New school for the Pearl, no school for everyone else
When I saw The Oregonian this morning, I was a little more than irritated."Portland board approves lease for Pearl District satellite school in split vote." I rolled my eyes and stomped off to my office.
Just the hour before on OPB's Morning Edition, I heard that Portland Public Schools might close early, teachers may go unpaid while other staff collects regular checks, and kids worried that budget cuts would cancel some of their favorite elective classes. These kids have already missed a chunk of time from Snowpocalypse and now we want to snatch up eight days from them.
Throughout this town, we let kids enter lotteries so their kids can go to schools considered better than the ones their neighborhoods offer, therefore limiting funds to those schools that children would have otherwise brought in to share. We watch as elementary schools close and cram K through 5's into already crowded middle schools under the guise of that being better for all the kids involved. And now, the Pearl residents don't want their little ones to cram into one of the best elementary schools in town - Chapman - so PPS will build a satellite school to accomdate them.
My conclusion is that kids who may attend this new Pearl school will have parents that can fundraise to sustain it's needs so PPS will front the money to build it. The rest of the schools who don't have that parent power, guess what? You are on your own.
I don't have any children, but I do have a dog in this fight. How do we expect the next generation to continue to grow and improve our state if we can't educate them? How do we entice people to move here if we can't educate their children? What are we saying to people of color and low income folks - those who predominately attend schools that get left behind - when we'll build a school in the Pearl but not hear their pleas to fix closed schools that are now suffering overwhelming blight?
There is a school board election coming soon. Please pay attention, even if you don't have a kid.
|
February 24, 2009 |
Karol Collymore | Comments (84 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 24, 2009 9:55:22 PM
So for years now, numerous progressives rail about development in the Pearl and South Waterfront because it doesn't address needs of families in those areas, and so educating kids in that area, who will be able to sustain the funding for a new school is a bad thing?
You are totally off-the-rails.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 24, 2009 10:00:57 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 24, 2009 9:54:48 PMLeasing a school space seems like a reasonable (and much cheaper than building) idea to me. Why is it wrong?
Beats the hell out of me where Collymore pulls this drek from.
I agree with you Mark. I never thought I would read an alleged "progressive" rail against cost-effective schools as an alternative to putting more kids into already over-stretched schools elsewhere in the city. I am greatly underwhelmed by the non-think Collymore pushes in this.
Posted by: Karol | Feb 24, 2009 10:10:13 PM
Ok buddy, easy on the name calling. It's actually hurtful and I'm a human being. While you, nameless wonder, hide under a silly name and I put my face on what I say.
I'm trying to call attention to the clear choice of use of resources - 300k - in the Pearl versus other areas of town where the schools could use a new school lease, some upgrades to currently struggling buildings and bulging schools or other ideas. Introducing discussion is fair, not "non-think."
While you may call my opinions "drek," I think I do have some valid points worthy of conversation.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 24, 2009 10:25:40 PM
I certainly meant no disrespect Karol, you know that. But I do want you to make a better case why this is not a good way to use limited resources in this case.
Posted by: dagnola | Feb 24, 2009 10:49:04 PM
Chapman school is 16 blocks away from the Pearl. Easy ride, integrated school (somewhat),lovely facility, opportunity to get to know your neighbors who live in and around Wallace Park, bring your dog, play soccer, save money, ward away criticism during a sensitive economic time, 300K think ahead.
Posted by: Karol | Feb 24, 2009 10:56:53 PM
TJ, I know YOU didn't. My point is, again, why do we spend 1.5 million for a satellite in the Pearl district and not the same 1.5 on the other issues confronting schools in the not-so-fancy areas of town? There are schools that are MORE overcrowded, LESS accessible and more in need than Chapman or the Pearl.
I don't think any child deserves less whether in the Pearl or in St. Johns. My point is if we can't give all equally, than what are we doing and what are we reinforcing to our children? By equally, I mean, we tell kids in dilapidated schools or schools with less books, or schools with no art or PE, sorry no can do. And this is reinforced year after year that their school can't afford it. Kids move schools in these areas which mean still less and less money. Then parents of these kids see better schools is nicer neighborhoods and wonder why. I think it's a fair point of discussion.
On outside appearances, it seems areas with more affluence get more attention than some of our schools that just want a roof replaced or a play structure their parents and neighborhoods don't have to fundraise to get. As always, I'm open to being wrong, but I'm not open to being insulted for proposing a topic.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 24, 2009 11:11:57 PM
While I think TJ makes a good point, this doesn't seem the most prudent decision PPS could have made given the rather extreme economic difficulties facing us.
Set aside the (IMO) valid points Karol raises about integration and crumbling/closed schools in poorer areas... Wasn't one of our chief criticism of Bush that he never asked us to share the burden? Is it really asking to much to ask Pearl parents to make the very modest sacrifice of bussing their kids to existing schools?
Sure, $300K won't fix a $10 million problem. But it will make a dent, whereas $0 won't even make a dent in a $10 million problem.
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 24, 2009 11:18:17 PM
Thanks for the elucidated answer, K. My response would be that a) the problem here isn't one of overcrowding so much as distance; 26th and Quimby is nowhere NEAR the Pearl, and b) a lease rather than construction option seems readily available, which I would think is not something true just anywhere.
The fact is that the Pearl doesn't have a school, and there are kids starting to live in that area. Without a neighborhood elementary, that would make the Pearl the place that doesn't have what almost every other neighborhood has. And when schools have closed for lack of students elsewhere, I can't imagine the projections are for the number of kids to increase in the near term as it appears true in the Pearl.
It's an area that wasn't residential before, and is now. It needs a place nearby for school, and 300K a year lease sounds like a much better short term deal than building a new school, which is fiscally impossible pretty much anywhere right now.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 24, 2009 11:28:12 PM
Posted by: Karol | Feb 24, 2009 10:10:13 PM Ok buddy,I am not your "buddy".
easy on the name calling.I didn't call you names I called you post drek and non-think, and stand by it. So spare us the faux martyrdom.
It's actually hurtful and I'm a human being.First, grow some skin and second, nobody thinks your not a human being without feelings. But guess what your post is ill-conceived at best.
While you, nameless wonder, hide under a silly name and I put my face on what I say.LOL, ok, so you are about the only person on BlueOregon who doesn't know my real name is Mitch Gore and I have always used this screen name.
I'm trying to call attention to the clear choice of use of resources - 300k - in the Pearl versus other areas of town where the schools could use a new school lease, some upgrades to currently struggling buildings and bulging schools or other ideas. Introducing discussion is fair, not "non-think."So the kids without a school near them (i.e. kids in the Pearl) get to schlep across town to attend a school in a part of town where there already is one? That pencils out for you?
While you may call my opinions "drek," I think I do have some valid points worthy of conversation.And I think they are ill-thought out "ideas" at best, and in this conversation I am expressing my opinion of them.
Posted by: PPS parent | Feb 24, 2009 11:45:57 PM
Thank you, Karol Collymore. You are exactly right!
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 24, 2009 11:59:59 PM
Posted by: PPS parent | Feb 24, 2009 11:45:57 PM
So you are volunteering your kid to have to travel some 25 blocks to another part of town to go to their elementary school?
Or that's just for the other guy right?
So you are an advocate of more vehicular traffic and increasing carbon footprint?
So you are against people in affordable housing having access to an elementary school in their neighborhood?
Posted by: edison | Feb 25, 2009 12:45:25 AM
So, lestatdelc, who crapped in your Wheaties™ this morning? Karol's discussion points are clear: Is the lease idea a good one or not? And what about citizen perceptions? Your vitriol, while not unusual and certainly not always off-base, is, at least in this instance (IMO) ... hmmm, how shall I put it? How about 'off-the-rails'?
Posted by: Steve | Feb 25, 2009 6:41:21 AM
WHy don't you see it for what it is? A builder bailout.
We have 10's of thousands of empty sqft in the Pearl and NW Portland and we happen to select this one buidling that is not even done at $300K/yr for 14K/sqft = $22/sqft/yr. At the very least they could've easily swung a lot better deal, if they couldn't use existing buildings.
Posted by: Roy McAvoy | Feb 25, 2009 7:33:24 AM
OK, even if they are able to open an elementary school in the Pearl, where will the children park their little Beamers?
Posted by: Richard | Feb 25, 2009 8:04:25 AM
"I never thought I would read an alleged "progressive" rail against cost-effective schools as an alternative to putting more kids into already over-stretched schools elsewhere in the city."
Huh?
Charter schools are cost effective and there is already one in the Pearl.
Now we all know progressives "progressive" rail against charter schools.
Progressives in Salem are currently railing against the successful Connections Academy virtual charter school which has 2600 students enrolled online from around the state.
This very green and sustainable public school is serving many Oregon students and families and deserves the full support of all progressives.
Posted by: Kristin | Feb 25, 2009 8:40:45 AM
Thanks for the discussion, Karol. My 1st grader might have up to 31 kids in his class next year -- yikes! When I volunteer in his classroom now, with 26, it's chaos. For some kids, their needs aren't even being close to being met. I can't imagine even more kids.
Thing is, as a parent, I wouldn't even want the option being floated. I totally value the stability of having my son in a school I'm pretty darn sure won't go away. Leased building? When Chapman is nearby? No thanks....
And as for Mitch Gore...whoever you are...your nastiness toward the beautiful Karol is just creepy...funny if you think it reflects well upon you...
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Feb 25, 2009 8:48:46 AM
Not having an elementary school in a neighborhood is nothing new in Portland. PPS has been closing neighborhood schools for years, meaning many kids have to be bussed a lot further than 16-25 blocks. Heck, we walk between 4-5 blocks to get to our elementary school and a number of kids are bussed in from the 8-12 block area - and we still have neighborhood schools out here.
It seems that as of late, neighborhood schools keep getting pulled away from lower income areas - because PPS says it doesn't have the money for them - but then they can add ones like this one. I have to say if I was a parent in PPS, I'd be mad too. Just one of the many reasons I'm so very glad to be in Gresham.
Posted by: Karol | Feb 25, 2009 8:57:34 AM
Mitch Gore, I really don't mind how thin my skin seems to be to you. Sure it makes me kinda sensitive, easy to cry and the like, but it also makes me sensitive to others. That's a quality you seem to be lacking.
But back to the point - I'm not interested in ANY kid not having a neighborhood school and there are OTHER schools all over town that have wished for the same accessibility. It seems convienent to me that the Pearl seems to have their wish come true while other schools still sit and wait.
PS: Thanks Kristin!
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Feb 25, 2009 9:06:10 AM
It seems to me that behind Karol's questions is a broader one: how is it that we can subsidize a major development project like the Pearl without having planned for the most basic kinds of long term costs associated with building a new residential neighborhood? Did no one expect that, over time, there'd be a need for a school? If not, why not? If so, how are development costs assessed and allocated equitably, so that it's not a zero-sum game, with resources necessary to maintain and improve existing schools in less affluent areas short-changed?
Posted by: joel dan walls | Feb 25, 2009 9:17:20 AM
I don't have any particular opinion about the Pearl District school idea, but Karol's remarks about the squeaky wheel getting the grease are absolutely bang-on. I've seen school-closure decisions by PPS dictated by which parents have the time and resources to organize and lobby, and guess what? The more affluent the neighborhood, the more time and resources the parents have.
Nonetheless, one thing is that people have to be very careful not to attack the Pearl District school district as an exercise in class resentment. The idiotic remark by McAvoy ("even if they are able to open an elementary school in the Pearl, where will the children park their little Beamers?") is a case in point. I think we have quite enough class resentment flying around already, thanks very much.
Back to Karol's comments: she mentions the business of the school-transfer "lottery". This was instituted years ago by PPS as an enticement for parents, as a way to try to keep parents from putting their kids in private schools instead of public schools. From that perspective, it has been very successful, but there's a downside to the transfer policy that Karol alludes to.
Another thing is, Karol--aren't non-white and non-affluent families taking advantage of the PPS transfer option? I live 5 blocks from Grant High School, and I guarantee you that the demographics of the student body are not very representative of the demographics of this part of NE Portland. In particular, there are hundreds of kids at Grant whose neighborhood HS is in fact Jefferson. Every day, these kids--largely African American--walk past my home between school and the bus stop on NE 42nd.
Finally, per Richard's comment about Connections Academy, this is a resource for home-schoolers. I realize Richard is a troll--at least he's a polite one--but no, not all pregressives rail against charter schools. This is a complex issue obviously, but I think we all know that the charter-school movement too often has become cover for union-busting, hence the common kneejerk opposition to charter schools.
Posted by: Miles | Feb 25, 2009 9:29:42 AM
Karol, thanks for the discussion. Mr. Gore, through his hair-trigger vitriol, has proven his irrelevance.
I think this is a tough call. TJ's point that the $300k starting in 2011 isn't going to make much of a difference to the $10 million shortfall in 2009. But, I suspect the shortfall will be bad in 2011 as well, and we may have to put together lots of $300k cuts to bridge the gap.
On the other hand, just because we're in a severe recession doesn't mean we shouldn't plan for the future. The big question: should the Pearl have a school at all? Some of the comments seem to reflect the view that "Pearl residents are rich, screw them." But I think most of us would support a school in the Pearl if there are enough kids to fill it, right? The more kids go to public school, the better off the district is as a whole.
There's a chicken and egg issue here as well: do we need a school in order to keep/attract families to downtown, or do we wait for the demand to appear before figuring out how to address it?
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2009 10:34:31 AM
My response would be that a) the problem here isn't one of overcrowding so much as distance; 26th and Quimby is nowhere NEAR the Pearl...
How much farther do the school buses in Prineville or Gaston or Cave Junction? I'll bet you a steak dinner that administrators in each of those school districts would be drooling at the thought of how much money they could save not having to bus further away than the distances we're talking about here.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 25, 2009 11:22:54 AM
Posted by: Richard | Feb 25, 2009 8:04:25 AMCharter schools are cost effective and there is already one in the Pearl.
The charter school in the area already has a 150 student waiting list.
Posted by: PPS Parent | Feb 25, 2009 11:27:27 AM
lestatdelc asked:
"So you are volunteering your kid to have to travel some 25 blocks to another part of town to go to their elementary school?
Or that's just for the other guy right?
So you are an advocate of more vehicular traffic and increasing carbon footprint?
So you are against people in affordable housing having access to an elementary school in their neighborhood?"
I am all for reducing carbon emissions, providing equal treatment for PPS families, and students being able to walk to school. I am opposed to PPS closing schools in lower income neighborhoods that currently have the demographics to support a school, and making plans to spend over a million dollars to ensure that possible future students in the Pearl district get a school they can walk to in 2 years. The fact that the school budget outlook (and housing market) is so uncertain for the next few years, makes the Pearl District lease agreement even more baffling.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 25, 2009 11:30:50 AM
Posted by: Karol | Feb 25, 2009 8:57:34 AMI'm not interested in ANY kid not having a neighborhood school
Except in the Pearl it seems.
and there are OTHER schools all over town that have wished for the same accessibility.
And this is precisely why I call your post non-think. The rest of Portland already has more accessibility to school in their neighborhood than those in the Pearl. If you want to argue that building a school in the Pearl vs. leasing, or that they could have sought a better term on the lease, fine. But that is not what you are arguing. Your position (as far as can be discerned from this piece by you) is that students in the Pearl, even those in affordable housing don't get a school in their neighborhood because schools in other neighborhoods need help.
So what is your solution for getting a school in the Pearl neighborhood?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 25, 2009 11:35:28 AM
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2009 10:34:31 AMHow much farther do the school buses in Prineville or Gaston or Cave Junction?
That is the physics of living in a dispersed rural community instead of a dense urban one. So because people live in non-dense rural areas which then necessitates transportation costs, kids in dense urban areas don't get a school because they won't have to spend on transportation?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 25, 2009 11:38:08 AM
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Feb 25, 2009 9:06:10 AMIt seems to me that behind Karol's questions is a broader one: how is it that we can subsidize a major development project like the Pearl without having planned for the most basic kinds of long term costs associated with building a new residential neighborhood?
There was planning done for a school in the Pearl district. It was cut from the plan for cost reasons I believe (though I don't recall the particulars).
Posted by: n/ne mama | Feb 25, 2009 11:40:09 AM
Due to school closures in N/NE my kid is assigned to a "neighborhood" elementary school (Woodlawn) that is further from our house than the Pearl District kids would have to travel to their existing school in NW. And our so-called neighborhood school is now on the other side of a state highway decreasing opportunities for walking to school. Unlike the Pearl District, our neighborhood already has a significant amount of affordable housing.
Also, when Superintendent Phillips proposed closing Applegate and merging it with Woodlawn the feds told her that the move would increase racial segregation and isolation in PPS. She did it anyway, increasing school segregation and losing a huge amount of grant money that was supposed to benefit low income and minority kids in N/NE.
Furthermore, there are now more PPS k-8 students living in Woodlawn's attendence than can fit into the school.
849 students (k-8) live within Woodlawn's boundaries
543 students is maximum capacity for the building according to PPS's own data
Only 44% of the PPS students in the Woodlawn neighborhood attend Woodlawn. The other 56% tranfer to PPS schools in other neighborhoods and PPS has done NOTHING to work with parents to keep those students in their neighborhood school.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 25, 2009 11:44:03 AM
Posted by: Miles | Feb 25, 2009 9:29:42 AMSome of the comments seem to reflect the view that "Pearl residents are rich, screw them." But I think most of us would support a school in the Pearl if there are enough kids to fill it, right? The more kids go to public school, the better off the district is as a whole.
Which is precisely the point where my "vitriol" as you put it comes from directed at the timbre of this post by Ms. Collymore. But heaven forbid someone upset the apple car by calling bullshit on precisely the point which you touch on.
Guess it's back to eating my pee soaked Wheaties in irrelevance. (wry grin)
Posted by: JS | Feb 25, 2009 11:46:11 AM
For more info about discriminatory PPS policies throughout the Portland Public school district read the Jefferson PTSA resolution that was submitted to the city council and school board last year.
http://www.neighborhoodschoolsalliance.org/node/470
The district and city didn't even respond to the PTSA. Compare the response to the Jefferson area parents to the response that Pearl District parents get from the city and the district. It is sickening.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 25, 2009 11:52:27 AM
Posted by: n/ne mama | Feb 25, 2009 11:40:09 AM
Not sure where you get those facts, but Woodlawn Elementary has a student enrollment of 450 students. What school closed and had it students assigned to Woodlawn whose travel is further than 25 block?
There are 4 other elementary schools less than 25 blocks from Woodlawn (PDF map). Your facts don't seem to hold up. So unless I am missing something care to back up your assertions?
Posted by: N | Feb 25, 2009 11:57:30 AM
I agree with the comments about PPS leaders catering to a certain demographic of families while ignoring and patronizing lower income and minority families. The new Pearl District school isn't the only current example.
The Portland Tribune has an article about wealthy moms seeking foreign language classes for their elementary school students that even high school students in the poorer parts of town can't take.
A survey of Jefferson students by a PTA parent in Spring 2007 showed that there was a very strong demand for French courses at Jefferson. Spanish is still the ONLY language offered at Jeff, and there is no language immersion program even though the Beach Spanish Immersion program is loacated in the Jefferson neighborhood. High schools in SE and SW offer MULTIPLE language classes and immersion programs.
PPS is currently planning the future of Portland's high schools, but isn't getting meaningful input from students about parents about what they would like for their school. A PPS survey is posted on www.pps.k12.or.us, but isn't being widely distributed to high school students, at least not in some parts of town.
Why do 2 wealthy moms and a few Pearl District parents get to work with the district to create special schools for their preschool aged kids, when the school district ignores requests for better programs from hundreds of students and parents in north, northeast and outer southeast?
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2009 12:06:28 PM
So because people live in non-dense rural areas which then necessitates transportation costs, kids in dense urban areas don't get a school because they won't have to spend on transportation?
So... you agree that distance is a weak argument.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 25, 2009 12:20:57 PM
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2009 12:06:28 PMSo... you agree that distance is a weak argument
No, I am arguing that you are comparing apples to oranges. There is no choice in the matter in dispersed rural communities (the distances mean buses). But that is not the same situation in dense urban communities. Are you suggesting that more busing instead of walking is better for traffic, environment and cost?
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2009 12:23:21 PM
No, I am arguing that you are comparing apples to oranges.
Ah... got it. Separate but equal.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 25, 2009 12:26:54 PM
Posted by: N | Feb 25, 2009 11:57:30 AMWhy do 2 wealthy moms and a few Pearl District parents...
More mindless nonsense. This project includes parents in affordable housing, not just two moms and a handful of wealthy. This is exactly the sort of reactionary drek Ms. Collymore is looking for with this piece with the frmaing and headline, and precisely why it is an embarrassment to me as a progressive and my "vitriol" is present.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 25, 2009 12:31:42 PM
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2009 12:23:21 PMNo, I am arguing that you are comparing apples to oranges.
Ah... got it. Separate but equal.
No, it is called physics. Dispersed population vs. dense population.
Posted by: gl | Feb 25, 2009 12:35:24 PM
anybody notice that the same people keep posting very blow hardy comments for every post on this blog?
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2009 12:35:55 PM
No, it is called physics. Dispersed population vs. dense population.
Okay... So you are saying that more busing instead of walking is better for the environment but only in a dispersed population?
Posted by: n/ne mama | Feb 25, 2009 12:44:20 PM
lestatdelc,
Applegate was closed and merged with Woodlawn. (Kenton was also closed and merged with Chief Joseph, which is also overcrowded and can't grow to k-8 so 6-8th graders from Chief Joe are assigned to Ockley Green k-8 for middle school.)
The Chapman attendance area (including the Pearl District) has 506 PPS students, http://www.pps.k12.or.us/schools-c/profiles/enrollment/enroll_out.php?rpt=298
(Look in section 3 of the school profile "Neighborhood PPS student population"
The Woodlawn attendance area has 849 PPS students,
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/schools-c/profiles/enrollment/enroll_out.php?rpt=361
And there are many more kids in strollers living in the Applegate/Woodlawn neighborhood than in the Pearl District so the population difference will only increase when preschool age kids enter school.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 25, 2009 12:45:54 PM
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2009 12:35:55 PMSo you are saying that more busing instead of walking is better for the environment but only in a dispersed population?
No, I am saying that walking in urban areas is better than busing in urban areas. Rural areas have no choice because they are dispersed population. No matter where you site a school in dispersed population rural community, it will be far away for other students and so you have to bus a majority of the student (unless you are advocating kids walk for miles in rural communities).
Posted by: n/ne mama | Feb 25, 2009 12:53:59 PM
lestatdelc,
The Pearl District project does not include involvement of affordable housing parents. The affordable housing building isn't even open yet. The city and PPS are working with the existing wealthy families in the Pearl, and a developer of a proposed affordable housing building who would lease space in his building to the district.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 25, 2009 1:03:12 PM
Posted by: n/ne mama | Feb 25, 2009 12:44:20 PMGuess you shouldn't have provided the links you did. From your own link for Woodlawn:
Enrollment by year2004: 409
2005: 531
2006: 450
2007: 424
2008: 462
Also from your linked PDF on Woodland:
School Budget Per Student: $5574And we are talking $1.5 million over 5 years, for somewhere between 50-100 students for this proposed school. That pencils out to $4000 per student based on 75 students (the median).
So the proposed school is bad for Portland how exactly?
FYI, Woodlawn is less than half the distance from where Applegate was compared to the distance between the nearest elementary school in NW to the Pearl.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 25, 2009 1:05:39 PM
Posted by: n/ne mama | Feb 25, 2009 12:53:59 PMThe Pearl District project does not include involvement of affordable housing parents.
From the very article that Ms. Collymore linked to:
The apartment complex will be largely affordable housing, renting three-bedroom apartments for about $900. City and school officials said it is important to create an economically diverse area that all families can access.
Posted by: j | Feb 25, 2009 1:06:36 PM
Chapman and Emerson are not the only PPS schools in NW Portland.
The proposed Pearl District school would be located at the north end of the Pearl District. MLC is a PPS magnet school and is located just as close, if not closer, for many Pearl District residents than the proposed leased school.
Why aren't people talking about giving MLC a neighborhood attendance area including the Pearl District, using the Buckman Arts Magnet School as a model?
Chapman has plenty of room for students in the neighborhood. Twenty percent of Chapman's students transfer in from other neighborhoods. But if Chapman does get too crowded in the future to accomodate its neighborhood students, part of its attendance area could be shifted to Ainsworth which doesn't have enough neighborhood students to fill the building. Ainsworth brings in 40% of its students from other parts of town.
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/schools-c/map/ChapmanMap.pdf
Posted by: n/ne mama | Feb 25, 2009 1:14:31 PM
lestatdelc,
Name one "affordable housing parent" who is requesting a Pearl District school. They aren't involved. The parents calling for a school are wealthy Pearl District parents. The affordable housing building doesn't even exist yet.
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 25, 2009 1:16:46 PM
No matter where you site a school in dispersed population rural community, it will be far away for other students and so you have to bus a majority of the student
But of course we're not talking about a school system consisting of "a (single) school."
If I understand you correctly, you'd also be in favor of rural school districts spending exceedingly scarce resources on acquiring more facilities for the sole purpose of cutting down how far kids have to travel.
Also, would I be correct in assuming that school kids in the Pearl are presently having to travel further than any other kids in the PPS and that for this reason they are rightly in line for a new facility now?
Posted by: n/ne mama | Feb 25, 2009 1:27:03 PM
lestatdelc,
You seem more interested in skewing data than you are in understanding it, and you also aren't reading other people's comments very closely.
As I said before, enrollment figures for Woodlawn are completely different than the number of students who live in the neighborhood due to the huge number of neighborhood students who transfer to PPS schools in other neighborhoods.
Your comparison of the per student budget at Woodlawn to the per student cost of leasing a Pearl District school is absolutely meaningless. The per student budget doesn't include building costs, and the Pearl lease figure doesn't include the cost of teachers and everything else.
I see now that it is a waste of time to read or respond to your comments.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 24, 2009 9:54:48 PM
I'll say the same thing I said on Bojack (shudder):
what does a 300K a year commitment, beginning in 2011, have to do with a 10m deficit in 2009? One cannot solve the other, certainly, even if the money were being paid THIS year.
Secondly, is it not true that the Pearl has no elementary schools, because it never used to be a residential area? Is it not true that children in that area continue to climb--and what might be holding that number back is a lack of facilities to accomodate them?
Leasing a school space seems like a reasonable (and much cheaper than building) idea to me. Why is it wrong?