A federal judge signed off on the class action settlement today. Do you think this might serve as a lesson learned for PPS as it refuses to continue negotiations with the DCU?

Don’t count on it. Portland Public Schools negotiators seem to be doing everything they can to break the union in this one.

Steve Brand’s Op-Ed in the Oregonian last week (covered here, on Terry Olson’s blog and on Amanda Fritz’ blog) spurred quite a bit of community discussion on the issue of segregation in our Portland Public Schools. But why aren’t our civic leaders weighing in on this critical issue of Portland’s future?

For the school board, race seems to be one of those topics that aren’t discussed in polite company. Anyway, if they did, they might have to admit that their open transfer policy has encouraged segregation. Make no mistake; this is not an issue of demographics. No neighborhood in Portland is majority black, yet some schools are. This situation is a direct result of public schools policy. If we want to change the situation, we must begin by examining that policy.

Tom Potter, who ran for mayor as a supporter of public education, has been silent on this. So has the rest of the city council.

I engaged erstwhile city council candidate Fritz on her blog, and she still wants to blame families who take advantage of district policy for the problem. She also wants to blame No Child Left Behind, but refuses to go far in discussing the open transfer policy that goes well beyond what NCLB mandates. “School transfer policy is a question of degree,” writes Fritz, “and of where to draw the line with giving choices that keep families in Portland Public Schools instead of private or suburban ones.” (I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised that someone who “studied Ayn Rand thanks to Rush” would be loathe to take a position against “free choice”.)

This harks back to the original rationale for opening up transfers to keep the middle class from fleeing Portland for the ’burbs. But recent demographic changes, with massive influx of middle class families to the inner North and Northeast neighborhoods, cry out for reexamination of this policy.

This policy has resulted in divestment from public schools in neighborhoods now teeming with middle class families. As an example of this divestment, there are 655 students at Jefferson, and 662 students living in the neighborhood going to different neighborhood high schools. With funding at Jefferson averaging $5547.14 per student annually, that represents a public divestment of over $3 million dollars a year at Jefferson alone. This figure more than doubles, to more than $7 million, when you figure in the 457 students in special programs/focus options and 232 students in “Community Based Alternatives”*.

Fritz writes “I’m confident Ruth Adkins will provide needed rebalancing on the School Board, with her stance that every neighborhood school should be good enough for parents to want to send their kids there as their first choice – while also recognizing that some magnet and specialty programs can enrich the city’s educational menu offerings.”

Well, first of all, I’m a big supporter of Ruth, but I’m not so optimistic that she alone can change the strategic direction of the board, which has repeatedly and consistently shown itself to be enamored with foundation-sponsored, market-based school reform.

Secondly, this is exactly what I’m talking about in my New Deal for Portland Public Schools. (I’m going to publish a second draft soon, ammended to include a place for magnet and special focus programs.) But the only way to get there is to take a look at the open transfer policy that has taken us away from this sort of school system and continues to divest millions of dollars annually from our poorest neighborhoods.

Why won’t our civic leaders talk about this?

*Source: 2006 PPS School Enrollment and Program Data for Jefferson – Academy of Science and Technology and Jefferson – Academy of Arts and Technology. The $5547.14 figure is an average, since the two academies are funded separately.

(Sort of.)

It’s not exactly breaking news (I covered this a week and a half ago and they’ve been without a new contract for years), and it’s not in the print edition (yet?), but at least the Willamette Week is burning some electrons on the Portland Public Schools contract impasse with the District Council of Unions.

Can’t expect much coverage of labor issues from all the non-union papers in this town, but it’s better than what the O and Trib are doing.

Thanks Beth Slovic for covering both schools and labor in one piece.

Chapman Elementary teacher Steve Brand has an opinion piece in today’s Oregonian about how school transfers are segregating our schools. He correctly identifies this problem, but doesn’t go very far in identifying a solution. Mostly he just chides middle class families for buying homes in up-and-coming neighborhoods but not sending their kids to the neighborhood schools.

But he stops short of calling for an overhaul of the self-reinforcing transfer policy that encourages this middle class flight and progressively damages our already struggling schools.

Brand is absolutely correct that high-quality teaching is available at schools tagged “low-performing”. But until the district identifies it as a priority to reinvest in lower-income neighborhoods, no amount of cajoling is going to fix the problem. As I wrote yesterday, we need a New Deal for Portland Public Schools.

Portland Public Schools (like the Winter Hawks) are at a turning point. In many ways, the Portland District seems near collapse. Glaring funding inequities plague the poorest neighborhoods of Portland, with public schools closed and merged and buildings leased out to the highest parochial school bidder. Schools are segregated economically and racially — especially in middle and high schools — to a degree disproportionate to neighborhood populations.

The causes of this are threefold and self-reinforcing. Funding, which I’ve addressed at some length here before, has been largely out of PPS policy makers’ hands. But available funding is not distributed equally among neighborhoods.

Second is the district’s liberal school choice policy, which allows middle class families to flee their “failing” neighborhood schools. Since schools are funded on a per-student basis, this means that over time district funding has shifted dramatically to wealthier neighborhoods. Capture rates of under 50% are common in poor neighborhoods, while schools like Grant and Lincoln are packed to the gills.

As schools in working class neighborhoods become disproportionately filled with poorer children, whose families can’t afford to transport their children across town, test scores go down, and even more families transfer out. Principals use what discretionary money they have not for music and art, but for literacy help, since their populations have a disproportionate need. Better-off families see schools in other neighborhoods with art, music and P.E. and see little choice but to transfer. Hence the cycle fuels itself, leaving many schools in a death spiral they cannot escape without major transfer policy change.

Finally, recent grant-funded efforts to “fix” the schools in poorer neighborhoods in the mold cast by the Gates and Broad Foundations have done nothing but encourage this flow of students and funding out of neighborhoods in North and Northeast Portland. Rushed closings and reconfiguration have particularly fouled up the Jefferson cluster, making it even less likely to attract neighborhood families. (Again, I’ve covered this before).

Forget K-8; there’s no way we can offer our middle schoolers the choices they need in K-8 schools. Vicki Phillips’ assertion that K-8 would lead to more music for middle schoolers is absurd. Unless she means sixth, seventh and eighth graders sharing a half-time general music teacher with the elementary kids.

Forget “academies”.

We need to turn quickly and decisively away from the recent failed experiments in corporate foundation-sponsored reconfiguration. This direction has only made the problem worse. (If we keep trying the same thing and expect different results, what does that say about us? I’ve written about foundation-funded “neoliberal” school reform at PPS here.)

The result of all this is a two-tiered public school system, segregated by neighborhood, race and economics.

It is time for a New Deal for Portland Public Schools. We need to reinvest in the neighborhoods and families that have suffered years of divestment due to statewide tax policy, self-destructive school choice policies, and recent closures and reconfiguration. This reinvestment must be guided by principles of city-wide equity and fairness.

My New Deal imagines a system where every neighborhood has a first rate elementary school, with functional buildings and small classes. Middle and high schools all offer a full slate of electives and extra curricular activities, including art, instrumental and vocal music, athletics, a newspaper, a year book, and a theatre program.

How can we do this? What if funding and students couldn’t freely flow from working class neighborhoods to upper middle class neighborhoods, but was allocated in proportion to eligible neighborhood populations? Transfers could be possible for extenuating circumstances, but there would be little incentive to transfer.

There are no magnet schools. Every school is a magnet, because it has no less than any other school in terms of facilities, staff or funding. If we can’t afford all of the “extras” at all of the schools, nobody gets them. I’m talking about total equality of funding, facilities, and programs in proportion to neighborhood population.

That’s my New Deal for PPS: reconsider school choice, and reinvest in our neighborhood schools. Focus first on the North and Northeast neighborhoods that have been hardest hit by school choice. Make these schools shining examples of fundamental good neighborhood schools. As much as possible, roll back the recent damage wrought by over-dependence on corporate grant money and work at the state and local levels to insure stable and adequate funding.

Of course, it’s not such a “new” deal. This is what I had growing up. It’s really not radical at all. And best of all, it works!

The PPS school board is searching for a new superintendent and soliciting community input for hiring criteria. Now would be a very good time to let them know if you support a change of policy to create fair, equitable neighborhood school funding: A New Deal for PPS.

Word up, Gates! From Steve Linder, who seems to have captured everything I’ve been ranting about in one small picture (Click on image for the full-size version):

Karol Collymore has a good post over at Blue Oregon about her ideas for the next superintendent. There’s some good discussion in the comments, too.

Once again, I welcome my colleagues Benson Williams and Antonio Valle del Rio from the US high school hockey capital of Minneapolis-St. Paul. We’re going to save my meta question from part 1 for the wrap-up and get right on to the candidates.

Hillary Clinton

Williams: When I saw her speak in Iowa last week, I noticed the crowd. Lots of women of her generation there. She was emphasizing this… “Anybody else out there who thinks it’s high time for a woman president?” Howls from the masses. I’d love to get excited about a female president. But when I think of her, I just don’t get excited in that way.

Valle del Rio: She tries to please too many; does she have any integrity? That said, I would vote for her.

Himself: I see her as an attempt to extend the Bush/Clinton dynasty. She epitomizes neoliberal economic policy, and hurts the progressive cause. When conservatives label her policies “liberal”, it places truly liberal social and economic policy outside of the debate. Plus, she’s got a bit of a “feminist problem”. That is, feminists aren’t too thrilled with her candidacy. Having ovaries in the White House isn’t the goal; having somebody who cares about women’s issues is.

Barack Obama

Williams: I think he has a better chance of being a change agent than president. A guy who makes people think that anything is possible—sort of. I still think he should stay in the Senate, where he could gradually rack up the kind of respectability and influence that is normally not reserved for politicians with his progressive stripes. But he has the potential to win votes by making people believe that they can transcend their Dick Cheney-hastened mortality by voting for the magical Barack.

Valle del Rio: his name sounds too much like that terrorist guy, what was his name? Anyway, a very charismatic figure, and actually seems to genuinely be real.

Himself: Wait a minute… Obama is progressive? He’s got great people skills. He’s a lot like Bill Clinton in that regard. He really wants people to like him, and he really makes people feel at ease with him. But what about policy? Like all three Democratic leaders, he’s an incrementalist on universal health care, unwilling to take on the insurance industry. And he endorses merit pay for teachers, something school privatization zealots have been pushing for a long time. Charismatic and real yes. Progressive? I don’t think so. I think he’s spending way to much energy convincing the corporate establishment (and white voters) that he’s “safe”.

John Edwards

Williams: It’s good to hear at least one of the candidates (besides Kucinich) use the word “poverty” without ducking underneath a table right after he says it. But I just don’t see him wowing enough voters in this campaign, a campaign in which so many of us are expecting to be overwhelmed, to be saved from these dark years by a deus ex machina (see above comments on Obama). Besides, with Kurt Vonnegut’s passing in April of this year, any chance of an Edwards-Vonnegut ticket has been wiped out.

Valle del Rio: I like the fact that he focuses on poverty, and the fact that he is rich means nothing—all politicians are rich.

Himself: Of the top three, he’s the closest to my values. But I agree with Benson… I don’t see his campaign lighting it up like it needs to. Maybe he’s waiting to pour it on later, but I’m not counting on it. Edwards-Vonnegut? Now that would have been cool!

Joe Biden

Williams: When I saw him speak in front of an Italian restaurant in Iowa last week, I realized again that I really do like the guy a lot. I would like to party with him. I’ve always shuddered a bit at how disclosive he can be in front of a TV camera about the workings of Washington. He knows he’s not going to win. He just wants to earn enough brownie points along the way so that he can drop out and endorse a front-runner, cashing in those brownie points in the process.

Valle del Rio: Didn’t he try this in 1988? Let’s call him the paraphraser without footnotes. I think he is more significant in the senate.

Himself: I don’t have a strong take on Biden’s campaign, but hell yeah, I’d party with him, too.

Christopher Dodd

Williams: Basically same as above, except without the entertainment factor.

Valle del Rio: He’s one of the original DLC centrists, right?

Himself: He represents the core of the milk-toast brigade. A principal author of the train wreck called No Child Left Behind, he had the audacity to issue veiled criticism of Obama for endorsing merit pay for teachers. You can’t have it both ways, Chris. Your education policy stinks.

Mike Gravel

Williams: We should be so lucky as to have about 50 Mike Gravels running…that’s the way it should be. He has the best commercials so far—check out the one on YouTube where he’s standing next to a lake staring into the camera for over a minute, then walks over to water’s edge, grabs a rock, and throws it into the lake.

Valle del Rio: This guy better buy some air time; does anyone know who he is? I don’t have time to Google him (he he).

Himself: Hmmm… I like guys who throw rocks into lakes. I’ve spent a few afternoons with my kids doing just that. He’s got my vote. No, wait! Does he have any policy positions?

Dennis Kucinich

Williams: The fact that there is a true, unapologetic progressive running in this campaign says that such a thing is still technically allowable in this country, in these times. The fact that he has no chance at all in this race tells us everything else we need to know. At least for now.

Valle del Rio: Very intelligent, hard for people to take seriously. Plus, he looks terrible.

Himself: The sacrificial lamb of progressives. Why does he do it? Do we gain anything from his campaigns? I think we probably do. It’s important to keep one member of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party out in front of the public.

Bill Richardson

Williams: He is running for Vice-President, and he is currently the front-runner. Watch the way he positions himself throughout this campaign. He will attempt to finesse a rather extensive series of policy positions while trying not to make too much of a nuisance of himself.

Valle del Rio: He is a balanced liberal and would be my first choice because of his positions on immigration. He is somewhat overweight, though. What if he had to wrestle Vladimir Putin? Still, he would be my number one choice.

Himself: Yep. He’s definitely thinking Veep. But as far as candidates who have a chance (sorry Gravel and Kucinich), I’d have to get behind him.

Still to come in our Election ’08 Round Table: Dark Horses and Wild Cards. Will Al Gore run? What about third-party challengers like Mike Bloomberg and Ralph Nader? How might that change things? And what about those Republicans? Stay tuned.

As reported in the LA Daily News, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation just granted $7.9 million to a private charter school group in LA to transform a public high school in Watts into ten charter schools. As messed up as things have become in Portland, at least it’s not as bad as in LA.

Is there any doubt that Melinda Gates is being disingenuous when she says “We’re not trying to dictate a solution. We don’t think we have all of the answers…”?

Of course, California has fourteen year head start on Oregon in their public schools disinvestment. It’s not too late for us to come to our senses.

Update: here’s a more in-depth article in the LA Times about the school in question.

So I went to the Portland Public Schools board meeting tonight, and sat through such things as interim superintendent Ed Schmitt singing praises of all the corporate advertising swag Nike is unloading on our kindergarteners, and human resources big dog Richard Clarke sprinkling his PowerPoint presentation with big-dog words like “systematize”, “preliminarily”, “dialoguing” and “evaluative”. It was Ruth Adkins’ first board meeting, so that was exciting, but the most interesting thing came at the end of the meeting, during the public comment session.

Teacher contract negotiations always get a lot of press, but not so for the skilled blue-collar tradesmen and craftsmen that literally keep our schools running. A dozen members of the District Council of Unions—steam fitters, carpenters, electricians and plumbers—came to plead their case to the board. They spoke movingly about their plight, a plight you will not read about in the Oregonian, the Tribune, the Willamette Week or the Mercury.

Having worked without a contract for over three years, these guys have reached an impasse with the district, which is refusing even a cost of living raise. That’s an effective pay cut over those three years. Final offers were exchanged and rejected on both sides, and a cooling-off period expired in early June.

It’s clear from their testimony that they like their jobs (even though staffing has been cut so severely that the district no longer does preventive maintenance and they’ve basically been doing nothing but emergency repairs for years), and they don’t want to go on strike. But they’re out of options, hence the direct appeal to the school board. Hopefully the board has learned from the debacle of outsourcing custodians, and will lean on their labor relations team to throw these highly-trained, dedicated guys a bone.

They actually seemed to have some support on the board, and I would encourage everybody who gives a rip about working people and the often appalling physical condition of our schools to contact the members of the school board and encourage them to deal with the DCU, offer a stinkin’ cost of living raise, and avert a strike. Considering all the money the district blew buying off Steve Goldschmidt, I don’t think this is too much to ask.

Contact information for the board can be found here.