School news, local edition

First two items from Seattle, our neighbor to the north.  

A lawsuit has been filed challenging the proposed Seattle school closures, alleging "that closures will unfairly affect a large percentage of poor children and students of color."  The Seattle activists are one hell of a lot more active than their counterparts in Portland, who never got around to an actual legal challenge to the closures and consolidations a few years back..  I wish the Seattle crowd well.

And speaking of testing (previous post), I recently got an e-mail heads-up about the suspension of two teachers who refused to test students with severe disabilities at parents' request.  The Seattle District claimed that the teachers "...were out of compliance with state and district policy."  (Those suspensions come on the heels of the suspension of Carl Chew for refusing to give the tests to his entire class.)

Now that's carrying testing mania to extremes.

********************************

In Portland "old" news, it seems that the odd Adkins/Regan school board alliance has come under attack for attempting to influence the course of development in the Pearl District rather than leaving it solely for the market to determine.  Setting up public school classrooms to encourage more families to settle in the Pearl is something the school board  has no business doing.

Disregarding the politics of urban renewal and the Portland Development Commission, the strategic placement of neighborhood public schools to attract families has long been a policy embraced by the city and the school district.  I see no reason to object to it in the Pearl as long as kids actually live there, and as long as family-friendly housing is a reasonable prospect.  

I'm no expert on urban renewal, but some have argued that the original proposal for the Pearl was to "build a wide range of housing", and to include schools in the mix.  Perhaps, but whatever the case, to me it's silly to claim, as one commenter on Blue Oregon did, that

"...a school in the Pearl is nothing more than a way station for very wealthy, small families until their children get to 3rd or 4th grade, at which time they'll move."

That presumes that all families prefer dwellings with large lots and room for kids to play.  If that were the case, there would be no schools or school children in Manhattan.  Or San Francisco, for that matter.  

Let me reiterate that I'm not convinced the school board decision to lease space for classrooms in the Pearl District was a good one.  As I wrote in my original post, the nearby non-charter schools in the area, especially Couch, would be ideal for children of the Pearl.

But Couch, unfortunately, is not currently a neighborhood school.  It houses Metropolitan Learning Center, a magnet for the entire district.  Perhaps the board should consider returning Couch to its neighborhood status.

Comments

[anne t.]

Terry,
Some questions for you to ponder:
*Have you forgotten the last 8 years of PPS policy and attitude towards parents?
*Can't you see that at least part of the outrage at the Pearl District Proposal is that they are treating the parents there SO DIFFERENTLY than the rest of us out here? And guess what? We suspect it has to do with the fact that these are wealthy parents.
* Do you know how many neighborhoods have been ROBBED of their neighborhood schools? How many of us have to go more than a mile to our "neighborhood school"?
*How many of us begged PPS to let our small schools stay open but were told that was unrealistic?
*And they are LEASING that Pearl School . Public money is going to a private entity.
We don't trust PPS when they say this is really about affordable housing. Why? Because they should have fought for that LONG ago and they didn't. And add to that the outrageous inequities that persist in this district, the lack of democracy and the completely disrespectful, patronizing attitude towards most parents except a few that have money and influence.
I am baffled how you can continue to be unconvinced that this is a bad idea.

[Terry Olson]

Whoa, Anne!

Nobody has been a more outspoken critic of school board policy than I have. Nobody in the blogosphere has actually run for the school board on a pro-neighborhood school, anti-school closure, anti-school choice platform as I have. And I continue to voice those same positions six years later.

I wrote the Pearl piece fully realizing that many in the school activist community would disagree with me. My intention was to counter the notion that the Pearl isn't a suitable place for families with kids, and therefore not a good place for a neighborhood school. I don't believe that.

Look at it this way. If leasing classrooms keeps 50 or 250 kids from attending a magnet (MLC) or a charter, that may be a good thing. Note that I've suggested the district return Couch to its neighborhood school status to accommodate kids in the Pearl, a move, unfortunately, unlikely to happen.

Two other issues. Ruth has long talked about encouraging affordable housing but she's been on the board for less than two years. And public money going to a private entity happens all the time. When a school is built or remodeled, private contractors are hired to do the work. That's the way the economy works. It's not school privatization.

I said upfront that I may be dead wrong on the Pearl lease. Reopening closed neighborhood schools on the other side of the river is something I'm all for. But I don't know how the one necessarily precludes the other.

I understand your attitude, Anne, and your anger. Convince me that the Pearl lease is really bad fiscal and educational policy, and I'll be the first to join you on the hustings, pitchfork in hand.

In fact the more I think about, Couch seems to be the key, both as a solution to the school problem in the Pearl and as a measure of the district's willingness to back off school choice and recommit to neighborhood schools.

[anne t.]

Terry,
A few more questions for you to consider:
Why is the Pearl being offered a Pre-K public school? Where else is this offered in the district? Will it be Head Start?
While I am all for low income housing that needed to be integrated long ago.Even if the apts are reasonable rent, how much do groceries and other basic necessities cost in the Pearl? I certainly cannot afford to shop there.
Public money going to a private organization for a lease when PPS has empty buildings all over the city is wrong and very different than paying builders. However I also have issues with PPS laying off most of the skilled trades workers who maintain our buildings, then decrying the deplorable conditions of the buildings and saying we need expensive repairs or worse yet we need to build new schools.
The board is using the words "neighborhood school" to cover up that this is basically a publicly funded "special" school for a few rich people.

[Terry]

We agree wholeheartedly on the labor issue, Anne. But I don't think that the "rich people" living in the Pearl, the ones with kids, are that much different from you or me. And if "rich" kids opt for public schools, all the better for the district.

Obviously I oppose special treatment for the rich and powerful. If that's what happened with the Pearl lease, I'm against it.

Couch is the answer. Rumor has it that MLC is underenrolled and possibly closing. That venerable building is the perfect answer to the need for a neighborhood school in NW Portland, AND it would relieve overcrowding at Chapman.

It's worth noting that Chapman wouldn't be overcrowded if it didn't attract well over a hundred students from other neighborhood schools. The PPS transfer policy at work.

[Zarwen]

Anne,

There used to be pre-k's all over the Jefferson cluster, and a few in the Grant cluster too. Unfortunately, they have fallen victim to the K-8 conversions, as schools that are running out of classroom space for grades 6-8 are dumping their pre-K programs to free up classrooms. Pathetic.

Terry, MLC is not a "magnet" school. It is an alternative school for students who do not function well in a regular school setting (whatever that means), and admission is by application only (not lottery). But regardless, if it is underenrolled, why can't the unused classroom space be given over to the children of the Pearl for their use NOW? PPS has many instances of co-located schools. Housing students within MLC/Couch would buy time to gauge just how much demand there really is. Later on a decision could be made about whether there is enough room in the building for two programs or whether one would need to relocate. In the meantime, the district could save precious dollars on a totally unnecessary lease!