Comments on: Corrected Map and Some More Analysis

By: Himself

Himself — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:03:06 +0000

jecado, thanks for the info. The budget per student figure does include fundraising money, but only that which is used for personnel. Here’s how PPS defines it: “Funds included are general funds (personnel, supplies, operations); grant funds (including Federal grants such as Title 1-A), and special revenue funds (including tuition paid for fee-based full-day kindergarten, and funding of personnel through fundraising/donations). Capital expenditures, and centrally budgeted functions such as utilities and custodial services are not included.”

I actually think it’s good to include personnel paid for by fundraising, but it would be nice to have it broken out as a separate figure. My sense is that it simply aggravates the inequity. It would also be interesting to see the fundraising money that goes to other things like after-school programs, playgrounds, trips for the kids, etc., that is exempt from the PFS tithe.

I’m also keenly aware that PPS does not track school-aged kids in a given attendance area, but only the kids registered in the district. It would be possible to use census data (which is available at a very find grain — block-by-block, I believe) and find out how many kids are lost to the system.

But PPS doesn’t receive state funding for those not in the system, so that would be a different study. As it stands, this is a good look at how PPS is spreading the wealth in Portland, the vast majority of it from the state general fund.

By: jecado

jecado — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:37:25 +0000

During the “reconfiguration” “discussions” of 16 months ago, I noticed some quirks in the PPS enrollment data sheets upon which your analysis is based. I’m not sure how these considerations affect your very nice analysis, but I think they’re worth pointing out.
First, there is no consistent understanding in PPS documents about what actually counts as “budget per student.” On these enrollment data sheets, the “per student” budget includes foundation money raised by parents at the schools (less the 1/3 tax that goes to the general PSF fund). Not that PPS makes it easy to determine, but a better measure of the money “taken away” or added to schools might be the “public funds per student” spent at those schools.
Second, there’s no good way to take into account the actual number of school-aged students in the enrollment areas; the “neighborhood” student number on the sheet is the number of neighborhood students in PPS schools; there could be a substantial number of school-aged students attending public schools outside of the district, home-schooling, or attending private schools.
Again, I have no good sense of how these considerations affect your analysis. They might, though, and I thought they were worth pointing out in order to allow you to continue improving your evaluation.

By: Zarwen

Zarwen — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 20:29:32 +0000

I just want to remind everyone that the inequities of course offerings, esp. at elementary schools, started back in 1996. Our district-wide share from the state was cut back drastically, and instead of making a district-level decision, the wussy superintendent told each principal to decide what to cut in his/her building. Many, if not most, principals used the opportunity to get rid of someone they didn’t like, someone who was active in the teachers’ union, etc. Then when money was raised for “buy-backs” (which led to the birth of the PSF), they used it to reward their “friends.” One used it to buy back a secretary instead of a teacher. His DOSA (now they are called area directors) complained to her superiors, who refused to do anything about it, and the DOSA ended up getting fired!

I was the choir director at one of the low-income middle schools. My singers were the only ones who showed up to fund-raise. What did they get in return? The shop program was restored, ’cause the shop teacher sucked up to the principal, which I refused to do.

But that is what you must do if you want to keep your job in PPS; otherwise you’ll end up like that area director who blew the whistle ’cause it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, doing what’s right isn’t a priority for the folks in charge. The evidence is all over town.

By: Wacky Mommy

Wacky Mommy — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:16:47 +0000

Eh, I’ve had people call me worse.

By: Neisha

Neisha — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:44:55 +0000

Thanks, Wacky Mommy, and sorry for mistyping your blog name!

By: Wacky Mommy

Wacky Mommy — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:35:36 +0000

I always say protect the newbies or they won’t come back to my blog!

By: Neisha

Neisha — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:32:08 +0000

Those are some great ideas, Nicole. Thanks for this discussion, everyone! As you’ve probably guessed, I’m a newer PPS mom who has been lurking on these sites (this one, Wackymommy’s, NSA, Terry Olson’s) since spring ‘06 when my child was in pre-K and the whole district was in flux. Basically, I have been too shy to post until this week. Thanks for not flaming the newbie!

By: Nicole

Nicole — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:53:11 +0000

I agree that we need fewer focus options at the elementary level not more. Most of the focus option subjects should be offered as part of the curriculum in every neighborhood school – science, envirnonmental studies, social studies, art, opportunities for hands on learning, introduction to a foreign language, etc.

I think elementary school foreign language Immersion Programs should be located in the neighborhoods where there is a significant number of ESL students who speak that language. The district should also offer some foreign language opportunities in all Neighborhood Schools across the district without implementing additional full-blown immersion programs. And by 7th grade every school should offer at least two foreign language electives. Children who don’t start a foreign language before high school are at a big disadvantage if they ever want to become fluent in a second language.

Humboldt doesn’t have an immersion program, but they have had Spanish/English bilingual teachers in the school to help ESL students, and to offer English for ESL parents, they are also planning to introduce Spanish language opportunities during and after school for students and parents. The district and Portland Schools Foundation could help implement foreign language opportunites like those in all neighborhood schools. Maybe after-school foregin language classes for parents could also be offered to community members in the neighborhood to help support the program financially and to make public schools a more central part of the community.

By: Neisha

Neisha — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:14:06 +0000

Yeah. You know, thinking it through a bit more, I think that the dual-immersion programs are actually different from other focus options. Those programs have a huge benefit for ESL and ELL kids in that about half the kids are supposed to be native speakers of a non-English language, about half the kids are supposed to be native speakers of English, and both sets of kids become bilingual. That’s a win-win for everyone involved and those programs should be located in neighborhoods with large numbers of kids who are not native English speakers.

The other type of focus option, the kind focused on a subject matter or instructional philosophy, seems to be popular with wealthier parents interested in something other than their neighborhood school. We need to take a closer look at these programs and their effect on neighborhood schools.

By: Himself

Himself — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:55:24 +0000

Neisha, I’m more of the mind that we should have fewer special focus options, especially at the elementary level. And you’re absolutely correct about the focus schools in neighborhood school buildings. From what I’ve seen personally, it’s a really bad idea.