Also, we as taxpayers should be able to see how the kind of “choice” PPS offers really isn’t really free or fair.

Jefferson High School has about the same number of high school students living within its attendance area as Wilson High School in SW (Jefferson attendance area=1,751; Wilson attendance area=1,642).

Educational offerings at both schools
Math: Jeff=6 courses; Wilson=14
English: Jeff=7; Wilson=13
World Languages: Jeff=3; Wilson=17
Music: Jeff=0; Wilson=15
Art & Theater: Jeff=4; Wilson=12
AP/IB classes: Jeff=0; Wilson=12
Career pathways: Jeff=3; Wilson=6

Two schools serving communities with the same number of students, but offering very different educational opportunities, because school district policies allow schools to be drained of enrollment.

But my focus is holding the school board responsible for policy that concentrates poverty and its attendant problems at schools like Jefferson.

I am disgusted to no end that the west side clusters were spared from all this, and I have not been able to reach any conclusion other than what Steve Buel wrote about, above.

As far as enrollment in the Jefferson Cluster goes, you need to take a look at Steve’s (our host here, not Buel) posts here back in August and Sept. Look at the red-and-green maps: they’ll give you a great picture of where the enrollment (and therefore the money) is going.

My subjective call based on past events ~ and we’ll see how it plays out in future years. Hollyrood Elementary was officially closed and Fernwood Middle School converted into a K-8 in May 2006. At the time this was deemed a ‘loss’ by activist parents at both schools, as Fernwood had been a succeeding Middle-School with a good assortment of electives, and Hollyrood an archetypal small neighborhood Elementary school. No more. We’ll soon be at 675 kids in a K-8 headquartered in Fernwood. From the hindsight of 1.5 years, whether you believe this is a loss or not depends on your view of K-8, neighborhood schools, and the relevance of the middle-school experience. I am an advocate of small neighborhood schools, so viewed the school boards actions in 2006 harshly. But I accept that reasonable people can disagree, and this year (our first as a true K-8) has gone better than I expected.

Zarwen asked: “…and RCP was in the Madison Feeder”

RCP was/is 20+ blocks from Hollyrood-Fernwood, and our families attend the same churches, same Sat. Market, same cub-scout packs. Many of the active parents at H’rood-F’wood saw the closure of RCP as a blow against a neighborhood schools, and argued with school board members for RCP’s continuation both because of the neighborhood school issue, but also ~ neighbors support neighbors.

With RCP’s closure, L’hurst, Alameda and H’rood-F’wood all gained former-RCP students (from the redrawn line at w/57th), so RCP’s closure directly impacted us. I don’t know anyone happy about what happened to RCP.

Zarwen: “And which “transfer policies changed.”

Instead of saying ‘transfer policies changing’ I should have said ‘transfer numbers changing.’

5 years ago Hollyrood and Fernwood both had a large number of transfers (off-hand, I’d say 25 to 30% of the student body.) This has changed: Hollyrood-Fernwood now takes only a handful of transfers (around 5 kids a grade-level). What with our demographics we don’t have the space for more transfers (and neither do L’hurst, Irvington or Alameda.)

The transfer issue was a hot-issue within the parent community 2 years ago, with some arguing for continued Transfers (rational: Sonja Hennings’ comment that the world is multi-cutural. H’rood-F’wood is fairly lilly-white, and only thru minority-student transfers do we give the school-community a glimpse of the world at large.) Others were against Transfers due to class-size issues and the lack of neighborhood investment by the transfers themselves. As conversations go, it was a difficult one, but irrelevant in the end, as we have no space for any influx of transfers.

… Have you looked at the school numbers for schools around Jefferson? I wonder if they’re all as full-up as we are. Pretty soon their will be no transfers as no space at any of the schools!

Andrew,
Well, maybe “know nothing” is a little overstated, but if they do know stuff then why do they do nothing substantial? Kind of makes “could care little” stand up.

Sure the cluster 2 people decry the problems at Jeff, but do what? Also, do they decry the problems in the Madison, Marshall, and Roosevelt clusters? And what have they done there that address the serious problems? No, the “could care less” remark stands solid as a rock.

Things to do to address the discipline problems in poor middle schools and upper grade K-8′s in some cases:

Identify it as the major problem it is so that energy and time will be spent on it as a top priority.
Create classrooms without misbehavior so kids who want to really learn have a place they can.
Set up alternative placements the first day within buildings and place kids there until they want to return to the regular classrooms and attend school regularly and not disrupt.
Set up Saturday school as a deterrent.
Create more electives to involve more kids in interesting classes. In middle school this can be done at almost no cost. (Messed up the ability to do this with K-8′s)
Increase the number of counselors in lower economic schools. Very expensive but a must.
Create meaningful after school activities tied to the school itself — including interschool sports programs which increases immensely student-teacher rapport and parent involvement.
Allow principals the leaway to crack down on misbehavior — they don’t have it now.
Get serious about reading and writing improvement for kids who are still struggling at the middle school level. The testing system focusses reading and writng attention on the bubble kids instead of where it should be.
Create a system and administrative attitudes which increases the power of the teacher in the classroom. Lots of things could be done here.
Quit focussing so much on the idea of improving teaching methods and spend much more time on making sure the school itself is working for the kids who are there.

In the interest of naming names, I’d like to add the Portland Schools Foundation (PSF). Now that Sho Dozono is running for mayor, I wonder if he has any idea what he created, or if the outcome is what he anticipated/desired back in 1996. Also the so-called Real Estate Trust–they are the ones who really decide which buildings close, and invariably it’s the ones whose lands have the best resale value. Smith and RCP are two good examples of this. Their interest is in enriching their real estate colleagues, not in how best to house and educate schoolchildren. Keep this is mind while we watch the “Reshaping Schools” fiasco unfold!

Concerning the teacher transfer issue: Steve Buel is correct as far as he went, but there are other factors. For example, no experienced teacher wants to apply to a school that appears to be at high risk of closure, which may be why your school keeps getting rookies. Another factor is that teachers sometimes apply to a school because they admire the principal there. Lastly, the teacher contract requires that a principal interview no more than 5 candidates for any open position. Seniority is NOT a requirement in choosing who to interview. I remember when an opening came up at Laurelhurst about 10 years ago, they received over 100 applications(!), all from within the district, per the contract. But the principal only had to interview 5.

I am confused about your comment that Grant cluster “lost” (and I am also a Grant cluster resident). You mention RCP and Hollyrood closing. But Hollyrood is still open (albeit with a new configuration), and RCP was in the Madison feeder pattern. How do these add up to a “loss” for Grant cluster? And which “transfer policies changed”?

~Wives rule!

Steve B.~

All 3 of your comments on Teacher Transfers, Discipline and Resources haunt back to the issue of what you call Misbehavior. (Specifically:, “More teachers want to transfer to upper middle class schools where the discipline is better”…”There is a massive difference in misbehavior [at assorted schools]” ” “[some schools have] huge numbers of kids on drugs, in alcohol and drug affected families, immense numbers of kids who don’t read or write well, incredible dropout rates… ”

Ouch. I am curious about any solutions you have to the behavior/discipline issue. They would seem to be societal, not School Board resolvable. The last attempt at Social engineering (the Jefferson Academies) fell flat from what I’ve heard.

Regarding 4) “School Board Control.” I respectfully disagree. I do not believe the current school board ‘know nothing and care little about the rest of the district’ ~ I think it’s a very tricky situation, with the board stuck between competing interests (business community, PPS bureaucracy, Union pressure, passionate parents). While SfC and PSF take credit for everything, I don’t think they lead the conversation ~now that VP is gone, I optimistically think we as a community can do that. And in Jefferson’s favor – in all of my conversations with Cluster 2 activists I’ve never heard anyone not decry the problems at Jeff., and not hope for a favorable resolution.

1)Teacher transfer and hiring: More teachers want to transfer to upper middle class schools where the discipline is better. Hence, the mathematics of the process pretty much guarantees those schools get a larger pool of teachers to choose from, hence a better chance of better teachers. I have tried to get PPS to backload with outstanding teachers (hired previous to any other district) into the lower economic schools to offset this slow drain. No luck.

2) Discipline: The discipline code was written when I was on the school board (early 80′s) and has not been updated much to my knowledge. There is a massive (MASSIVE) difference in misbehavior (particularly classroom disruptions) from upper middle class schools to lower economic schools. (Sylvan suspension last year = 2%, George suspensions =34%, That’s a third of the kids in each classroom.)
While classroom disruptions are probably the single most important factor in lessening learning, we almost never discuss it, take no serious steps to improve it, and generally leave it up to the schools whose best interests are served by masking it. I have offered several suggestions to help correct this situation. No luck.

3) Resources: District resources are allocated by numbers of students. So a school with huge numbers of kids on drugs, in alcohol and drug affected families, immense numbers of kids who don’t read or write well, incredible dropout rates in their cluster, huge neighborhood crime numbers, poor parents who can’t afford solid activities for their children after school, and on and on, get basically the same resources from PPS as schools with hardly any of these factors. Does that make sense? Someone could make the case, and it would be true, that there are extra resources in these schools. But just look at one type , the counselors, and you will see it is nowhere near what it should be, and certainly not what it needs to be. There are ways to obtain lots of what is needed which I have set forth, particularly in the middle schools and upper elementary grades. Never got the time of day.

4) School board control: All the members of the school board who have been elected in the last several years have gotten elected because they have had the support of Stand for Children and the membership of the Portland School Foundation. These people come fron the Lincoln, Wilson, and parts of Grant, and Cleveland clusters. Their policies have heavily favored these neighborhoods — and they are the people with all the access, who sit on all the committees, who whisper in the ears of the board members, who know nothing and care little about the rest of the district. End of story. (It is true that the schools in these parts of the city suffer from many of the same problems facing the others, but you get favored and are way better off. The other schools can be horrible, truly horrible compared to what passes for good education, say in Vancouver.)