"The District has a mandate"? No it doesn't!

In today's Oregonian article "Parents of magnet schools' kids mystified by siting proposals," Scott Learn writes that Superintendent Vicki Phillips "said....that the district has a clear mandate that all schools must reach a certain size"--namely, I assume, the 400-600 size that is being imposed on some (but not yet all) schools.

When was this "clear mandate" developed, and by whom? At what point was there a public process to discuss this "mandate" that is changing our entire system of neighborhood schools and thus our city?

Like the sudden, seismic shift last spring to a world in which K-8 is the "preferred" model, this "mandate" lacked any meaningful public input or Board deliberation.

Perhaps I missed it, but did our Board of Education ever discuss and ratify a policy regarding required school sizes of 400 to 600, regardless of building size, programs in place, attendance area geography, or other factors? When was there a discussion of the pros and cons of such a policy?

When did district staff present a detailed plan of how this policy will be applied to every single school in the district (for surely they wouldn't apply the policy piecemeal or inequitably, right?)

When were we informed of the envisioned end result of such a plan, with the total number of closures that will be required and the likely locations of consolidated schools (for surely the district wouldn't be trying to sneak this through gradually without providing the public with the overall plan and its eventual outcome).

When did our Board of Education resolve that smaller schools of 250-350, which have served Portland neighborhoods for decades, are now outlawed, unacceptable and to be eliminated, no matter how successful and no matter how well-sized for their building and attendance area?

Or was the decision that only some smaller schools be singled out for draconian "grow or be closed" threats, while others are quietly left alone to thrive as is? Or perhaps, those many remaining smaller schools are next on the hit list?

What will be the end result of a "mandate" for 400-600 schools? If carried out to its full and logical conclusion, we would no longer have neighborhood schools in most neighborhoods. Those families still opting for public schools would drive or be bused to more distant, consolidated buildings. The tangible and intangible benefits of (in the words of former Supt. Jim Scherzinger) "right-sized schools located where kids live" would be lost forever.

No more walking to school? Who cares, that only gives kids daily exercise and prevents childhood obesity and diabetes. That only helps children get to know their community and neighbors.

Lots more driving to school? No problem, gas is plentiful and cheap, our air is unpolluted and we have plenty of room on the roads. Driving across town twice a day (and back again at night for the PTA meeting) makes good sense for busy families.

Those parents who don't have a car and can't make it to the distant school for meetings and events? Oh well, too bad for them. Parental involvement in schools doesn't make any difference in student achievement, does it?.

Closed school buildings standing empty as neighborhood eyesores and graffiti magnets? Not to worry, McMenamins will make an offer any day now.

Or are the buildings being leased out to private and parochial schools? Hey, that makes sense, you wouldn't want to keep those kids in the public system would you? After all, "we are a district of declining enrollment" and we want to stay that way, right?

Decades and reams of research demonstrating the academic, social, emotional, and even financial benefits of smaller schools? Parents fleeing to small private, parochial, and charter schools in droves? Feh, who cares.

Okay, snark aside-- I have heard all the arguments that larger schools are more "efficient" and allow the district, in theory, to provide a greater variety of programs and flexibility in staffing. And no, I am not saying that large schools can't be wonderful and successful too. And I know the District has many aging buildings.

But we cannot go any further down the path of this "mandate" without a full, public deliberation by our elected Board of Education on school size, building usage and the district's long-term plan for school size and location.

Please, let's get past the bromides about "efficiency" and "rigor" and get to the nitty-gritty--what will this 400-600 policy mean in terms of changes for every single part of this city? What will our neighborhoods and city look like once this "mandate" is fully carried out?

Swerving from one closure or sudden school "reshuffling" to the next, without a fully articulated plan, leaving behind scores of angry parents each time, is no way to keep this fragile urban school district thriving as the heart of a livable, family-friendly city.