No Replacement Schools Without Comprehensive PPS Plan Including High Schools / Promised Whitaker Middle Must Be Built First!
Here is a letter to the Oregonian editor we sent today:
Portland Public Schools' plan to demolish 10 historic elementary schools ("District marks 10 for scrap," 2/28/08) focuses on the poor condition of these schools, creating a false impression that all these schools are in bad condition. In truth, some of these schools, like Rieke and Winterhaven, are in good condition. Other schools, such as Sitton, Chief Joseph, and Markham, urgently need replacement. And the new Whitaker Middle School has been promised for years.
Former board member Doug Morgan publicly stated Rieke was saved from closure in 2006 because Rieke “put money on the table." The Rieke community helped PPS purchase a portable classroom, and prepared a growth plan. The portable is less than six months old. Demolishing Rieke before reopening schools, and improving all surrounding schools, will exacerbate PPS inequities. It will compound the student drain and segregation fostered by the PPS Open Transfer Policy (Flynn-Blackmer audit "Portland Public Schools Student Transfer System: District objectives not met").
The only similarity between these 10 schools is current overcrowding due to 16 neighborhood school closures and related lack of planning. Do not jeopardize the urgent replacement of schools like Whitaker Middle, Chief Joseph, Sitton and Markham because of "grow or die" mandates forced on Rieke and Winterhaven by former Superintendent Phillips.
Mr. and Mrs. Steve Linder
- Steve Linder's blog
- Login or register to post comments
No more middle schools
Please no more middle schools.
The creation of middle schools is what got us into this mess of closing down neighborhood schools. If the schools had stayed K-8 there never could have been used the argument of under utilization of resources,low enrollment numbers.
ITSNOT2LATE4PREK-8
Portland Public Neighborhood Schools
Where Kids Live, Learn And Learn To Live Together
Virtus Non Stemma
We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
Benjamin Franklin
All schools need work
Hi Lynn, Steve and everyone--
Just to clarify the misleading O. headline that implies only these 10 schools will be upgraded. At this point what the district staff is recommending is a “full modernization” for about 40 schools and replacement of 10. The remaining schools that are in relatively better shape get major repairs/upgrades. So **every** school would get (and needs) major work. Obviously it would take a long time to do this, likely 15 -20 years or maybe more. This would be similar to the major wave of building that took place in the 1920s and again in the 1950s. Except for Forest Park and Rosa Parks, it's been 50 years since we built or did major upgrades (other than seismic/ADA and some upgrades done with the 1995 bond.) Our hope is that the 2010 decade will see a new wave of building/remodeling and re-investment in all our schools. There is no specific plan yet, and no order is yet decided, though both for equity and logistics it will need to be spread around town, and done in stages.
The preliminary recs spreadsheet is here (found in the “Reshape schools” section, button on the right side of main PPS page):
http://www.reshape.pps.k12.or.us/.docs/pg/400/rid/11234/f/2_28_08_Facili...
“Full modernization” is effectively the same as replacement in that the façade and/or historic architectural elements are preserved but the insides are gutted and fully updated so it’s like a new school inside the old shell. (similar to the former armory downtown that has a new theater inside it). Costs are comparable to replacing the building and the impact is the same in that students will need to be out of the building for a year while the work is done.
The feedback we heard at the community meetings in Jan. was that people wanted to preserve the exterior of our historic school buildings (like King, Beach, Llewellyn, Woodlawn, Vernon, etc.) so preferred the full modernization option for these schools, but preferred total replacement of most ‘50s era buildings (like Chief Joe, Rieke, Markham, Sitton, etc.) In addition to being beautiful, the historic buildings are of such high quality materials and construction that they are generally in better shape in terms of the main shell than are the less high quality construction 1950s buildings.
The lack of planning in previous decisions (closures/reconfigurations) as well as deep distrust from past decision making are very real. K-8 implementation, including capacity (overcrowding w/new K-8s), getting equitable curriculum/options for 6-8ths within a K-8 are huge issues. Providing a middle school option in each cluster is key (in my mind), the Supt’s proposed budget does make some improvements (counselors, 6-8 library books etc) but obviously we’re not there yet. One of the key things about “modernizing”/replacing buildings is they won’t be built in the same “factory” model with 2 corridors and 20 classrooms (or whatever). They will be flexible so that configurations can change as needed over time.
The “best use of buildings” data that were used in past years have those 1-5 ratings and a lot of buildings were rated “good.“ And it’s true the buildings aren’t falling apart, they're "warm safe and dry," and for the most part they look pretty good. Our maintenance crews and custodians have done a truly heroic job for years, keeping everything patched and operating.
But based on the room-by-room assessment of each building that was done last summer, which got down to the micro level of details like counting the number of outlets in each room (unlike the more general assessments done in the Best Use study), just about every building in our district has multiple systems (HVAC, windows, plumbing, roof, etc.) that are at the end of their useful life and will need to be replaced. We don't have the electrical capacity for the latest technology that our kids need. The list goes on. We've been making do for way too long, and wealthier schools have been able to fundraise to do additional improvements like new carpets and computers. It's time for a system-wide upgrade so everyone's school looks great and functions the way it should.
How do we go from needing a new furnace and windows and/or plumbing to replacing the whole building? The issue is if you go in and replace one or more of these systems, you have the walls opened up and you might as well fix/upgrade multiple systems. And when you have several major systems that need to be replaced, plus a desire for “21st century” features (eg fully wired for technology, more flexible classroom spaces allowing for different configurations and different learning styles, common areas/small group learning spaces, community spaces), as well as more cost-efficient and healthier “green” features like natural light/passive solar, etc. at a certain point it becomes a whole lot more cost-effective and more bang for the buck, to fully upgrade and/or replace the whole building. That is why the recommendation from staff is not to fix all the furnaces, then all the roofs, then all the plumbing etc. Instead it will be school by school, doing the whole building at once (likely each school will take a year to remodel/rebuild).
This is a huge topic, I'll stop here but just wanted to share some info and thoughts on this. We have been burned by PPS facilities decision making in the past and are understandably distrustful. We're still in the midst of dealing with the aftermath of a massive reconfiguration and multiple closures. So there is a ways to go. But I am hopeful that if we can do this right we will come out of it with great new schools, in every neighborhood.