Hi Sharon, is the reference to PPS or some other group. Assuming you mean PPS, I am inviting Jon Isaacs, Communications and Public Affairs Chief, to contribute to the response. Look for his response soon.

Hi Melissa: This is a question shared by many. Last spring PPS asked Charles Rynerson, demographer for PSU Center for Public Service, to conduct a workshop for principals on this topic. He explained the student generation rates that correspond to the 95,000 multi-family units in PPS built before 2012, and provided some details for projects in development now. The average student generation rate for multi-family units is 5 K-5 students and 2 6-8 students per 100 units. For the development at 33rd and Broadway, that translates to about 17 K-8 student residents at time of full occupancy, and likely about 15 of those enrolling in the neighborhood school. One cautionary note he shared: 436 new, market-rate multi-family units in 10 developments that have opened since 2012 in different eastside areas of the district have produced only 7 PPS students. So it does not appear that new multi-family dwellings are attracting many families with school-aged children.

Hi Kerry: I understand your concern and have heard it expressed by numerous families in different neighborhoods over the years. PPS has many strategies underway to improve achievement at Woodlawn and other schools. The best way to learn about and get involved in those efforts is to connect directly with the school. Test scores are important measures of student success, but they are a poor substitute for the overall understanding you can gain by visiting a school and talking with the administrators, teachers, PTA leaders and others who are working hard to serve students in your community. If you haven’t done so yet, please set up a time to visit Woodlawn. PTA meetings are on the 2nd Tuesday of the month at 5:45 PM with free childcare.

Hi Laura, high schools experienced significant system changes in 2011, so are not likely to be the focus of the next phase of boundary/program review. However, PPS will address overcrowding if it becomes an issue at one or more high schools and feeder patterns will be a factor to consider as part of any lower level boundary changes. So the short answer is, probably not, but we aren’t ruling out the possibility if it relieves overcrowding and helps align feeder patterns.
If HS boundaries are changed, present policy speaks to your concern and goes one step further, allowing all current students to remain in their school through graduation. Boundary change is implemented with new students only.

Hi Ricardo, SACET has been discussing ways to improve equity of access to focus option programs. In their efforts, they are focused on a small set of focus options, separate from dual language immersion programs where half their students are native speakers of the partner language. This is because dual-language immersion has a board-endorsed growth plan and measures in place to balance enrollment by language and geography. However, SACET is considering whether steps that they feel would improve access to other focus options would be valid for immersion as well. The SACET final report will be delivered by the end of this month to the Superintendent. Any actual changes in focus option or immersion lotteries would have to be approved by the School Board.

Hi Ellie: As part of high school system design, PPS establish a baseline target of 1350 students for each community comprehensive school. The goal was to have all comprehensive schools within 150 students of this target, which would help ensure that students would have equitable access to programs, regardless of where they lived. Preliminary 2014 enrollment shows Lincoln with 1,583 students, 83 students above the desired range, and Wilson with 1,257 students, within the range but about 100 students below the target. High schools will likely not be the focus of the next round of boundary reviews, as noted above. There are significant boundary and program imbalances at schools with grades K-8 which will be the primary purpose of the upcoming district-wide boundary review.

This is the same question SACET is asking now. I have talked with principals from each focus option school, along with many parents and teachers, and believe they would embrace the chance to explain to the broader community what they are doing now, and what they would like to do in the future, to attract and retain students who represent the full diversity of our district.

Let me make it clear, Ricardo, that SACET as a committee is not advocating for this degree of change at this time. There are several SACET members who are regular contributors to this site who can explain this, as well. What I hear SACET saying, in short, is that they cannot be as helpful as they want to be in recommending a more equitable enrollment system for focus option schools because it is not clear to them the purpose that focus options are meant to serve. They will ask PPS to describe the purpose of focus options, and have a process to provide supports and hold schools accountable for meeting the purpose they are meant to serve. They also want real implications for schools that do not meet their stated purpose, including closure. But that is an end, not a beginning. I hear SACET asking for a new beginning for focus options that is more purposeful and equity centered than before.

Hi Abigail: Just like last year, when faced with the decision about which grades to locate at Rose City Park, there are many factors that have to be considered. One important factor is the number of classrooms at Fernwood that can hold students in grades K-2. Currently, there are 5 1st grade classrooms at Rose City Park, but only 3 2nd grade classrooms at Fernwood. If 1st graders move back to Fernwood next year, is there enough space for all the classrooms? In the coming weeks I will be part of a central office team that hears from administrators about how space is being used this year, and discusses possibilities for next year. We will be sharing what we learn with teachers and parents, as well.

Hi Susan: These are two of the questions we continually circle back to when considering long-term options for schools in this region. We’d like outcome of the upcoming values, growth and equity conversation to guide our answers, but we also need to respond to the continuing enrollment challenges at Beverly Cleary. The long-term boundary discussion will include important issues such as grade structure, feeder pattern, balancing enrollment between several schools in the area and finding a new (and hopefully more permanent) home for ACCESS. All this will not get accomplished this year, but we will consider whether a smaller, boundary zone is a feasible starting point.

Hi Karen: Not sure I follow you, so forgive me if my answer is off target. PPS rules are that kids have the right to remain in their current school, even after boundary change. The board can make an exception if it chooses, but generally, boundary change is for new students and transfers last through the highest grade. Let me know if there is something else you wanted me to address.

Thanks for sharing your comment, Anonymous. I hear your high school feeder pattern concern loud and clear. I think this issue is on lots of people’s minds. I hope, when the time comes, neighbors on both sides of 57th are able to hear each other’s viewpoints and agree on a plan that puts kids at the center.

As opposed to the west side of the table? Just kidding Sarah. PPS enrollment has grown for six straight years as is projected to continue growing into the foreseeable future. We will likely need more capacity everywhere in the coming years. There is still a lot of work to do to plan for exactly what, when and how, but I would not rule out bringing capacity back on line, including former middle schools.

Hi Francina, I think program equity will be the center of the upcoming values, growth and equity conversation. But a big challenge will be to agree on what is equivalent. IB is one of several ways that PPS high schools offer college-level curriculum, including AP, dual-credit and middle college.

Francina, you are thinking like a SACET member! They have consistently pointed out the importance of offering supports such as transportation to improve equity of access to focus option schools.

Thanks, for another compelling comment, anonymous. I will pass it on to the board office.

Hi James: The goal is to address overcrowding and limit impact on other schools. I would say this is unlikely for 2015, but could be considered in 2016.

That’s also a possibility. However, voluntary transfers are not predictable ways to address overcrowding, so would not provide the level of certainty I hear school and community members asking us to provide.

PPS remains committed to working with ACCESS on a permanent location. At this point, I don’t see why that should be accelerated for 2015. Thanks, James, for giving me the chance to say that I have a ton of respect for the ACCESS teachers, administrators, community members and students who went through years of uncertainty at Sabin before making the move to RCP in 2013. Ditto, Beverly Cleary, as well.

2015-16 enrollment forecasts will be available in the winter. Right now we are taking past forecasts and revising based on new enrollment. Here is the preliminary year-to-year change:
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
Oct 2013 118 109 85 104 89 79 75 79 76 814
Oct 2014 90 112 112 89 105 94 81 74 78 835
Diff. -28 +3 +27 -15 +16 +15 +6 -5 +2 +21

There are 8 classrooms at Fernwood and 9 at Rose City Park that can be occupied by K-2 grade students. Don’t forget the 7 classrooms at Hollyrood (happily, counting one classroom as a cafeteria/multi-purpose room there).

I’m not sure what an official role would look like, but we definitely would like families of future students to be involved in community discussions, including the upcoming values, growth and equity conversation.

Sorry, James, no decisions about future use for Rose City Park have been made, so these questions are premature.

James, this is more of a comment than question, I think. I understand your concern and appreciate you bringing attention to it.

Again, I think you are raising a concern more than asking a question I can answer. (By the way, PPS has reorganized senior academic staff, and now has three Assistant Superintendents over the office of schools instead of one Chief Academic Officer.)

James, thanks for continuing to be a thoughtful and energetic community member. You always ask great questions, and you make huge efforts to involve community members who might not be aware of these issues. PPS is not proposing the type of change you describe above, but we do consider the impact of boundary change on children.

Hi Michelle, our partners at the PSU Center for Public Service have given us solid advice on how to tackle the big challenge in your questions: the population keeps growing. They have convinced us that starting with a full conversation about values, growth and equity is our best chance of facing and resolving the large and thorny issues that face schools across our district. In the meantime, we will be working with leaders and community members at East/West Sylvan and Lincoln on any short-term arrangements that can be made in advance of the big process. (We should talk further about possibilities for East Sylvan, in particular. Not sure if I could support your statement about it being unfit for students.)

Hi Grace, Here are some resources to help explain how the two models work for students:
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/files/research-evaluati...

http://www.pps.k12.or.us/files/research-evaluati...

http://www.pps.k12.or.us/files/research-evaluati...

By the way, most PPS schools were K-8s at some point in their history, as middle schools did not enter the district until the 1980s.

Grace, this issue will be part of a full boundary change discussion for a new Rose City Park School. Keep in mind that maps in my office going back to the 50s show that Rose City Park students were assigned to both Grant and Madison.

It is very unlikely that a boundary change will impact Roseway Heights in 2015-16. Beyond that, we will have to work together on what the larger change, if any, might be. Roseway Heights is growing on its own, is currently housing the state’s first Vietnamese Immersion program, and is bordered by other growing schools. I look forward to working with you and other Roseway Heights community members and school leaders on planning for a great and growing future.

As far as I know we are not working on any changes for ACCESS for 2015, other than those associated with co-location with Beverly Cleary (or a starter Rose City Park School).

Hi Kathie: See my answer above regarding numbers of students per grade level and number of classrooms that can house students in grades K-2. There may not be enough room at Fernwood next year to keep the same grade structure as exists this year.

Hi Mason family, as I wrote above, we are committed to finding a more-permanent home for ACCESS. To my knowledge PPS is not investigating any specific options for growth or change at this time, nor do we see the need to relocate ACCESS before 2016 at the earliest. Please stay involved, as the situation could change—particularly if ACCESS community members request a change.

Voluntary transfer is always a possibility, but not a very effective planning tool.

Hi now happy Roseway family, I think this is more of a comment than a question. One way to make sure a single group does not dominate is to provide thoughtful input. We do our best to listen to everyone.

Hi Aurelia: Your comments are similar to those heard by the Center for Public Service team tasked with recommending a district-wide boundary review process. Their suggestions are to ask the community for input about a range of inter-related issues before starting down one path. Districts will never be perfect at enrollment planning. But having community members working with us through processes can help us to anticipate unintended consequences of major enrollment changes.

Meaning, would a student be asked to move again soon after a boundary change? We would do everything possible to avoid sequential moves for the same students.

Hi Jill: District staff is considering a starter boundary as one option for Beverly Cleary next year. The idea is to provide some more permanent direction for schools, students and community members earlier rather than later. This is simply an idea at this stage.

Sorry, I do not have this information. I’m forwarding your question to Beverly Cleary administrators and our transportation director for response.

Jill, I follow the old adage that a rumor can travel around the world before the truth can get his boots on. The rumor mill can grind up people’s best ideas and intentions. In serious times, I find it is best not to pass on information that you can’t verify. Feel free to e-mail me if you have a specific question.

Sorry, Jill not sure I understand your question.

Keep in mind that there are significant resources dedicated to the three campus model, and that grade structures may have to be changed again next year. As a public agency, we have to be willing to consider multiple ways to resolve problems. I acknowledge the discomfort that this discussion can bring.

Thanks for sharing this point, Jill, but I don’t think it is really a question.

Hi Anonymous, we are still working out the D-BRAC structure. I can assure you that the group will be able to hear from community members who may be impacted by any of the changes they are considering.

Hi Suzanne, D-BRAC is meant as a body that will represent important perspectives from across our city. They will surely listen to the voices of those who may be impacted by any changes they are considering, but they are intended to be district-wide, and not specifically representative of just a few schools.

See my prior answer.

Hi Angela, see my prior response to Grace. It is likely that there will be no impact on Roseway Heights next year. But there are several other enrollment growth issues going on in the region—including at Roseway Heights, so your school will be part of the discussion of bigger changes in the future.

Hi Lisa: The SACET committee has not prioritized discussions of focus option expansion, with the exception of dual language immersion, because of concerns about access and impact on neighborhood schools. The committee has seen that demand for focus option schools is not representative of the district as a whole. Additionally, they have noted negative impacts at neighborhood schools that send high numbers of students to focus option schools. SACET will be advising the superintendent to make it clear the purpose of, and ensure there is more equitable access to focus options .

Thanks for sharing your concern, Lisa. Yes, the space challenge has been predictable. Unfortunately, finding the best solution to meet the needs of both Creative Science and Head Start has taken awhile.

Hi Grace, Beverly Cleary is the only school operating on three campuses. It is already different from other schools. And it may not be the only school that we consider for a boundary change for 2015.