Newport is subsidizing their programs with students and money from outside their attendance area.

We need the legislature to step in and stop these transfers!! The constitution calls for equal education for all students, but that is not happening.

http://www.publicradio.org/pub.....86fda609d1

Add Jefferson to proposal

What a great idea! A new state-of-the-art high school built with the proceeds of the sale of the current Lincoln High School site (”Lincoln High parents embrace selling the school for bigger site,” Nov. 10). But since Lincoln isn’t the only new high school we need, let’s couple it with an equally state-of-the-art school to replace Jefferson High School.

If there is not enough money to replace both schools, we can have the Lincoln and Jefferson school communities raise funds and share the money equally. Maybe after such a project we could begin some healing in this school district.

STEVE BUEL
North Portland

Thank you for always keeping it rolling. WM

They don’t want to hear and respond to arguments which don’t go along with their own narrow focus. After all, I have volunteered for years to sit on committees or help various administrators or board members with particular projects or issues. In 20 years how many committees have I been asked to participate in, or issues I have been asked to officially help address. NONE. Not one. Not one board member even bothered to return my last emails (including Ruth). Why? I can’t be trusted to support the company line. I start from a different perspective — lower income neighborhoods and the need for genuinely addressing the problems in the schools. They don’t really want to do that. Protest and shaming is all that is left.

Here, I volunteer to sit on the committee working on the transfer process. Call me. I am in the phone book.I would be glad to work within a reasoning atmosphere. I won’t wait up though.

Unfortunately, it is still very much alive and well. I know because I went to a Board committee meeting a few weeks ago where this thing was discussed. Bobbie Regan wanted to implement a specific timeline for a certain school to get to 400+ even though the new Super recommended waiting until the facilities planning process is finished. Dilafruz Williams pointed out that there are still over 20 elementary schools under 400. The other Board member present was Ruth Adkins. Curiously, no one mentioned the OVERCROWDING issues happening at other schools!!! even though they had just finished voting to change Rosa Parks to a K-5 because there isn’t enough room there to house grades 6-8! Makes me wanna bang my head against the wall!!!

Don’t worry I’m sure that Ruth is working dilligently on the minimum 400 students per school issue.

I agree that just shutting the door on transfers isn’t going to solve any problems, and neither will just capping transfers! Along with changes to the transfer system, the district needs to provide equitable offerings and programs at all schools, school boundaries that make sense, and an end to the 400-students per school mandate. They are all essential. And phasing in policies with grandfather clauses, etc. can ease most disruptions.

I don’t know anyone who wants major changes that aren’t well-thought out in advance. Assuming you’re from Rieke/SW, I can assure you that the schools in our part of town have been disrupted by many more hasty and poorly implemented “big changes” than yours have, and we’ve also had the threat (and reality) of closures to deal with. I wouldn’t wish those things on anyone’s school, neighborhood, or children.

Given the extent of the inequities in the district, little incremental steps like you describe can be more disruptive and less effective than thoughtful, comprehensive, and well-implemented changes to the system. The changes don’t have to happen overnight, but we should be able to have a districtwide plan for how to create equitable schools before we ask the voters for a capital bond to fund a districtwide facilities plan to house those schools.

Understood. I guess we may just have to agree to disagree on whether Ruth’s election has had any effect re the amount of discussion re Rieke. I don’t see it, since all of the elements for this fall’s “news” were in place long before her election — including the “marketing plan,” the highly involved Hillsdale community / neighborhood association and their push with the city and Metro, and (most importantly) the bulk of the students that made up this year’s growth. If anything, I’d think the converse is more likely — i.e., she’s largely stayed away for fear of spurring the very kinds of objections that you offer up. That’s been more consistent with my observations (for all the good it’s done!).

In any event, you’re right that there are other focuses that deserve attention; the “grow or die” whipsaw, for instance, still deserves substantial attention (what’s the latest on the “400 student elementary” anyway? That still has to be beaten down, rather than allowing it to turn into conventional wisdom and threatening a huge number of schools throughout the district, which is not to say that it’s not a day late and a dollar short for others). I’m concerned on the transfer front, though, about the “inequity” arguments that invariably rear their ugly head when a school closes its doors to transfers. In its own way, that looks just as inequitable — arguably more so in the short run — as allowing them. In the long run, is it better to close all doors to neighborhood-to-neighborhood transfers? I’m willing to accept the proposition, but am a little leery of how to accomplish that without tearing up the district.

In general, I think the district spends too much time thinking out (and precipitously implementing) “big changes,” and not enough time bringing about incremental ones. If they shifted boundaries every year, for instance, making changes applicable to new incoming students, rather than radical shifts applicable to all students, they wouldn’t find themselves with a sense of entitlement associated with particular schools, and could manage size issues better. Under current approaches, though, it ends up being an all or nothing proposition. It seems to me that avulsive shifts in policy are generally disruptive. Sometimes disruption is good, but if you don’t think it out ahead of time (or if those unanticipated consequences rear their ugly head) it can be a real mess. Sure — I recognize that a lot of people have been waiting a long time for change, and that it’s taken too long for district leadership to acknowledge that this is a big part of the problem. We may be there, at least (though I recognize that many disagree). In the end, though, it seems to me that if you start with a transfer cap — implemented along with (or followed a year later by) boundary changes applicable to incoming students in order to counteract enrollment changes (though that’s subject to discussion) — you might be able to demonstrate progress toward overall goals without the accompanying disruption.