How can a Vision for Portland not include affirmation of pride in our public schools?

Arrghh, this makes me so mad! I'm plugging through the proposed VisionPDX document, all in a huge pdf file which makes my computer run as slowly as the bad ol' days of dial-up. Overall, the document is significantly improved from the draft version. It still wallows in platitudes and pretty language a lot, and contains the word "innovative" far too frequently. But in general, better. I've cut and pasted more "good" examples than "bad" for my post tomorrow on the proposal's positives and negatives.

But COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!! I get to the section on "Learning Portland", which long-time blog readers may remember I found woefully inadequate the last draft.

And this is the only time the word "public" is mentioned in the version going to Council on Wednesday:

"The public and private sectors jointly provide a K-20 educational enterprise that serves the intellectual, cultural and economic needs of the region, the city and its people."

NO. That is not what Portland is famous for, in our education system. We are still, despite 16 years of cuts following Measure 5, the last great urban public school system in the country. And I say "We are" rather than "We have", because commitment to public education is a core value that helps define us. Our five districts provide public schools tens of thousands of Portlanders are proud of. And since this is a Vision, describing what should be rather than what is, we should be including in VisionPDX several statements about outstanding public schools in every neighborhood. About integrated schools that serve a wide variety of needs in every location. And about recognizing the needs of all the districts, not just the largest one.

If you look at the citizen quotes, it's evident input was received from Portlanders who are very clear on their support for public education with desegregation and strong neighborhood schools. The language chosen in the numbered Vision statements doesn't reflect the comments. Here are all the quotations, with my bold emphasis added:

“I think great cities start with great schools.”

“[My vision for Portland:] All children attend their neighborhood school and there are NO segregated classrooms.”

“My future Portland…is famous across the nation for its successful educational system: students flourish here and feel respected, no matter their race or economic background.”

“I want middle class families to flock back to PPS because it offers creative and substantial academic programs.”

“[In the future,] PSU has turned into a well-funded major research institution yet maintained its come-one-come-all educational atmosphere.

How are those comments reflected in the VisionPDX objectives? They aren't. Where is the flowery language and where are the strings of superlatives for this aspect of The Good Life in Portland? Not there. Instead, we get "Every Portlander has the opportunity to achieve...", and "Portland provides adequate training...". Really? The best we can hope for is an opportunity to achieve, rather than actually achieving? Adequate training, not excellent training?

If the City Council accepts this section of the Vision without amendment, after nearly three years of sitting through presentations every Wednesday morning answering Mayor Potter's question, "How are the children doing", I will have to conclude not one of the five members has listened. And that not one cares about public schools, PSU, and the community colleges more than they care about private education. I hope that is not true. It is certainly not true for most Portlanders.

VisionPDX should be amended to state ongoing support of citizens, businesses, and government for all five of our public school districts.

Excellent public schools are crucial to the health of our city's working families, local and global businesses, and citizens requiring educated students to meet their service needs. VisionPDX must say so, clearly and unequivocally.

The Vision for learning

The Vision for learning doesn't mention pre-K education, either. If every dollar spent in early childhood programs saves seven in remedial work later, as studies suggest, then the Vision should draw attention to quality child care and preschools available to all, too.

Amanda, I notice on page 39

Amanda, I notice on page 39 of the report (which I now have! Thanks!) that education seems to be one of the areas where the citizen comments did not provide a clear-cut direction. The report writers describe this part of the report as "issues that require more thought, more conversation, and more information." An excerpt from the report: "Many Portlanders believe that the schools need more money to provide the level of service we want, whereas some believe that current funding levels should be adequate if only waste were reduced." Personally, I would hope that either side of that argument would agree with your vision for education in the future, but the apparent lack of consensus might explain why the report is weak in this area.

I'm reading over the Vision

I'm reading over the Vision but I'm not done yet. Mr. Jacobsen makes a good point regarding not really being able to articulate a vision for education when there isn't a high consensus on what that vision should be. My one concern would be, if a strong education component is not addressed in the Vision, can it be added later, or does it now run the risk of being overlooked, or under-prioritized? I'm not sure how that works.

I won't be surprised if this

I won't be surprised if this is all we get in VisionPDX. While Portlanders have shown themselves willing to tax themselves to put Band-Aids on our bleeding schools, Portland's civic leaders have consistently shown they don't care to address the serious policy issues that plague Portland Public Schools. (And let's be honest about our "five school districts." They all have problems, but PPS is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, in possession of the vast majority of our "crown jewels.") Instead of serious scrutiny of PPS policy, we get feckless proposals from the likes of Erik Sten, who thinks we ought to build a school in the Pearl. I appreciate that he wants to talk about housing prices, but why won't anybody in city or county government talk about the neighborhood funding inequities and racial isolation brought to us by PPS policy? The PPS school board controls nearly half a billion dollars of annual public investment, and with it they have created a two-tier system. They have given us traditional neighborhood schools in the "green zone" and a hodge-podge of "academies", closed schools and charters in the "red zone", which bleeds nearly $40 million a year under board policy. Platitudes about "the last great urban public school system in the country" don't mean much if your neighborhood high school doesn't offer foreign languages, advanced placement courses, or a music program, and the schools that do have these things are shutting down transfers because of overcrowding. I hate to say it, but I suspect the reason nobody on the city council cares is because they all live in the green zone. Current PPS policy benefits their personal bottom line. I'm pretty sure that's the deal with the school board, too, since five of seven directors live in the green zone.

Note that I didn't say our

Note that I didn't say our City Council members don't care - I said we will see if they do, in whether they accept the "Learning Portland" vision as written. And Dan Saltzman lives in the red zone of Wilson High School, so that part of your comment is inaccurate, Steve. I live in the even redder zone of Markham Elementary School, currently the only Title 1 school on the westside. And while I can (and frequently do) talk to prospective parents about why they should choose Markham instead of transferring out, the fact of the matter is that parents are barraged with information from "No Child Left Behind" leading them to believe that some schools are "failing" and are likely to "fail" their children. It's not just the Portland Public School Board's policies that encourage transfers, it's also the federal mandate. But let's stay on point here - this post is about the Vision statements and how to fix them by or at tomorrow evening's Council session. I believe the phrase "the last great urban public school system in the country" is still true, not a platitude. Notwithstanding the inequities in the system. Over 80% of families and students still choose public schools, and that is outstanding. I understand and share your outrage about schools that don't have courses to attract able students and affluent families, and other factors increasing segregation and inequality. But I believe elected officials have to be realists as well as idealists. PPS's transfer policy has likely kept many wealthier families in Portland's public schools, rather than going to private schools. I think it's flawed logic to assert that the Vision process didn't show evidence of strong support for public schools, therefore Portlanders don't hold that value. To me, if the Vision process didn't show that we love our public schools, that's evidence that the data has major problems. VisionPDX's input collection wasn't done in a statistically valid manner, and with only 13,000 responses in a city of over half a million people, the sample size isn't large enough to overcome that flaw. And maybe the process didn't include things like reaching out to busy parents, as much as it could/should have. We know Portlanders value public education because we passed the I-TAX, at a time when the rest of the state voted not to fund additional funding for schools. To me, following the money, what voters were willing to do with their wallets, is much more significant than a well-meaning group of volunteers and staff trying to draw conclusions from survey input from those motivated to complete the VisionPDX questionnaire.

Hear hear!

Hear hear!

Thanks for the correction

Thanks for the correction re. where exactly the commissioners live with regard to PPS funding inequities. My phrasing was unclear and probably misleading. I "suspect" both that the commissioners live in the green zone and that this is a reason they don't care to comment on the PPS policy that inequitably distributes the public wealth. I don't know where they all live. But I know for a fact where the school board directors live. Sorry for the inaccuracy. Your belief in our "great public school system" tells me that you're not paying very close attention to its problems in leadership and policy, and don't realize how very close we are to losing that distinction. I understand that you've got your mind on lots of other very important issues, but this is exactly the kind of inattentiveness on the city council that bugs me. I know you didn't say our city council members don't care. That's what I'm saying. We don't have to "see if they do", we can already see that they don't, because none of them have been willing to call the school board to account for their radical policies that are essentially "destroying the village in order to save it." The threat of middle class flight is overblown, as I've said before, and is inadequate as justification for the degree of inequity and racial isolation that open transfers create. The Flynn-Blackmer audit (230KB PDF) clearly documents economic "skimming" and increased racial isolation due to the open transfer policy, and requests that the school board justify the policy in light of its conflict with other district priorities like strong neighborhood schools and decreasing racial isolation. Why can't our city leaders (and would-be leaders) say at least as much as this very clear, non-political report? It's not radical to question radical policy. It's just good common sense.

By the way, in case it isn't

By the way, in case it isn't clear, I'm with you on the flaws in the VisionPDX process. I should have stated that at the outset. Also, not to belabor the point, but you've invoked NCLB before in defense of the PPS open transfer policy. That's a little disingenuous, since only one elementary school in PPS didn't meet AYP last year. PPS policy is far more radical than anything required by NCLB, and there's quite a bit more PPS could do to help schools not meeting AYP. To be clear: PPS policy aggravates the problems we face with NCLB; it does not exist because of NCLB.

Your belief in our "great

Your belief in our "great public school system" tells me that you're not paying very close attention to its problems in leadership and policy, and don't realize how very close we are to losing that distinction. Then evidently you don't know me very well. Why do you think I'm trying to get the Vision amended, if not because of concern for losing our public schools? As noted before, I don't think this blog is the best place to get into Portland Public Schools' transfer policy. Certainly not as part of this post on addressing the Vision statements which are due to be accepted tomorrow. P.S. This is an acronym-free blog, in the hope that everyone feels welcome and has a chance to understand what's written here. For those not immersed in school issues: AYP = Adequate Yearly Progress, supposedly a measure of whether schools are improving or not NCLB - No Child Left Behind, the federal policy mandating student testing and labeling schools based on testing and attendance statistics

Noted with apologies. Again,

Noted with apologies. Again, I support you in fixing visionPDX. If you're not willing to discuss it on your own blog, I would invite you, as a potential candidate for city council, to participate on the Neighborhood Schools Alliance site, Terry Olson's blog or my blog, and take a stand on this very critical issue of public investment and the future of Portland's livability and economic health.

I may just do that, not so

I may just do that, not so much as a potential candidate for City Council (most voters seem entirely happy to elect people who don't talk about schools much) but as someone who's participated in school discussions since 1990. I don't follow the school blogs much, because there are only so many hours in the day, and I can provide unique information on other matters here whereas there are many people in the community who know a lot more about school issues than I do. In the meantime, have you done anything about lobbying Council on the need for changes in the Vision, Steve?

Amanda, your comment about

Amanda, your comment about flawed logic stating "the Vision process didn't show evidence of strong support for public schools, therefore Portlanders don't hold that value" is certainly not what I was trying to say. More like the Vision process didn't show clear direction for the public schools, therefore the report writers did not feel comfortable stating a clear direction - at least not without more communication, etc. I'm a little bothered by your statement that the data is wrong. It is quite possible that Portlanders do not have a unified view of where education should go, or at least that more time is required to identify it. I don't think we can ask the council to change the vision because we don't like the data that was collected. Wouldn't that invalidate any other conclusions based on that data?

More like the Vision process

More like the Vision process didn't show clear direction for the public schools, therefore the report writers did not feel comfortable stating a clear direction - at least not without more communication, etc. Thank you for clarifying, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted your previous comment. I don't think we can ask the council to change the vision because we don't like the data that was collected. Wouldn't that invalidate any other conclusions based on that data? The "citizen comments" chosen for inclusion indicate strong support for public education. I hope it's reasonable to assume they represent the preponderance of comments received. So the data is there, and the wording of the Vision statements doesn't reflect it. Of course Portlanders don't have a unified view of where education should go. We don't agree on pretty much anything else. I even know people who think trees are a darn nuisance and the city would be better with a lot more paved surfaces. The data from 13,000 people was reduced to the current booklet of the Vision by volunteers and staff, who have given us their best effort at summarizing "the mood of the people". It's still up to the members of the City Council to do what they are elected to do, in using the input from the process to inform but not define the final product. If it's going to form the foundation for the update of the Comprehensive Plan, there should be room (and time) for thoughtful review and revision. This process feels to me like that when 26-91 was sent to the ballot, two weeks after the committee forwarded its recommendation to Council. "We've worked on it for two years, you have 48 hours to review it then we want Council to pass it as is", is essentially what is being recommended for tomorrow's hearing. I bet if the Vision process had sent a message to public school PTAs, saying "Participate before the Council hearing on September 19 or lose official support for public schools in City policy", a whole lot more parents, staff, and concerned community members would have added to the ranks of those with the time and interest to participate over the last two years.

I agree that the City

I agree that the City Council should absolutely NOT approve the Vision document with the "Learning Portland" section (and related sections) as currently written. I posted a longer explanation of my concerns on Steve Rawley's blog at: http://morehockeylesswar.org/blog/archive/2007/09/18/visionpdx_and_portland_public_schools/#comment-10351 Thank you Amanda, for bringing attention to this inadequate vision for Portland's public education system. Portland's current and future children deserve much, much better.

Thanks, Nicole. I want to

Thanks, Nicole. I'll highlight by copying in here, what I see as the core of the points you made on Steve's blog: "There is a complete disconnect between the public input on education as reported in the “Voices from the Community” report, and the section on education in the final product called “Learning Portland.” There is also a disconnect between the “Learning Portland” section and some other key sections of the Vision document (Built Portland; Environmental Portland, and Social Portland). It sounds like someone from the business community and Portland Schools Foundation drafted the section on Portland’s vision for education." Very astute. I hadn't noticed it in those terms before, but yes, it does. The word "incubator", used in Learning Portland to describe higher ed institutions, is remarkably reminiscent of OHSU's spiel in advocating for the South Waterfront deals.

C'mon, Amanda. Your attempt

C'mon, Amanda. Your attempt to blow off Steve Rawley's concerns about schools as inappropriate for a post on a city document is utterly off base. In fact, your post was specifically about education. Your conversation with two school board members, including Neighborhood Schools Alliance co-founder Ruth Adkins, confirms that this post IS a most appropriate venue to voice concerns about the CITY's schools. Furthermore, the city of Portland in renowned for its livable neighborhoods. Some of us believe those neighborhoods would be far less livable without strong neighborhood schools at their core. Many of those schools, unfortunately, especially those in poorer neighborhoods, are weakened by district policies. That should concern anyone who works, as you do, to make Portland a better place to live.

Your attempt to blow off

Your attempt to blow off Steve Rawley's concerns about schools as inappropriate for a post on a city document is utterly off base. In fact, your post was specifically about education. It is a post about the VisionPDX statement on education. And concerning a hearing TONIGHT which may be the last time school advocates have to weigh in on the policy of whether public and private schools are considered co-equal in Portland's educational system, or not. Do you support the VisionPDX statement on Learning Portland, Terry? And if not, what have you done about it, and why are you asking me to spend my time today responding to other issues? It's not a matter of an "attempt to blow off" concerns on related issues. Until I figure out how to manage on less than six hours sleep, or get some staff to help work on policies, I have to prioritize what I spend my time on. Steve's and your issues are important. But for today and yesterday, not as important as the immediate, urgent problems in VisionPDX.

A goal of equity in our

A goal of equity in our public schools IS an urgent issue that absolutely should be addressed in a document that lays out a long term vision for education in Portland. One of the weaknesses of the VisionPDX document is that it is silent on this critical issue.

Right. I agree, Nicole, and

Right. I agree, Nicole, and that's what I'm working on in trying to get a postponement of acceptance of VisionPDX, or at least an amendment calling for excellent public schools in every neighborhood. Today is the day to press for that. Discussions of No Child Left Behind, Portland Public Schools' transfer policy, the Flynn-Blackmer audit, and other related issues are certainly important. But those aren't as urgent today as lobbying directly tied to the Vision proposal. I'm a nurse. In medicine, there are routine (still important) tasks, urgent issues, and STAT ones. And one person is not expected to handle all of them at once. If you're part of the code team in a cardiac arrest, another practitioner gives your routine scheduled medications to your other patients. I find in citizen involvement, triage (prioritization) and teamwork are similarly important. One volunteer cannot be expected to be an expert on, or even work on, every issue. Saying "I can't do that today" isn't the same as "blowing off" a concern or not caring about it.