Public Schools
PORTLAND PLAN BACKGROUND REPORT FALL 2009 Acknowledgments Public Schools
Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) PROSPERITY AND BUSINESS SUCCESS Mayor Sam Adams, Commissioner-in-charge Susan Anderson, Director SUSTAINABILITY AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Joe Zehnder, Chief Planner Steve Dotterrer, Principal Planner Eric Engstrom, Principal Planner DESIGN, PLANNING AND PUBLIC SPACES Gil Kelley, Former Director, Bureau of Planning
Primary Author NEIGHBORHOODS & HOUSING Nicholas Starin, City Planner Contributors TRANSPORTATION, TECHNOLOGY AND ACCESS Mark Walhood, City Planner Staci Monroe, City Planner Liza Mickle, City Planner EDUCATION AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT Kerstin Cathcart, Senior Planner
HUMAN HEALTH, FOOD AND PUBLIC SAFETY
QUALITY OF LIFE, CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND EQUITY
ARTS, CULTURE AND INNOVATION
To help ensure equal access to City programs, services and activities, the City of Portland will reasonably modify policies/procedures and provide auxiliary aids/services to persons with disabilities. Call (503) 823-7700 with such requests.
www.PDXPlan.com The Portland Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ...... 4 LIST OF TABLES...... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 5 INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH PURPOSES...... 5 KEY FINDINGS...... 5 RECOMMENDATIONS...... 7 SCHOOLS NOT COVERED IN THIS REPORT ...... 9 SUMMARY OF MAJOR TRENDS...... 9 GRADUATON RATES ...... 9 POPULATION GROWTH AND ENROLLMENT PATTERNS ...... 9 PROJECTING FUTURE GROWTH AND ENROLLMENT...... 12 DISTRIBUTION OF POVERTY ...... 14 RACIAL, ETHNIC AND LANGUAGE DIVERSITY ...... 15 SCHOOL CLOSURES, CONSOLIDATION AND PROGRAM CHANGES ...... 17 SCHOOL FACILITIES PLANNING ...... 18 SCHOOLS AS MULTI-USE COMMUNITY FACILITIES...... 22 SCHOOL FUNDING AND FISCAL CHALLENGES ...... 24 CITY OF PORTLAND AND LOCAL INVESTMENT IN SCHOOLS ...... 25 OTHER LOCAL PROGRAMS...... 26 REGULATORY AND DECISION MAKING CONTEXT...... 28 APPENDIX ...... 30 OVERVIEW OF PORTLAND’S K-12 SYSTEMS ...... 30 PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT NO. 1...... 32 DAVID DOUGLAS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 40 ...... 37 PARKROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3...... 39 REYNOLDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7 ...... 40 CENTENNIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 28-302...... 43 RIVERDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 51J...... 45 MULTNOMAH EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT ...... 46 COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS ...... 46 POLICY CITATIONS...... 47 APPLICABLE STATE LAWS ...... 47 PORTLAND’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES...... 48 SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICIES...... 50
Public Schools Background Report Page 3 of 51 The Portland Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Map of Portland School Districts and Schools 8 Map of School Attendance Areas and Metro 2040 Centers 11 Map of Metro Subarea, Census Tract and School District Boundary Working Map 13 Map of Student Poverty and Resident Poverty 15 ESL Student Percentage in Portland School Districts 16 Map of School Closings, Openings, and Program Changes 18 Map of Portland School Districts 30 Map of Portland Public School District 36 Map of David Douglas School District 37 Map of Parkrose School District 39 Map of Reynolds School District 41 Map of Centennial School District 43 Map of Riverdale School District 45
LIST OF TABLES
Graduation Rates at Portland School Districts 2007-2009 9 City and Region Population: 1990, 2000 and 2006 10 School District Enrollment Percentage Change from 1997-2006 10 PPS Enrollment Change: 2006 – 2010 11 Forecasted Distribution of Households with Children (K-12): 2035 12 IPercentage of Students Qualifying for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch: 1999 – 2000 to 2008 – 2009 14 Graduation Rates by Ethnicity and Race 2007-2008 (PPS) 14 Prosperity Gap: Household Income Difference from Citywide Median by Race 2008 14 Racial Composition of Portland School Districts 15 Public School Closures and Openings, Closed School Programs, and New Charter Schools: 2002-2007 17 Portland Public Schools by Building Type 18 David Douglas Schools by Building Type 20 Reynolds Schools by Building Type 21 Parkrose Schools by Building Type 21 Centennial Schools by Building Type 21 Riverdale Schools by Building Type 22 School District Budgets 2009-2010 24 Area (acres) of Portland School Districts 30 Portland School Districts, School & Enrollment (Spring 2008) 30 Portland Neighborhood Associations by School District 31 Portland Public Schools District No. 1 Facility Summary 32 PPS Student Enrollment (October 2008) 33 PPS District Schools 38 David Douglas School District No. 40 Schools 38 Parkrose School District No. 3 Schools 40 Parkrose Elementary Schools, Selected Data, 2006 42 Reynolds School District No. 7 Schools 42 Reynolds Elementary School, Selected Data, 2006 42 Centennial School District No. 28-302 Schools 44 Centennial Elementary Schools, Selected Data, 2006 44 Riverdale School District No. 51J Schools 45
Page 4 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH PURPOSES The Portland Plan Schools Background Report is intended to inform the development of the Portland Plan and the update of the city’s Comprehensive Plan, a multi-year effort to guide the physical, economic, social, cultural and environmental development of Portland over the next 30 years. It has three major parts: Summary of Major Trends, Key Findings and Recommendations and an Appendices section containing supporting data, maps and other information. The information in this background report focuses specifically on public K-12 schools, with an emphasis on schools as public facilities, their multiple roles in the community beyond their primary educational mission, and the relationships between school districts and the City of Portland. Educational policy generally lies more strictly within the purview of the school districts themselves and is outside the scope of this report.
Schools are central to community vitality, neighborhood identity and the well-being of all Portlanders. The education that takes place within our school buildings is a key link to the future prosperity, vitality, and diversity of Portland, and represents our future. This report intends to serve as a basis for understanding the roles public schools play as physical places in the environment, as central elements in complete neighborhoods, and raises critical issues to consider as the Portland Plan unfolds. KEY FINDINGS This section summarizes key public school-related issues, challenges and opportunities in Portland, focusing on schools as physical places and centers of community, and the relationships between the school districts and city government. Although education policy and decision-making are obviously critical elements of public school systems and are important more broadly to the vitality of Portland as a whole, they more appropriately addressed through processes led by the school districts themselves and are beyond the scope of this report.
Schools Are Critical to the Vitality of Portland - They Are Centers of Community and Will Be Key Elements of 20-minute Neighborhoods
The public school system is one of the most important institutional building-blocks of our society. Schools educate our youth and nurture future generations of citizens, and we collectively depend on their ongoing health and vitality. Schools also serve many functions beyond their principal role as educational institutions for children and play important roles in making Portland a livable, creative, and healthy place to live and work. Vital, community- centered schools serve as neighborhood anchors. They attract and retain families, stabilize communities and property values, provide shared activity and open space and reinforce community identity and civic values. These benefits are reflected in a growing nation-wide movement to foster “community schools”. According to the Coalition for Community Schools, a community school is “a place where services, support, and opportunities lead to improved student learning, stronger families, and healthier communities" (Coalition for Community Schools 2003, p.2). Their evaluation of 20 community school initiatives across the nation has shown that community schools advance:
Student learning: Community school students show significant gains in academic achievement and in essential areas of nonacademic development. Family engagement: Families of community school students show increased stability and school involvement. School effectiveness and community support: Community schools enjoy stronger parent-teacher relationships, a more positive school environment and greater community support. Community vitality: Community schools promote better use of school buildings, and their neighborhoods enjoy increased security, heightened community pride, and better rapport among students and residents.
The City of Portland, Multnomah County, Portland school districts and other agencies and community partners have already embraced many aspects of the community school model, recognizing the interplay between schools,
Public Schools Background Report Page 5 of 51 The Portland Plan community and a thriving city. For instance the SUN service system, a partnership between the City of Portland, Multnomah County, and local school districts provides an integrated system of care and support to children, families and community members in 54 Sun Community Schools within Portland area school districts. The Parkrose High School and Community Center, completed in 1997, was explicitly designed as a community school, with space and features to accommodate shared and community uses, such a Multnomah County Health Clinic, a Multnomah County Library branch, Portland Parks and Recreation programs and multi-purpose spaces.
The City of Portland and all six school districts with facilities inside Portland’s city limits share a number of mutual interests. The Portland Plan process presents an opportunity to build on these shared interests and goals through a collaborative and strategic planning process. One means for doing this will be through the exploration of the 20- minute neighborhood concept, which will help inform decisions about growth, development and livability in Portland in the 21st century. A 20-minute neighborhood is a place with convenient, safe, and pedestrian-oriented access from adjacent housing to the places people need to go to and the services they use nearly every day: transit, shopping, quality food, parks, social activities—and schools, especially at the elementary and K-8 level.
Twenty-minute neighborhoods have three basic characteristics: a walkable environment, destinations that support a range of daily needs (e.g. jobs, goods and services, parks), and residential densities that include a variety of housing types to ensure a diversity of households can live in the neighborhood.
Twenty-minute neighborhoods offer direct and indirect benefits. They allow residents to drive less and thus reduce household transportation expenditures, traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, wear and tear on roads, consumption of petroleum, and the need for additional roads, travel lanes and parking. Economic benefits frequently include an increase in housing values, attraction of new economy workers, offer business relocation opportunities, reduce commuting costs, decreases infrastructure investments (which ultimately affects the taxpayer), and they attract tourists. Other benefits include improved quality of life, improved physical fitness and general health, and increased social interaction in the community.
Schools Are Essential Public Infrastructure
Related to their role as centers of community, school campuses and buildings are essential public infrastructure. They are durable assets, owned and maintained by the public, that not only provide space for their essential educational role, but also for community groups, public services, multi-generational education, recreational opportunities and many other activities and services.
Because of their public ownership and multipurpose roles, all Portlanders and the City of Portland have an interest in the use, disposition, closure, sale, rehabilitation and reuse of public school facilities and property. For instance, citizens have voiced concerns about the potential conversion of school properties to new uses, and the potential to introduce new types of activities and impacts in neighborhoods. This is of particular concern with the many school sites located within or adjacent to residentially zoned single-family areas. Conversions of school property to other uses could also result in the loss of open spaces, a critical issue in areas that develop over time into more urban places. In addition, many of Portland’s schools are over 50 years old, with a historic character that is highly valued by the community, but are faced with outdated infrastructure and deferred basic maintenance needs.
Current Comprehensive Plan policies suggest that closed school sites be retained in a ‘civic use.’ However, state law (ORS 197) stipulates that school closure is not a land use decision, limiting public involvement in decision- making and potentially divorcing school disposition processes from broader Comprehensive Plan goals and other public policy frameworks. In addition the City and the school districts do not have formal agreements that would coordinate school facility planning, and the City’s strategic and comprehensive land use and economic development planning processes. Also, enrollment fluctuations over time are unavoidable, land use and urban form patterns will continue to evolve, and school systems must be adaptable to populations that are always changing.
Re-investment is needed in school infrastructure throughout the city, whether in deteriorating turn-of-the-century schools in inner neighborhoods, or overcrowded schools in outer Southeast and Northeast. The amount of work
Page 6 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan that needs to be done likely exceeds what can be done by the public sector and school districts alone. Public- private partnerships will be required to help re-build school facilities, whether through creative re-use of closed school facilities, or synergistic partnerships with various community uses and non-profit or community-based organizations. Although we should retain many school sites for civic uses, we will need to consider a broader definition for these uses beyond single-use school facilities, incorporate this new understanding into the regulatory structure, and look at providing for a mix of community uses and some redevelopment of functionally obsolete buildings on many current school sites.
Schools and Neighborhoods Benefit From Collaboration Between City Government and School Districts
School districts and the City of Portland share many common goals, for instance the desire of PPS to work with the City to reverse enrollment declines through strategies to make Portland more child-friendly. However, school districts and city government have jurisdictional and institutional barriers that can make collaboration to meet shared objectives difficult. While there are jurisdictional boundaries between City government and school districts, it is important that the City of Portland have a voice in discussions concerning the future of major school facilities—including planning for campus redevelopment, expansion, major reconfiguration and closure—because of the interplay between these decisions and community vitality and prosperity. Similarly, school districts have a vital interest in participating in discussions about planning Portland’s future—decisions about land use, density, growth accommodation, and economic development can clearly affect school district planning and decision- making. Avenues for improved collaboration between the City and its school districts are being actively pursued, and the Portland Plan process provides an opportunity for enhanced dialogue and better coordination.
The Portland Plan provides an opportunity to address several specific areas in which collaboration can be improved. State Law requires that the City and all school districts within Portland, except Riverdale due to its small size, create a school facilities plan that identifies the facility needs of the district for a ten-year period based on population growth and land use designations. Moving towards a regulatory environment that recognizes the critical role a broad range of community uses at school sites plays should be accomplished, in order to ensure vital, walkable neighborhoods. Coordinating infrastructure planning can help to ensure that students have safe, direct walking or biking routes to their neighborhood school will have multiple benefits in terms of vital, healthy communities. Supporting partnerships and new futures for some school sites will a viable future for the school system overall. RECOMMENDATIONS This section makes some initial recommendations for possible school-related components of the Portland Plan and future City-wide strategic planning efforts.
Strengthen the Role of Schools as Centers of Community and in Creating 20-Minute Neighborhoods
The community school model, which describes schools as “both a place and a set of partnerships between the school and other community resources,” benefits students, families and neighborhoods. By expanding the multi- purpose use of schools, the community gains access to costly existing buildings and spaces that they might not otherwise have access to. Families gain better access to services and agencies. Neighborhoods become more connected to youth and opportunities for multi-generational learning and experience multiply. Research has shown that community schools also help student achievement. Community schools build economic, physical and emotional stability among children and families and thus strengthen neighborhoods and communities. Inventive, enduring relationships among educators, families, volunteers, and community organizations and partners are key to the future strength of our school system.
A concept to be explored in the Portland Plan is the “20-Minute Neighborhood,” in which neighborhood amenities and essential services are located within a 20-minute walk or bicycle ride from home. As in many cities, existing neighborhoods are often named for, and physically surround, the nearby elementary, middle, or high school.
Create Strong Partnerships and Clarify the Roles and Relationships Between the City and the School Districts
Public Schools Background Report Page 7 of 51 The Portland Plan
New agreements between the City and school districts should be developed, defining spheres of responsibility, interests, working relationships, facilities planning, school use, and property disposition. The City should work with school districts and create community facilities plans that incorporate transportation networks, changing demographics, other public infrastructure, and the need for schools to serve as multi-use community facilities. Housing policy, transportation improvements, and land use regulations should reflect the vital role that schools play in the community, in order to make smart investments for the future.
Page 8 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
SCHOOLS NOT COVERED IN THIS REPORT Schools not covered in this report include private and parochial schools, colleges, universities, trade schools, and other educational institutions. Many of these institutions provide services and offerings to the community at large. The Portland Community College (PCC) system has two full-sized campuses (Cascade and Sylvania) and three other training centers within the city. Many local colleges and universities are also feature programs and mission statements with direct ties to the Portland community. The motto of Portland State University, “Let Knowledge Serve the City”, inspires the teaching and research of an accomplished faculty whose work and students span the globe. In February of 2009 Concordia University was named to the U.S. President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll for exemplary service efforts and service to America’s communities. On average, Concordia University faculty, staff, and students contribute more than 223,000 hours of practicum, internship, and service learning hours per year serving over 10,000 community members, 5,000 of which are youth. Similarly, many private and parochial schools have active community outreach and volunteer programs, supporting a variety of community improvement efforts. SUMMARY OF MAJOR TRENDS
This section summarizes major demographic, economic, institutional and social trends that affect Portland’s public school system. Issues regarding distribution of poverty, racial and ethnic diversity, and recent activity with regards to school closures, consolidations and facilities planning are also explored. Finally, various other local efforts, trends, and issues are explored. GRADUATON RATES High school graduation rates in the state and in most Portland high schools are improving. Graduation rates at Portland Public Schools improved by three percent between 2007 and 2008. However, we still have a long way to go to raise the graduation rate and make sure all students graduate on time.
Graduation Rates at Portland School Districts 2007-2009 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 Although the graduation rate at Portland PPS 65.6% 68.5% 67% Public Schools is on the rise, the graduation Parkrose 84.2% 79.8% 82% rate for African American, Native American David 72.1% 77.1% 74.6% and Hispanic students is still not equal to that Douglas of Asian American or white students. Centennial 73.7% 79.3% 76.6% Schools, community members and local Riverdale 100% 100% 100% governments need to work together to close Reynolds 72.8% 73% 72.9% the educational achievement gap. Closing the achievement gap needs to start early. Portland Public Schools recently set benchmarks for student achievement starting at the first grade. By the first grade, students should be ready to read and by the third grade, they should be reading to learn. By middle school, students should write well and understand algebra. By the end of high school, students should be ready for work and college. POPULATION GROWTH AND ENROLLMENT PATTERNS Between 1990 and 2000, the population in the Portland metropolitan area grew by 27%, Multnomah County’s grew by 13% and the City of Portland’s by 21%. Population growth within the Portland Public School District (PPS) was 6.6%. More than half of the City of Portland’s growth in the 1990s was due to the expansion of its
Public Schools Background Report Page 9 of 51 The Portland Plan boundaries, as the city added over 47,000 residents in formerly unincorporated areas. A large proportion of the city’s expansion occurred on the eastern edge of the city, bringing parts of “Mid-County” school districts, including the Parkrose, Centennial and Reynolds districts into Portland’s incorporated area. Growth rates have been lower in the 2000s than in the 1990s for both the region and the City. Portland’s boundaries have been relatively unchanged since 2000, and its population has grown at a rate of about one percent annually. (PSU Population Research Center, PPS Enrollment Forecasts, p. 7)
Growth in total population is just Portland School Districts, Schools & Enrollment (Spring 2008) one measure of the likelihood of school enrollment growth. District Elem. Mid. K-7/K-8 HS Other Total Enrollment Demographic trends such as Centennial 7 1 0 1 3 12 6,558 population by age group, birth David Douglas 10 3 0 1 1 15 10,111 rates, and housing and household Parkrose 4 1 0 1 0 6 3,530 characteristics affect the Portland 33 12 27 12 2 86 46,375 relationship between population Reynolds 14 3 0 2 0 19 11,078 change and school enrollment Riverdale 0 0 1 1 0 2 543 growth. For example, a declining Total 68 20 28 18 6 140 78,195 proportion of households with children and diminishing household Source: Multnomah Education Service District, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008. Note: Figures refer to entire school districts, not just the portions within size can be correlated with Portland. reduction in school enrollment over time.
Projections for a 30-year period, 2005-2035 indicate the number of households in Portland will likely increase at rates of 1.2 percent to 1.6 percent per year. However, household size is projected to shrink both regionally and citywide, and the share of households with children is slated to decline in the next 30 years. (Source: Portland Plan, Demand Analysis)
Neighborhoods with high percentages of children ages 0-17 are scattered throughout the city but are mainly concentrated in North, Northeast, and East Portland. Examples include North Portland’s Portsmouth neighborhood, with 33% of residents 17 years old and younger; Northeast’s Vernon and King neighborhoods (29%), Southwest Portland’s Arnold Creek neighborhood (30%), and East Portland’s Centennial (28%) and Powellhurst-Gilbert neighborhoods (29%). Neighborhoods with the lowest concentrations of children in 2000 are generally located in the Central City and include Old Town/Chinatown (2.3%), Downtown (2.6%), and the Pearl (5.3%). In Northwest and Corbett/Terwilliger/Lair Hill the concentration of children age 17 or younger account for approximately 7% of residents. (SFH Children in Neighborhoods, 2000 data). In addition, a general increase in families with children is evident in areas east of 82nd Avenue, with corresponding growth in school district enrollment in those areas. Enrollment dynamics differ across Portland school districts. Between 1997 and 2006, Portland Public School district enrollment declined by 18%, while enrollment in Centennial, Reynolds and David Douglas grew by 11%, 19%, and 26% respectively, with Parkrose enrollment remaining relatively
Page 10 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan stable. During this time the Riverdale School District at the southwest corner of the City of Portland grew by about 26%, however, this growth is likely attributable to the new high school which opened in 1996 in temporary locations and then in 2002 in its current site.
The scale of declining enrollment in PPS in relation to the enrollment in the other districts is notable—the loss of 11,000 students over a decade is larger than the total enrollment of any of the others. This decline translated into a loss of over $60 million annually in state funding, leading to school consolidations and closings, deferred maintenance, curtailment of curriculum offerings, services and difficult choices. There are signs that the long pattern of declining enrollment for PPS may be ending as the last two school years have seen enrollment stabilize and even rise slightly as indicated in the table below.
PtmPS Enrollmen Change Fro 2006-2010 School Year Total PPS # Change From % Change Fom Enrollment Previous Year Previous Year 2006-2007 46,348 -660 -1.4 In the east districts, growing enrollment 2007-2008 46,088 -260 -0.6 over the past decade has prompted the need for new and expanded facilities. 2008-2009 46,852 764 1.7 Parkrose’s new high school opened in 2009-2010 47,704 852 1.8 1997, but continued enrollment growth Source: PPS Data & Policy, Management Information Systems, http://www.mis.pps.k12.or.us/.docs/pg/10309 and OPB News, “Higher Enrollment Could Mean More Money For Portland Schools”, October 12, 2009) has necessitated the conversion of some space intended to community service uses to educational space. Bond measures in 2000 in Centennial and David Douglas school districts funded construction of Butler Creek Elementary School and Ron Russell Middle School and other improvements. But facilities have been saturated, and voters did not approve bond measures for facility expansions in 2006 (Source: Schools, Families, Housing summary report dated December 14, 2007).
Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept provides a broad blueprint for the future growth of the metropolitan region. Portland’s Central City and specified Regional Centers, Town Centers and Station Communities are the focus of land use, housing and economic development policies and investments intended to encourage new development and greater density. Over time, these areas will likely experience population growth which could generally be assumed to lead to increased school enrollments. In East Portland, The
Public Schools Background Report Page 11 of 51 The Portland Plan
Gateway Regional Center (the only FORECASTED DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH Regional Center within Portland’s CHILDREN (K-12): 203 5 boundary) lies primarily within the David Douglas school district, with a portion Geography Low Grow th High Growth within the Parkrose district. The Lents 87,600 93,900 Town Center is on the eastern edge of the City of Portland 25% of total 25% of total Portland Public Schools district, with a Growth (#) 20,800 27,100 significant portion in the David Douglas school district. The Hollywood Town Percent Growth (%) 31% 41% Center on the eastside, as well as the Metro Suba reas Hillsdale and West Portland Town Centers Portland Central 5,300 6,100 on the westside, are all within the Portland City (11) 11% of subarea 12% of subarea Public School District. Station Communities (some of which are expected to experience Growth (#) 3,700 4,500 growth on par with that expected in the Percent Growth (%) 231% 281% Centers) are located along the MAX light 14,600 15,000 rail lines. The Yellow (N. Interstate) line NE Portland (12) 27% of subarea 28% of subarea stations are all within PPS, as are those along the east-west running portions of the Growth (#) 1,800 2,200 Green, Red and Blue lines as far as the Percent Growth (%) 14% 17% Gateway Transit Center. The stretch of the 19,900 20,400 new Green line running from Gateway to SE Portland (15) 25% of subarea 25% of subarea Clackamas Town Center (which is south of Growth (#) 2,500 3,000 the City limits) has a string of newly designated Station Communities that lie Percent Growth (%) 14% 17% along the boundary between the Portland 25,000 27,800 Public School district to the west and David W Portland (16) 33% of subarea 34% of subarea Douglas to the east. The stretch of the Blue Growth (#) 7,300 10,100 line continuing from Gateway to Gresham has Station Communities in the David Percent Growth (%) 41% 57% Douglas and Reynolds districts and 6,900 7,400 partially within the Centennial District. The N Portland (17) 22% of subarea 21% of subarea Station Communities associated with the Growth (#) 1,600 2,100 potential future extension of the Yellow line to Milwaukie would lie within the Portland Percent Growth (%) 30% 40% Public Schools district. 15,900 17,200 E Portland (14) 26% of subarea 25% of subarea PROJECTING FUTURE GROWTH AND Growth (#) 3,900 5,200 ENROLLMENT Percent Growth (%) 33% 43% Bureau of Planning and Sustainability PPS (11, 12, 15, 71,700 76,700 growth projections indicate that the number 16, 17) 21% of total City 20% of total City of households in Portland will likely fall Growth (#) 16,900 21,900 between 344,800 – 376,300 by the year Percent Growth (%) 31% 40% 2035. The base estimates (2005) put the number of existing households at 243,400. At the lower end of the forecast, this translates to a percentage growth of about 42% in the 30 year time frame. If this growth is spread evenly on an annual basis, it means that the City will see an annual percent rate change of 1.2%, slightly below the Portland Metro area. At the higher end, the annual percentage rate change would be at 1.6%. The net increase in number of households is projected to range between 117,600 – 133,000 households. The Portland Central City is expected to grow nearly 277% in the projected time frame with the number of households expected to range between 46,200- 52,500. In terms of “percent growth” this subarea is slated for the highest growth rate, with all other subareas expected to experience growth rates below 50%.
Page 12 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
Growth trends for households with children will more directly influence future school enrollment. Overall, the number of households with children is forecasted to increase in the city by 20,800 to 27,100 by 2035, representing growth rates of 31% to 41%. This growth is not expected to be evenly distributed across the city. The table at left and corresponding map on the following page show forecasted growth of households with children for the city as a whole and for Metro-designated subareas. While the Central City is expected to have the highest percent growth (231% - 281%), the growth in absolute numbers of households with children is expected to be greatest in the West Portland subarea (7,300 - 10,100) in the Portland Public Schools District and the East Portland subarea (15,900 - 17,200) covering the David Douglas district and parts of the Parkrose, Reynolds, and Centennial districts. These projections reflect trends in housing development, with housing units in East and West Portland tending to be larger and with more bedrooms, often the preferred housing choice for families with children. The forecasted growth for the combined subareas that cover the Portland Public Schools District indicates an increase of 16,900 – 21,900 households with children by 2035.
Although Central City households are less likely to have children than households in other areas, the growth in the number of households with children (3,700 – 4,500) may indicate the need for additional school facilities in Central Portland within the time horizon of the Portland Plan.
Although the forecasted population growth in absolute terms may be expected to increase enrollment in Portland school districts, household size is projected to continue declining, reflecting proportionally fewer households with school-age children. This suggests that Portland school districts, overall, will experience only moderate growth, with the East Portland districts likely to see higher enrollment growth rates than the Portland Public School District, based on current trends. However, enrollment growth of districts and individual schools within districts is subject to many factors that can change over time, including changes in school attendance area boundaries, changes in school-choice policies, and land use planning, housing and economic development policies.
Public Schools Background Report Page 13 of 51 The Portland Plan
DISTRIBUTION OF POVERTY The percentage of children living in poverty in Portland is lower than the national average, however those numbers are increasing more rapidly than in other major cities. In 1999-2000, 16.6% of Portland children lived in poverty. By 2004-2005, almost one in four was living in poverty. The Percentage of Students Qualifying for Free number of poor children in Portland’s school districts (measured by & Reduced-priced Lunch, qualification for the free or reduced-price lunch program) has increased 1999-2000 to 2008-2009 from less than half of the population in the 1999-2000 to the majority of Public School 99-00 04-05 08-09 students in four of the five districts in 2004-2005. In 2006-2007, the Districts schools with the highest student participation rates were in North Centennial 28% 67% 56% David Douglas 47% 69% 73% Portland, with participation rates in the 85-95% range, followed by Parkrose 47% 60% 69% selected schools in Northeast Portland and East Portland, with rates of PPS 38% 45% 43% approximately 84-87%. The lowest participation rates were in selected Reynolds 47% 56% 67% Northwest-area schools, with rates under 5%, followed by Southwest and Southeast schools, with rates from 5-14%. (Schools, Family Housing 2000 data).
The increases in poverty among the eastside districts are due to many factors, but much of the increase may be attributable to rising housing costs nearer the city core. East Portland’s generally more affordable housing supply attracts lower income families, including recent immigrants, who historically would have been more likely to locate in inner-city “stop-over neighborhoods,” such as Buckman and Eliot, which have become markedly more expensive in recent years. In addition, there has been some displacement and relocation of lower income families from inner neighborhoods:
“As property values have risen in inner neighborhoods of Portland, many families with children have been priced out of parts of the city served by PPS and are moving farther east into areas served by the city’s other school districts.” (Portland Schools Foundation/New Growth in Stumptown: Young Portlanders Face Twenty-First Century Challenges, Spring 2007). Hunger, inadequate health care, and unstable housing are among the many challenges facing poor students, all of which affect school performance.
Page 14 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
RACIAL, ETHNIC AND LANGUAGE DIVERSITY There is a broad trend of increased diversity among the tri-county school districts. The percentage of students identified as white has dropped significantly in all districts from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009. In David Douglas, Reynolds, and Riverdale, for example, the drop was approximately 26% with the greatest decrease in Parkrose with 29%. Portland’s school districts now include high percentages of students of color. The number of Hispanic students is rising quickly, for example, now representing one in three students in Reynolds. Overall figures show that students of color make up 32% to 58% of each district’s enrollment. (Oregon Department of Education).
Racial Composition of Portland School Districts White African-American Hispanic Asian/Pac. Island. Native American Public School District 99-00 04-05 08-09 99-00 04-05 08-09 99-00 04-05 08-09 99-00 04-05 08-09 99-00 04-05 08-09 Centennial 83% 71% 59% 3% 5% 5% 6% 12% 19% 7% 12% 12% 1% 1% 1% David Douglas 78% 64% 52% 3% 8% 10% 7% 14% 20% 10% 11% 14% 1% 1% 2% Parkrose 71% 55% 42% 7% 11% 13% 7% 13% 20% 13% 18% 19% 1% 2% 2% PPS 64% 58% 55% 16% 16% 15% 8% 13% 13% 9% 10% 10% 2% 2% 2% Reynolds 75% 59% 49% 4% 6% 7% 15% 25% 33% 5% 7% 8% 1% 1% 1% Riverdale 94% 73% 68% 2% 3% 3% 2% 14% 17% 3% 4% 5% 0% 2% 2% Source: Oregon Education Department
Public Schools Background Report Page 15 of 51 The Portland Plan
Overall, all of the school districts are serving more students for whom English is not a first language. In 2008, Portland Public Schools reported that its students speak 111 languages. The number of English as a second language (ESL) students in the eastside districts is growing rapidly, along with the need for teachers and other personnel.
Schools with the highest rates of English language learner (ELL) students to total school population are generally concentrated in neighborhoods and districts east of 82nd Avenue. Participation rates in selected Reynolds and Centennial schools were high, ranging from 33% to 67%. The lowest ELL rates were in selected Portland Public Schools, with participation rates under one percent and were concentrated in neighborhoods closer to the Downtown core and in neighborhoods that are generally more affluent, as measured by census tract poverty rates in 2000.
Page 16 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
SCHOOL CLOSURES, CONSOLIDATION AND PROGRAM CHANGES During the period from 2002 to 2007, there was a wide pattern of school consolidation and closures in PPS. This shift primarily resulted from the district’s move in 2006 to create nineteen K-8 schools and close four schools in an effort to narrow the achievement gap and to cut facility and maintenance costs due to budget cuts and declining enrollments. Additional school closures that have occurred correlate with general declining enrollments in the district, which experienced a change of -13.6% from the 2001- 2002 to 2006-2007 school years. The shrinking enrollments translate to less funding due to the school funding formula, which is based on the number of attending students, making it difficult to maintain facilities. Conversely, during this same period in the district, Rosa Parks Elementary School was an addition for North Portland and new alternative and charter schools were opened, some at closed school buildings, largely within North and Northeast areas.
School and program closures in PPS have been relatively evenly distributed geographically in the district, while the schools transitioning to K-8 tend to be located in North and Northeast Portland. It is not yet determined what demographic shifts are responsible for the enrollment changes; however the concentration of K-8 schools has been the topic of much discussion including allegations of inequitable distribution of the consolidations and corresponding closures. Additional equity assertions have been made over the disparities of resources and programs offered between the new K-8 transition schools and existing middle schools. The District’s open transfer policy implemented in 2003 has been identified as a possible contributor to the enrollment fluctuations among school sites within PPS. The program allows a limited number of students to transfer outside their neighborhood to schools that offer programs of interest or specialty reducing the enrollment and thus funding of the departing school.
A few new schools were opened in East Portland between 2002 and 2007 including the Fir Ridge Campus High School and Ron Russell Middle School both serving the David Douglas School District. Earl Boyles Elementary, originally closed in the 1980s, was re-opened in 2002 with the construction of a gym and eight additional classrooms and houses the district’s secondary level alternative school. These new facilities correlate with the expanding enrollment experienced during these years in the other districts that serve the Portland area east of 82nd Avenue.
There is a proposal to move high schools in the PPS system toward a new model that includes three types of schools: community high schools based in neighborhoods, magnet schools open to all students exploring different educational approaches, and alternative and charter school options. If and when these new school models are implemented, further shifts in school facilities would be expected.
Public Schools Background Report Page 17 of 51 The Portland Plan
SCHOOL FACILITIES PLANNING Portland Public Schools
Portland Public School District By Building Type Elementary Middle K-7/K-8 High School Other 33 12 27 12 2 Source: MESD, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008
Portland Public Schools began the 21st Century Schools Project in May 2007. This ambitious school facilities planning and modernization effort is expected to take as many as 20 years to complete. It started with a question the district posed to Portlanders: Should PPS patch and repair its buildings, or build schools that equip students for 21st century learning? Overwhelmingly, community members chose renovating or rebuilding as the best options.
But what exactly is a 21st century school?
When educators talk about 21st century schools, they typically mean schools that are better able to meet the needs of today’s students because they are: Centers of community: Adaptable school design allows buildings to share space with partner organizations, which benefits communities and saves money.
Page 18 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
Innovative and flexible: Traditional, one-room classrooms may suit some students and subjects, but not others; schools can be designed with “breakout spaces” to allow teachers to use a greater variety of instructional techniques and supportive technology. Sustainable: Buildings that adhere to green principles have a reduced impact on the planet, are more cost-effective to operate and, may even increase student performance.
The 21st Century Schools Project will address these nuts-and-bolts problems. The board intends to seek a capital bond to fund both immediate needs and the evolving, long-term effort. In July 2009, board members approved a resolution allowing PPS to reimburse itself from potential future bond funds for any money that might be spent now on eligible capital projects. If no bond is passed, these expenses would have to come from general funds.
The next move in this two-track strategy – considering vital renovations as well as a complete overhaul of facilities occurs in Fall 2009, where the public is invited to provide input on criteria prioritizing major facilities improvements. The list of proposed criteria includes building condition, geographic location and program requirements.
In other words, we know that the condition of a school building is not the only factor that will determine how quickly it is rebuilt or renovated. For example, decisions about the order of school improvements may need to take into account whether there are temporary spaces available for students during the rebuilding process.
Meanwhile, work continues on defining the 21st century PPS school. PPS facilities experts have already examined a new high school in Sisters, OR. This fall, board members and PPS staff will visit other up-to-date schools in our area. The list includes Stadium High School in Tacoma, Wash., a recently renovated historic high school that could provide a lesson on how a landmark building can be renovated to provide a 21st century learning environment for today’s students.
A 2007-08 consultant assessment (Magellan) of PPS school building conditions provided a wealth of information. It confirmed that: PPS buildings are more than 20 years older than most comparable school districts. Many buildings are at or near the end of their useful life. Most major building systems require replacement. It is not cost effective to tackle one building system at a time. PPS needs to completely rebuild and modernize its school buildings.
Specific considerations regarding the state of PPS facilities include the following (“What is the condition of PPS school facilities” Powerpoint, 2/27/08): Benson High School and Woodstock and Duniway Elementary Schools have Portland City Landmark status, which requires that repairs reflect their historic nature; Only four vacant buildings are available for temporary ‘swing space’ during phased upgrades; 69 acres of roofs (about 73 football fields) on PPS schools require major ongoing repairs and replacement to prevent leaks, totaling $48.9 million; 78 of 89 operational schools are not consistently warm because of heating system failure. These problems impact 36,673 students in more than 76% of the school space; PPS schools need an additional 12,374 outlets to support 21st Century curriculum and equipment, an average of 120 per school. Also needed are almost 1,000 new circuits to support technology demands; 22,134 windows need replacement in PPS schools, totaling more than $52.1 million;
Public Schools Background Report Page 19 of 51 The Portland Plan
19,248 PPS students (42%) across 46 campuses must play in the rain or stay indoors during wet weather; 8th grade science labs (MS and K-8) are inadequate making delivery of a complete 21st century science curriculum very difficult. Schools are missing: student work stations, storage, electrical outlets, sufficient water supply; 6.3 million square feet of flooring needs replacement in PPS schools, totaling $66.4 million; 57 portables (93,355 square feet) are not really portable. The average age is 44 years old with $11 million in needed repairs; For nearly a decade, Portland Public Schools experienced a dramatic period of declining revenue. As fewer dollars became available, facility renovation took a back seat to attempts to keep schools appropriately staffed. In addition, most of the district’s schools were designed for a bygone era, and their physical configuration is not well suited to teaching and learning in the 21st century; Recently, the district entered a period of fragile financial stability. Recognizing the need to examine both PPS programs and the buildings needed for a 21st century education, the Portland School Board has engaged in a process to understand both community expectations and facility conditions; and Short-term stabilization projects (vs. 21st century renovation and rebuilding) will cost $272 million.
The enrollment peak in the district followed roughly the kindergarten classes of 1957 - 1959, graduating in 1970 - 1972. During that time, despite a wave of building, schools were crowded, with "portables" installed at many sites. (Some schools had their own peaks earlier, before some of that building took place.) Many of the new buildings were small K-5 schools, with grades 6-8 kept at the larger, older schools, partly because of the expense of building Shop (Industrial Arts) and Home Economics facilities, but also partly because there was a growing recognition that middle school aged students needed more than a self-contained classroom could provide. The district has not really been organized around K-8 schools since the mid '50s, but, until the eighties, programs for grades 6-8 were based on self-contained classrooms with some pullouts and team teaching. This was before special education mandates, before there were libraries in any but high schools, before computer labs and before classes for English Language Learners.
David Douglas
David Douglas School District By Building Type Elementary Middle K-7/K-8 High School Other 10 3 0 1 1 Source: MESD, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008
“During 2008-09, six classrooms were added to Floyd Light and eight classrooms to Ron Russell. Those additions helped reduce the crowding in those schools. North Powellhurst was designated as a Kindergarten center and nine classrooms were moved from crowded elementary schools to North Powellhurst. Palermini Stadium was revamped with all weather turf and an eight lane track. Renovations are in progress there for a concession stand, restrooms, and storage. A remodeled entrance will allow more accessibility. The main purpose of the all weather turf was to allow year round use of the facility by high school physical education classes and student athletes. Maintenance of our facilities is important to having safe, attractive learning environments for children and protecting the public’s investment. While basic repair and maintenance projects will continue, there are no significant capital improvement projects included in this budget.”
“Facilities continue to be at the forefront of need as enrollment climbs. The authorization for using River District Urban Renewal funds to build an elementary school/community center on Deardorff is on hold until the legal issues are resolved. The facilities and enrollment task force, a group of community members and staff, met through this year to review options and make recommendations. Their report was excellent, but the majority of the recommendations require funding that is just not available at this time.” (Adopted 2009-2010 David Douglas School District Budget, pp. IV-V, retrieved online 10/15/09 at: http://www.ddouglas.k12.or.us/files/Approved%20Budget%2009-10.pdf).
Page 20 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
Reynolds
Reynolds School District By Building Type Elementary Middle K-7/K-8 High School Other 14 3 0 2 0 Source: MESD, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008
In the approved 2009-2010 Budget, the Reynolds School District provides $715,500 for maintenance projects, but no specific facilities acquisition or construction projects were identified. Due to the budgetary situation being felt across the state, the District has received suggestions that they consider selling an Edgefield property to help provide additional funding and debt service. (Adopted 2009-2010 Reynolds Reynolds School District Adopted Budget, retrieved online 10/16/09 at: http://www.reynolds.k12.or.us/assets/files/business/budget/current/AdoptedBudget.pdf).
Parkrose
Parkrose School District By Building Type Elementary Middle K-7/K-8 High School Other 41010 Source: MESD, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008
The Parkrose High School Community Center was constructed in 1997. All district buildings and facilities, however, have ongoing energy efficiency improvement projects identified. In 2009, Superintendent Karen Fischer Gray stated “we are going to maintain our investment in our facilities, grounds, buildings, technology and infrastructure. We will be looking to pass a Capital Projects Bond in 2011 to modernize our school buildings to fit a 21st Century education and learning model. We will be asking for help to continue developing a bright future for the Parkrose School District” (Excerpt from Superintendent’s 2009-2010 Budget Message, retrieved online 10/16/09 at: http://do.parkrose.k12.or.us/Departments/Business-Services/budget.php).
Centennial
Centennial School District By Building Type Elementary Middle K-7/K-8 High School Other 71013 Source: MESD, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008
To meet the needs of the growth, the district completed a new elementary school and major renovation of Centennial High School in 2003. The Centennial Long Range Planning Committee produced a report for the School Board, whose recommendations included the following (Centennial Long Range Facilities Planning Committee Final Report, May 25, 2005, retrieved online 10/16/09 at: http://www.centennial.k12.or.us/admin/bs/facilities/facilitiesreportfinal.pdf): The #1 priority is the construction of a second middle school; Near-term considerations include the new middle school, re-configuration of two middle schools into grade 6-8 facilities, obtain land for a site large enough to hold both a middle and elementary school, construct a new alternative school for 200 students, engage professional services to address and prioritize maintenance needs district-wide, and develop a priority list and plans for athletic facility needs; and Within the next 10-20 years, the district will need two elementary schools in the Pleasant Valley area, one elementary school in the Damascus/Boring area, and one high school in the Damascus/Boring area.
Public Schools Background Report Page 21 of 51 The Portland Plan
Riverdale
Riverdale School District By Building Type Elementary Middle K-7/K-8 High School Other 001 1 0 Source: MESD, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008
Riverdale High School opened in September 1996 for grades 9-12 and spent the first six years in temporary locations (the first year in Portland and next five years at Marylhurst University in Lake Oswego). The high school is now in its permanent location at 9727 SW Terwilliger Boulevard in Portland, just two miles from the Riverdale Grade School. The building was dedicated with a grand opening celebration on September 3, 2002. The Riverdale Community approved a major bond measure in November 2008 to replace the aging Grade School facility. Construction on a new state-of-the-art Grade School began in the summer of 2009 and is expected to be complete for the start of the school year 2010-2011. (Information on school facilities retrieved from Riverdale School District site on 10/16/09 at: http://www.riverdale.k12.or.us/152710629113821587/site/default.asp). SCHOOLS AS MULTI-USE COMMUNITY FACILITIES Portland schools are increasingly becoming multi-use facilities, providing children, families, surrounding neighborhoods and a diversity of other groups and citizens with physical spaces, programs and services that go beyond the traditional educational curriculum. For instance, the Portland Public School district reports that its 89 campuses and 254 permanent buildings hosted 610 different non-school users in 2008-2009, including neighborhood associations, health providers, recreational programs and numerous others.
This move to a more comprehensive role for school facilities is exemplified by the Schools Uniting Neighborhoods program (SUN). SUN is a partnership between the City of Portland, Multnomah County, and local school districts that seeks to ensure the educational success of students by combining social and health services, after school enrichment and recreational opportunities aligned with the school curriculum, and programs for families and adults in their neighborhoods. SUN creates schools that are anchors for their neighborhoods by providing public services, resources, and programming for students and their families. Currently there are 54 SUN Community Schools in the Portland Public Schools, Centennial, David Douglas, Reynolds, Parkrose and Gresham-Barlow districts.
Two recently constructed Portland schools are noteworthy for physical designs that were explicitly tailored to facilitate multi-use and community-centered operation. The Parkrose High School and Community Center, completed in 1997, was designed with space and features to accommodate shared and community uses, such a Multnomah County Health Clinic, a Multnomah County Library branch, Portland Parks and Recreation programs and multi-purpose spaces. Rosa Parks School in Portsmouth is Portland Public Schools newest elementary school, one of only two new schools built by the district in the past three decades. The district joined forces with the Housing Authority of Portland (HAP), the Boys & Girls Club of Portland and the City of Portland’s University Park Community Center to create a two-acre educational campus. The Community Campus at New Columbia is situated in the recently redeveloped New Columbia mixed-income housing project. The LEED Gold-certified Rosa Parks School is the centerpiece of the Community Campus. Its multiple award winning design includes art, music, computer and food service spaces shared with the Boys & Girls Club, family resource rooms and an information center. The school has been praised by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Arne Duncan, as an example of how innovative designs can allow schools to be centers for their surrounding communities.
In 2008, a group of interested community members worked with Portland Public Schools and other advisors to create ‘A Vision for 21st Century Schools’, focusing on the rebuilding or modernization of the Lincoln High School site in downtown Portland (http://lincoln.pps.k12.or.us/ltdc). Organized as the Lincoln High School Long Term Development Committee (LTDC), the group looked closely at the current issues facing the Lincoln Campus, and proposed a series of potential future alternatives that highlight the idea of schools as multi-use centers, with a detailed site-specific discussion of alternatives. The study points out that school facility upgrades could be potentially accomplished through leveraging of private redevelopment opportunities and partnerships with other institutions and non-profit organizations. Acknowledging the challenges of funding, overcrowding, an outdated
Page 22 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan physical plant, and the impacts on educational opportunity, the report also explores the issues of leveraging private resources and potential impacts on what is already a relatively small high school campus. Recommending traditional funding from school bonds to create a ‘21st century school with synergistic partners’, as the preferred approach, the report raises important questions about using private development money as a way to finance new or renovated schools.
The ‘schools as multi-use center’ idea is often somewhat in conflict with the current regulatory structure of the Zoning Code. With some exceptions for daycare and other community uses, the Zoning Code is built around the idea of schools being single-use centers, with an assumption that community facilities have detrimental impacts on the community that must be carefully regulated (traffic, noise, litter, etc.). As schools increasingly integrate other community uses, more tension develops between these activities and zoning procedures.
While there is a clear boundary between decisions that City government has jurisdiction over and decisions within school districts’ purview, it is vital that City government has a voice at the table for school district discussions concerning the future of major school facilities (including discussions about campus redevelopment or expansion, closure, or major reconfiguration) because of the interplay between these decisions and community vitality and prosperity. Similarly, school districts have expressed a desire to be integrally involved in planning discussions about Portland’s future. Avenues for improved collaboration and coordination between the City and its school districts are being actively pursued.
In 2008, the City received several dozen zoning violation complaints relating to conditional use regulations, including changes in grade level, enrollment changes, and recreational field use and sports activities. The Schools and Parks Conditional Use Code Refinement issue, going to Planning Commission in Fall 2009 and Winter 2010, is attempting to clarify current procedures. General issues regarding the appropriateness of the conditional use process as the mechanism for regulating schools and parks will be forwarded to a larger city policy discussion during the Portland Plan process. Discussions are underway with PPS and Portland’s Parks and Recreation on the topic area of recreational field uses with recommendations to the Planning Commission anticipated in January.
Many ideas, such as a new zone(s) for schools and parks, good neighbor agreements, and interagency agreements have already been identified and are worthy of consideration. These ideas hold promise for an approach that balances the needs of the community in using public resources with impacts on adjacent properties, and may be less cumbersome and more focused than a conditional use allows.
Public Schools Background Report Page 23 of 51 The Portland Plan
SCHOOL FUNDING AND FISCAL CHALLENGES
Portland’s public schools have experienced significant financial challenges over the years. The fiscal instability is primarily attributable to the change in the state funding model that relies on State income taxes. Additional monetary losses have resulted from declining enrollments compounded with the recession in the early 2000s and the current recession.
At the State level, funding is appropriated by the Legislature from two main sources: income taxes through the General Fund and lottery receipts. This money makes up the State School Fund (SSF), which is allocated to school districts in two-year funding cycles. The formula for distributing school funding was devised in 1991 following the passage of Ballot Measure 5, with the goal of fairly distributing state dollars to school districts. Prior to this, per-student funding had been disparate, as some districts had more funding due to a higher property tax rate, a higher value tax base or sometimes both. A per-student School District Budgets 2009-2010 funding target was calculated; those districts spending more than (General Fund Expenditures) the target were frozen at their existing funding levels, and lower spending districts were gradually brought up to the target level. This equitable funding was phased-in to give districts time to adjust. The Portland Public School District $407,700,000 result was that some districts received a boost in funding, while others, such as Portland, saw their revenue decline, when adjusted David Douglas School District $102,276,000 for inflation. (Funding K-12 Schools,” Jan McComb, Background Brief, Legislative Committee Services, State of Oregon, May 2004 ). Reynolds School District $86,120,000 Volume 2, Issue 1
The 2007 Legislature appropriated $260 million to the School Parkrose School District $31,912,834 Improvement Fund from the General Fund. This is the first use of the fund since 2001-02 (funding is not available all years due to Centennial School District $56,084,961 budget constraints). Also new for 2007-09 is the inclusion of Education Service Districts (ESDs) to receive a share of the fund (SB 318). In Portland, the Multnomah Education Service District Riverdale School District $7,539,996 provides a variety of services, programs, and other functions for all six districts with schools in the City of Portland.
At the local level, school districts receive revenue from various sources. Property taxes are the primary source. Other sources include federal forest payments, county school funds, the state Common School Fund and other direct and indirect support from local governments. Local revenues are included in the distribution formula used to allocate the State School Fund (SSF).
There is also a “local option” for funding. The 1999 Legislature granted school districts the ability to ask local voters to levy an additional tax on themselves. Known as the “local option,” the tax may be a fixed-dollar amount or a rate-based levy. However, the maximum amount of the tax raised is limited, in order to maintain funding equalization among districts. The 2007 Legislature increased the amount of local option property taxes that can be raised by districts with voter approval without reducing school formula revenue. This funding mechanism and other means for local jurisdictions and organizations to support schools in Portland are discussed in the following section.
The current school finance system is the result of major changes resulting from two constitutional property tax measures, Ballot Measure 5 (1990) and Ballot Measure 50 (1997). These two measures capped property taxes and placed the responsibility on the state for making up the difference. State revenue from income taxes replaced reduced local revenue because of these property tax limitations. The state’s share increased from about 30% before Measure 5 to about 70% after Measure 50 (“Funding K-12 Schools,” Jan McComb, Background Brief, Legislative Committee Services, State of Oregon, May 2004 Volume 2, Issue 1).
With a school funding formula that distributes money to districts based on the number of enrolled students, fiscal challenges related to enrollment shifts in Portland School Districts have occurred. For example, with declining
Page 24 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan enrollment, Portland Public Schools is receiving less operating revenue. While PPS anticipated and planned for a decrease in enrollment the recession in the early 2000s and the current recession have compounded their planning efforts as they have had to divert reserves and facilities funds to fill holes in their operating budgets as well as make cuts in curriculum offerings, defer maintenance on aging buildings and even close some underpopulated schools. In contrast, eastside school districts have increasing enrollment and are receiving more state funds, but lack the capital (tax base) to fund new facilities (PDX Schools Foundation, New Growth in Stumptown).
The result of Oregon’s current school financing system is evident in how the state compares nationally in funding its schools. Oregon is ranked in the 40’s out of all 50 states when it comes to adequate school funding. CITY OF PORTLAND AND LOCAL INVESTMENT IN SCHOOLS Portland has a long history of providing recreation and enrichment opportunities for youth and families in association and collaboration with public schools. It started in 1911 with a partnership between the Portland Parks Bureau and the Portland Public School District to run a summer playground program. Coordination of school and City recreation programs and spaces has continued to the present, while City, County and other local investment and support of schools has expanded into many other areas.
In addition to funding such small items as safety officers and lawn mowing, the City of Portland has previously provided direct operational funding to school districts. The City has also initiated several programs with indirect benefits to schools. Funding is being provided for affordable housing near elementary schools to help maintain enrollment. The Bureau of Transportation has initiated numerous projects and capital improvement investments that address school access, mobility and safety issues. In order to bring attention to and address issues related to youth, a Youth Planner program has been created in the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.
The City is working to bring awareness to the community that Portland Public Schools is not the only district in the city limits and that other districts should be included in all discussions and receipt of city services. Together, the City and the community are bringing new attention to the whole spectrum of education, from pre-K to post- secondary, and to how improving public education improves the economic well-being of the city.
The City partners with the local school districts in several capacities. There are joint efforts between the City and school districts to identify and leverage local and state funding and grants for education and schools. The City is also reaching out to create strategic partnerships around facility use and the development of school facilities/school communities. School districts are being included in planning forums to foster conversation on creating these partnerships and moving them forward.
Connected By 25
The City has been involved in “Connected by 25,” an initiative funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Meyer Memorial Trust to increase cooperation among various stakeholders to improve educational outcomes and career development for youth. While the City does not play an active role in the decision making, the mayor and city officials support the efforts through advocacy and collaboration. The initiative seeks to ensure each young Portlander is connected to school, work and community by the age of 25. The education research study generated from this initiative (titled “The Fourth R”, Spring 2007) determined which academic indicators are the best predictors for completing high school and provided corresponding interventions to ensure kids succeed in graduating. The recommendations include providing programs to increase engagement with kids during the summer, targeting support to individual students who test in the lowest scoring groups, and intervention timed in immediate response to 9th grade core course failure. Other recommendations including providing students early and regular information about their accumulated credits and targeting students to make up the missing credits as soon as possible. Regularly performing tracking of student progress against multiple indicators, creating specific orientation and support programs for students arriving after freshman year, and other early interventions to keep kids from withdrawing from school are identified.
Public Schools Background Report Page 25 of 51 The Portland Plan
Education Cabinet
Subsequent to the “Connected by 25” intiative, the City formed the Education Cabinet in early 2009 which brings leaders of school districts, non-profit organizations, public-sector professions and private-sector partners together to focus on long and short-term education strategies. The cabinet is co-chaired by Mayor Adams and Multnomah County chair Ted Wheeler and currently consists of 57 members. The goals of the Cabinet are to collaborate and align the systems with the objective of increasing graduation rates by 50% and doubling access to post-secondary education and training. Recent programs include the Portland/Multnomah Summer Youth Corp which provides summer jobs, recreational activities, college visits and workplace internships for thousands of local youths.
Leader’s Roundtable
Portland is part of a local Leader’s Roundtable that brings together educational institutions and other stakeholders together six times a year to discuss strategies and align activities to improve educational achievement. The Roundtable includes members from the City, business community, school districts, non-profits, and local universities. The City also works closely with business associations and workforce development agencies. In addition to local collaboration, Portland is in the process of partnering with other stakeholders statewide to discuss state legislation that impacts school districts. They are in partnership with organizations like Parent Teachers Association, Stand for Children, and the Oregon School Boards Association.
Education Options
The Educations Options Department of Portland Public Schools has a mission to “provide educational options for all youth that empower, engage, and prepare them for college, work training, and citizenship while serving as a vanguard for systemic educational change”. Alternative education options can either be operated by the district or various private or non-profit organizations. The various options are developed to meet the needs of a specific student population. To meet student’s needs, alternative education options generally offer something different from or in addition to the regular curriculum and may offer something different from regular school hours. Programs include charter schools, school-within-school programs in high schools, night schools and progams located at separate locations. Other community-based options include programs targeting primarily at-risk youth and homeless students, drug and alcohol problems, juvenile justice and other issues. OTHER LOCAL PROGRAMS Children's Investment Fund
In November 2002 Portland voters approved the Children's Levy; six years later in Fall 2008, the City electorate renewed the Levy for another five years. The Levy generates more than $12 million annually through a property tax of $0.4026 per $1,000 assessed valuation, or about $60 a year for a home with an assessed value of $150,000. The Fund generates more than $10 million a year. The Levy is audited annually and administrative expenses cannot exceed more than 5 percent of revenues, ensuring that 95 cents of every dollar is invested in children’s programs. A Leverage Fund has matched $3 million in public investments dollar for dollar with private ones for a total $6.1 million community impact.
After a competitive grant process in Winter/Spring 2009, 69 programs were selected for three-year grants totaling $36 million. These programs improve the lives of 16,000 of Portland's neediest children age birth through 24 and their families each year as provide a range of services, intervention and mentoring programs. Examples include early childhood education and intervention, parenting education, and access to immunizations and health screenings so children enter kindergarten ready to succeed. Offering safe and constructive after-school and mentoring programs promote academic achievement, provide role models, and increase children’s engagement with school. Child abuse prevention and intervention services reach children affected by family violence, parental drug and alcohol abuse, and homelessness. Improving the lives of children in foster care is also key to the effort. At least 50 percent of the children currently participating in the Portland Children's Levy programs live in poverty or extreme poverty with a household income at or below the Federal Poverty Level of $20,000 for a family of four. [From http://www.portlandchildrenslevy.org/]
Page 26 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
Schools Uniting Neighborhoods (SUN)
Portland partners with Multnomah County and six local school districts in a unique collaboration called Schools Uniting Neighborhoods (SUN). The partners align resources to facilitate an integrated system of educational, social and health supports called the SUN Service System. The SUN Coordination Council was established to coordinate the resources and funding as well as provide direction to the program. The Council consists of leaders from numerous disciplines including the Mayor and County Chair. Funding for the program comes from several sources. Annually, the City contributes approximately $4 million, the County $22 million with additional funding from each of the school districts. Supplemental funding in the amount $1,527,796 comes from a grant under the Federal 21st Century Community Learning Center program. This US department of Education program awards formula grants to State educational agencies, which in turn manage statewide competitions and award grants to local educational agencies to carry out a broad array of before- and after-school activities (including those held during summer recess periods) to advance student achievement. SUN Community Schools Initiative, currently in 54 school sites, is the cornerstone of the System. SUN Community Schools serve as service delivery locations for children, youth and families. In addition to school- based and school-linked social and health services, these hubs offer after-school programming which blends recreation with cultural and academic enrichments in order to increase academic achievement and close learning gaps.
Schools, Families, Housing Initiative
Through this initiative, in 2006-2007 the City of Portland worked with Portland’s school districts and other community partners in developing a comprehensive approach to retaining families with school-age children and attracting new families to Portland’s neighborhoods.
During the last decade, families have been leaving inner neighborhoods due to the lack of affordable housing of appropriate size and quality (much of the affordable ownership housing in close-in neighborhoods consists of older 2-bedroom houses with maintenance needs – a survey of families who have left inner neighborhoods cited housing as the primary reason for leaving, with housing size and quality the most frequently indicated reasons for relocating). The loss of families has had profound effects on school enrollment in close-in neighborhoods.
The initiative included the following elements: Financial assistance to first-time homebuyers and renters in school catchments areas identified by Portland Public Schools as areas where enrollment needs to be stabilized. Engagement with local architects and developers in a multi-family rental and condominium design competition to create attractive, family-oriented urban living opportunities the 2007 Courtyard Housing Design Competition: http://www.courtyardhousing.org/. Through the Cully/Concordia Community Assessment and Action Plan, an exploration of how to increase and sustain the livability and attractiveness of the Cully-Concordia area for families with school age children, creation of an action plan, and development of partnerships to follow up on actions generated. Grants to enhance the capacity of community-based nonprofit organizations who assist families and people of color become homebuyers. Implementation of the City’s Bureau of Transportation’s Safe Routes to School program in 25 school neighborhoods. Market public schools and neighborhoods to attract families with children, which have already proven successful in one community. Promotion of integrated school and neighborhood facility needs following the model of Rosa Park School and “complete communities” goal for the urban core.
Public Schools Background Report Page 27 of 51 The Portland Plan
REGULATORY AND DECISION MAKING CONTEXT 1979 City Schools Policy
The City School Policy was a coordinated effort to define and strengthen the relationship of the City of Portland with the Portland Public School District. The document focuses on four major themes including providing support for the rejuvenation and maintenance of City neighborhoods, promoting the best use of public facilities, providing more efficient delivery of certain human services and protecting past investments in schools, parks and homes by assuring the wisest use of public school funds. The two fundamental issues with this policy document are that it is not inclusive nor is it operative. This document focused on Portland School District #1 as it was the only school district within the city at the time the plan was drafted in 1979. However, as the boundaries of the City expanded over the past 30 years, it now contains six new school districts that serve Portland students. Secondly, the City adopted the policy plan by reference in the Comprehensive Plan in 1980; however, the school district never adopted the policy, essentially rendering it ineffective.
Portland School and Housing Policies
Portland’s Comprehensive Plan incorporates policies and objectives that seek to increase educational opportunities through coordination with the school districts and assist in facility planning that supports land use patterns and densities, ensure the livability of neighborhoods is maintained as schools expand and change, and increase safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian connections to schools.
Portland's Comprehensive Plan also includes 12 goals with corresponding policies and objectives that serve as a guide for future growth and development of the City. Of these, four housing policies aim to retain families and households with children within the City boundaries and consequently stabilize neighborhoods and ensure a vital public school system. These policies and objectives include: Attract a proportionate share of the region’s families with children (Policy 4.7 Balanced Communities); Ensure a range of housing types, prices and rents are available through public and private actions (Policy 4.10 Housing Diversity); Ensure a sufficient supply of affordable transitional and permanent housing (Policy 4.12 Housing Continuum); Ensure opportunities for the development and finance of small homes and basic amenities (Policy 4.13); and Encourage housing development at transit-supportive densities neat transit streets near schools and parks (Policy 4.3 Sustainable Development).
Portland Zoning Code Provisions
Portland’s Zoning Code (Title 33, Planning and Zoning) provides provisions that regulate the location, use and development of schools and school sites. Schools are allowed uses in commercial and employment zones. In general, the code requires schools to go through a discretionary review (Conditional Use land use review) when located within an open space or residential zone to ensure the uses of the building and site do not adversely impact the adjacent and surrounding residential neighborhood. Many of Portland’s schools are in residential zones. The approval criteria for such review includes maintaining the appearance and function of the residential area, physical compatibility of schools with the residential development, residential livability issues like glare, noise, privacy and safety, sufficient public services such as transportation impacts, and consistency with adopted area plans. The Zoning Code also sets forth specific standards related to site development such as building coverage, floor area ratios as well as vehicle parking and loading regulations.
Page 28 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
Disposition of Surplus Real Property Policy
The District’s Disposition of Surplus Real Property policy (PPS Board Policy 8.70.040) provides the process for which unused or underused PPS property is sold. The basic elements include public notice and review, notification to the City, County, and other public agencies providing an opportunity to purchase the property, 60- day public comment period and a requirement for thorough analysis to be completed for any recommendation to dispose of the property. A revision in 2008 removed some elements of the policy that were no longer operative, namely the role of Portland Schools Real Estate Trust being given title to District's surplus real property to serve as a marketing agent or developer. The District acknowledged that the disposal of future properties would be infrequent and under unique circumstances given the projected long-term future growth of the District and City population.
State Laws
Oregon Revised Statute 195.110, recently revised in January of 2008, requires cities or counties with large school districts of 2,500 or more students to work with the districts to create a school facilities plan that identifies the facility needs of the district for a ten-year period based on population growth and land use designations. The plan must be incorporated into the cities or counties comprehensive plan and updated during its periodic review (every 5 years) or more frequently by mutual agreement. The school facilities plan must include population projections, desirable school sites, existing facility improvements, financial plans, alternatives to constructing new schools and major renovations, measures to increase efficiency of school sites, ten-year capital improvement plans and site acquisition procedures. The plan must also determine if there is sufficient land within the urban growth boundary to accommodate the district’s facility needs identified for the ten-year period. If not, the city or county and the district shall act in conjunction to identify suitable land and take the necessary actions to secure the lands as viable options for future growth, such as rezoning.
Oregon Statute 195.115 requires city and county governing bodies to work with school district personnel to identify barriers and hazards to children walking or bicycling to and from school. Although not mandatory, a plan to fund related improvements may be considered.
Public Schools Background Report Page 29 of 51 The Portland Plan
APPENDIX
OVERVIEW OF PORTLAND’S K-12 SYSTEMS Eleven public school districts lie within or partially within the City of Portland. The largest in terms of geographic area and enrollment is Portland Public Schools (District No. 1j). This report focuses on the districts with the most substantial overlaps with the City’s boundaries: Portland Public Schools, Centennial, David Douglas, Parkrose, Reynolds and Riverdale
AREA OF PORTLAND SCHOOL DISTRICTS District Acres in % in District Acres Portland Portland Beaverton 48J 35,677.3 92.2 0.3% Centennial 28J 9,386.8 3,036.6 32.3% David Douglas 40 6,955.1 6,915.0 99.4% Lake Oswego 7J 8,795.6 1.3 0.0% North Clackamas 12 25,969.0 249.6 1.0% Parkrose 3 7,884.4 7,712.5 97.8% Portland 1J 93,729.7 70,578.5 75.3% Reynolds 7 21,194.7 2,862.0 13.5% Riverdale 51J 1,252.6 442.4* 35.3% Scappoose 117JT 28,685.8 832.7 2.9% Tigard-Tualatin 23J 16,039.4 9.5 0.1% *Note: Riverdale District (not shown on map to right) is the only district with land area outside the City of Portland, but within Portland’s Urban Services Boundary.
PORTLAND SCHOOL DISTRICTS, SCHOOLS & ENROLLMENT (SPRING 2008) District Elem. Mid. K-7/K-8 HS Other Total Enrollment Centennial 7 1 0 1 3 12 6,558 David Douglas 10 3 0 1 1 15 10,111 Parkrose 4 1 0 1 0 6 3,530 Portland 33 12 27 12 2 86 46,375 Reynolds 14 3 0 2 0 19 11,078 Riverdale 0 0 1 1 0 2 543 Total 68 20 28 18 6 140 78,195 Source: Multnomah Education Service District, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008. Note: Figures refer to entire school districts, not just the portions within Portland.
Page 30 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
PORTLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS BY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Centennial Portland Portland (cont.) Centennial (p) Alameda Laurelhurst Hazelwood (p) Arbor Lodge Lents (p) Powellhurst-Gilbert (p) Ardenwald-Johnson Cr. (p) Linnton Pleasant Valley (p) Arlington Heights Lloyd District Arnold Creek Madison South (p) David Douglas Ashcreek Maplewood Centennial (p) Beaumont-Wilshire Markham Hazelwood (p) Boise Marshall Park Lents (p) Brentwood/Darlington Montavilla (p) Madison South (p) Bridgeton Mt. Scott-Arleta Mill Park Bridlemile Mt. Tabor Montavilla (p) Brooklyn Action Corps Multnomah Pleasant Valley (p) Buckman North Tabor Powellhurst-Gilbert (p) Cathedral Park Northwest District Collins View (p) Northwest Heights (p) Parkrose Concordia Northwest Industrial Argay (p) Creston-Kenilworth Old Town/Chinatown Hazelwood (p) Crestwood Overlook Madison South (p) Cully Pearl Parkrose Downtown Piedmont Parkrose Heights East Columbia Portsmouth Russell Eastmoreland Powellhurst-Gilbert (p) Sumner (p) Eliot Reed Far Southwest Richmond Reynolds Forest Park (p) Rose City Park Argay (p) Foster-Powell Roseway Centennial (p) Goose Hollow Sabin Glenfair Grant Park Sellwood-Moreland Hazelwood (p) Hayden Island South Burlingame Wilkes Hayhurst South Portland Hazelwood (p) South Tabor Riverdale Healy Heights Southwest Hills Collins View (p) Hillsdale St. Johns (p) Hillside Sullivan's Gulch Hollywood Sumner (p) Homestead Sunderland Hosford-Abernethy Sunnyside Humboldt Sylvan Highlands Irvington University Park Kenton Vernon Kerns West Portland Park King Woodland Park
(p) = part of a neighborhood. Source: Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.
Public Schools Background Report Page 31 of 51 The Portland Plan
Note: The term “school” is used in two general senses within the educational community and in the various sources used to prepare this report. The first refers to an educational community and organizational entity, usually housed within one or more buildings on a single campus, for instance a traditional elementary school such as Chapman in Northwest Portland. This sense of the word “school” is familiar to teachers, parents and students. A related but distinct meaning refers to a specific facility or physical place, whether a single building or a group of buildings on a campus. A school in this sense may house more than one discrete academic/institutional school. For instance, in addition to a “traditional” high school, the Roosevelt High School campus includes the Spanish- English International School and the School of Arts, Communication and Technology, each an organizationally distinct entity. This sense of “school” is often used by facility planning and maintenance staff and urban planners, and is also meaningful to neighborhoods that surround school campuses and community organizations that use school facilities. There are also instances of academic/institutional schools that do not operate within a district facility per se, for instance charter schools located in leased space. The opposite can also be true, where schools have been closed as educational institutions, but still exist as physical spaces used for other school-related purposes, leased to third parties or remain vacant. When discussing and analyzing school related information, these two different meanings should be kept in mind and distinguished when necessary. Apparent discrepancies in school data provided in this report and elsewhere can, in some cases, be attributed to this issue. PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT NO. 1 The Portland Public School district, founded in 1851, is the largest school district in the Pacific Northwest. PPS currently manages 9.35 million square feet of facilities on 732 acres of real estate. Combined, these facilities support a total enrollment of approximately 46,000 students. The inventory includes 10 high schools, 14 middle schools, 28 K - 8 schools, 29 elementary schools, and eight alternative education schools. The portfolio also includes six administrative sites, five facilities that are currently closed, and three facilities that are leased to other entities outside PPS. The following summary of facilities by campus type identifies the total count and area of permanent space and temporary (ancillary) space. The district has less than I% of its overall facility portfolio in temporary facilities.
Portland Public Schools District No. 1 Facility Summary Portland Public Schools includes 103 campuses, 89 Permanent Bldgs. Ancillary Bldgs. School/ Facility Type Campuses school campuses, and 254 No. Sq Ft No. Sq Ft permanent buildings, with an Elementary Schools 29 66 1,698,216 16 26,828 average age of 65 years. Pre K/K through 8th grade Schools 28 54 1,771,393 24 38,050 Twenty-two schools are Middle Schools 14 29 1,300,813 5 6,390 adjacent to parks and recreation areas, and PPS is High Schools 10 59 2,969,934 6 12,081 the second largest landowner Alternative Education Centers 8 16 305,609 1 899 in Portland after the City of Administrative 6 11 809,465 1 960 Portland. There are Closed Facilities 5 11 267,912 0 0 approximately 610 different Facilities Leased to Others 3 8 137,573 4 6,147 non-school users of PPS Total 103 254 9,260,915 57 91,355 facilities. Key enrollment spikes occurred from 1905- Source: PPS, Office of School Modernization. 1927, and from 1946-1960. During 1991-2007 PPS saw a decline in enrollment, but since 2007 that pattern has begun to reverse itself. PPS students attend 7 charter schools, 25 community-based alternative programs and 16 special services programs.
Page 32 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
PPS Student Enrollment (October 2008) District schools 42,996 Community-based programs 1,282 Special services programs 522 Public charter schools 1,246 Total 46,046 Students African American 15% Asian/Pacific Islander 11% Hispanic 14% Native American 2% White 55% Other 3% Languages spoken 111 English language learners 10% Eligible for free/reduced meals 45% Receive special ed. services 15% Schools Elementary 30 K-8 schools 27 Middle schools 11 High schools 16 K-12 1 Total 85
PPS District Schools 08-09 Name Built Acres Sq. Ft. Enrollment High Schools Benson 1917 8.75 441,885 1,134 Cleveland 1929 17.74 252,885 1,516 Franklin 1915 17.67 294,878 1,007 Grant 1923 10.2 275,173 1,553 Jefferson 1909 13.4 583,414 638 Lincoln 1950 11.03 233,293 1,335 Madison 1955 20.07 370,112 900 Marshall 1959 23.45 271,427 774 Roosevelt 1921 17.13 307,132 703 Middle Schools Beaumont Middle School 1926 5.7 92,605 481 Binnsmead Middle School 1949 10.4 118,626 353 da Vinci Arts Middle School 1918 6 88,168 450 East Sylvan Middle School 1963 7.4 24,272 19 George Middle School 1950 7.3 78,713 384 Gray Middle School 1951 13.2 64,374 471 Hosford Middle School 1925 6.7 77,050 477 Jackson Middle School 1964 37.4 233,597 698 Lane Middle School 1926 9.1 87,438 511 Mt. Tabor Middle School 1952 7.5 84,764 641 Sellwood Middle School 1913 4.8 87,499 542 Tubman Middle School 1952 3 94,775 closed West Sylvan Middle School 1953 13.6 100,238 898
Public Schools Background Report Page 33 of 51 The Portland Plan
PPS District Schools 08-09 Name Built Acres Sq. Ft. Enrollment K-8 Schools Arleta K-8 School 1929 4.1 76,489 445 Astor K-B School 1949 4 48,200 371 Beach K-8 School 1928 5.3 70,404 547 Beverly Cleary K-8 1911 4.3 75,084 578 Boise-Eliot K-8 School 1926 4 67,369 418 Bridger K-8 School 1951 5.8 43,461 499 Clarendon / Portsmouth K-8 School 1927 5.8 75,814 70 Creston K-8 School 1946 8.5 80,940 316 Faubion K-8 School 1950 7.9 52,264 348 Hayhurst K-8 School 1954 7.4 50,314 338 Humboldt K-8 School 1959 5.9 48,112 242 Irvington K-8 School 1932 4.1 70,185 518 King K-8 School 1925 4.9 98,157 477 Laurelhurst K - 8 School 1923 2.9 46,10 I 562 Lee K-8 School 1952 9.1 78,176 389 Lent K-8 School 1948 10.9 76,131 528 Marysville K-8 School 1921 5.2 51,684 423 Ockley Green K-8 School 1925 5.2 74,220 421 Peninsula K - 7 School I952 7 70,151 328 Rigler K-8 School 1931 8.8 64,055 612 Roseway Heights K-8 School 1923 8.5 95,438 717 Sabin K-8 School 1927 3.6 78,751 428 Scott K-8 School 1949 5.7 68,628 505 Skyline K-8 School 1912 5.8 . 43,245 261 Sunnyside K-8 School 1925 3.2 54,361 525 Vernon K-8 School 1931 3.8 67,195 417 Vestal K-8 School 1929 4.9 66,332 386 Winterhaven K-8 School 1930 4.7 39,084 341 Woodlawn K-8 School 1926 5.2 54,182 440 Elementary Schools Abernethy Elementary School 1925 3.8 57,072 355 Ainsworth Elementary School 1912 2.3 57,892 506 Alameda Elementary School 1918 3.7 64,584 682 Atkinson Elementary School 1953 3 65,136 574 Bridlemile Elementary School 1958 7.3 59,102 155 Buckman Elementary School 1922 4.9 82,023 521 Capitol Hill Elementary School 1917 4.4 41,425 345 Chapman Elementary School 1923 4.8 66,962 482 Chief Joseph Elementary School 1949 3 44,008 325 CCS at Clark Elementary School 1955 7.8 50,595 508 Duniway Elementary School 1926 5.6 67,492 435 Forest Park Elementary School 1996 6.6 55,758 514 Glencoe Elementary School 1923 5.7 70,782 499 Grout Elementary School 1927 2.3 70,738 332 Hollyrood Elementary School 1959 0.9 18,908 578 James John Elementary School 1929 3.3 68,597 455 Kelly Elementary School 1957 9.2 90,545 468 Lewis Elementary School 1952 5.6 48,159 305 Llewellyn Elementary School 1928 2.9 55,551 317
Page 34 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
PPS District Schools 08-09 Name Built Acres Sq. Ft. Enrollment Maplewood Elementary School 1948 4.3 48,123 303 Markham Elementary School 1950 9.3 82,794 376 Richmond Elementary School 1908 3.8 77,070 377 Rieke Elementary School 1959 7.2 32,793 292 Rosa Parks Elementary School 2006 2 51,557 525 Sitton Elementary School 1949 6.7 58,059 292 Stephenson Elementary School 1964 8.8 42,097 326 Whitman Elementary School 1954 7.2 68,763 389 Woodmere Elementary School 1954 5.5 59,324 424 Woodstock Elementary School 1911 5 69,135 420 Other Facilities Applegate Elementary School 1954 1.4 26,101 closed Blanchard Ed. Serv. Center 1978 10.2 587,767 closed Clarendon Elementary (Orig. site) 1970 3.4 47,691 401 Columbia Transportation 1937 9.8 48,079 closed Creative Science Family Coop 1911 2.6 128,131 closed Edwards Elementary School 1960 1 19,591 closed Foster 1962 3.5 11,635 closed Green Thumb 1973 12.9 53,311 closed Holladay Annex 1970 3.5 28,889 54 Holladay Center 1970 2.1 31,136 50 Kellogg Middle School 1917 6.4 90,105 269 Kenton Elementary School 1913 4 50,842 closed Meek Professional Technical 1953 5.5 45,204 closed Metropolitan Learning Center 1915 4.1 72,553 444 Rice Facility 1955 2 15,711 closed Rose City Park Elementary School 1921 3.7 72,053 406 Sacajawea 1952 3.6 19,251 closed Smith Elementary School 1958 10.5 38,472 closed Terwilliger 1916 3.3 23,053 closed Whitaker Lakeside Middle School 1953 20.6 69,825 closed Wilcox High School 1959 3 19,102 closed Youngson Elementary School 1955 7.7 30,063 48
Source: PPS, Office of School Modernization & Data and Policy Analysis (Enrollment Summaries 2008)
Public Schools Background Report Page 35 of 51 The Portland Plan
Page 36 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
DAVID DOUGLAS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 40 The David Douglas School District was formed in 1959 with the consolidation of the Gilbert, Powellhurst, and Russellville elementary school districts and the David Douglas Union High School District. The district is roughly a 12 square mile rectangle and spans east from I-205 to about SE 145th and from Halsey Street on the North to the Clackamas County Line (S.E. Clatsop Street) to the South. It currently has ten elementary schools, three middle schools and one high school with an alternative school campus.
The David Douglas School District serves over 10,330 students from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Between 1998 and 2008, the district’s total enrollment rose by over 2,600 students, an increase of over 34 percent. Its students come from diverse backgrounds, with 23.7% of its students defined as English Language Learners and speaking 63 different languages.
Public Schools Background Report Page 37 of 51 The Portland Plan
David Douglas District No. 40 Schools
School Grades Address Alice Ott Middle 6-8 12500 SE Ramona St. Arthur Academy K-5 13717 SE Division St. Cherry Park K-5 1930 SE 104th Ave. David Douglas High 9-12 1001 SE 135th Ave. Earl Boyles K-5 10822 SE Bush St. Fir Ridge Campus 9-12 11215 SE Market Floyd Light Middle 6-8 10800 SE Washington St. Gilbert Heights K-5 12839 SE Holgate Blvd. Gilbert Park K-5 13132 SE Ramona St. Lincoln Park K-5 13200 SE Lincoln St. Menlo Park K-5 12900 NE Glisan St. Mill Park K-5 1900 SE 117th Ave. Ron Russell Middle 6-8 100 SE 117th Ave. Ventura Park K-5 145 SE 117th Ave. West Powellhurst K-5 2921 SE 116th Ave.
All schools within City of Portland. Source: Multnomah Education Service District, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008.
Page 38 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
PARKROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3 The Parkrose School District began in 1885 with a schoolhouse on Sandy and 122nd. By 1913, 131 students were enrolled in “the old school house on Buckley Avenue and Sandy Road,” ranging in age from four to 19. The district covers over 7,700 acres of land and is roughly bounded by the Columbia River to the north (N. Marine Drive) and NE 142nd Avenue to the East and reaches as far west at NE 33rd Avenue and as far south as SE Stark Street. With a total enrollment of about 3,500 students, it contains 4 elementary schools, a middle school and a high school, all within the City of Portland. Including three rentals and the District Office Facilities, the district manages 562,000 sq. ft. of building space and 120 acres of land.
The first Parkrose High School was built in 1949, with an initial enrollment of 200 and peaking at 1,700 in 1976. The new Parkrose High School Community Center was completed in 1997. The new facility was explicitly designed as a community school, with space and features to accommodate shared and community uses, such a Multnomah County Health Clinic, a Multnomah County Library branch, Portland Parks and Recreation programs and multi-purpose spaces. However, recent enrollment growth has required that many of these community spaces be converted to classrooms.
Public Schools Background Report Page 39 of 51 The Portland Plan
Parkrose School District No. 3 Schools
School Grades Address Parkrose High 9-12 12003 NE Shaver St. Parkrose Middle 6-8 11800 NE Shaver St. Prescott K-5 10410 NE Prescott St. Russell Academy K-5 2700 NE 127th Ave. Sacramento K-5 11400 NE Sacramento St. Shaver K-5 3701 NE 131st Pl. All schools within City of Portland. Source: Multnomah Education Service District, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008.
Parkrose Elementary Schools, Selected Data, 2006
Prescott Russell Sacramento Shaver Enrollment 379 399 428 328 % English Lang. Learners 25% 24% 18% 27% % Free/Reduced Lunch 67% 51% 58% 70%
Source: Schools, Families, Housing Project
REYNOLDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7
The Reynolds School District formed in 1954 as a consolidation of the Fairview, Troutdale and Wilkes elementary school districts. The district spans from 141st Avenue to the Sandy River and from the Columbia River on the North to SE Market Street and SE Stark Street to the South. The district serves Portland, Gresham, Fairview, Wood Village and Troutdale. It has 11 elementary, three middle and two high schools, serving more than 10,700 students from a diverse geographic region and from diverse backgrounds. Its students speak more than 45 languages.
Reynolds High School has a national award-winning automotive technology program and a new Arts and Communication Center, which features a state-of-the-art performance space. Students may also attend the Center for Advanced Learning, a charter school partnership between four neighboring districts (Centennial, Corbet, Gresham-Barlow and Reynolds), where students can choose to focus on health sciences, engineering or computer science.
The district has successfully partnered with area businesses to meet common goals and improve students’ educational experiences. The first partnership was with the district's namesake, Reynolds Metals, now owned by Alcoa. Though the aluminum plant has now closed, those seeking to revitalize that land into a high-tech corridor have long worked with the district, area municipalities and companies such as LSI Logic. Other district partners include Wells Fargo, whose employees read with children at Alder and educate their parents about finance. Tonkin Auto Group and LSI Logic have donated funds to the Reynolds Education Foundation, which provides grants to improve student learning. Albertson's, Thriftway and Safeway also work with district schools, donating food during the holidays and many other endeavors.
Despite these achievements the Reynolds School District is faced with serious challenges as major projected growth in the coming years will put an unacceptable amount of strain on the District’s facilities. The high school is currently the largest in the state and is already inadequate for the current number of students as it houses far
Page 40 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan more than was originally intended. A lack of available land in the District is limiting options. The district sought a bond measure in 2006, which failed and withdrew its attempts for another is 2008 due to a lack of support.
Public Schools Background Report Page 41 of 51 The Portland Plan
Reynolds School District No. 7 Schools
School Grades Address Alder* K-5 17200 SE Alder St. Arthur Academy K-5 123 SW 21st St. Center for Advanced Learning** 10-12 1484 NW Civic Dr. Davis K-5 19501 NE Davis St. Fairview K-5 225 Main St., Fairview Four Corners* K-6 14513 SE Stark St., Glenfair* K-5 15300 NE Glisan St. Hartley K-5 701 NE 185th Pl. Hauton B. Lee Middle 6-8 1121 NE 172nd Ave. Margaret Scott* K-5 14700 NE Sacramento St. Multisensory Learning Academy K-5 402 NE 172nd St. Natural Resources Academy 9-12 31520 E Woodard Rd. Reynolds High 9-12 1698 SW Cherry Park Rd. Reynolds Learning Academy 9-12 20234 NE Halsey, Fairview Reynolds Middle 6-8 1200 NE 201st Ave., Fairview Salish Ponds K-5 1210 NE 201 St, Fairview Sweetbriar K-5 501 SE Sweetbriar Ln. Troutdale K-5 648 SE Harlow St. Walt Morey Middle 6-8 2801 SW Lucas Ave. Wilkes K-5 17020 NE Wilkes Rd. Woodland K-5 21607 NE Glisan St, Fairview
* Within City of Portland. **CAL is operated jointly by Centennial, Corbett, Gresham-Barlow, and Reynolds School Districts. Source: Multnomah Education Service District, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008.
Reynolds Elementary Schools Selected Data 2006
Alder Glenfair Mt.Scott Enrollment 515 513 344 % English Lang. Learners 64% 49% 34% % Free/Reduced Lunch 92% 75% 58%
Source: Schools, Families, Housing Project.
Page 42 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
CENTENNIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 28-302
Centennial district serves the cities of Portland and Gresham. The district was created in 1976 from the Lynch and Pleasant Valley elementary districts and Centennial High School, previously part of the Gresham Union High School District. The new K-12 district was named Centennial in recognition of the nation's bi-centennial celebration.
The district has seven elementary, one middle and one high school, of which only four are within the City boundaries. Students may also attend the Center for Advanced Learning, a charter school partnership between four neighboring districts (Centennial, Corbet, Gresham-Barlow and Reynolds), where students can choose to focus on health sciences, engineering or computer science.
Centennial has grown steadily and is expecting accelerated growth through the next decade. To meet the needs of the growth, the district completed a new elementary school and major renovation of Centennial High School in 2003.
Public Schools Background Report Page 43 of 51 The Portland Plan
Centennial School District No. 28-302 Schools
School Grades Address Butler Creek K-6 2789 SW Butler Rd, Gresham Centennial High 9-12 3505 SE 182nd Ave., Gresham Centennial Learning Center 6-12 17630 SE Main St. Centennial Middle School 7-8 17650 SE Brooklyn St. Centennial Transition Center 18-21yrs 2010 SE 182nd Ave. Center for Advanced Learning** 10-12 1484 NW Civic Dr. Harold Oliver Intermediate* 4-6 15840 SE Taylor St. Harold Oliver Primary* K-3 15811 SE Main St. Lynch Meadows K-6 18009 SE Brooklyn St. Lynch View* K-6 1546 SE 169th Pl. Lynch Wood* K-6 3615 SE 174th Ave. Pleasant Valley K-6 17625 SE Foster Rd.
* Within City of Portland. **CAP is operated jointly by Centennial, Corbett, Gresham- Barlow, and Reynolds School Districts. Source: Multnomah Education Service District, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008.
Centennial Elementary Schools, Selected Data, 2006
H. Oliver H. Oliver Lynch View Lynch Wood Intermediate Primary Enrollment 390 506 494 465 % English Lang. Learners 24% 37% 33% 22% % Free/Reduced Lunch 65% 68% 56% 55%
Source: Schools, Families, Housing Project
Page 44 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
RIVERDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 51J
The Riverdale School District dates to 1888, when 15 school children petitioned to emancipate themselves from School District #13. The Palatine Hill School opened in 1891. In 1919, a new facility was constructed at the grade school's current site on Breyman Avenue. In the fall of 1996, Riverdale began serving high school students, in response to new state legislation that required each school district to offer a kindergarten through 12th grade education. Prior to this, Riverdale's high school-aged students attended boarding, private or other schools in neighboring districts. The high school lacked a permanent home for several years, operating out of facilities in Portland and later Marylhurst University.
A new Riverdale High School facility on Terwilliger Boulevard near Lewis and Clark College opened in 2002. The high school is within the boundaries of Portland Public School District and located within the former Collins View Grade School. Riverdale School District has approximately 140 high school age students who currently have the choice of attending either Riverdale High School or a neighboring high school with a reciprocal agreement for transferring students.
Although enrollments have fluctuated over the years within the District, it is generally growing at this time. The Grade School's current enrollment is approximately 320 students at the K-8 level. The High School has an enrollment of 232, and can accommodate up to 300 students. Riverdale School District accepts a limited number of non-resident applicants each year at both sites. These students may attend Riverdale schools through either an inter-district transfer process or by paying tuition.
In 2009, the grade school and art buildings were demolished and a new two-story central classroom building and multi-purpose building is currently under construction. These new facilities will add 26,400 square feet to the school to accommodate future growths in enrollment and facility uses.
Riverdale School District No. 51J Schools
School Grades Address Riverdale High* 9-12 9727 SW Terwilliger Blvd. Riverdale K-8 11733 SW Breyman Ave. Grade School
* Within City of Portland. Source: Multnomah Education Service District, Multnomah County School District Boundary Maps, Spring 2008.
Public Schools Background Report Page 45 of 51 The Portland Plan
MULTNOMAH EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT
Multnomah Education Service District (MESD) is a public agency responsible for a variety of direct and indirect educational services to eight Multnomah County school districts, as well as other public and private agencies and schools in the region. MESD provides over 50 separate services and programs from which component districts choose to spend their annual allocation. These include special education, alternative learning, health and social services, transportation, cooperative purchasing, and administrative support. The popular Outdoor School familiar to generations of Portlanders is an MESD service. In 2007, MESD was listed among the nation’s top 12 education service agencies.
MESD has a diversified funding mix with 45 percent coming from state and local tax revenue and 55 percent from contracts, grants, tuition, Medicaid, interest and fees. In 2007-08, MESD managed expenditures of approximately $78 million and employed about 750 full, part-time and temporary staff. COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS
Schools Uniting Neighborhoods (SUN)
Portland's Schools Uniting Neighborhoods program (SUN) is a partnership between the City, Multnomah County, and the eight local school districts. The initiative seeks to ensure the educational success of students by combining social and health services, after school enrichment and recreational opportunities aligned with the school curriculum, and programs for families and adults in their neighborhoods.
The partners align resources to facilitate an integrated system of educational, social and health supports called the SUN Service System. The SUN Community Schools Initiative, currently in 54 school sites, is the cornerstone of the System. SUN Community Schools serve as service delivery locations for children, youth and families. In addition to school-based and school-linked social and health services, these hubs offer afterschool programming which blends recreation with cultural and academic enrichments in order to increase academic achievement and close learning gaps.
Peer Preschool Program
One of the educational services provided by MESD is the Multnomah Early Childhood Program (MECP), which operates the Peer preschool program. This program provides preschool for 3-4 year olds with special needs and 4 year olds with typically developing needs (peers). They operate in 13 elementary schools in Portland, 9 of which are within PPS and the remainder in Reynolds, David Douglas and Parkrose school districts.
Head Start Pre-Kindergarten Program
Oregon Head Start Prekindergarten (OHS PreK) is a comprehensive child development program for three and four year old children serving low income children and their families. The program provides children with daily nutritious meals, opportunities for social, emotional, and intellectual growth that can help prepare them for success in school and life, and connects children to a source of health care and provides vital support services to their families. Federally-funded Head Start and state-funded Oregon Head Start Prekindergarten programs have identical performance standards. Both state and federal funds are allocated directly to local grantees where programs are tailored to community needs. A state and federal partnership agreement allows grantees to blend funding, providing a seamless, integrated program for children and families.
In 1987 the Oregon Legislature created a state-funded prekindergarten program for low-income families with children ages 3 to 5, implementing federal Head Start performance standards. In 2001, the City of Portland awarded funds to Head Start and OPK grantees to increase the numbers of Head Start eligible children served in
Page 46 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
Portland. Eight head start programs are operated within PPS elementary schools and several others serving the rest of the Portland area.
POLICY CITATIONS
APPLICABLE STATE LAWS
ORS 195.110 School Facility Plan for Large School Districts 1) As used in this section, “large school district” means a school district that has an enrollment of over 2,500 students based on certified enrollment numbers submitted to the Department of Education during the first quarter of each new school year. (2) A city or county containing a large school district shall: (a) Include as an element of its comprehensive plan a school facility plan prepared by the district in consultation with the affected city or county. (b) Initiate planning activities with a school district to accomplish planning as required under ORS 195.020. (3) The provisions of subsection (2)(a) of this section do not apply to a city or a county that contains less than 10 percent of the total population of the large school district. (4) The large school district shall select a representative to meet and confer with a representative of the city or county, as described in subsection (2)(b) of this section, to accomplish the planning required by ORS 195.020 and shall notify the city or county of the selected representative. The city or county shall provide the facilities and set the time for the planning activities. The representatives shall meet at least twice each year, unless all representatives agree in writing to another schedule, and make a written summary of issues discussed and proposed actions. (5)(a) The school facility plan must cover a period of at least 10 years and must include, but need not be limited to, the following elements: (A) Population projections by school age group. (B) Identification by the city or county and by the large school district of desirable school sites. (C) Descriptions of physical improvements needed in existing schools to meet the minimum standards of the large school district. (D) Financial plans to meet school facility needs, including an analysis of available tools to ensure facility needs are met. (E) An analysis of: (i) The alternatives to new school construction and major renovation; and (ii) Measures to increase the efficient use of school sites including, but not limited to, multiple- story buildings and multipurpose use of sites. (F) Ten-year capital improvement plans. (G) Site acquisition schedules and programs. (b) Based on the elements described in paragraph (a) of this subsection and applicable laws and rules, the school facility plan must also include an analysis of the land required for the 10-year period covered by the plan that is suitable, as a permitted or conditional use, for school facilities inside the urban growth boundary. (6) If a large school district determines that there is an inadequate supply of suitable land for school facilities for the 10-year period covered by the school facility plan, the city or county, or both, and the large school district shall cooperate in identifying land for school facilities and take necessary actions, including, but not limited to, adopting
Public Schools Background Report Page 47 of 51 The Portland Plan
appropriate zoning, aggregating existing lots or parcels in separate ownership, adding one or more sites designated for school facilities to an urban growth boundary, or petitioning a metropolitan service district to add one or more sites designated for school facilities to an urban growth boundary pursuant to applicable law. (7) The school facility plan shall provide for the integration of existing city or county land dedication requirements with the needs of the large school district. (8) The large school district shall: (a) Identify in the school facility plan school facility needs based on population growth projections and land use designations contained in the city or county comprehensive plan; and (b) Update the school facility plan during periodic review or more frequently by mutual agreement between the large school district and the affected city or county.
195.115 Reducing Barriers for Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to Schools
Reducing barriers for pedestrian and bicycle access to schools. City and county governing bodies shall work with school district personnel to identify barriers and hazards to children walking or bicycling to and from school. The cities, counties and districts may develop a plan for funding of improvements to reduce barriers and hazards identified. PORTLAND’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES
Portland Comprehensive Plan – School and Housing Policies Goal 4 Housing Policy 4.3 Sustainable Housing Objective C. Encourage the development of housing at transit-supportive densities near transit streets, especially where parks or schools are present, to ensure that the benefits of the public’s investment in those facilities are available to as many households as possible. Policy 4.7 Balanced Communities Objective H. Improve the balance in the city’s population by attracting a proportionate share of the region’s families with children in order to encourage stabilized neighborhoods and a vital public school system. Policy 4.10 Housing Diversity Objective F. Increase the public school population in Portland, preventing widespread school closures, and the consequent underutilization of public facilities. Policy 4.12 Housing Continuum Objective B. Promote the preservation and development of sufficient housing supply of transitional and permanent housing affordable to extremely how-income individuals and households with children in order to reduce or prevent homelessness. Policy 4.13 Humble Housing - Ensure that there are opportunities for development of small homes with basic amenities to ensure housing opportunities for low-income households, members of protected classes, households with children, and households supportive of reduced resource consumption. Goal 6 Transportation Policy 6.20 Connectivity Objective C. Provide convenient and safe bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit routes, schools, and parks, as well as within and between new and existing residential developments, employment areas, and other activity centers where street connections are not feasible.
Page 48 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
Policy 6.22 Pedestrian Transportation. Plan and complete a pedestrian network that increases the opportunities for walking to shopping and services, schools and parks, employment, and transit. Objective A. Promote walking as the mode of choice for short trips by giving priority to the completion of the pedestrian network that serves Pedestrian Districts, schools, neighborhood shopping, and parks. Objective E. Develop a citywide network of pedestrian trails that increases pedestrian access for recreation and transportation purposes and links to schools, parks, transit, and shopping as well as to the regional trail system and adjacent cities. Policy 6.23 Bicycle Transportation Objective H. Promote bicycling as safe and convenient transportation to and from school. Goal 7 Energy Policy 7.6 Energy Efficient Transportation Objective D. Promote shared recreational use of school facilities and city parks, close-in recreation opportunities, and improved scheduling of events to reduce recreation-related transportation needs. Goal 10 Plan Review and Administration Policy 10.4 Comprehensive Plan Map (13) Institutional Campus - This designation is intended for large institutional campuses that serve a population from a larger area than the neighborhood or neighborhoods in which the campus is located. Institutions eligible for the institutional campus designation include medical centers, colleges, schools and universities. Uses allowed within an area with the institutional campus designation are those that are part of the institution, accessory to the institution and/or are associated with the mission of the campus. The designation, in concert with an approved impact mitigation plan, is intended to foster the growth of the institution while ensuring the continued livability of surrounding residential neighborhoods and the viability of nearby business areas. A key aspect of the institutional campus designation is the establishment of a campus growth boundary as part of the impact mitigation plan. The area carrying an institutional campus designation reflects the maximum area that the institution is allowed to develop on under the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Goal 11 Public Facilities Goal 11 A. Provide a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services that support existing and planned land use patterns and densities. Policy 11.1 Service Responsibility A. Within its boundaries of incorporation, the City of Portland will provide, where feasible and as sufficient funds are available from public or private sources, the following facilities and services at levels appropriate for all land use types: (1) streets and other public ways; (2) sanitary and stormwater sewers; (3) police protection; (4) fire protection; (5) parks and recreation; (6) water supply; (7) planning, zoning, buildings and subdivision control. The City of Portland should encourage the planning efforts of those agencies providing the following services: (8) public schools; (9) public health services;
Public Schools Background Report Page 49 of 51 The Portland Plan
(10) justice service; (11) solid waste disposal; (12) energy and communication services; (13) transit services. Policy 11.9 Project Selection Objective D. Provide and improve access to and within activity centers and develop safe routes to schools. Policy 11.41 Improvements. Base the priorities for improvement and development of parklands on documented needs and the following criteria: low long-term maintenance costs, location in deficient areas, broad community support, location adjacent to schools and other public facilities, support of neighborhood stabilization and community development projects and policies, and consistency with park master development plans. Policy 11.45 Aquatics Facilities. Provide aquatics facilities in conjunction with School District #1. Goal 11I: Enhance the educational opportunities of Portland’s citizens by supporting the objectives of Portland School District #1 and adjacent districts through assistance in planning educational facilities. Policy 11.56 Maximize investments. Support school district facility and program investments in redeveloping neighborhoods through the City’s allocation of housing assistance and park improvement investments. Policy 11.57 Safety. Provide traffic improvements, such as sidewalks and bikeways, to promote safe routes to schools where attendance area reorganization requires longer travel distances for students. Policy 11.58 City Schools Policy. Maintain on-going coordination with Portland School District #1 to achieve the goals and policies of the adopted City Schools Policy. SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICIES
PPS Board Policy 8.70.040 Disposition of Surplus Real Property Under ORS 332.155, the Portland Public School District may lease, sell and convey all property of the District that is not, in the judgment of the School Board, required for school purposes. The Portland Public School Board affirmatively acknowledges its support for managing the District’s real property consistent with the District’s mission and the public interest. The Superintendent shall recommend to the Board the disposal of any property that is not essential to the District’s mission now or in the future. An action declaring the property surplus must be based on a thorough analysis presented by the Superintendent to the School Board. The Board shall make the final determination as to which properties are surplus. The Superintendent shall use an open and inclusive public input process in the development of any final recommendation to declare property surplus, and the findings from that process shall be provided to the Board prior to any Board decision. This public process will be in addition to the Board’s public hearing to declare property surplus. The Policy directs the following: (1) Superintendent’s Surplus Real Property Recommendation: The Superintendent shall develop and adopt administrative directives establishing a process for developing recommendations to the Board on surplus properties. The process shall include at a minimum the following components: (a) Notification of the Portland Public School Board, (b) Notification to the City and County, and other public agencies as appropriate, providing an opportunity to purchase the property, and notification to the local neighborhood association, and the public at large. (c) A minimum of 60 days for public response or comment.
Page 50 of 51 Public Schools Background Report The Portland Plan
(d) A summary of the factors considered in the development of the recommendation. (2) Surplus Property Recommendations-Public Hearing: At least one public hearing shall be held by the Board prior to declaring any real property or proportion thereof surplus. (3) Sale process: Once the property is declared surplus by the Board, the Superintendent, or such persons as may be designated by the Superintendent, shall establish and conduct a process for sale or other conveyance of the property. The Superintendent will market and negotiate a sale or other conveyance of the property and bring a recommended agreement to the Board for the Board's review and approval. (4) Disposition of Surplus Property Suited For A Particular User Or Use: Whenever the Board finds that a parcel of Surplus Property is especially suited for use by a particular user or use which would be beneficial to the community, the Board may declare the property surplus, identify the community benefit, and authorize the Superintendent to negotiate a sales agreement or other conveyance for this property subject to Board approval.
Public Schools Background Report Page 51 of 51