after Willamette Week broke the story  The Poisoning of Whitaker.  The Willamette Week story exposed a long history of radon poisoning along with other indoor air quality concerns at the school.  For about 10 years, PPS administrators failed to adequately address building conditions or to inform staff or students of the health hazards.

The first thing I noticed when entering Whitaker School (Pictured in the Cheating in Class banner) was that the cove base had been removed from along the bottom of the walls exposing mold.  There was a solid, thick, black line that ran parallel to the walls.  I realized as I got closer that it was a trail of dead ants which ran the full length of the hallway.  It looked as if someone had sprayed for ants but didn’t bother to clean up the dead ants.

It was during that visit that a staff member gave me a sample of what appeared to be a mushroom scraped from the wall in a special education classroom.  The building smelled awful.  I later learned that the smell was probably coming from a squirrel that had died in the basement.

I am not an environmental health and safety expert.  I’m a mom.  A mom who recognizes mold when I see it.  Whitaker clearly had a mold problem. 

Still, PBS Engineering and Environmental who had been on contract with PPS for years, had produced report after report stating that there wasn’t an indoor air or mold problem.  They even produced a report the same month of my visit saying that “ventilation of the spaces tested appears to be adequate with respect to the ventilation parameters monitored and the particulate identified in the laboratory reports.”

In July 2001, Whitaker was vacated and later determined to be too toxic to renovate.  After spending $700,000 on maintenance for the vacant building over the next few years, PPS administrators decided to demolish the building.

The PPS board voted to borrow $2.1 million for the demolition in August 2006.

Well PBS may have missed the boat on the mold problem but they weren’t going to miss out on their share of the demolition dollars.  PBS oversaw the decommissioning of several underground storage tanks, hydraulic lifts and water wells.  They also developed erosion control and grading plans.

According to the PBS Engineering and Environmental project website:

“The Whitaker School project is a good example of how PBS incorporates their multi-disciplinary structure into a successful project.  Led by the Sustainable Design Group, all four PBS service areas - Engineering, Environmental, Health and Safety, and Natural Resources – brought this project to successful completion.”  It sure did!

You’d think that PBS would count their winnings and move on but no…they’re still providing services to PPS.  Their annual contract was amended on 10/12/09.  They continue to receive about $450,000 annually.

The Whitaker situation raises a question about potential conflicts of interest.  But that’s not new for PPS.

In 1998, PPS contracted with KPMG to conduct a comprehensive performance audit.  At that time, the district claimed to have solicited four firms to submit bids to perform the audit but only two firms responded.  KPMG’s proposal was incomplete.  The only mention of costs was a handwritten note at the bottom of a letter.  The note estimated costs at $300,000 – $350,000 with formal cost estimates to be sent at a later time.  The district didn’t follow their own Request for Proposals policy.

KPMG came up with 230 audit recommendations.  The most controversial being the recommendation to close 13 schools.  An Oregonian analysis conducted shortly after the audit found KPMG’s numbers to be inflated.  Many of KPMG’s findings are still in dispute today.

Research into KPMG’s background suggests that KPMG might have been motivated by their desire to profit from PPS closures.  KPMG was a partner in a for-profit education management company.  They used public school system audits to gain entry into schools. 

KPMG was actively involved in pushing charter school legislation, vouchers and privatization.  It makes you wonder why the PPS board would have approved a contract with a company hostile to public education. 

Now we have Magellan.  The Magellan website states:

Magellan K-12 is a specialty consulting firm providing services to education clients nationwide.  The firm is focused solely on the K-12 marketplace and provides Educational Adequacy and Suitability Assessments.  The firm develops educational standards and specifications, architectural programs, site selections, enrollment projections, geographic information systems, economic models, bond programs, and construction implementation plans.

Once again…one stop shopping.  Magellan can identify problems with PPS facilities, make recommendations about renovations and new construction, and manage all projects. 

Not surprisingly many of the PPS staffers involved in today’s questionable contracts are the same people who brought us PBS Engineering and Environmental and KPMG. 

I agree with the little girl.  There’s a fungus among us.  What do you think?

There are many problems with PPS high school redesign plan but one key problem is that it’s being developed absent common sense.  This has been apparent from the beginning. 

Do you remember getting the postcard earlier in the year inviting you to the high school redesign meetings?  If the meetings had been held according to the schedule on the postcard, Superintendent Smith wouldn’t have been able to attend all of the meetings because someone double booked her.   The meetings had to be rescheduled, making the postcards a waste of time and money. 

I’ve attended three of the redesign meetings and heard at each one that the purpose in making the changes to the high school system is to:

• Promote equity
• Increase graduation rates (which sounds much better than reducing dropout rates)
• Inspire and engage students
• Ensure all schools are in high demand
• Ensure all students are prepared for success at the next level

Let’s talk about equity.  Has the district defined it?  How will they know if they’ve achieved the goal of creating equity?  Who will monitor it?  What is the plan for correction if they’re not achieving equity (the thing that they haven’t defined)?

PPS Chief Academic Officer Xavier Botana has said repeatedly that students need a solid K-8 foundation to be successful at the high school level.  Yet, the K-8 reconfiguration is still a mess in many schools.  So what if PPS offers Advanced Placement classes at all high schools when not all students are being prepared to take them.  Where’s the equity?

It seems that district leadership is hellbent on making sweeping changes without having taken the most obvious smaller steps to address the issues.

The proposed high school model in the redesign plan reduces the counselor/student ratio by 100 students per counselor.  That’s a waste of time without a comprehensive evaluation of the high school counseling offices.  

Some school counseling offices are responsible for increasing dropout rates.  The #1 reason that students drop out is because they are too far behind in credits to catch up.   

Many counselors are not available to students.  They don’t return parent phone calls.  They fail to inform students that they are not eligible for credits in some situations.  Communication about withdrawal/transfer policies and deadlines is often inaccurate.  School counselors rarely (in high poverty schools) initiate contact with students.  Unless the student goes to the counselor for help with getting into college, it won’t happen.

I have yet to hear specifics about how the proposed high school redesign will “close the achievement gap.”  Wasn’t that the goal with the switch to smaller schools? 

My final thought on this whole redesign process and the lack of common sense behind the plan is regarding students. 

Why are district administrators soliciting input from students that are doing well?  We know the system works for them.  That’s wonderful. 

What about the kids that aren’t on Super SAC or didn’t attend the community meetings?  District administrators need to be actively seeking out the students that the system failed and engaging them in genuine conversations.

PPS Two-Tiered Public Education System

 PPS is part way through a high school “redesign” process.  District administrators claim the redesign is intended to eliminate inequities within the school system.  These inequities were created and/or maintained by many of the same people now charged with fixing the broken system. 

The table below is a snapshot of the programs at Jefferson and Lincoln high  schools.  It’s clear that inequities exist.  Lower income students do not have the same  opportunities as students from wealthier backgrounds.  The results in terms of achievement, dropout rates, and college preparation reflect  the district’s investment in the students. 

Can the PPS school board, superintendent, and district administrators be trusted to right their wrongs? 

 Sources: Oregon Department of Education 2007/08 Dropout Report, AYP Reports, School Report Cards and Portland Public Schools Research and Evaluation Department.