Executive Summary from 11/18/15 Roseway Heights

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FROM 11/18/15 ROSEWAY HEIGHTS MEETING Key takeaways from the public comment received by PPS at the 11/18/15 meeting:  Many community members attended the meeting to provide explicit opposition to Scenarios that would change their local matriculation patterns. Community members proposed in Scenario II to be rerouted to Scott Elementary (located in the Triangle between NE Sandy, NE Fremont and NE 60th) and those proposed to matriculate to Roseway Heights and Madison away from Beaumont and Grant (located in the area roughly bounded by NE Siskiyou, NE 57th Ave, NE 47th and I-84) expressed vigorous opposition to Scenario II and strong support for Scenario I. Their written and spoken comment highlighted their historical connection to their existing institutions, concerns about the safety of students crossing busy arterials to attend their newly assigned schools, concern that Roseway Heights would remain overcrowded in Scenario I’s configuration, and a desire to see the district lines follow “natural boundaries’ such as I-84 and NE 57th.  Community members from Irvington, Sabin, Vernon, Roseway Heights and Laurelhurst expressed significant support for their neighborhood schools to retain their K-8 configuration, and therefore, their support for Scenario II. Their testimony included support for the K-8 configuration on the basis of academic studies supporting the model’s support for middle-level students, concerns that the proposal doesn’t address overcrowding, the small-community feel of the configuration and its inherent ability to provide increased support for students. Testimony from individuals from these schools frequently cited the difficult work undertaken by PTAs, foundations and school staff to build these schools to the successes that they are today, and many acknowledged frustration that PPS continued to tinker with boundaries with schools that were currently academically thriving. Testimony also expressed frustration for the rapid speed of the process, and asked for more time to evaluate existing Scenarios and propose new ones.  While fewer in number, families and community members from Scott, Lee and Vestal provided sobering testimony about the difficulties faced at their schools due to enrollment instability, high rates of socioeconomic hardship, and lack of both strong curriculum programs and desirable electives to draw and maintain a vibrant student body. Their testimony didn’t universally endorse one Scenario over the other, but provided a tone of urgency for PPS to continue to work with DBRAC to address the stark inequities faced by neighboring facilities in the Grant and Madison clusters of schools.  Testimony from families with students enrolled in the ACCESS program asked for a stable, centrally located facility that would allow the program to grow to meet the needs of all ACCESS students in PPS.  The meeting drew approximately 330 community members. PRESENTATION SUMMARY Ms. Judy Brennan, PPS Director of Enrollment and Transfers, welcomed the audience in attendance to Roseway Heights and introduced the PPS staff, faculty, principals, DBRAC members, and PPS Board members in attendance for the evening’s meeting. She introduced Mr. Jon Isaacs, who showed the “Growing Greater Schools” video prepared by PPS and explained November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools that PPS was looking at solutions for rebalancing PPS’s facilities to address over/under enrollment and over-crowding at PPS facilities, and that PPS eagerly welcomed community participation in helping find ways to address these problems in a manner consistent with guiding values adopted by PPS and the DBRAC. PPS staff have developed two Scenarios, written not as definitive plans for change but rather starting points for discussion, that adjust enrollment to accomplish goals by changing the configuration of schools from K-8s to K-5s and 6-8s, moving boundaries, opening schools, and relocating programs. Ms. Brennan continued with the presentation, highlighting the specific changes proposed to PPS facilities in the Madison cluster under Scenarios I and II. Ms. Brennan explained the tradeoffs associated with the Scenarios, noting that Scenario I establishes more K-5s, which leads to a larger number of students are impacted but also locates more students closer to their neighborhood school, while Scenario II keeps a larger number of K-8s as structured, impacts slightly fewer students but increases the average distance to each neighborhood school. She emphasized that current policy dictates that new boundary changes would impact currently enrolled students, but that the board has the option to rescind this policy if they choose to in the interests of expediting enrollment balancing. Ms. Brennan noted that information about the DBRAC process and documents provided at meetings are available on PPS’ website (http://www.pps.k12.or.us/departments/enrollment- transfer/9522.htm). PPS Staff concluded their presentation by explaining the current state of the public input process, noting the numerous opportunities available for additional public comment, the opportunities to provide feedback on whichever Scenario is recommended by the PPS Superintendent, and the legally required public comment opportunity when the final Scenario is being considered by the PPS Board. Ms. Brennan also noted that a new Community Listening meeting had been added to the schedule, for next Tuesday, 11/24 at King Elementary School. SPOKEN PUBLIC COMMENT PPS Staff provided the audience an opportunity to orally testify on the proposed Scenarios. Testimony transcribed below is presented in the order it was provided at the meeting. ELIZABETH DANHORN, Roseway Heights. Ms Danhorn spoke to her concerns that DBRAC’s adopted values and outcomes are not met in either Scenario I or II. She expressed her frustration with the proposals, noting that she had participated in a meeting last month with over 100 families from Roseway Heights that shared her concerns about how the District’s stated goals of Access, Environment and Equity were not met for Roseway Heights students in these proposals. She concluded by reminding the audience of the significant changes to the school over the past few years, and expressed a desire for more stability for Roseway Heights to succeed as an institution. SCHOLLE McFARLAND, Access / TAGAC. Mr. McFarland, the Chair of Talented and Gifted Advisory Committee (TAGAC) and representative for ACCESS. He noted that the November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools

ACCESS program has been continually relocated, and that PPS has been looking at either keeping the program at Rose City Park or moving it to Kellogg or Tubman, depending on the other Scenario planning. He noted the valuable contributions that ACCESS plays for advanced students, stating that ACCESS provides a safety valve for kids who can’t get adequate advanced education at their own facility. Mr. McFarland stated that these students have special needs, and encouraged DBRAC to find a centrally located facility for ACCESS so that students from all five quadrants of Portland would be able to access this important educational programming. AMY DONAHUE, Alameda/Beaumont/Grant. Ms. Donahue stated that she had collected 240 signatures from concerned neighbors who were opposed to the proposed changes that would split some Alameda families from the Beaumont cluster. She noted that staying in Beaumont would support the Key Performance Initiatives such as reducing overcrowding, growing a sense of community, and providing safer routes to school. She expressed her opposition to Scenario II, which doesn’t meet this goals, and noted that Roseway Heights would quickly house nearly 1000 students with this configuration. She lamented that boundary changes have happened in 2006, 2011, and potentially in 2016, and asked the district if they truly thought these changes would prevent PPS from having to make changes again in five years. She stressed the important cultural anchor that Grant HS serves for the community, and that shifting these students to Madison “defies all natural boundaries” of their neighborhood. She concluded that Alameda is a successful program and she’d like to keep their current K-8 configuration. RUBY PAUSTIAN, 8th Beverly Clearly. Ms Paustian, an eighth grade student at Beverly Cleary, testified to the positive educational experiences she had in the K-8 configuration at Beverly Cleary. She noted that the facility fosters great relationships between students in different grade levels, and she enjoyed seeing her siblings throughout the day. She noted the difficulty her family would face if her siblings were located in different facilities, and asked DBRAC to avoid reconfiguring Beverly Cleary. ED SHEARER, Irvington. Mr. Shearer spoke in opposition to changes to Irvington School, noting the rigorous, complete set of electives for middle level students and the bond between faculty, staff and parents. He noted that the K-8 configuration assures that community members hold each other accountable to student success. He lamented that Scenario I would move many low income and students of color out of Irvington, and that Irvington’s Special Education program in particular would be harmed by Scenario I. BEEMAN STRONG, Laurelhurst. Mr. Strong thanked DBRAC for the opportunity to testify and stated his support for Laurelhurst’s currently strong, successfully functioning K-8 configuration. He noted that Laurelhurst students are prepared for high school thanks to the strong electives and core curriculum, and noted that proposed changes to Laurelhurst in Scenario I would overcrowd the facility. He expressed his frustration that PPS had just spent considerable resources adding science labs for middle level students that would go to waste if Laurelhurst reconfigured to K-5. He concluded that because funds were scarce, he encouraged PPS to spend resources working on failing schools and consider restraint on modifying successful K-8 programs. November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools

DENISE HOLTRAP, Lee. Ms. Holtrap, a mother of a third grade student at Lee, expressed her sincere frustration for the current configuration at Lee. She noted that the electives at Lee were poor compared to nearby wealthy schools, and she expressed concern that Scenario II would radically shrink the school and that the newly configured K-5 at Lee would be so low that they would lose the necessary reading coaches, librarian, and other important staff for a struggling school. TAYLOR MARROW, Madison South. Mr. Marrow testified that the community in the room need to be working with advocates to raise revenues for more successful public schools. He expressed regret parents from different schools were fighting over limited resources when communities needed to be working together to get more resources so each PPS facility had better electives; he encouraged the community to rally around the “A Better Oregon” campaign and be ready to vote for school levies. ASHLEY LARKIN, Sabin. Ms. Larkin provided testimony in support of the K-8 model, noting that the configuration had been great for her three children. She noted that a configuration to Sabin would mean that sixth graders at the facility would have to go to four schools in four years, due to Sabin’s restructuring and the expected Grant rehabilitation project. She noted that she cherished the personal growth she’s seen in her daughter, who was able to volunteer to work with the teacher who taught her younger sister in Kindergarten. She concluded that moving the middle year programming from Sabin would hurt children currently excelling in a thriving institution. NICOLE MARKWELL, Scott. Ms. Markwell, the Scott PTA President, provided testimony that highlighted the numerous hardships faced by students at Scott unique to the institution relative to the other comparably well-off facilities in Northeast Portland. She detailed the abysmal electives offered at Scott, including many students who got stuck working numerous shifts as “Cafeteria Assistant.” Considering Scott’s population is 80% students of color, she asked the district if they had decided that the future doctors, architects, and engineers were not going to come from Scott but instead the wealthier K-8s nearby. She encouraged the district to push ahead with Scenarios that would better integrate the socioeconomic and racial diversity of Scott into a rigorous middle school with the surrounding K-8 institutions. She notes that Scott wants to be part of the decision making process to set their school up for success and that the community is excited to support the immediate implementation of Scenario I. She detailed the lack of trust felt by Scott community members, and noted the district needed to continue to invest resources to conduct culturally specific and language appropriate outreach to Scott communities. She expressed support for the Spanish Immersion program and noted she hoped to see it continue to grow at Scott and for Scott’s matriculating middle level students. CHRISTIAN HIEBERT, Vernon. Mr. Hiebert, a student at Vernon, stated his support for the K-8 model. He cited the great sense of community at Vernon, the ongoing growth and improvements at the facility, and his appreciation for having younger children at the school to help encourage older students to behave and practice being role models. November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools

MY HANH NGUYEN, Vestal. Ms Nguyen, speaking on behalf of Vietnamese families in the Immersion Program at Vestal, testified about the vitality of the Immersion program and the success it’s having with the local Vietnamese community. She mentioned that moving the program would present a hardship for the Vietnamese community, which is located near the Immersion Program’s current location at Vestal, and ask that PPS continue to keep the program located at that facility. Grace Groom, Roseway Heights PTA Board? Ms. Groom, a representative from the Roseway Heights PTA board, first encouraged the audience to sign the A Better Oregon campaign to create more funding for schools across the state, noting the extra resources that PPS will have to conduct this meaningful work to address student outcomes. She then mentioned her pride in the work of the community members of Roseway Heights, calling the facility “the best kept secret” in Northeast Portland and expressing frustration that Roseway is the only school currently slated to lose their neighborhood program. She noted that PPS’ Scenario I doesn’t even provide a neighborhood school option, shuffling Roseway Heights K-5 students to three different institutions, and that it’s frustrating to see that PPS hasn’t been able to fund equitable programming at schools across the Madison cluster. She continued that the PTA board encouraged DBRAC to “make equity a reality” and move beyond boundary changes to address that some schools in Northeast Portland are drawing from 3% poverty and others at 50% poverty. MARGARET TURNER, Access. Ms. Turner, a third grade student at ACCESS, expressed support for the ACCESS program, and asked DBRAC to find a way to provide the ACCESS programming to every student in the Portland Public School district that wanted to attend the unique program. GLENN PULIGNANO, Alameda., Mr. Pulignano testified that he was frustrated that the proposed boundary change along Ne 51st Avenue splits his neighborhood and community, and that he was concerned about the impact on his daughter who would attend Madison while her peers attended Grant. He expressed he support for his existing community, and wanted his children to continue to be able to walk to their classmates’ houses. He expressed his support for maintaining what he considered the natural boundary at NE 57th. RAMONA PERRAULT, Beverly Cleary. Ms. Perrault testified in support of Scenario II, noting her the support from her Beverly Cleary community and their shared concerns with Laurelhurst and Irvington. She testified that Scenario I left these institutions overcrowded, and didn’t like that more students would be configured to schools not in their neighborhoods. She stated that Beverly Cleary has the largest number of students who bike/walk/roll to schools, and that these rates would be disrupted by boundary changes that would make their students cross Broadway, Sandy, and I-84 to get to school. MARK BUCHANAN, Irvington. Mr. Buchanan expressed his support for the community assembled in the room that had shown up to advocate for their students and children. He applauded Irvington’s diversity, success in closing the achievement gap, and cautioned that Scenario I will disrupt that success. He expressed frustration that PPS was going to potentially November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools alter the strong school that the local community had built up over the past 9 years in its current configuration, and encouraged the district to reconsider their plans to eliminate successful K-8 programs across the district. MATT WARFURD, Jason Lee. Mr. Warfurd testified that he was frustrated there weren’t available resources to ensure that all students entering Madison were going to receive proper education to be prepared for high school enrollment. He stated that he had heard numerous concerns about how the district intended to support the numerous K-5 institutions about to be reconfigured to send their middle-level students to Roseway Heights. He stressed concern about transportation routes, in particular, and reiterated the importance of the district adequately investing in this process to ensure a smooth transition. NAOMI ABRAHAMS, Laurelhurst. Ms. Abrahams testified that she didn’t like the middle school model for PPS schools, and that studies suggested an 18% decrease in achievement for students in Middle Schools compared to those in K-8 configurations. She strongly supported keeping Laurelhurst and other Northeast Portland schools in the K-8 configuration, and said the reconfiguration was a “sucker punch” for those parents encouraging PPS to adopt more rigorous common cause curriculum. She asked the district to reevaluate Scenario II and to come up with strategies that didn’t rely on middle school configurations for middle level students. MATT WHITMAN, Sabin. Mr. Whitman testified in opposition to Scenario I, stating he believed Sabin was already rightsized and didn’t need adjustments. He continued that he didn’t want Sabin students to matriculate to Tubman, noting it is geographically isolated, isn’t easily accessible by walking or biking, and has seismic problems. He demanded that PPS conduct a productive, inclusive process that more significantly engaged parents, lamenting he had only heard that programs might be relocated as recently as three weeks ago. He concluded by reiterating his support for K-8 configurations and his opposition for Scenario I. SARAH WALL, Scott. Ms. Wall testified about the hardships faced by students at Scott elementary, noting that her community had a very different perspective about the need for enrollment balancing and for the Scenarios than the other families from comparably wealthier schools at the meeting. She articulated that 90% of the Scott community received free or reduced lunch, many students and their families don’t speak English, and that middle level students at Scott don’t receive nearly as many of the offerings as neighboring institutions. She expressed frustration that the Scott administration is spending resources that should go towards professional development and other supplementary programs on core content to help keep Scott’s core curriculum afloat. She noted that many families thought Scott wasn’t a safe school, and she expressed hope that PPS’ rebalancing solutions will help provide aid and support for Scott to address its urgent shortfalls as an educational institution. ANGELA FANCHER, Vestal. Ms. Fancher, a parent of three PPS students, noted that her family takes a three mile TriMet commute daily to send her children to Vestal, and serves on the Vestal PTA. She notes that many Vestal parents are unaware of the proposed changes, and noted that Vestal, a Title I school, deserves more explicit opportunity for outreach and engagement to November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools ensure that the needs of a struggling community are integrated into PPS’s proposed solutions. Ms. Fancher’s testimony included reference to a letter written by the Vestal PTA that supported the current K-8 configuration of Vestal, applauding the expanding educational programming and community building at the facility. She urged PPS to more directly engage with the potentially affected institutions to ensure that any potential transition for these schools, particularly Title I schools, are conducted appropriately and with the community at the table. DONEE DESCHLER, Beverly Cleary. Ms. Deschler spoke to her discontent with each of the scenarios. She first outlined her concerns that Scenario II creates overcrowding at Roseway Heights, noting it was slated to be larger than West Sylvan but with fewer classroom spaces, but lamented that Scenario I also led to overcrowding at the other K-5 institutions. She asked PPS and DBRAC to continue working to thoughtfully consider the impact to the communities if boundary changes were necessary. SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY In addition to oral testimony, the audience was provided an opportunity to fill out a written comment card. Written testimony received at the 11/18/15 meeting is provided below, in alphabetical order by testifier’s last name. BETH ATAGABE, Roseway Heights. “I believe what is best for 6-8 students is for them to be in a middle school. Please open Gregory Heights as a Middle School. It is needed in this neighborhood.” LAURA BALLARD, Alameda. “It’s challenging as a mother of three to sit here and listen to people advocate for K-8 when it isn’t an option for us either way. Ugh. You’ve pitted us in a fight we don’t belong in! That being said, what are you going to do with 1000+ children at Roseway Heights? Alameda isn’t overcrowded. We are going down in enrollment.” DIANA BAMFORD, Rose City Park. “I live at 60th and Thompson. 2.2 miles to school IS NOT A SAFE ROUTE NOR IS IT A NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL.” AMY BAZLEY, Roseway Heights. “We need evidence that breaking up our school will actually result in the achievement of the stated goals. Without evidence, this seems like ANOTHER bad PPS decision.” JUDY BECHER, Irvington. “Scenario II preserves our community, invests in our continued efforts on equity, and honors our children’s desire to stay within their community + not get lost. Keep Irvington K-8.” STEPHANIE BECKMAN, Laurelhurst. “We live close to our own school – Scenario I would result in us driving our kids to school and we don’t know how they would get home. Our kids thrive in the smaller, gentler environment of the K-8. It could be better with more funding, but if helping our kids with their confidence. We are concerned about the number of transitions to Beverly Cleary, then the “temporary Grant” then Grant when finished. We support Scenario II.” November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools

JOHN BRADY, Sabin. “Please keep Sabin K-8. It’s a successful community school with strong community and parent support.” GWEN CAMPBELL, Alameda / Beaumont. “1) those of us affected by the boundary change that affected the Western part of Alameda and redistricted student into Sabin and Alameda we urge you to allow the grandfathering into the furthest grades. That change affected so few students (which is why Alameda’s population is consistently high) so that they could know virtually no one if forced to transition to a new school – like Tubman. Minimizing these transitions should be a priority as those students have already changed. 2) Why not deal with the split feeder situation at Beaumont at the same time/ Rigler to Madison, Alameda to Grant. You have the opportunity to fix things – why not do it right instead of the band-aid approach to often used in the past?” NATHAN CARTER, Rose City Park. “As co-chair for the Rose City Park Neighborhood Association, I have had several discussions with neighbors on this topic and all have expressed the desire for Scenario II. We feel that would become a more valuable asset to our community and neighborhood.” BEN CARLSON, Roseway Heights. “Much like those in the Alameda neighborhood next to 57th, NE in the triangle created by Sandy, 62nd and Fremont are concerned about being separated from our neighbors and community. Regardless of the end scenario, please keep our section of Roseway with the rest of our current Roseway Heights community south of Fremont (a natural division). Additionally the inequity between Scott and Lee and Roseway Heights, brought up at this meeting, is unsettling.” CARIN CARLSON, Roseway Heights. “I am here representing the families that live in the triangle bound by Sandy, Fremont and 62nd. I’d like to comment on Scenario II. While we strongly support reopening Rose City Park as a neighborhood Elementary School, we are confused as to (why our portion of the neighborhood has been segregated from the rest of our Roseway neighbors south of Fremont and excluded from the proposed Rose City Park boundary. The proposed boundary does not afford the same level of equity to our families as it does to the rest of our neighborhoods formerly served by Roseway Heights. We feel that we are a small number of people being singled out and excluded because our voice is not as loud as some others. I am here to say that under Scenario II we want our children to go to Rose City Park with our neighborhoods; our equity matters, and we hope you will listen. Don’t separate us from our neighborhood! Our community! Ps Scott Elementary would need some serious attention and upgrades equity wise for me to even consider sending my children there. After school care is very important as well!” BILL CUNNINGHAM, Beverly Cleary. “Having elementary schools (K-5 or K-8) within walking distance is critical to Portland’s Climate Action and complete neighborhood goals, so people don’t have to drive everywhere. Need to keep Beverly Cleary school open for elementary grades. Irvington and Laurelhurst are too far far local, walkable access for the Grant Park neighborhood.” November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools

DENISE DALLMAN, Beaumont / Alameda / Grant. “We are not in favor of splitting our neighborhood in half as proposed in Scenario II. For our immediate area, Scenario II doesn’t address over-crowding, caused us to have to travel further to our schools and we would have to cross two very busy streets to get to school – NE 57th and NE Sandy. We are in favor of Scenario I or II with a redrawn boundary line that goes directly up 57th Avenue rather than zig zagging throughout our neighborhood. Thank you.” CHARLIES DUBOIS, Alameda / Beaumont / Grant. “The portion that includes our neighborhood in Scenario II will cut our small section out of our current district. The boundary as it is drawn for Scenario II has a zig/zag line across streets with no natural boundary line established. In Scenario II, for our neighborhood, were to pass we would be in a completely new school district (k-12). This does very little to promote a sense of community. Our small section of neighborhood (east of NE 49th, West of 57th Avenue, South of Siskiyou, and North of Alameda) would account for approximately 60 students which would not solve any overcrowding issues. Rather it isolates children from their school community and disrupts their educational continuity. Furthermore, the boundary change in Scenario II has potential to cause overcrowding at Roseway Heights (over 1000 kids projected in 5 years). Our current boundary does not contribute to overcrowding at Alameda Beaumont / Grant as these are not schools that are experiencing these issues. The change for our small section would also not help to address the under/overcrowding issues of other districts. I commend this effort from PPS, but see no reason for our section to be included in this process as it does not help or hurt the goals in mind.” BEN DUDLEY, Roseway Heights / Rose City Park. “We live on 65th and the boundary line has always has our home going across 82nd avenue to Lee elementary. Behind our house begins apartments. We live in the neighborhood and feel connected to the homes. Can the line be drawn behind our home down alley to include our side of the block with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood? We want our children to attend school with their friends and neighbors and not be sent across town because the boundary line cuts in front and not behind our house. Can someone please call me or email me to discuss? GREG ELLISON, Alameda / Beaumont / Brant. “lease keep our boundaries the same. This would isolate many children from their neighborhood schools. There is not over crowding at Alameda, Beaumont, or Grant. This change would put Roseway Heights overcrowded in the future. Taking this slice of our neighborhood does not follow a natural boundary such at 57th avenue, Alameda Ridge and Sandy Boulevard. Safety is a huge concern as well. Crossing a six point intersection is confusing even in a vehicle. I can’t imagine children crossing on foot or on a bike is very safe at all. This division would eliminate walking or biking to school. 57th and Sandy is a very busy and dangerous intersection. Please do not change our boundaries. We trust you will make the right decision for our kids and neighborhood.” BARB ELLISON, Alameda / Beaumont / Grant. “Please keep boundaries the same. Separating our neighborhood does not fix overcrowding or under enrollment. I feel like the proposed boundary changes would isolate children from their neighborhood schools. In addition, November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools there are safety issues with 57th Avenue and Sandy Boulevard. Also, does not promote sense of community.” LETICIA ENGLAND, Roseway Heights. “Roseway Heights is the perfect school right now. I believe the K-8 structure has really benefitted the students. If/when the school changes, I will move my daughter out and put her in private school even though it’s not my first choice.” ELIZABETH EZETTA, Alameda. “Please keep our neighborhood intact. We are a cohesive neighborhood and carving a portion out to attend new elementary/MS/HS is not good for our community. Please consider using natural boundaries such as 57th, Fremont, Alameda. Attending Rose City Park requires us to cross a dangerous six point intersection. Beaumont and Grant are walkable. These schools are our neighborhood! Please keep us together! LISA FOREMAN, Laurelhurst. “Laurelhurst is thriving as a K-8. We are strongly against a change.” ELLEN FLANNERAN, Laurelhurst / Grant. “I understand the need for better schools, for everyone, in Portland. However, sending kids to Madison over Grant is a step backwards. Additionally, What evidence does PPS have that adding only 29 students (under Scenario II) to Madison is going to bring enough additional funding to get Madison up to even an average level of achievement? In this process, PPS has not been terribly forthright with the information they’ve used to make these different scenarios. When will PPS tell us how they came up with these scenarios and what EVIDENCE they have that this enrollment balancing WILL WORK? BOB FLYNN, Hollywood BCC. “Please reopen Rose City Park as a neighborhood school. It was a tremendous mistake to close it and to deny people the chance to have a neighborhood school!” RANDA GAHIN, Sabin. “Please don’t dismantle over successful K-8. The NE schools have many options to meet needs. Two scenarios seems extremely limited. Can you engage a broader discussion drawing on the creativity of people who live here?” DAVID GAYSUNAS, Roseway Heights. “We deserve a one on one meeting for our school with PPS to discuss our concerns and recommendations. The process to break up our school needs to include us and be well thought out. Slow down! And include parents!!” LAURA GIFFORD, Roseway Heights. “Please ensure equity in educational opportunities for ALL kids, PPS-wide! We love our K-8, but if it becomes a Middle School, PLEASE open Rose City Park as a neighborhood K-8.” CHRIS GILLETT, Alameda / Beaumont / Grant. “Scenario II will send my child much farther away to Madison while his friend on our same street would still go to Grant. I don’t like Scenario II.” November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools

NILANA GUNASEKARAN, Beverly Cleary School. “PPS stated that middle schools must be able to hold 675 students, but BCS Fernwood hits max capacity at 550 and is built for 475. How can Scenario I even be an option with Fernwood not meeting middle school criteria, and will there be overcrowding again? Wil Hollywood School be closed permanently or used in some fashion with either scenario? Are unions for teachers and staff in PPS in support of these boundary change scenarios, one, both or none? How does PPS envision equity funding be appropriately used for certain school; is equity funding mainly for teacher salaries for extra- electives, extra classes, or is equity funding for facility needs at a certain school? Have you ever considered spending money for implementation of these scenarios into failing schools, rather than spend it transforming and dissolving already successful schools? Does equity mean ‘changing’ schools with the hope that schools get better, or is there an actual plan/metric/goal to improve equity in failing schools? What is the present capacity for Laurelhurst + Irvington and how much more capacity will there be in these two schools in Scenario I if implemented? Will they be at max capacity at that point at baseline with implementation and will overcrowding be an issue again in a few years? Why is there NO community meeting at a school in the Grant cluster? If your VALUE is equity and listening to all communities and cluster schools, why do you not have a meeting in an area that is so dramatically impacted? Please give details on the cost of implementation of Scenario I vs Scenario II. Thank you.” LISA HARMAN, Beverly Cleary. “PPS has stated that it was one of the highest values of the DBRAC values Framework is rightsizing schools. Scenario I projects a total enrollment for Laurelhurst of 964 students (160.7 per grade) but the building was listed as 94% capacity with 671 students in 2004. It has been rumored that Hollywood will hold Kindergarten, but that still leaves 800 at Laurelhurst for 1-5. How is this right sizing? What about future growth? What is the plan for Special Ed? For years self-contained classrooms have been moved when buildings run out of space and a number of schools are beyond capacity in these scenarios. What about dedicated space for Resource Rooms? Will pull-out be done in the hallway at Laurelhurst in Scenario I or Roseway Heights in Scenario II? What happens to the Swift School programs?” MELANIE HATFIELD, Irvington. “Keep our K-8! But support the schools that desperately need to have change to succeed. We have struggled at Irvington and don’t desire to have our succeeding school uprooted. But we can help the others!!” MARY HAZELL, Alameda / Beaumont Grant. “There is a section/pocket in Scenario II being sliced out of our neighborhood – separating our kids from existing schools/friends and moving them from undercrowded school to overcrowded school – opposite of PPS goals – balance enrollment and forecasted futures and least disruption to kids. Propose keeping existing boundaries N/S of Wisteria and 57th to minimize counterproductive shift and disruption to kids (small number, like 27 or 29 MS and 50th+ elementary).” CHRISTION HIEBERT, Vernon. “I think that K-8s with smaller amounts of 6-8 students allows teachers to share personal experiences, prepare us for high school and enjoy their job.” November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools

FREDERICK HIEBERT, Vernon. “Our family lives in the middle of NE Portland (40th and Roselawn) and I’m shocked, dismayed and embarrassed he has to take a Bus to school (2o blocks away). Now you want to send him another 20 blocks in the opposite direction from our home to Ockley Green School? Unbelievable. If I could do it all over again, I would move away from the Portland School District. Signed, Dissatisfied taxpayer and life long Portland resident.” ROB HOLLOWAY, Alameda, Beaumont, Grant. “Please don’t cut us out of the neighborhood! Does not solve overcrowding. Will create mega middle school. Try to cross Sandy/57th safely as a child – not safe. Please leave Siskiyou – Wisteria  50th/48th out of this change! 3rd proposed change in 15 years. You will need to do it again based on your Roseway Heights numbers. Don’t split neighborhood, please don’t cut us out!! Look at the numbers – don’t create mega middle school at Roseway Heights; Grant, Beaumont and Alameda are not overcrowded.” CHRISTINA JADERHOLM, Roseway Heights. “The new proposal does not encounter all the things that works. Fix what is broken – not what works. Please find serious funding for PPS to support every child – TAXES!! Not new boundaries!” CHRISTINE JESCHKE, Beverly Clearly School. “It is clear that some schools, like King, need more students and more financial support. This has to be your priority – equity for underserved schools. Please preserve and support those schools – and make as few changes as you can to other schools who are successful. We need equity, but dismantling functional K-8as is not the way to achieve it. Thank you for your work!” GRADY JORRENS, Laurelhurst. “Please keep Laurelhurst school K-8 and intact. It is a wonderful place. It’s the reason we moved to the neighborhood.” SEAN KELLOGG, Alameda/Beaumont. “Please modify Scenario II. Do not move the boundary at the SE corner of the Alameda attendance area. Moving the boundary is not necessary for right-sizing any school.” PRISCILLA KLOCKNER, Alameda / Beaumont / Grant. “I would like to know if any child psychologists have been either part of the PSU group (since they advised the boundary changes) or have been asked to give thoughts to PPS or DBRAC on the effects of children/families being disrupted every five years or so? Has anyone considered the effects of bonding/attachment and how that relates to constant boundary changes/ The going back and forth between K-8 and K-5, middle school models?” MICHELLE KULA, Laurelhurst. “My children 5th and 7th DO NOT WANT Laurelhurst to change.” PENNY LANGHAMMER, Beverly Cleary. “Strongly support maintaining the K-8 schools that are working – BCS, Irvington, Sabin, Laurelhurst.” JENNIFER LARSON, Alameda / Beaumont. “I live on NE 55th/Stanton. Scenario II splits my daughters up from most of their natural neighborhood playmates. This is an extremely sad November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools prospect for our family and our tight-knit community. Please consider a more natural border that does not interfere with friendships and community.” L JANE LARSON, Alameda. “I am 100% in support of keeping the children between Siskiyou and Alameda (57th-50th) at Alameda, Beaumont and Grant. Keep the neighborhood intact.” ALAN LEHTO, Laurelhurst. “I support Scenario II based on my experience that the K-8 environment is very beneficial for the social and personal development of the students and support community involvement in the school.” BETHANY LEMOINE, Laurelhurst. “My daughter loves her school and wants to stay there. She will already be displaced while Grant is being renovated. Laurelhurst is the right size and works. It makes no sense to change it, and it will huge traffic/safety problems. GANO LEMOINE, Laurelhurst. “I oppose any change to Laurelhurst Elementary. As I understand it, the school is properly balanced/with scope, student numbers. I purchase a house so my daughter could go to Laurelhurst, a K-8 school. Changing now is unfair. Also, Laurelhurst matriculates to Grant HS. To change Laurelhurst now will necessitate my daughter changing schools next year (to Beverly Cleary until 8th grade) then to Grant HS, until the Grant Renovation – then to a temporary school, then back to Grant to conclude HS. This is TOO DISRUPTIVE – and without sufficient notice or lead time. Please – no change to Laurelhurst Elementary.” AARON MARSHALL, Alameda / Beaumont / Grant. “Through I understand the issues PPS is trying to solve, I do not see any benefit in breaking apart our small cluster. With so few kids in the cluster, no rebalancing would be crowded, what would happen is 1) Neighborhood would be fractured as boundary lines zig through the neighborhood 2) kids would be put in harms way while trying to cross a very busy intersection at NE 57th and Sandy. 3) Kids would be pulled from schools and forced into a school where they know nobody with the exception of a very few. The boundary changes in Scenario II should not be changed. It DOES NOT support safe routes to school. It DOES NOT promote a sense of community. Our cluster is located East of 47th, West of 57th, North of Wistaria/Alameda and South of Fremont. Thank you for your efforts in balancing our schools, just reconsider natural borders such as 57th, Fremont and Wistaria/Sandy.” LEAH MARSHALL, Alameda. Though I see and understand the issues PPS is trying to solve I do not see any benefit in breaking apart our small cluster. With so few kids the goal of rebalancing would be reached. On the contrary our neighborhood would fracture and boundary lines zig through the neighborhood. Our children would be put in harms way while trying to cross the very busy intersection of NE 57th and Sandy. Our kids would be pulled from their schools and force into a school where they don’t know other students or teachers. The boundary lines in Scenario II SHOULD NOT be changed, it does not support safe routes to school, it does not promote a sense of community. Our cluster is located east of 47th, West of 57th, North of Wisteria/Alameda, and South of Fremont (Siskiyou). Thank you for your efforts in balancing our schools, but reconsider borders. November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools

JENNIFER McGUIRE, Roseway Heights. “PPS needs to develop and fund a real plan to offer appropriate and challenging curriculum to all grade levels. Current inequities are not a function of the K-8 vs K-5/middle school model. Either model can work if planned for and funded adequately. Dismantling rush is not the answer.” LACY McKINNEY, Creative Science School. “11) I’m very concerned about the Kellogg building safely. Seismic safety during an earthquake and any other issues since the building has not been in use for kids. Will this be updated BEFORE our children are there? 2) How will creative science school and another program share a building/ Offices, schedules etc. could get very complicated and cause many problems. Plus there would be no room to expand our program or have any growth if we want three sections per grade. Please don’t shove us together simply because we are focus schools. 3) Focus schools are VERY much needed. Although I live in a part of the district with a great preforming school I still chose to apply my son to a focus school because his needs would not have been met at Roseway Heights. Please allow us a chance to have our voices heard before breaking apart our hard earned schools.” BRYANT MECKLEM, Alameda. “I understand what you are trying to do, but moving such a small group out of uncrowded schools for the sake of moving them doesn’t make any sense. Please rethink cutting us out of our schools when it is not needed. From your projections it will only make Roseway Heights more crowded.” JOE MELLO, Roseway Heights. “Very perturbed at the idea of sending my kids to Lee when we live within one block of the Rose City Park Elementary building. Roseway Heights K-8 is acceptable, but Lee is an insult.” DEBRA H METTLER, Beverly Cleary. “I’m a HUGE advocate for Scenario II. This impacts fewer students overall. It minimized the need for additional busing. The K-8 model creates a tighter community for children entering those grades. I’m a graduate of Beaumont when it was a K-5. Please give our son the same experience I had with a k-8 school – 1 ½ blocks from our home instead of MILES from his home.” GREG METTLER, Beverly Cleary. “Our family moved to our current home three years ago specifically for the school and the K-8 model. Of the preset 2 scenarios that have been presented, I would greatly prefer Scenario II, which would preserve the K-8 model.” SAMANTHA MOORE, Beverly Cleary. “I am concerned with the potential size Roseway Heights Middle might become. My son will join this new feeder after never having a stable home (three buildings in three years). Timelines put him at entering RCP one year before moving to RWH. Never will he have had a consistent group to grow with in school.” PAM NEILD, Beverly Cleary. “What will PPS use of Hollywood be? Is the timeline still January/February for a decision? I’ve read that under Scenario I for BCS creates the largest K-5 in the state. Any comments? Is there a reason PPS doesn’t allow grades to combine in years where numbers in classes are low? i.e., 2-3 grades together if needed.” November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools

SKYE NOLLKAMPER, Alameda. “E of 50th, W 57th N, Alameda, S Siskiyou. Keep us in our neighborhood.” SINE NOMINE, Alameda. “There is room to leave the ABG cluster as is; the Scenario I boundary for the ABG cluster could be used (should be used) if Scenario II district wide is implemented. MAKING KIDS CROSS 57th and SANDY IS CRAZY!!! I’m not even affected by the boundary change.” WENDI NORDELK, Beverly Cleary. “Keep our K-8.” GINA OSSANNA, Alameda. Please do not remove our students from Alameda + put them at Rose City Park / Roseway Heights. 1) it does not solve overcrowding – Alameda, Beaumont, and Grant are already right-sized. 2) It breaks up our neighborhood with arbitrary boundaries that are NOT based on data 3) It would force our neighborhood to cross a six-way intersection to attend RCP, Roseway Heights, and Madison (Ne 57th and Sandy) This is NOT safe, and prohibits students from walking/biking safely to school. Removing these kids from Alameda and Beaumont would serve no benefit. We are already a right-sized K-5, Middle, and High School. Let this be one of the easy decisions. Keep us intact.” DANA PETERSON, Alameda / Beaumont / Grant. “Leave the original boundary of NE 57th and Wistaria. Do not break up the Alameda/Beaumont/Grant cluster. Please also see detailed emails to PPS school board and to Carol Smith.” ROBIN PETERSON, Roseway Heights. “I am disgusted that the affluent schools are fighting to keep their K-8s, and not break up their boundaries. Roseway Heights is a VERY successful K- 5 school and is being asked to make significant changes, AGAIN. If this is truly a district wide boundary review, ALL schools need to make sacrifices for the greater good. For ALL of our children. Alameda kids can be shifted to RCP and Madison. Same with Laurelhurst and Beverly Cleary. All of our kids are important. The district have over and over showed us that money and influence talks. I hope this time the future of all our children will be truly considered.” VERONICA PROCTOR, Alameda / Beaumont / Grant. “Splitting a small sliver off the Alameda/Beaumont cluster does not fix overcrowding or underenrollment – there are no problems it is a successful K-5 model. As a matter of fact, PPS Projects it to cause overcrowding at Roseway Heights – the proposed change in Scenario 2. This would force our children to cross a dangerous 6 point intersection twice a day, and isolate them from their community and neighborhood. 59 kids at Alameda and 24 at Beaumont are not needed to reopen Rose City Park. This is an arbitrary boundary that is not based on any data and is projected to cause more problems down the line.” BETHANY QULLINAN, Roseway Heights. “Slow down the process and listen to parents. Switching back to K-5 from K-8 is disruptive and wastes the huge efforts and advances made since the transition. Put funding into helping struggling schools – we need to improve EQUITY not rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Thank you.” November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools

KATIE REED, Laurelhurst. “Laurelhurst is a right sized K-8. Scenario II continues to allow our children to thrive in this wonderful culture that offers mentorship opportunities for our middle school students. Laurelhurst is projected to remain right sized through 2020. It is an ideal school with reasonable class sizes and Option II would maintain this successful model. Scenario I overcrowds Laurelhurst, turns labs, art rooms etc. into classrooms and cheats our students. Please continue to talk to our community to reach a well thought out decision.” CAROLINE RICHARDS, Laurelhurst. “I would like to tell you that I support Laurelhurst in Scenario II with the caveat that we stay a K-8 but keep our 51 students, east of 53rd. We want to be a no-change school.” LIZ RICHARDS, Beverly Cleary. “I think Beverly Cleary should remain a K-8 since it is such a strong school. However, current students should be grandfathered into Grant, it’s a healthy school, it has three sections.” DYLAN RIVERA, Beverly Cleary. “Support successful K-8 schools like Beverly Cleary. Go with Scenario 2. We are too crowded and have needed boundary changes for many years.” ED SAGE, Vestal. “Stand tough. We are anxious about the changes at Vestal but like the outcomes for ALL the kids. Keep an eye on equity. Our kid will be fine!” ELSA SAN JUAN, Lents. “I have children in an immersion program. What will happen if changes are made? Will my children continue in the program? I’m not in agreement with the change.” MONICA SCOTT, Laurelhurst. “I am writing to oppose the proposed Scenario II which would split up our community and force my child to travel further away to attend the proposexd schools we belong to the Laurelhurst community and do not want or support the proposed changes in Scenario II. We want to keep our community safe, and we want shorter, safer commutes to school which would be eliminated in Scenario II. No to proposal Scenario II! Please do not split up our community.” CYNTHIA SHAFF-CHIN, Laurelhurst. “We are in favor of keeping K-8. We have a very strong middle school and community and wish to keep it. Our middle school teachers are very dedicated.” LINDSI SMITH, Roseway Heights. “Before the boundary changes, my daughter would be going to Roseway Heights but if Scenario I passes my daughter as a Kindergarten student would go to a less desired school and we have been so excited for her to go to Roseway Heights since we moved to the neighborhood. We really want Scenario II to pass so our daughter can attend the school we have been dreaming about since the day she was born!!! Please make this dream come true!!!” DAN SINCLAIR, Alameda / Beaumont / Grant. “I strongly feel that Scenario II removal of 48th/50th and Siskyou from the Alameda/Beaumont/Grant cluster helps no on and hurts our neighborhood integrity. I support change if it moves us forward, removing our kids does not November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools solve a problem or improve the district needs. Our district is not projected to be overcrowded, and it already conform to the preferred K-5/6-8-HS Model. Don’t divide and disrupt a solid/successful district and neighborhood with a boundary that introduces a very busy 57th and Sandy Boulevard as a school commuting Path. There’s nothing to be gained by this removal / annexing, and a lot to lose. There are many tough decisions to be made, and I appreciate the challenge – but this would be a poor decision with lasting consequences for decades.” KIRSTEN SOLBERG, Irvington. “Irvington has worked extremely hard to successfully implement PPS’ last wide-range change, to the K-8 model. It makes sense to make changes to K- 8s which are not meeting the needs of their students and community, but Irvington should stay a K-8. We have a supportive and involved community of teachers, administrators, support staff, and parents who stay connected and involved in our students lives for nine years of school. Older students are able to walk younger siblings to and from school. Older students are able to walk younger siblings to and from school. Our class sizes are a reasonable number, as opposed to the changes proposed by the district. PPS’s proposal seems rushed, with too short a timeline for transition and no proposed and secured budget for such massive changes. Focus on changes where needed, and recognize schools which, despite the lack of foresight and funding, made PPS’s last radical change 10 years ago, work for students and communities.” CORINNE STAFFORD, Laurelhurst. “Scenario I moves the Beverly Cleary issue to Laurelhurst creating a split campus overcrowding issue. Scenario II moves 41 kids. We are a “right sized” school that is functioning well. Neither of these scenarios accomplishes the goals.” BROOKE TUGGLE, Beverly Cleary. “I strongly support the K-8 model and believe Beverly Cleary school should remain a K-8 school, Beverly Cleary is a high performing school that is not under enrolled. The boundary change proposed in Scenario II will resolve the overcrowding issue. The K-8 school is our community school. My own personal experience as a parent of a K- 8 student and a large amount of the time spent researching the issue supports the K-8 program. All the educational research I could find supports the K-8 model over the middle school model. If its possible to maintain a successful K-8 school such as Beverly Cleary, why change it? Please don’t break what is already working. Support our neighborhood K-8 schools.” INGRID VANDERZANDEN, Irvington. “I’ve been at Irvington for six years and I’m about to go into sixth grade. It’s not fair to send me out of my neighborhood to go to a completely different school.” HUNTER VAUGH, Roseway Heights K-8. “Please don’t break up the K-8s. Use the resources that this would require to enhance the schools that need the help. Redistricting feels like a short- sighted, simplistic solution to complex problems. Ask WHY some schools are overcrowded, some are underenrolled, and still others are under-resourced/funded, than fix those underlying issues. I grew up in a K-8 and the stability and consistency of my environment and social community was valuable. My daughter just started kindergarten at Roseway Heights, and I would very much love for her to have similar experiences. I know she would benefit. I also know November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools that the more disruption and transition she experiences, the more her academic and social performance will suffer. Please abandon both scenarios and try again.” KEVIN WALL, Roseway Heights. “I cannot begin to tell you how upsetting these new boundary changes are. We have built a strong community at Roseway Heights and have put a lot of love and energy into our school. This is appalling and needs to be reconsidered. Children and families need to be considered first. K-8 works and has for years.” SHARON WEIR, Laurelhurst / Euclid Heights. “I encourage you to review the boundaries and to not simply rely on 70 year old historic boundaries. These historic boundaries are gerrymandered, divide neighborhoods, and exclude historically underserved populations. For example, NE 52nd Ave South of Halsey but North of I-84. This 52nd Boundary data back to at last 1948! This is an already small neighborhood but 52nd divides off 2 blocks and sends them to another school. As natural barrier is only 2 blocks away, using Normandale and Industrial land on NE 57th. This type of currently illogical, though historic, abound across PPS and should be evaluated with an eye to natural boundaries and CURRENT neighborhoods. In both scenarios my children will be enrolled in vastly overcrowded schools. Scenario I – Laurelhurst 900+, RWH MS 900-1000 students. How is this an improvement?” APRIL WHIPPLE, Scott. “Middle School Students need an environment that prepares them for high school. PPS is unable to create K-8’s district wide that have the buildings or student numbers to do this. Roseway Heights need to be a middle school to support all 6-8 students instead of just some.” JILLIAN WISENECK, Irvington. “Irvington is thriving as a K-8. Please keep it as so!” AMY ZLOT, Beverly Cleary. “Our K-8 is thriving. We ask that you put your resources towards other clusters that need those resources and preserve our wonderful school.” BRIAN, Alameda / Beaumont / Grant. I live in the small section of NE 49th through NE 57th that will be removed from Alameda / Beaumont / Grant. This will completely disrupt our neighborhood. Further, based on the numbers provided by PPS, Alameda / Beaumont / Grant is not currently overcrowded, and is NOT projected to be overcrowded in 5 years. However, Roseway Heights will be near capacity and trending up! Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to take such a small part of the neighborhood, which is only about 37 at Alameda, At the very least, consider taking a larger part of the neighborhood and making Rose City Park a split feeder for Beaumont/Grant for this neighborhood. MICHELLE, Alameda / Beaumont / Grant. “The small annex of students you are proposing to move from Alameda will not be enough to unload even 1 grade level classroom. The amount of children moved would be 4-10 per grade level, therefore not solving any overcrowding issue. The proposal to move them to Roseway Heights will create a new overcrowding issue there as PPS estimates 101% capacity at this school in 5 years (2020). Finally Grant High School has always been our school and it has room for us, especially with the remodel. Uprooting this small area would be emotionally7 challenging for our community. My house is directly on the border November 18, 2015 Public Comment – Roseway Heights K-8 Portland Public Schools Public Comment - Growing Great Schools and my sons best friend lives next door and would continue to his neighborhood schools. This is my proposal 1) allow grandfathering (this is only fair/equitable for families being asked to move and/or take a larger portion of kids) 2) Open RCP as a split feeder as it has been and allow kids west of 57th to attend Beaumont/Grant. This scenario will be less disruptive to kids already attending these schools and for families who have moved to this area for their children to attend these schools. Finally these schools have room for us!! Thank you and please understand this has a huge impact on people’s lives.” CHRISTINE, (no school given). Given the challenge of major changes within neighborhoods and schools, how will the district support those schools in Northeast that are being asked to make the largest changes (Lee, Scott, Roseway, Vestal?) What additional staffing and financial resources will the district provide for the initial five or so transition years?” CINDY, Rose City Neighborhood. “What resources are you going to provide to ensure that the diverse communities coming together under whatever new proposals you adopt can work across difference? This is an absolute necessity to support the vision of equity through PPS. What are you going to dfo to ensure that voices of color are represented in this process? Maybe there were 5% people of color tonight and only one POC who gave testimony.” DEAN, (no school given). “Please don’t move ACCESS again!” ANONYMOUS, Laurelhurst. “Please please do not increase class sized as Laurelhurst (as Scenario I would do) We want to keep Laurelhurst as a K-8!!!” ANONYMOUS, Roseway. “Speaking of equity, why is Beverly Cleary given the option to remain a K-8 school whereas Roseway Heights does not have this option? If education works, it should work for all students, not just those in rich neighborhoods.” ANONYMOUS, Bridger/Montavilla. “It seems we have little choice. Under the proposed scenarios, our family is in support of re-opening Kellogg. Should future funding be available from the state that would allow smaller classroom size rather than force districts to reshuffle to garner larger classroom sizes = meet funding requirements, we would wholeheartedly support that option. I know that many of the fellow parents / neighbors rest much of their concern on “crossing 82nd.” I see this as an unrealistic fear, but I do not see support for those families from PPS that counters their safety concerns. Many Bridger families already cross 82nd daily, so this is not a concern for me. More so, my concern is the lack of input from ODOT and other government orgs that could assist PPS in long-term strategic planning. There’s also a lack of information about what additional supports would be available for the for volatile time of the junior high brain. Should PPS recreate more junior high schools that shove large groups of students together to larger classes, what advantage would a kid have?!” ANONYMOUS, (no school listed). “K-8 is strong! Leave it. $ to schools for equal programming.” Executive Summary, Meeting Minutes and Written Transcription submitted to PPS staff by Aaron Brown, 11/25/15.