Westside Schools Boundary Study Final Report iWestside Schools Boundary Study Final Report 2...

Westside Schools Boundary Study Final Report i

Westside Schools Boundary Study

Task Force Tracy Barton, Bridlemile Elementary Eileen Brokaw, Metropolitan Learning Center Susan Climo, West Sylvan Middle Richard Clucas, Robert Gray Middle Alex Cousins, At-large; Southwest Neighborhoods, Inc. Tim Crail, Markham Elementary Linda Doyle, Wilson High Peter Hamilton, At-large; Lincoln High Principal Nancy Hand, Stephenson Elementary Margaret Hoffmann, Forest Park Elementary Kris Hudson, At-large Sally Johnson, At-large Jane Jouett, Capitol Hill Elementary Bill Kelly, Chapman Elementary Rick Kneuven, At-large; Neighbors West/Northwest Nancy Kurkinen, Ainsworth Elementary Celeste Lewis, At-large Linda Lovett, Lincoln High Jana McLellan, Maplewood Elementary Mike Miller, Rieke Elementary Ariel Nadel, Jackson Middle Lori Nagel, Hayhurst Elementary Robert Nourse, Smith Elementary Sarah Pullen, At-large Carla Randall, At-large; Wilson High Principal Sandi Sheets, At-large Richard Williams, At-large Stacey Wilson, Skyline Elementary Portland Public Schools Administration Pamela Brown, Director of Facilities and Asset Management Jean Fischer, Director of Student Achievement, Franklin–Wilson Community Clusters Lynne George, Former Director of Student Achievement, Cleveland/Lincoln Cluster Brenda Gustafson, Senior Communications Officer Kerry Hampton, Property Development Manager Jim Scherzinger, Superintendent

Research Subcommittee Ruth Adkins Tracy Barton Lynn Burgin Gregory Chase Richard Clucas Tim Crail Linda Doyle Mark Helfand Celeste Lewis Linda Lovett Mike Miller Lori Nagel Robert Nourse Martha Schulte Policy Subcommittee Eileen Brokaw Richard Clucas Jane Jouett Bill Kelly Rick Kneuven Richard Williams Stacey Wilson Public Events Subcommittee Nancy Hand Kris Hudson Jane Jouett Nancy Kurkinen Mike Miller Sarah Pullen Sandi Sheets Consultants Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC Elaine Cogan, Principal Crystal Jackson, Office Assistant Pam Pickens, Associate Planner Damian Pitt, Associate Planner Suzanne Roberts, Research Associate Robert Wise, Senior Associate

Westside Schools Boundary Study Final Report ii

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2 Task Force Recommendations ....................................................................................... 2 Citizen Component ......................................................................................................... 2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 9 Recommended Westside Boundary Policy .................................................................. 10

Policy Purpose ............................................................................................................ 10 Purpose of Boundaries ............................................................................................... 10 Definitions ................................................................................................................... 10 Consideration of Boundary Changes ....................................................................... 11 Criteria for Boundary Changes ................................................................................. 11 Review Process ........................................................................................................... 12

Recommended Actions Regarding School Closure .................................................... 14 Why Close a School? .................................................................................................. 14 Considerations for Which School to Close ............................................................... 18 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 18

Recommended Actions to Address Overcrowding at Forest Park Elementary School ...............................................................................................................................

19

Recommended Actions to Address Overcrowding at Lincoln High and West Sylvan Middle: Option A ..............................................................................................

20

Option A Supporters ................................................................................................. 21 Recommended Actions to Address Overcrowding at Lincoln High and West Sylvan Middle: Option B ..............................................................................................

23

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 23 Demographics ............................................................................................................. 23 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 23 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 25 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 27 Option B Supporters .................................................................................................. 27

Statements of Dissenting Opinion ............................................................................... 28 Susan Climo ................................................................................................................ 28 Linda Doyle ................................................................................................................ 28 Nancy Hand ................................................................................................................ 32 Kris Hudson ................................................................................................................ 33

Westside Schools Boundary Study Final Report iii

TABLES

Table 1. Lincoln Cluster Schools .............................................................................. 6 Table 2. Wilson Cluster Schools ............................................................................... 7 Table 3. Historical Enrollment Trends by Cluster and Grade ............................... 15 Table 4. Capacity and Enrollment of Westside Elementary Schools .................... 16 Table 5. Option A – Estimated Impacts on Enrollment ......................................... 22 Table 6. Option B – Estimated Impacts on Enrollment .......................................... 26

APPENDIX The Appendix to this report may be found in the offices of the Superintendent or Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC. It contains meeting agendas, summaries, reports, and all other materials that were distributed to or produced by the Task Force and/or its Subcommittees. The information in the Appendix is divided into the following sections:

Task Force Research Subcommittee Policy Subcommittee Public Events Media

Westside Schools Boundary Study Final Report 1

Westside Schools Boundary Study Final Report

November 17, 2003

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Portland Public School District initiated the Westside Schools Boundary Study in April, 2003, in response to recent declining enrollments and budgetary constraints. Earlier, the School Board had considered closing schools as a response to these trends. The District’s Space Allocation Committee then recommended the closure of four elementary schools: Brooklyn, Edwards, Meek, and Rieke. This possibility sparked public concern, leading the District to vote to close only Brooklyn and Meek. At the same time, the Board passed a resolution calling for two citizen-led processes to study school closure, school boundaries, and educational options on the east and west sides of the city.

The District chose Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC (COC) to facilitate a citizen-driven process to recommend a rational boundary policy for the Westside schools; study the prevailing conditions of overcrowding in the Lincoln High School cluster and underutilization in the Wilson High School cluster; and recommend actions the District could take to address these conditions – including the possibility of school closure.

A 29-member citizens Task Force, consisting of one representative of each Westside school and 11 individuals from the community at-large, met between April and November. The Task Force conducted original research, visited each Westside school, and considered many factors in developing its recommendations, including the current boundaries, recent enrollment trends, transfers to and from each school, school size and condition, and focus option and other special programs. Recommendations for a Westside Boundary Policy, Actions to Address Overcrowding at Forest Park Elementary, and School Closure were agreed to by a majority of Task Force members. After considerable discussion, the Task Force voted to recommend closure of an elementary school in the Wilson cluster as a tool to address underutilization. However, members chose not to recommend any specific school for closure. They cited a lack of specific financial and other information as the reason. Members were unable to agree on one option to address overcrowding at West Sylvan Middle and Lincoln High. Thus, two alternatives, along with the other recommendations, are forwarded to the Superintendent and the School Board for further study and action. The full text of these recommendations is contained at the end of this report, along with dissenting opinion statements by four Task Force members. Complete documentation of the process and copies of all summary minutes and reports are provided in the Appendix.


INTRODUCTION

The Portland Public School District initiated the Westside Schools Boundary Study in April, 2003, in response to current and predicted future declining enrollments and budgetary constraints. Earlier, after the School Board had considered closing schools as a response to these trends, the District’s Space Allocation Committee recommended the closure of four elementary schools: Brooklyn, Edwards, Meek, and Rieke. In response to expressions of public concern, the District voted to close only Brooklyn and Meek. At the same time, the Board passed a resolution calling for two citizen-led processes to study school closure, school boundaries, and educational options on the east and west sides of the city.

The District chose Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC (COC) to facilitate a citizen-driven process to prepare a Westside Boundary Policy and recommendations to address the problems of overcrowding in the Lincoln High School cluster and underutilization in the Wilson High School cluster. The exact charge from the Superintendent is as follows:

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Task Force’s recommendations address all elements of the Superintendent’s charge and are contained in five documents at the end of this report. Underutilization in the Wilson cluster is addressed in the Recommended Actions to Address School Closure, which recommends closure of an elementary school in the Wilson cluster. Overcrowding is addressed in the Recommended Actions to Address Overcrowding at Forest Park Elementary School and Actions to Address Overcrowding at Lincoln High and West Sylvan Middle. These reports were endorsed by a significant majority of Task Force members. However, the Task Force was not able to reach agreement on how to address overcrowding at Lincoln High and West Sylvan Middle Schools. As a result, this final report includes two options for Recommended Actions to Address Overcrowding at West Sylvan Middle and Lincoln High, followed by the names of the Task Force members who support them. Additionally, four dissenting opinion statements were submitted by Task Force members who did not agree with one or more of the Task Force recommendations. Their statements are included at the end of this report.

CITIZEN COMPONENT

The 29-member Task Force included representatives of each of the 18 Westside schools, appointed by their respective principals, and 11 at-large members. The latter included the

Recommend a rational boundary policy for the Lincoln and Wilson clusters that: • Maximizes educational opportunities for all students; • Provides for the most efficient use of all school buildings in the area; and • Considers the following:

− Optimum support for students and programs − Feeder patterns that resolve overcrowding or prevent underutilization − Possible expansion of successful focus options − Possible school closures


principals of Lincoln and Wilson, one representative each from Southwest Neighborhoods, Inc. and Neighbors West/Northwest, and seven chosen from a field of 21 applicants who live and work on the Westside but do not have children in any of the schools. The application process was advertised widely in community newspapers, flyers in each school, and on the District’s Website. One of the at-large members later resigned due to scheduling conflicts.

The Task Force held 16 meetings approximately every other week from April 21 to November 11, 2003. This includes several extra sessions that were held in September, October and November. All meetings were held in the evening in the Portland Public Schools Blanchard Education Service Center, 501 N. Dixon Street. Elaine Cogan of COC facilitated the meetings, which were attended by Pam Brown, Director of Facilities, and/or Kerry Hampton, Property Development Manager, as well as the Directors of Student Achievement for the Lincoln and Wilson clusters and, from time to time, principals and interested citizens. All Task Force meetings were open to the public, with an opportunity for public comments on each agenda. They were announced on the Portland Public Schools Website and in the media. Meeting agendas and summaries, as well as copies of all the materials distributed to the Task Force, follow in the Appendix.

Four Task Force subcommittees were formed at various stages in the process. The Research Subcommittee met six times between May 15 and August 6 to gather, evaluate, and prioritize information relevant to the Task Force’s deliberations. The subcommittee included eight Task Force members and five other community members invited to participate by District administrators and Task Force members. The subcommittee formed smaller research groups to study boundary policies in other school districts; mapping and enrollment projections; overcrowding; school capacities; and Title I Funding. Meeting agendas, summaries and copies of all of the materials prepared by the Research Subcommittee follow in the Appendix.

The Policy Subcommittee, comprised of seven Task Force members, held two meetings in August to write the initial draft Policy, and then prepared subsequent drafts based on feedback at the Task Force meetings. This subcommittee also prepared an alternative approach to school boundaries that relies on a computer model to assign incoming kindergarten, sixth and ninth- grade students to schools based on their geographic proximity relative to the other members of their incoming class. Even though the Task Force decided not to pursue this approach, members agreed that it be forwarded to the District for possible future consideration. The final Policy document approved by the Task Force is included in this report. Meeting agendas, summaries, and previous drafts are in the Appendix.

A third subcommittee of seven Task Force members was convened to develop recommendations regarding school closures on the Westside. This subcommittee held one meeting to prepare a draft statement. After the draft was discussed at the November 3 Task Force meeting, membership on the subcommittee was changed to include only those members representing elementary and middle schools in the Wilson cluster -- those schools most likely to be affected by any school closure decision. This subcommittee revised the draft Task Force statement on school closure, which was subsequently discussed and adopted by the Task Force on November 11. The final document is included in this report.

The fourth subcommittee was formed to plan and organize two public forums held on October 15 and 16 at Lincoln and Wilson High Schools, respectively. The committee of seven


Task Force members met five times to develop interactive formats to engage the public in discussing the issues under consideration. The forums were advertised on the District’s Website, in The Oregonian and local media, and through flyers distributed to students and parents in each school.

Approximately 300 people attended each forum. The vast majority of people were from the Westside, with the greatest representation from the Bridlemile and Rieke neighborhoods. The agenda for the forums included opening statements from representatives of Portland Public Schools and the Task Force, followed by small group discussions and a question-and-answer session. COC compiled the results of the small group discussions, which focused on the Task Force’s list of possible actions to address overcrowding and underutilization in the Westside schools. These results are found in the Public Events section of the Appendix.

A written questionnaire was distributed at the forums to provide an additional opportunity for public input. It also was available for downloading on the PPS Website. A total of 295 surveys was received by the deadline. Of these, 170 were from attendees at the Lincoln High forum and 117 from the Wilson High forum. Eight were downloaded from the School District’s Website. COC compiled the questionnaire results, which also are included in the Appendix.

Numerous additional public comments were submitted to PPS and COC by fax, mail, and e-mail. COC distributed all comments to the Task Force. They are included in the Appendix.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The current Portland Public Schools District boundary map was distributed at the April 21 Task Force meeting. This map, included in the Appendix, indicates the Lincoln cluster in the northern portion of the Westside, with the Wilson cluster to the south. West Sylvan Middle School serves the entire Lincoln cluster. To help alleviate overcrowding, the District is now housing West Sylvan’s sixth-grade class at the “East Sylvan” building – a former elementary school about a mile away. The Lincoln cluster’s five elementary schools – Ainsworth, Bridlemile, Chapman, Forest Park, and Skyline – feed into West Sylvan and Lincoln.

Students from Gray and Jackson Middle schools are in the Wilson High attendance area. Gray generally serves students who live north of SW Barbur Boulevard and SW Multnomah Boulevard, west of Interstate 5. Jackson Middle School generally serves students in the southern portion of the Wilson cluster, plus areas east of Interstate 5, Barbur Boulevard and Terwilliger Boulevard, north to the Ross Island Bridge. Hayhurst, Maplewood, and Rieke Elementary Schools feed into Gray while Capitol Hill, Markham, Smith, and Stephenson Elementary Schools are in the Jackson attendance area. More detailed information on school locations and boundaries is included in an April 29 memorandum from COC to the Task Force in the Appendix.

The Westside also is home to the Metropolitan Learning Center (MLC), an alternative focus-option program that is the District’s only K-12 school. While MLC has open enrollment, and thus is available to students throughout the District, it was included in the study because of its location in Northwest Portland.


The Westside schools in the Portland Public Schools District have undergone five major boundary reorganizations in the past 25 years. The earliest and most comprehensive was a 1981 study of school closure and consolidation in the entire District that resulted in the closure of Adams and Washington-Monroe High Schools on the Eastside and Jackson High on the Westside. The latter became Jackson Middle. Reorganizations of the Lincoln and Wilson clusters occurred in 1984 and 1989, respectively. The boundaries of Capitol Hill and Hayhurst Elementaries were changed in 1992. Forest Park Elementary was opened in 1998. These processes are described in the April 29 memo to the Task Force found in the Appendix.

Task Force members visited each of the 18 Westside schools and studied detailed information before preparing their recommendations. Factors they evaluated include school size (in terms of both classrooms and square footage), school capacity (as estimated in a report from the Research Subcommittee), recent enrollment trends, transfers to and from each school, and the presence of special programs, including focus options. Some of this information is summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below. Additional data on each school is included in the April 29 memo and other items in the Appendix.


TABLE 1. LINCOLN CLUSTER SCHOOLS

School Estimated Capacity1 Enrollment2 Balance3 Transfers4 Focus Option

Programs

Lincoln High 1,370 1,485 -115 410 (29%) Spanish Immersion, International Studies Center

West Sylvan Middle (grades 7-8) 960 624 336 120 (13%)5 Spanish Immersion

East Sylvan (grade 6) 260 276 -16 See above Spanish Immersion

Ainsworth Elementary 590 522 68 255 (46%) Spanish Immersion

Bridlemile Elementary 590 461 129 57 (13%) None

Chapman Elementary 630 451 179 141 (29%) Odyssey6

Forest Park Elementary 280 408 -128 15 (4%) None

Skyline Elementary 300 216 84 12 (6%) None

Metropolitan Learning Center 450 432 18 NA None

1 These estimated school capacity numbers are based on an independent study conducted by the Westside Schools Boundary Study Research Subcommittee and include any portables on-site at the time of the study. The methodology was accepted by PPS administration and is explained in the full report in the Appendix (School Capacity Research Group, Final School Capacity Report). Task Force members do not unanimously support the findings or methodology of this report.

2 Preliminary 2003-2004 enrollment numbers provided by Portland Public Schools, October 9, 2003. 3 The balance represents the difference between each school’s estimated capacity and preliminary enrollment

for 2003-2004. 4 Transfers are students whose home addresses are outside the boundaries of the school they attend,

according to information provided by PPS to the Portland State University Population Research Center. The figures are for the 2002-2003 school year. Percentages are based on 2002-2003 enrollments.

5 Transfer numbers for East Sylvan are not currently available. The figures shown here for West Sylvan include grades six through eight.

6 The Odyssey program is scheduled to leave Chapman by the 2004-2005 school year. Its next location has not yet been determined.


TABLE 2. WILSON CLUSTER SCHOOLS

School Estimated Capacity7 Enrollment8 Balance9 Transfers10 Focus Option

Programs

Wilson High 1,770 1,585 185 153 (9%) None

Gray Middle 600 498 102 99 (19%) None

Jackson Middle 1,150 767 383 87 (11%) None

Capitol Hill Elementary 460 282 178 62 (20%) None

Hayhurst Elementary 490 212 278 28 (11%) None

Maplewood Elementary 310 287 23 26 (9%) None

Markham Elementary 590 328 262 35 (11%) None

Rieke Elementary 280 278 2 40 (15%) None

Smith Elementary 410 238 172 48 (19%) None

Stephenson Elementary 450 351 99 31 (9%) None

Simultaneous to this study, the District adopted two policies that would affect the Task Force’s deliberations: a new Student Enrollment and Transfers Policy, and a new School Initiation and Closure Policy.

The new Student Enrollment and Transfers Policy combines neighborhood and focus options transfers and admissions policies in one document. It was developed through a seven-month process of meetings with parents, teachers, principals, and District staff, and helps the District implement its new Educational Options Policy, approved by the Board in August, 2002. The most important change to current practices is that “flow-through transfers” will no longer be automatically accepted once the policy is implemented in the 2005-2006 school year. Under the present policy, students who transfer to an elementary school outside their home cluster may

7 These estimated school capacity numbers are based on an independent study conducted by the Westside Schools Boundary Study Research Subcommittee and include any portables on-site at the time of the study. The methodology was accepted by PPS administration and is explained in the full report in the Appendix (School Capacity Research Group, Final School Capacity Report). Task Force members do not unanimously support the findings or methodology of this report.

8 Preliminary 2003-2004 enrollment numbers provided by Portland Public Schools, October 9, 2003. 9 The balance represents the difference between each school’s estimated capacity and preliminary enrollment

for 2003-2004. 10 Transfers are students whose home addresses are outside the boundaries of the school they attend,

according to information provided by PPS to the Portland State University Population Research Center. The figures are for the 2002-2003 school year. Percentages are based on 2002-2003 enrollments.


remain in the new cluster through middle and high school without applying for a new transfer. Under the new policy, such students must re-apply for transfers once they reach middle school and again at high school. If not, they return to their neighborhood schools. A copy of the new policy is included in the Appendix.

The School Initiation and Closure Policy was prepared in the summer of 2003 by PPS staff and a consultant, Nina Johnson, after a two-year study that engaged principals and parents as well as District staff. It outlines the general process that the District will take when considering whether to close or open a school, including having to issue a report on the impacts on financial matters, enrollment, facilities, students and surrounding schools, as well as the level of community support or effect on the community. This Task Force’s Recommended Actions Regarding School Closure calls for the District to initiate this report if it considers closing a school. A copy of the School Closure and Initiation Policy is included in the Appendix.

The District formed the Eastside Options Citizens Committee at the same time that the Task Force began its work. This group of principals and representatives of elementary, middle and high schools in the Franklin and Cleveland clusters studied the location of special focus programs, language immersion programs, the year-round school program at Edwards Elementary, and a program for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The Committee’s recommendations, issued in November, 2003, are specific to the schools in the Franklin and Cleveland clusters and do not affect the work of this Task Force.

Additional factors influencing the Task Force’s work are the federal Title I program, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the District’s budgetary constraints.

The federal Title I program allocates funds to school districts based on the number of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch. Each district then allocates its Title I funds to the schools that meet a certain threshold of students qualifying for the program. This threshold may be between 35% and 75%. PPS has designated the threshold at 40%. Under this formula, Hayhurst Elementary, with 41.3% free and reduced lunch students, is the only school on the Westside that receives Title I funds. Markham Elementary, with 39.7%, is the only other Westside school that is close to this threshold. The Task Force considered the impact of possible boundary and program changes on Title I funding for these schools, but ultimately decided not to include this as a factor in its recommendations.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires all students to be tested annually in grades three through eight, and once in high school. Each school’s test results must meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) standards, which are set by each state using federal guidelines. In addition, schools must meet AYP standards for each sub-group for which they have more than 11 students. Recognized sub-groups include members of census-identified ethnic / racial groups, English language learners, special education, and low-income students. Schools that receive Title I funds and fail to meet AYP standards for two consecutive years are classified as “needing improvement.”

Four PPS schools are currently so classified: Jefferson, Marshall, and Roosevelt High Schools and Whitaker Middle School. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, the District must allow students from these schools to transfer to one of their top three choices within the District and provide them with transportation to their new schools.


The Task Force considered the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on future enrollment patterns in the District, and agrees that it is important to preserve the rights of students from schools identified as “needing improvement” to be able to transfer into the Westside schools. Both Task Force options for Recommended Actions to Address Overcrowding at Lincoln High and West Sylvan Middle would allow these students to continue to transfer into schools on the Westside.

A District-wide funding crisis was the primary reason for the initial school closure recommendations that led eventually to the formation of the Task Force. The District estimates that each elementary school closure saves approximately $350,000 annually, primarily in administrative and facilities costs. The District’s financial constraints were ameliorated somewhat in May, 2003, with the passage of Measure 26-48, which provides a three-year funding bridge for PPS and the other school districts in Multnomah County. This accounted for $55.4 million in 2003 – 2004 alone, or 14% of the District’s adopted budget for that year.

CONCLUSION

The Task Force members showed exemplary dedication to their roles as citizen volunteers, spending countless hours studying and discussing the myriad issues related to school enrollments and boundaries on the Westside. The final recommendations were produced through an iterative process in which initial drafts were reviewed and commented on by the Task Force, revised, and reviewed again until the documents met the approval of the majority of members. The products of their work give the District a foundation to build upon in dealing with the current problems of overcrowding and underutilization on the Westside, as well as a framework for handling similar issues in the future. Task Force members agree in urging the District to identify and deal with enrollment and/or boundary issues before they reach a crisis level.


RECOMMENDED WESTSIDE BOUNDARY POLICY I. Policy Purpose The purpose of this policy is to provide rational criteria for the Portland Public School Board (Board) to use when considering whether to make and when making attendance boundary changes for neighborhood schools. The policy shall be interpreted and applied to further the mission and strategic objectives of the Portland Public Schools (0.10.010-P), the District's policy to eliminate barriers to educational attainment (2.10.010-P), and other District policies, and to comply with state and federal requirements. II. Purpose of Boundaries The purposes of school boundaries are to foster a sense of community centered on each school and establish a student population at each school that is an optimum size to support the educational environment and to attain the District's policy on Student Achievement at the school (6.10.010-P). Boundaries shall facilitate rational school planning and operation by minimizing transportation costs, ensuring safe transportation of students, and maximizing the efficient use of school facilities. III. Definitions

(1) Neighborhood school. A school serving a designated attendance area. In addition to providing high quality educational opportunities, neighborhood schools offer students and their families the opportunity to build lasting friendships and a sense of community within their neighborhood. As a center for many community activities, neighborhood schools are also important to the neighborhood as a whole. (6.10.022-P)

(2) Program. An educational component of a school offering specialized instruction, a

focus on a particular theme or instructional approach or other ways to meet student needs. Students participating in the program are considered enrolled in the school with which the program is affiliated. (6.10.022-P)

(3) Focus option. A separate Board-recognized school or program structured around a

unique curriculum or particular theme. Focus options may be part of or co-located in the same facility as a neighborhood school or other focus option. Focus options actively seek to create a sense of community in which racial, economic, and cultural isolation are reduced. (6.10.022-P)

(4) Transfer. A formal request by a district family for a student to attend a school other

than his/her neighborhood school or to return to his/her neighborhood school.

(5) Transfer student. A district student attending a school other than his/her neighborhood school. (4.10.051-P)


(6) Resident student. A student who is a resident of the Portland Public School district. (4.10.051-P)

(7) Nonresident student. A student from another district attending a Portland Public

School district school on inter-district transfer. (4.10.051-P) (8) Feeder pattern. A designated path for students to advance from one school grade

grouping to another. (4.10.051-P) (9) Optimum size. The ideal number of students for a given school's physical size, grade

levels, and educational offerings, in keeping with current educational research. (10) Capacity. A school building’s reasonable enrollment limit. (11) Adjacent school. A school with contiguous boundaries to another school.

IV. Consideration of Boundary Changes When the District foresees a need to increase or decrease a school's student population to attain an optimum size, determines that a school is overcrowded or under-utilized, or concludes that the size of a school's student population must be changed for some other reason, the Board will consider redrawing attendance boundaries as part of a comprehensive review of alternatives and their potential impact on District programs, including but not limited to the options listed below:

• Moving programs and focus options;

• Changing the number of transfers allowed in the school, including both resident and

nonresident transfers;

• Increasing capacity by adding temporary facilities or upgrading existing school buildings;

• Closing or opening a school (See School Initiation and Closure Policy 6.10.030.P). V. Criteria for Boundary Changes The District considers neighborhood schools to be an integral part of building communities and a strong educational system. In all decisions regarding school boundaries, the district will consider the impact of its actions on neighborhood schools, educational attainment (2.10.010-P); and educational options (6.10.022-P). The following additional factors should be considered when making boundary changes. The list does not imply an order of priority.


(1) Natural and man-made physical boundaries. The Board shall try to minimize the natural and man-made physical boundaries the students need to cross to attend school.

(2) Safe and efficient transportation. Attendance boundaries shall be drawn in a manner

that promotes safe and efficient transportation of students. The Board shall try to create attendance boundaries that minimize the amount of time in which students have to ride on a bus. At maximum, no student should be forced to ride more than 60 minutes to school, except in the most unusual cases.

(3) Proximity. In order to foster community, attendance boundaries shall be drawn in a

manner so that students who live within a half mile of a school are allowed to attend that school.

(4) Efficient use of school facilities. Attendance boundaries shall be drawn in a manner

designed to use school facilities in the most efficient and cost- effective manner possible, without sacrificing educational achievement and program needs.

(5) Population trends. Boundary changes shall be based on the best available projections

of student population growth and decline. (6) School and program stability. When considering options to address capacity problems,

the Board shall try to adopt solutions that provide as much stability as possible in schools and educational programs.

(7) Minimize disruption on families. The Board shall try to minimize the number of

families impacted when redrawing boundary lines. (8) Equal access. The Board shall not draw attendance boundaries in a manner that

discriminates against individuals because of their race or economic status, nor shall it make boundary changes that meaningfully harm the educational opportunity of special needs students.

(9) Feeder patterns. The Board shall consider feeder patterns keeping children from the

same elementary school together as they are promoted into middle and high schools. However, feeder patterns can be split to accommodate problems of overcrowding and under-utilization.

VI. Review Process

(1) The Superintendent will continuously monitor and evaluate enrollment trends and take actions consistent with this Policy to avoid overcrowding and under-utilization situations before they occur.

(2) Every three to five years, the Board will direct the Superintendent to convene a public

process with wide community involvement to review building utilization and


attendance boundaries and, if necessary, to recommend action consistent with this Policy. The process also shall endeavor to forecast school attendance trends and future need for attendance boundary change.

(3) Citizens may request that the Board create a citizen task force to address overcrowding

and under-utilization or inconsistencies with this policy. (4) The Board or the Superintendent shall approve all changes in attendance boundaries.


RECOMMENDED ACTIONS REGARDING SCHOOL CLOSURE On March 10, 2003, the Portland School Board passed Resolution X2601, instructing the superintendent to create a facilitated process to address the problems of overcrowding and underutilization of schools on the Westside of the district. The resolution stated that one of the goals of this process was to recommend “a more efficient use of our facilities by closing at least one facility in the area.” In response to this resolution, the superintendent created the Westside Boundary Task Force in April, 2003. As part of its charge, the Task Force was asked to consider the possibility of closing a school on the Westside. Closing a school is one of the most difficult decisions that a School Board must make. A decision to close a school can create difficult challenges for students, families, teachers, and neighborhoods. It is a very emotional process because it affects the most precious part of our lives -– our children. Thus, it is a decision that should not be taken lightly. Given the significance of this issue to families and the school district, the Task Force took its charge very seriously. In an ideal world, Portland Public Schools would not have to consider closing a school. If our student population was remaining the same or growing evenly across the district, there would be no concern about the underutilization of facilities. If school funding were always strong, we would not feel as much pressure to find ways to reduce operating costs. Instead, we could focus simply on building quality educational programs in every school regardless of size. Yet it is not an ideal world and we have to pay attention to such matters. Given the other charges put before it, the Task Force did not have sufficient time to conduct a full School Closure Report as called for in Section II (2) of the District’s School Initiation and Closure Policy (6.10.030-P). However, we have spent a considerable amount of time studying the issues facing the Westside schools at this time, including current and future enrollment trends. Based on the information we have gathered, the Task Force recommends that the School District close a Wilson Cluster elementary school. Why Close a School? The following significant trends are affecting the District and Westside schools specifically; we believe they make closing a school necessary. Enrollment Trends Portland Public Schools has seen a significant decline in enrollment over the past several years. The most recent studies project a continuation of this trend. Total school enrollment for fall of 2003 dropped by 2,002 students compared with the enrollment in the preceding fall. In the previous fall, the enrollment had declined by 1,236 students. Overall, the District’s enrollment has declined by more than 10 percent since the 1995-96 school year, dropping from 52,091 students to 46,752.


Table 3. Historical Enrollment Trends by Cluster and Grade

These trends have not been as significant overall on the Westside. In the Wilson Cluster enrollment declined from 5,202 students in 1995 to 4,826 in 2003. The Lincoln Cluster actually saw an increase in enrollment during this period, rising from 4,431 to 4,443 students. The one part of the Westside that has been most affected by the enrollment decline is the number of students attending elementary schools in the Wilson Cluster (Table 1). The enrollment for these schools fell by over 20 percent during this eight-year period. As a result of this decline, average enrollment at elementary schools in the Wilson Cluster has fallen to 282 students this year -- in fact, only two are above 300 students. Table 2 provides enrollment figures for the 12 elementary schools on the Westside, based on the preliminary numbers from the October 9, 2003 count. The table also provides capacity figures, which are based upon research conducted by the Task Force. The problem is not just that enrollment has been declining, but that it is expected to continue to decline. The Population Research Center at Portland State University projects a decrease of enrollment each year through 2010. The heaviest declines are expected in grades three to five and six to eight. On the Westside, enrollment is expected to grow in the Forest Heights area, but there is no evidence that the enrollment situation within the Wilson Cluster will improve any time in the near future. The large decline in enrollment and the anticipated future decline make it necessary that some type of action be taken to address the underutilization of these schools. When a school enrollment becomes too low, it threatens the quality of education that students receive.

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

Lincoln Cluster Schools

Elementary (K-5) 1,938 1,893 1,879 1,996 2,045 2,029 2,068 2,055 2,058

Middle (6-8) 886 872 876 881 878 907 915 947 900

High (9-12) 1,342 1,362 1,338 1,357 1,304 1,374 1,469 1,429 1,485

Total 4,166 4,127 4,093 4,234 4,227 4,310 4,452 4,431 4,443

Wilson Cluster Schools

Elementary (K-5) 2,495 2,386 2,273 2,268 2,183 2,110 2,200 2,049 1,976

Middle (6-8) 1,317 1,284 1,307 1,365 1,315 1,304 1,333 1,356 1,265

High (9-12) 1,390 1,450 1,503 1,514 1,576 1,614 1,644 1,630 1,585

Total 5,202 5,120 5,083 5,147 5,074 5,028 5,177 5,035 4,826 Source: Preliminary 2003-2004 Enrollment Report, Portland Public Schools.


Table 4. Capacity and Enrollment of Westside Elementary Schools

Financial Implications For the past several years, the Portland Public School District has continuously found itself confronting a lack of adequate funding. During the 2002-03 school year, the financial situation became so dire that the District decided to cut the school year by 24 days. Ultimately, the District did not have to take that action, thanks to the passage of Measure 26-48 by Multnomah County voters and the willingness of PPS teachers to work 10 days without pay. Without those actions, the quality of education in the Portland Public Schools would have been severely reduced. The passage of Measure 26-48, however, represents only a stopgap solution to the fiscal problems confronting the schools. The measure provides funding for only three years. Once those three years end, the District may soon find itself confronting the same fiscal problems it faced in the past. If the economy rebounds at the end of three years, the District's financial situation may improve. There is, however, no guarantee that the economy will rebound, and even if it does, the financial problems may not end. It is important to keep in mind that even during the economic boom years of the late 1990’s, the District repeatedly found itself confronted with a lack of adequate funding.

Estimated Capacity Enrollment

Lincoln Cluster Schools

Ainsworth 590 522

Bridlemile 590 461

Chapman 630 451

Forest Park 280 408

Skyline 300 216

Wilson Cluster Schools

Capitol Hill 460 282

Hayhurst 490 212

Maplewood 310 287

Markham 590 328

Rieke 280 278

Smith 410 238

Stephenson 450 351

Sources: Final School Capacity Report, School Capacity Research Group, Westside Schools Boundary Study Task Force; Preliminary 2003-2004 Enrollment Report, Portland Public Schools.


Because of these budgetary problems, it is imperative that the District take steps to act in a fiscally prudent manner, but without harming educational quality. The amount of money saved by closing an elementary school is considered to be around $350,000, which is not a great amount compared with the District's entire operating costs. However, given the continuing budgeting problems that the District has been facing, the Task Force believes that it would be fiscally irresponsible to continue to keep open an elementary school in an area where the enrollment figures do not justify it. The Physical Condition and Capacity of the Facilities The District's student population is in a constant state of flux; it ebbs and flows as neighborhoods change and economic cycles run their course. As times, student populations and course offerings change, use of facilities must be tailored to meet those changing needs. The District has a fundamental obligation to routinely review and assess its physical assets, making periodic adjustments in the way they are used, to optimize efficiencies while providing positive learning environments. Portland Public Schools Policy The decision to close a school is governed by the District’s School Initiation and Closure Policy (6.10.030-P). This policy includes instructions on the factors that should be analyzed when considering closure. In the introduction to the policy, it states that the District will “close schools in a manner that promotes equity, encourages access to a high-quality neighborhood school, and encourages an appropriate learning environment for all students, including those with special needs.” It also says a variety of factors should be taken into consideration when considering closure, including “financial impact, projected enrollment, quality of the facility, community impact, and expanded choice.” Later in the document, the School Initiation and Closure policy gives a more explicit listing of factors that need to be analyzed when considering closing a school. These include:

• Enrollment trends

• Financial implications

• Equity of access

• Physical condition and capacity of the facilities

• Impact on educational choices and programs

• Transportation options

• Impact on the community Our decision to recommend that the District close a school is based on our interpretation of these guidelines.


Considerations for Which School to Close We believe the following five criteria are the most important factors to be considered as the District moves forward in its analysis of which school or schools to close. Weight also should be given to cluster demographics, socio-economic status (SES) trends, and the needs of special education students and other special populations to ensure equity of access. These criteria are presented here in no particular priority order. Feasible Relocation of Students: Consider the ability to fit the students from the closed school into adjacent schools within a reasonable proximity of their homes. In addition, consider cluster-wide impacts resulting from the closure. Alternative Uses: Consider how the closed property may be used in a way that benefits the District, the cluster, or the neighborhood. Educational Opportunities: Consider ways to create stable student populations that are large enough to support broad educational opportunities. School Proximity: Consider the location of remaining schools relative to their students. Financial Impact: Consider the savings that will accrue over time as a consequence of closing a school, as well as the potential revenue to the District that might be created by selling or leasing the property. (The amount of annual savings resulting from the closure of a typical elementary school is in the $300,000 to $350,000 range.) Conclusions We affirm that the schools in the District are of the highest quality. Further, as a Task Force, we recommend the following:

• The School District should close a Wilson cluster elementary school.

• In deciding which Wilson Cluster elementary school to close, the District should work with the Wilson Cluster elementary school representatives from the Westside Schools Boundary Study Task Force to conduct a systematic analysis and prepare a School Closure Report as called for in the School Initiation and Closure Policy.

• When the School District closes a school, the open spaces on that property should be

preserved. • The School District should develop a broad promotional plan to highlight the excellence

of Portland Public Schools and the programs in place, to retain and attract students and avoid the need to close neighborhood schools in the future.

• The School District should conduct an evaluation on the effects of transfers on

enrollment.


RECOMMENDED ACTIONS TO ADDRESS OVERCROWDING AT FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Forest Park Elementary School currently has a student population of 408, and an estimated capacity of 280.11 Forest Park’s enrollment is growing faster than any other school on the Westside, and this growth is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future.

The Task Force believes that, due to its isolated geographic location, adding sufficient capacity to support the local neighborhood population is preferable to instituting boundary changes. The Forest Park building was originally designed and constructed so that it could be doubled in size if funds were available and the student population warranted such an expansion. The Task Force understands that the District will submit a bond measure in 2004 that will include funds dedicated to the expansion of Forest Park Elementary. This will likely be submitted for a public vote in the spring or fall of 2004. The Task Force’s preferred solution for the overcrowding at Forest Park is to strictly enforce a policy of no new transfers and to move forward with plans to expand the building.

If the bond measure passes and an expanded Forest Park Elementary building is able to accommodate the increased student population within the catchment area, then boundary changes will not be necessary. However, if the bond measure fails, boundary changes will have to be considered. Similarly, if the bond measure passes, but the population within the school’s catchment area exceeds the capacity of the expanded building, then the District will have to consider boundary changes.

If boundary changes were to be implemented immediately, for the 2004-2005 school year, they might need to be changed again pending the outcome of the bond measure. To change the boundaries twice in such a short amount of time would be highly disruptive and thus contrary to the principles of the Task Force’s Recommended Westside Boundary Policy. For this reason the Task Force does not recommend immediate boundary changes.

With this background in mind, the Task Force recommends the following actions to address the overcrowding at Forest Park:

1. Do not allow any new transfers until the overcrowding situation is resolved;

2. Submit a bond measure that includes funds to expand the Forest Park Elementary School building;

3. If the bond measure fails, or if the expanded building cannot accommodate the student population within the school’s catchment area, implement boundary changes in accordance with the principles set forth in the Recommended Westside Boundary Policy.

11 This capacity number does not reflect the recent addition of a second portable building at the site.


RECOMMENDED ACTIONS TO ADDRESS OVERCROWDING AT LINCOLN HIGH AND WEST SYLVAN MIDDLE: OPTION A As noted in the Task Force Recommendations section, Task Force members were unable to come to agreement on one recommendation to solve these problems. Therefore, Options A and B will follow, with the list of supporters of each. For the last six months we have looked at the problems of overcrowding in the Lincoln cluster and underutilization in the Wilson cluster. The factors that have caused these problems are many and not easily solved. These are a few recommendations that we believe will ameliorate some of these issues. We know that many of these changes will be difficult for the immediate communities that they will impact, so we have tried to “spread the pain.” This way everyone has to give up something in order to strengthen the whole system and continue to provide an excellent education for our children. While Lincoln High School is the school for a particular catchment area, for many years it has also functioned as a “city” school. Located in downtown Portland, it is the most accessible school in the District and provides a unique program to Portland Public School students. We believe that limiting transfers would change the nature of the school, while denying access to the International Baccalaureate (IB) and International Studies Center (ISC) programs. Simple boundary changes or implementation of a split-feeder pattern will solve the overcrowding issues at Lincoln and West Sylvan, while allowing continued choice for all Portland Public School students to attend the unique programs at Lincoln High School. We believe that enhancing the Advanced Placement (AP) program and Music, Arts and Drama at Wilson will make Wilson more attractive to students in the Lincoln cluster and District-wide. However, just as Lincoln cluster students would have access to the unique programs at Wilson, Wilson cluster students should have access to the unique programs at Lincoln. Any other outcome would be inequitable. With this in mind, we recommend the following:

1. Move boundaries, implement a split-feeder system, or change the feeder pattern altogether to move students from the Lincoln cluster into the Wilson cluster.

2. Implement the new District-wide Transfer Policy for the upcoming 2004-2005 school

year. 3. Strengthen and promote AP and music/arts at Wilson High School to distinguish its

strengths from those of Lincoln. 4. Do not limit transfers, unless transfers are limited equally among all Portland Public

Schools students. 5. Enhance the music/arts program at Robert Gray Middle School to round out the

school’s excellent existing program.


As stated above, these recommendations address overcrowding at both Lincoln High School and at West Sylvan Middle School, and could make continued use of the East Sylvan campus unnecessary. Please see Table 5 on the following page for estimates of how the recommended boundary or feeder pattern changes would impact enrollment at the affected schools. Option A Supporters

Eileen Brokow Jana McLellan

Richard Clucas Mike Miller

Alex Cousins Ariel Nadel

Tim Crail Lori Nagel

Linda Doyle Bob Nourse

Nancy Hand Sarah Pullen

Kris Hudson Sandi Sheets

Jane Jouett Rich Williams

Celeste Lewis


Table 5. Option A – Estimated Impacts on Enrollment12,13 Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Impacts Move 2/3 of Bridlemile-Area Students into the Wilson Cluster

Move 1/2 of Bridlemile-Area Students into the Wilson Cluster

West Sylvan Middle

2004 50 fewer students 38 fewer students




Lincoln High





Gray Middle

2004 50 more students 38 more students




Wilson High





12 These numbers assume that students already enrolled at a school stay there until they matriculate to the next level. Examples: a student attending West Sylvan who happens to live in the Bridlemile area that feeds to Wilson High School would move to Wilson after eighth grade; a student attending Bridlemile who happens to live in the area that feeds to Wilson would move to Gray after fifth grade. 13 The estimates are based on the October, 2003 enrollment data for Bridlemile. Since Bridlemile has six grade levels (K-5), the number of students moving on to sixth grade each year is based on an average (461 ÷ 6 = 76.83). If half of those moved to Gray and half to East Sylvan, Gray would gain 38 students and East Sylvan would receive 38 fewer students.


RECOMMENDED ACTIONS TO ADDRESS OVERCROWDING AT LINCOLN HIGH AND WEST SYLVAN MIDDLE: OPTION B Summary

Overcrowding at Lincoln High School and West/East Sylvan Middle School result from the interplay of transfers, special programs, capture rates and the changing number of students residing in the cluster. Enrollment projections indicate that the problem will peak over the next two years. It is prudent to take actions that relieve overcrowding for the short-term while causing a minimal disruption to programs, school communities and families.

This proposal focuses on moderately limiting the number of transfers to Lincoln/West Sylvan and encourages voluntary transfers to immediately resolve the crowding beginning fall, 2004. Enrollment numbers from West/East Sylvan and the Lincoln cluster elementary schools support the enrollment projections presented in this proposal. Limiting transfers gives the desired result while respecting neighborhood identity and stability—the key to Portland Public Schools’ high capture rate and stakeholder satisfaction.

Demographics

Growth in Forest Park contributed to overall growth in the Lincoln cluster 1998-2002. The rate of growth driven by Forest Park is now equaled or exceeded by a decline in enrollment at Ainsworth, Bridlemile, Chapman and Skyline. At the same time the Lincoln cluster also faced growth pressure from an increasing number of transfers, at all levels including a significant portion of the transfers from the Wilson cluster. The result is crowding at the middle school and high school level, which is predicted to peak with the largest class entering Lincoln in 2004-05.

Over the past five to seven years the Wilson cluster showed a steady decline at the elementary level, while middle school enrollment stayed stable, and high school enrollment increased. With increasing transfer pressure from the Eastside, enrollment projections show little excess capacity at Wilson, Robert Gray and Jackson.

Current Westside cluster boundaries are well-matched based on high school capacity. Wilson’s building capacity is 56.4% of total Westside capacity, and its boundaries include 57.3% of students who reside on the Westside. Lincoln’s building capacity is 43.6% of total Westside capacity, and its boundaries include 42.7% of all Westside students.

Lincoln cluster is the smallest cluster in the District based on students who reside within its boundaries (8% of PPS total). The West Sylvan and Lincoln buildings can accommodate the neighborhood population. It is the combined enrollment pressure from focus programs and transfers that creates the crowding.

Discussion

Enrollment projections indicate that limiting transfers into the Lincoln cluster will ease the crowding at Lincoln over the next few years. Limiting transfers is the most flexible, immediate


option available for resolving overcrowding. In contrast, boundary changes are unpopular, do not reduce the student population at Lincoln in a timely manner, and may overcorrect and eventually shift overcrowding to Robert Gray, Jackson and Wilson down the road.

Rather than continuing to encourage the perception that Lincoln is the most desirable high school in the district, it is time for the District to highlight and enhance the outstanding programs at Wilson and other District high schools and encourage transfers to them. Faced in 1988 with the same basic problem only in reverse (Wilson High School crowded, Lincoln cluster students transferring to Wilson at a high rate) the District chose not to move boundaries. Instead it added IB to Lincoln to attract and retain students. It was a successful strategy. Given the strong public support and Task Force support for enhancing AP/music/arts at Wilson, it seems reasonable to employ this “carrot” strategy once again.

Much has been made of “social isolationism” and the need to have a large transfer population at Lincoln. First, there is no data to support the assertion that student achievement is affected by a single middle school feeding into a single high school. Secondly, there is already a significant amount of heterogeneity. Typically the ninth grade class at Lincoln is comprised of 225 West Sylvan students and 160 “new” students who transfer in. A reduction in transfers still allows for many “new” faces.

The District transfer policy states transfers are awarded on a space-available basis. Despite large demand the District limits access to all other focus programs in the district, and wait lists abound. ISC was originally put at Lincoln in 1977 to “fill up the building.” No ceiling limit has ever been implemented. Setting a limit now for this non-academic, experiential program puts it in line with the District’s other focus option programs.

Concern has been expressed that limiting ISC transfers will limit access to IB. This was a reasonable concern until Cleveland High School opened an IB program. Similarly, concern has been expressed that limiting transfers would put ISC/IB in jeopardy. This is not the case – neighborhood enrollment would sustain all programs, even if zero transfers were allowed. This proposal, however, does not suggesting limiting transfers to that significant a degree.

Some believe that Lincoln is a unique “city-wide” school. Perhaps its location lends itself to this concept, but the District has never deemed Lincoln a city-wide school. In fact, on the PPS focus option Website, it specifically states, “Three of Portland’s neighborhood schools—Cleveland, Jefferson and Lincoln—have school-within-a-school magnet programs. Two other schools—Benson and MLC—are district-wide schools and draw all of their students from all over Portland” (emphasis added). Until the District chooses to cross the river with neighborhood boundaries, or a third high school is opened on the Westside, Lincoln remains one of only two high schools located on the Westside and must first serve the neighborhood population.

Finally, by choosing to limit transfers at Lincoln, you avoid the risk of shifting the crowding to the Wilson cluster that boundary changes create. The entire Task Force supports enhancing the advanced placement, music, and arts programs in the Wilson cluster. Strengthening these programs will further increase the transfer pressure on Wilson/Robert Gray/Jackson. Are we not obliged to leave room for these students?


Recommendations

West Sylvan Middle School

Lincoln Cluster parents worked with the District on the East Sylvan option that has relieved crowding at West Sylvan. The District should continue using this location for the short term, making limited upgrades as necessary. To assure that future sixth-grade classes do not exceed building capacity, we recommend that the following actions need to be taken for the start of school year 2004-05:

• Establish firm capacity numbers for West Sylvan and limit transfers to available capacity after neighborhood students are accommodated.

• Implement new transfer policy in 2004-05 eliminating flow-through transfers.

• Strictly enforce no new transfers until overcrowding is resolved.

• Help schools develop written materials or design Web pages that provide the kind of information parents need when considering sixth-grade placement.

• Provide all Westside fifth-grade teachers with the information they need to help families make middle school decisions.

• Encourage voluntary transfers to Robert Gray and Jackson programs, dispelling the myth that West/East Sylvan is the only quality school on the Westside.

Programmatically, East Sylvan is not a long-term solution. Sixth-graders should not be separated from a larger school environment. In keeping with current educational research we recommend that the District begin planning for a fourth middle school on the Westside with the goal of creating smaller middle school environments of 400-600 students throughout the Westside. We recommend that the District explore other middle school options including reassigning an existing building such as MLC, Lincoln, or an underutilized Wilson cluster elementary.

Lincoln High School

We recommend the following actions to reduce the number of incoming freshman at Lincoln over the next several years. The accumulative effect of these actions in presented in the table below.

• Establish firm capacity numbers for Lincoln and Wilson, limiting transfers to available capacity after neighborhood students are accommodated.

• Impose a one-year restriction on ISC transfers to 35 students, and neighborhood transfers to 25 students. Thereafter restrict ISC transfers to approximately 50 students/year (see option “f” in Table 6).


• Review the International Studies Center program at Lincoln to see if it merits continued focus options status.

• Implement new transfer policy in 2004-05, eliminating flow-through transfers.

• Provide District commitment to:

ü Enhance the AP program at Wilson to retain neighborhood students and attract transfers.

ü Rebuild music and enhance the arts program at Wilson to retain neighborhood students and attract transfers.

ü Help schools develop written materials or design Web pages that provide the kind of information parents need when making high school choices.

ü Provide all Westside eighth-grade teachers with the information they need to help families make well-informed high school decisions.

Table 6. Option B – Estimated Impacts on Enrollment

Lincoln High Enrollment Predictions*14 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

a. Worst case assumption—business as usual with up to 50 kids returning to Lincoln each year from other schools

1,485 1,493 1,529 1,542

b. Business as usual but with 40 returning kids per year (closer to the actual average)

1,485 1,483 1,508 1,513

c. Assume b (above) and eliminate flow-through transfers (10 kids per year) as planned beginning 2005-06

1,485 1,483 1,506 1,501

d. Assume b (above) and move up the transfer policy to start in 2004-05

1,485 1,473 1,489 1,484

e. Assume d (above), reduce ISC transfers to 50 (instead of 70), and accept 38 neighborhood transfers (same as 2003-04)

1,485 1,453 1,450 1,426

f. Assume d (above) and impose a one-year restriction in 2004-05 on ISC transfers (35) and neighborhood transfers (25) and thereafter go to the 50 ISC and 38 neighborhood

1,485 1,426 1,424 1,411

g. Assume e or f (above), account for voluntary transfers out

1,485 ? ? ?

14 According to historic enrollments and input from Lincoln High principal Peter Hamilton, Lincoln's maximum capacity is 1,470 with existing portables.


Spanish Immersion / Boundary Changes

If the preceding measures prove inadequate in the future, the Spanish Immersion program should be moved to the Wilson cluster at the middle school and high school levels. This move may require additional funding for staff, materials, and transportation to maintain the quality of the immersion program and ensure accessibility during the several years it will take to successfully transition to a new location. The choice to move Spanish Immersion before neighborhood boundaries stems from the fact that it preserves choice—families retain their ability to choose their neighborhood school or Spanish Immersion.

If Spanish Immersion can continue to be accommodated at West Sylvan, but overcrowding problems continue only at Lincoln, it is not clear that moving the small number of students in Spanish Immersion out of Lincoln would be the best next step.

Changing neighborhood boundaries or creating split-feeder patterns for Ainsworth and Bridlemile are the least desirable options, and we support using this tool only as a last option. We value the right of families to choose their neighborhood school. We also value the ability to remain in a community from K-12—something lost in split-feeder scenarios.

Conclusion

Neighborhood identity and stability are imperative to Portland Public School’s high capture rate and stakeholder satisfaction. Disrupting neighborhood and focus-option students now and possibly again in a few years when new comprehensive middle/high school educational plans may be implemented seems unwise.

We believe this proposal successfully solves overcrowding in the Lincoln cluster in a manner that offers maximum flexibility. It aligns with the guiding principles of the Task Force and the proposed Westside Boundary Policy. It is supported by all the Lincoln cluster school representatives and is likely to have broad public support based on information gathered at the public meetings held by the Task Force.

Option B Supporters Tracy Barton

Rick Kneuven

Susan Climo

Nancy Kurkinen

Margaret Hoffman

Linda Lovett

Sally Johnson

Stacey Wilson

Bill Kelley


STATEMENTS OF DISSENTING OPINION

Susan Climo

I am signing off on "option B" with reservations. I only support limiting transfers as a temporary solution to address the existing and looming overcrowding at Lincoln. I think it is the best and certainly easiest way to solve the problem for the 04-05 school year. But I think the District should look at these recommendations in the context of short and long-term solutions and that moving boundaries may be necessary if the District continues to support "choice" in the philosophy they put forth to the school district as a whole. I do not support continuing to limit access to Lincoln long term and I do not think option B conveys this.

Linda Doyle

I cannot endorse the recommendations brought to you by Task Force members regarding School Closure, Forest Park and Overcrowding Option A or Option B. I cannot endorse them because there are predictable winners and losers in both. I agree with several of the recommendations in each of them and strongly disagree with others. I have always worked from the question you put to the Task Force at the beginning of this journey,

"What boundary policy for the Westside schools is in the best interest for all our children?" Jim Scherzinger, May 9, 2003

Keeping that focus, the District needs to balance policies and actions so that the "choosers" do not win at the expense of the "nonchoosers." Balancing school enrollment throughout Portland is a daunting task. As some families take advantage of open enrollment/school choice, however, shifting and unstable enrollment is occurring throughout our communities. Contrary to its intention, open enrollment rewards some families and schools and ultimately condemns other families to failing schools. These schools then face declining enrollment, and with fewer resources are even less capable of serving their students. The departure of the relatively more advantaged students from their neighborhood school has an adverse effect on the students, families and schools left behind. One has to wonder about the families in our community who cannot transfer their children to another school because of transportation issues, lack of support systems and inflexible work schedules. Do these families really have the "choice" to transfer to another school? Many families cannot afford to choose where they live in Portland. Do these families deserve to have their school closed due to falling enrollment while other, more prosperous neighborhoods retain their schools or even add onto them to accommodate more students? While open enrollment is embraced by some parents, especially those with time, resources and access to informal information networks, the District needs to develop a system that is equitable. If we truly want to help all families in Portland, the District needs to improve the quality of all schools in every neighborhood. Open enrollment will only work for all families in Portland if we are guided by a set of rules that are chosen with that goal in mind. An equitable open enrollment policy needs to be good for all kids and good for all schools.


Through our work on the Task Force we found a significant number of transfers within and between clusters as schools compete actively for students to fill up their buildings. We have also found that the ability of a student to transfer to another school may be limited, if the pool of available transfer slots is filled with more students from one cluster than another. For the 2002-03 school year alone, 26.8% of the students that transferred into Lincoln cluster elementary schools resided in the Wilson cluster. For all the transfers into Lincoln High School for this school year as of July 3, 2003, 26% resided in the Wilson cluster. If the pool of students requesting transfers to a school is weighted more heavily with students from one cluster than another, the lottery system cannot be equitable. Focusing on outreach efforts for school choice is an important activity. It is not the goal, though. Focusing on "why" our schools are overcrowded or underutilized is the more important goal. One individual at our recent community forum suggested that we need to: "Analyze why we have this problem and address quality issues that may be the basis of the problem." The District also needs to address "why" there is a negative impression of some schools. Some parents leave Wilson cluster schools because of the belief that Lincoln cluster schools are better. Some leave for other reasons. A community member at our forum captured this reason: "Transferring students out of the Lincoln Cluster would almost be like sending them to a third world country." Until these "reasons" are openly and seriously dealt with by the District, declining enrollment will continue – rewarding some schools and condemning others. An endorsement put forth by the majority of the Task Force (not all members) recommends that the District close a Wilson cluster elementary school. I strongly disagree. A Wilson cluster elementary school should not be closed at this time for the following reasons:

1. A thorough analysis by the Task Force has not been completed, including the impact of transfers on schools.

2. The Task Force did not spend enough time on the issue in our meetings. The topic was only raised seriously in October, 2003.

3. The closure proposal before you was prepared after the community forums were held. The Wilson community has not seen these specific recommendations. On the issue of overcrowding, the Lincoln community weighed in on all the possible options on overcrowding in the Task Force's report. On the issue of a school closure in the Wilson cluster, the options were not available to discuss at the public forums and the community was, therefore, not given a chance to provide comment.

4. Despite our hard work, the Task Force has been operating in a "silo." Several efforts could impact school enrollment: the new Student Enrollment and Transfer Policy, the new School Initiation and Closure Policy, the district-wide cluster analysis; transportation analysis; the Eastside Task Force on focus options and immersion


programs and closure; the federal Title I program; the No Child Left Behind Act, and the high school reform and Mid-Level Learner Redesign Teams.

An endorsement put forth by the majority of the Task Force (not all members) recommends that the District should "submit a bond measure that includes funds to expand the Forest Park Elementary School building." I strongly disagree. The District has an obligation to pursue the fair distribution of limited resources. Space is available at Chapman and Skyline -- 179 available spaces at Chapman and 84 at Skyline. An individual at our community forum reminds us that: "PPS has a responsibility to consider the cost of the various alternatives… The alternatives that involve …constructing new facilities are going to cost more than simply changing the feeder school boundaries." The District should utilize existing space in these buildings rather than spend more money on expanding the Forest Park building. One endorsement put forth by the Lincoln Cluster representatives on the Task Force (Option B) recommends that "the District explore other middle school options, including reassigning an existing building such as MLC or Lincoln." I strongly disagree. Until the negative impression of schools is resolved, siting another middle school in the Lincoln cluster will only cause more flight out of the Wilson cluster. This year we are addressing a Wilson cluster elementary school closure. Siting another middle school in the Lincoln cluster, and then continuing to operate under the same intolerance and the same inequitable open enrollment policy, will bring us back to the table to address a Wilson cluster middle school closure! Many of my colleagues on the Task Force (from both sides of the aisle, or the cluster divide in this particular case) agree with me on a variety of issues but are looking for ways to compromise. These are very difficult decisions with no easy answers. But at the end of the day I cannot agree to the majority report but respect all of the members of the Task Force for the work they have done. One community member summed up my concerns about the process and the outcomes of our work in the Westside Boundary Task Force: "Don't let the interests of one or several neighborhoods drive a decision that affects the whole city. The city is the neighborhood you are responsible for…"

General Recommendations

• Conduct a thorough analysis of past and current transfers throughout the entire District, indicating who is winning and losing in the competition for students, and inform the community of the findings.

• Concentrate on enhancing programs/ schools as a way to overcome overcrowding and

underutilization of schools. • Help underutilized schools develop written materials or design web pages that provide

the kind of information parents need when considering school choices. • Implement the new transfer policy in 2004-05.


• Modify the new transfer policy requiring a balanced geographic representation for

transfer requests. Each school in the district shall be allocated an equal number of transfers. Students transferring as part of the No Child Left Behind program shall be exempt, with no restrictions placed on their ability to transfer. The suggested modification is designed to level the educational playing field for all students and lead to greater fairness for students in the transfer admissions process.

School-Specific Recommendations Wilson Cluster Elementary Schools Underutilization:

• Develop a broad promotional plan to highlight the excellence of Portland Public Schools and the programs in place, to retain and attract students and avoid the need to close neighborhood schools.

• Adjust boundaries so that students go to their closest school (including all Wilson cluster

elementary schools and Bridlemile Elementary School). • Work with the Wilson Cluster elementary school representatives from the Westside

Boundary Task Force to conduct a systematic analysis as called for in the School Initiation and Closure Policy. No school shall be named for closure at this time.

Forest Park Overcrowding:

• Establish/enforce firm capacity numbers/enrollment at Forest Park Elementary School. • Continue to use existing portables but do not add another portable. • Redraw Forest Park, Chapman and Skyline boundaries to redistrict excess capacity for

the start of the 2004-05 school year, using mapping from the Population Research Center at Portland State University.

• Identify current and future large development tracts in the current Forest Park

attendance area, moving these development tracts into the Chapman or Skyline attendance areas.

• Not submit a bond measure that includes funds to expand the Forest Park Elementary

School building. • Not build the additional wing at Forest Park Elementary School.

West Sylvan Overcrowding:

• Establish/enforce firm capacity numbers/enrollment at West Sylvan Middle School. • Continue to use East Sylvan in the short term until overcrowding is resolved.


• Enhance Arts/Music at Robert Gray Middle School.

• Not explore other middle school options in the Lincoln cluster. • If overcrowding is not resolved by recommendations, move Spanish Immersion

program to the Wilson cluster at the middle school and high school levels.

OR • If overcrowding is not resolved by recommendations, create split-feeder patterns for

Ainsworth and Bridlemile to Wilson cluster at the middle school and high school levels based on proximity to new cluster schools.

Lincoln High School Overcrowding:

• Establish/enforce firm capacity numbers/enrollment at Lincoln and Wilson High Schools.

• Enhance Advanced Placement program at Wilson High School. • Rebuild and enhance Arts/Music at Wilson High School.

Nancy Hand

I am a member of the Southwest Boundary Task Force representing Stephenson Elementary School. It has been quite an education in itself. While I do support the Westside Boundary Policy and Option A, I do not support the recommended closure of a Wilson Cluster elementary school, or the Forest Park bond measure for these reasons:

I think it is premature to say we need to close a school until the overcrowding issue is addressed. It does not make sense to close a school when in the same breath you talk about a bond measure to build a new one in the same Westside area of the District. That is not the most efficient use of school buildings in the area. According to the Task Force’s charge on page two of this document we are to consider feeder patterns that resolve overcrowding or prevent underutilization. I do not feel that we have done that. It was far to easy for some to vote to close a school instead of facing the issue at hand and changing feeder patterns and boundaries.

I don’t agree on with the statement in the Recommended Actions Regarding School Closure (page 15) that there is no evidence that the enrollment situation within the Wilson Cluster will improve any time in the near future. I am also the President of Arnold Creek Neighborhood Association and within the past year I have had notices from the Bureau of Development Services for 97 new lots being development in our area alone. These are single-family dwellings in R-10 zoning. Where will these kids go to school? In the Wilson Cluster, if the schools are kept at the size they are now and not crammed into these buildings. The number one identified requirement for our parents is small classroom sizes.

With the way the capacity numbers were figured in this document, you will take out the classrooms that are now being used for Music, After School Daycare, Computer Technology


and turn them into rubber-stamped classrooms where each school loses its personality. The capacity document was not endorsed by the Task Force and should not be used by the District in determining whether to close a school.

I do feel very strongly that the transfers should not be limited unless done so with all Portland Public School students. Kris Hudson I served on the Westside Schools Boundary Task Force and found the process very interesting. After an 11-year hiatus from very active involvement in Portland Public Schools, I found that we still have excellent schools with active citizen and parent participation. Some perceptions have changed on the quality of some schools but I found, in visiting most of the Westside schools, that what happens in each individual classroom and each school is to be applauded. The Task Force report is complete and has many good recommendations. I can accept everything in this report except for the expansion of Forest Park and not changing any boundaries until after a bond measure is voted on by the people. When looking at the entire tax picture for Portland, I do not believe that adding onto Forest Park is the best way to spend our precious tax dollars. Both Skyline and Chapman, the schools on either side of Forest Park, need more students, while Forest Park desperately needs more classrooms. I believe at this time, the best way to solve the problem is to move the boundaries so students are moved out of the Forest Park catchment area and into the Skyline and Chapman catchment areas. Perhaps in a few years when the District looks at rebuilding or eliminating outdated buildings such as Ainsworth or MLC, the situation will warrant adding onto Forest Park. If a bond measure is proposed, I think I would work to oppose it and that is the reason I am stating these issues today. I have never not supported a PPS measure and have usually worked on the campaign to pass the measure. On the closure issue, I agree with the report that a southwest school needs to be closed because the enrollment numbers have fallen dramatically. I would hope that would not happen without a thorough study of the school-age population in the entire district that looks at all students within the district boundaries, where they go to school, if they go to school and why they are not attending their neighborhood school. Using these findings to improve programs or whatever perceived problems keep students from attending the neighborhood schools might increase enrollment so no schools need be closed.

Westside Schools Boundary Study Final Report iWestside Schools Boundary Study Final Report 2...

Documents

Transcript of Westside Schools Boundary Study Final Report iWestside Schools Boundary Study Final Report 2...