COMMENTS ON 4/20/06 PPS BOARD MEETING

Board Members:

Congratulations on a great day in Salem! Now we have to lean on legislators to provide appropriate long-term funding and perhaps revise their formula for allocating education funds, so that Portland gets back its fair share of taxes paid by Portland residents.

Special thanks to Doug Morgan for a well-run meeting Thursday night. It has been quite a grueling week and many of us, parents and Board members alike, are getting a little worn out as we burn our respective candles at both ends. I am going to use the sunny weekend to recharge and hope you take the opportunity to do the same.

Here are a few comments about Thursday night's meeting:

1) Director Williams asked some pointed questions about the depth of curriculum that can be supported at the proposed K-8 schools. I would like to remind Board members that the proposal calls for funding these new K-8 schools using the elementary school funding formula, which does not include dollars for vice principals and other key staff positions found in middle schools. On average, these K-8 schools will receive 2 fewer administrative
FTEs than a comparably sized middle school.

On the issue of curriculum, I thought it would be useful to illustrate the problem Dilafruz was asking about.

In a K-8 with 675 students, you will have about 75 students each in grades 6,7, and 8. That is a total of about 9 FTEs for those grades.

In a middle school with 675 students, you will have about 225 students each in grades 6,7, and 8. That is the equivalent of about 27 FTEs, all focused on middle school students. In the middle school model, scale economies allow for a significant concentration of resources devoted specifically to
middle school learners. Obviously, having this increased mass of FTEs, all teaching middle schoolers, allows for a breadth of curriculum simply not possible to students attending a K-8 school.

There are undeniable benefits to the K-8 model, including fewer transitions, giving kids a chance to "stay younger" a little longer, and familiarity with the same teachers over a longer period. But there are significant shortcomings and these prompted educators to move away from the K-8 model generations ago in most parts of the country. The impetus behind the trend to middle schools was a desire to strengthen the educational program in these middle grades (which are problematic in any configuration), provide better and age-appropriate instructional facilities, and offer greater specialization of teaching staff. There was a feeling that kids were not being challenged by the shallow K-8 curriculum. This is ironic, since the K-8's of Portland's past were generally well funded; ours will not be.

In the April 2006 issue of Educational Leadership, James Beane and Richard Lipka argue that criticism of middle schools is really criticism of the poor implementation of the set of principles and practices known as the "middle school concept." They write that a school's grade configuration has little to do with the success or failure of the middle school concept. "The most
important decision is what kind of education [the school] will offer young adolescents. [No matter the grade configuration,] research clearly suggests the importance of creating small learning communities, high-quality relationships, and strong transition supports."

They note the "dangerous trend toward inflicting on middle schools the kind of structures more usually associated with junior high school setups, such as tracking and subject departmentalization . . . The advantages of K-8 schools over 6-8 schools in urban areas reside largely in smaller class and school size, which enable these schools to support better relationships with all of their constituencies. . . School grade configuration is not a remedy for the rising tide of poverty in our nation's urban centers. [Those who say otherwise resort to] "sleight of hand rhetoric . . . diverting attention from the powerful effects of poverty and the unsavory resegregation of our nation's communities and schools."

Note that the advantages of small schools and small class sizes normally attributed to K-8 schools will not exist in most of PPS' newly created K-8 schools, which will be big (not small) and have classes averaging more than 25 students.

Regarding the K-8 configuration, Beane and Lipka confirm our concerns about "resource reductions accompanying smaller middle-grades [which] would likely reduce the number of specialized electives, services, accelerated courses, and extracurricular activities" we have come to expect for our middle schoolers.

If you have not had a chance to read it, the April issue of Educational Leadership is devoted to the subject of middle school age students and includes a balanced discussion of middle schools and the middle school concept. Superintendent Phillips has quoted liberally from one article ("Mayhem in the Middle: Why We Should Shift to K-8," written by Cheri Pierson Yecke) in the issue. That article advocates the K-8 model and
denounces the middle school concept in general. But the Superintendent omits reference to the opposing side, also presented in this issue. It is worth noting that the great majority of educators in this country are strongly supportive of the middle school concept. Yecke's condemnation of the middle school concept (as opposed to the middle school configuration), is an extreme one, not shared even by most critics of middle schools. Moreover, Yecke's strategic insights for creating a successful K-8 program are problematic for PPS.

She stresses the need for a "strict" (i.e., limited) transfer policy; ours
is a District of choice, dependent on the concept of open transfers.

She writes of the need to modify facilities extensively; our financial
situation precludes us from doing this to the extent needed.

She warns against moving too quickly, advocating adding higher grades incrementally to an existing elementary school., no more than one grade per year; the proposed plan calls for wholesale conversions in most cases. Although Yecke does not articulate this, it is apparent that conversion to the K-8 configuration will take many years and will involve significant capital investment.

2) Director Henning commented that the creation of so many new K-8 schools appeared to decrease rather than increase diversity. She expressed a concern that Fernwood, for instance, which is so diverse now and so successful, will be closed, to be taken over by a K-8 program that will not have much diversity. One of the negatives of keeping children at their neighborhood schools through the eighth grade is that it segregates them. Some schools are naturally diverse because of the way their boundaries have been drawn, but most are not. Because the new K-8s will fill up the buildings they are in, transfer slots into these schools will be severely limited, further limiting the potential for diversity. Beane and Lipka note this phenomenon in the article quoted above: "Creating neighborhood K-8 schools may actually add to the resegregation of urban schools already in progress."

3) 35 members of the public spoke at the Madison meeting. Almost all asked the Board to slow the process down, warning that we are moving too fast and cannot possibly do this right under these unrealistic timelines. A teacher from a K-8 school (Sunnyside) warned that these proposals are too sweeping and cannot possibly be done right under this "impossible timeline." She likes teaching in the K-8 configuration, but warned that it will not work without community buy-in and trust. "Top-down mandates won't work. You have to start small." Another presenter warned the proposals would create an
"educational hurricane" that will be difficult for the District to survive.

After the citizen testimony, one Director (I think it was Bobbie) thanked the public for the input and remarked that most of the presenters appeared to be from Hollyrood, Rose City Park, or Fernwood, all targeted for dramatic change. She wondered out loud if the Board might not be hearing from others in the cluster because they are generally supportive of the changes. She noted that those in opposition are generally the most vocal. My personal reaction to these reflections is to caution the Board against making any such inferences. You should applaud these brave citizens for taking the time to give you there heartfelt input, not disrespect them by labeling them a vocal minority.

There is no evidence of a "silent majority." There has been no objective, unbiased polling of parents. Many who are not directly affected by change just go along with it; that is simply human nature. But to dismiss public testimony on the grounds that "we always just hear from those who are most vehemently opposed" is unwise. There is widespread opposition to the closures and reconfigurations. There is suspicion about the motives for the proposed changes, there are many questions about why one cluster of schools is left untouched, while another is drastically overhauled, there is a sense that the criteria for changes were applied capriciously, there is a feeling that these changes are fundamentally not educationally driven, but rather financially driven, and there is a sense that the District has not done its homework and will not be up to the task of managing such a monumental task.
If you were to hold an objective vote, I would guess most parents would opt for the status quo, with a few minor tweaks here and there.

4) During the Board discussion, Sarah Ames, the District's public relations director, testified as an expert witness both on curriculum, facilities, and politics. This seems most inappropriate. When Sonya made the observation that it was apparent to her the outcome favored by most Hollyrood parents was to keep Hollyrood open in its present configuration, and that they were resigned to the modifications in the Superintendent's proposal only if they were forced to close down the Hollyrood program, Sarah tried to debate the point. She remarked that she had talked to a few Hollyrood parents who liked the idea of moving the Hollyrood program to Fernwood, mainly because they didn't like having to uproot their kids after 3rd grade. Whatever the case, Sarah is not an expert in this area and she was not asked to comment on Sonya's observation. Clearly, no one on the Board believes Hollyrood parents like the proposed closure; they know it is widely opposed.

This underscores an issue that is bothering many parents in the District. The proposals are being handled like a political campaign, with the District apparatus churning our propaganda day after day. There seems to be no room left for open debate. I hear District leaders talk about how important it is for Board members to support the proposals, regardless of their merit, because any vote on them is a referendum on the Superintendent's leadership. In effect, trust us to do what we say we can do. That is not how a public institution works. As Board members, your fundamental duty is to provide oversight. Ask the hard questions, probe, dig under the surface.

The Superintendent is selling this proposal very hard, amping up her public relations machine to make sure it prevails. Demand that she present a fair assessment of the risks and rewards of her proposal. Demand the necessary detail. It is clear to me that she is understating the costs involved and is asking for decisions to be made in an impossible timeframe. If this proposal is approved, the demands that will be made on central office staff and on teachers will be overwhelming. Just as important, it is apparent to me that the changes will not come with appropriate funding. Aside from minor savings in facilities overhead, most of the anticipated savings come from cutting school principals and vice principals. If we do move to the K-8 model, shouldn't we consider moving these FTEs into the classroom?

5) "Slow down" is a theme we have heard at every single public meeting. Change of this magnitude requires careful, deliberate planning. Have you consulted the planning documents PPS used last time it made such a sweeping configuration change? Back in July of 1969, the Board authorized the Superintendent to prepare plans for a configuration change. These plans were delivered to the Board in January 1970, put out for public hearings, and approved by the Board on March 23, 1970. There was much comunity involvement prior to implementation. The first middle school was opened at Portsmouth in 1970. A deliberate, incremental rollout of middle schools was planned thereafter, as follows:

Sept. 1971 3
Sept. 1972 3
Sept. 1973 3
Sept. 1974 4
Sept. 1975 4
Sept. 1976 4
Sept. 1977 2

As we know, the actual rollout took longer, and was not completed until the 1980s.

I have not seen any such plans for today's equally sweeping proposal. All we have in hand are poorly prepared PowerPoint presentations and promises that we can do this and whatever we do, it will be "really, really staged" (to quote Vicki from the Wilson meeting). In the business world, such a proposal would never make it to the Board room. There really isn't a plan; all we see is a high-level concept. Even that is full of missing pieces.

Please table the proposal and take your time to make a thoughtful decision.

Mike Miller
SW Portland
380-4400