Long Range Facilities Plan February 2002 Long Range Facilities Plan

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan February 2002 Long Range Facilities Plan

Innovation Partnership’s work on school facilities has been generously underwritten by the following public and private supporters of public education in Portland.

Underwriters Other Contributors ■ John & Jane Emrick ■ Alpha Engineering ■ Jack & Lynn Loacker ■ Marty & Kay Brantley ■ ■ PacifiCorp/PacifiCorp Foundation Bruce Burns ■ Rob DeGraff ■ Portland General Electric ■ Phil Kalberer ■ Wells Fargo ■ MacKenzie Group Sponsors ■ Scott & Aloha Wyse ■ A-DEC ■ Bank of the Northwest ■ Ankrom Moisan Architects ■ Jane T. Bryson ■ Bank of America Foundation ■ James Kelly ■ Lease Crutcher Lewis ■ Tony & Heidi Leineweber ■ PacTrust ■ Harriet & Bill Cormack ■ Standard Insurance ■ Tom Fuller Champions ■ Walter Grebe ■ Roger Harding ■ John & Kim Bradley ■ Larry & Barbara Hilderbrand ■ HGW, Inc. ■ Susanne Meyer ■ J.C. Milne Real Properties ■ Terry Miller ■ Ashforth Pacific, Inc. ■ Louise Scott Donors In-kind goods & services ■ ■ Bob Gerding Ball Janik ■ Brenner & Associates ■ Oregon Health Sciences ■ Gard & Gerber University ■ Wells Fargo Bank ■ Portland Association of Teachers ■ Xerox Office Printing Business ■ Jon Schleuning ■ Ken Thrasher Foundation Underwriter ■ ■ Tom Walsh and Company Meyer Memorial Trust ■ William and Janet Wyse Government Contracts ■ Portland Public Schools ■ Multnomah County Commission on Children, Families and Community

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Long Range Facilities Plan

Prepared for Portland Public Schools

Board of Education Debbie Goldberg Menashe, Chair Marc Abrams Sue Hagmeier Lolenzo Poe Derry Jackson Julia Brim-Edwards Karla Wenzel Jennifer Lewis, Student Representative

Jim Scherzinger, Interim Superintendent

by Innovation Partnership Patrick LaCrosse, Chair Ruth Scott, President Brian Scott, Projects Director Ryan Mottau, Project Assistant

February 2002

Long Range Facilities Plan

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 11 BACKGROUND...... 15 BEST USE OF FACILITIES STUDY 15 RECENT FACILITIES WORK BY DISTRICT STAFF AND INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP 18 PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS STRATEGIC PLAN 22 OTHER SOURCES CONSULTED 24 IMPORTANT TRENDS...... 27 FUTURE OF POPULATIONS 27 FUTURE OF POPULATIONS 49 IMPORTANT LESSONS...... 51 ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY MATTER 53 MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND ISSUES 71 FACILITY USE, CAPACITY AND OPERATIONS CHARTS ...... 78 FACILITIES OBJECTIVES ...... 93 LEARNING COMES FIRST 95 A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND HIGH PERFORMANCE ENVIRONMENT 95 FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FUTURE 96 ANNUITY FOR EDUCATION 96 QUALITY INVESTMENTS 97 OPERATIONS GOALS...... 101 CLARIFICATION OF CURRENT FACILITIES PRACTICES 101 IMMEDIATE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 102 MIDDLE-TERM INITIATIVES 105 LONG-TERM STRATEGIES 106 PROPERTIES GOALS 106 NEW FACILITIES 107 PROPERTY CATEGORIZATION...... 109 REDUCE INVENTORY: PRIORITIES FOR REVENUE GENERATION 110 REUSE SPACE IN CREATIVE WAYS: PRIORITIES FOR INTENSIFIED OR CHANGED USE 110 RETAIN FOR FUTURE NEEDS (NOT CURRENTLY ‘TRADITIONAL’ SCHOOLS) 110 RECYCLE PROPERTY INTO NEW USES: MAJOR FACILITY REDEVELOPMENT 110 REINVEST IN THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION: PRIORITIES FOR MAJOR WORK AND FUTURE REINVESTMENT 110 PROPERTY CATEGORIZATION 111

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Long Range Facilities Plan 1

Executive Summary

Overview The Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan builds on several years of work by hundreds of people. Those individuals are inside and outside the Portland Public Schools District, both paid and volunteer.

During 1999, 2000, and 2001 dozens of public hearings, public meetings, community discussions, technical reviews, and other conversations have shaped the concepts presented herein. Innovation Partnership drafted this document under the supervision of Portland Public Schools facilities staff, the Board of Education, and three volunteer committees.

Two trends will shape the future of Portland’s public schools: a dropping school-age population and changing practices in learning. In ten years, Portland’s schools will have 4,500 less students and will be under more pressure to deliver personalized learning for all students. They will also be faced with new technologies, teacher shortages, and a shifting student population.

Two lessons surface from this facilities planning process: the importance of environmental quality and sustainability, and the importance of systematic management. These trends and lessons lead to four important objectives: 1. Learning comes first; 2. Flexibility for the future; 3. Annuity — annual resources for education; 4. Quality in all investments.

Strategic actions include both operations goals and facilities goals. Operations goals include clarifying existing practices, as well as immediate and longer-term improvements. Facilities goals include a five-step approach to categorizing and managing School District properties. The District will: 1. REDUCE its inventory of property to save current operations expenses and produce future net revenue. 2. REUSE many facilities in creative ways, such as placing multiple uses within single buildings, making more efficient use of buildings, leasing space when appropriate, and adjusting school boundaries to balance demographics and relieve crowding as needed. 3. RETAIN a portfolio of property that is currently leased or in non-traditional school use in order to provide a reserve for future sudden needs. In addition, the District will consider and make plans to:

4. RECYCLE a few properties where the value of the land is disproportionate to the building’s current value and/or where the building does not serve educational programs. 5. REINVEST in facilities to ensure an ongoing legacy of quality education.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

2 Executive Summary

Background This Long Range Facilities Plan builds on several years of work by hundreds of people, both paid and volunteer, inside and outside the Portland Public Schools District.

Recent Facilities Work by District Staff and Innovation Partnership As the Best Use of Facilities Task Force wrapped up its look at the District’s facilities issues, Innovation Partnership was preparing to carry this work forward. The one thing that was clear at the conclusion of the Best Use process is the District had a wide variety of issues to deal with; most connected directly to the core competency of setting and evaluating educational policy. However, there was also a set of issues that dealt with the implications of student population decline on the District’s real property. In June of 2001, the District approved a budget that eliminated the spending gap in operations and maintenance, identified by the Best Use Task Force. This move has helped the District move away from its reliance on short-term funding, but has put more pressure on the facilities to generate revenue.

Establishing a Portland Schools Real Estate Trust In response to a projected budget shortfall, Portland Public Schools staff had identified a number of properties that were considered in excess of what was needed for the educational program and could be disposed of to generate revenue. The funds will be channeled through a new independent non-profit organization that will act as the District’s real estate specialist. It will manage development in a way that best benefits the needs of Portland Public Schools.

This concept of a Real Estate Trust, to serve the District’s need for professional real estate assistance, originated with Paul Hill in his work at the Brookings Institute and the University of Washington’s Center for Reinventing Public Education. The Portland Schools Real Estate Trust will:

• Generate Annual Net Revenue for Portland Public Schools; • Create future flexibility in property management for Portland Public Schools; and • Allow Portland Public Schools to focus its energies on its educational mission, rather than on the technical and community issues related to real estate.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Executive Summary 3

Portland Public Schools Strategic Plan In July 2000, Portland Public Schools adopted a Strategic Plan outlining strategies for the District’s schools. Several educational trends and District priorities that are contained in the Strategic Plan have major facilities implications. These include:

• Smaller schools • All-day Kindergartens • Smaller class sizes, especially elementary • Community uses that assist achievement • Business as partners in instruction in the workplace • Increase use of technology and distance learning

Important Trends Population is Dropping The Population Center at Portland State University has recently updated its forecasts for future enrollment based on September 2001 enrollment and the 2000 Census.

Enrollment History and Forecast

60,000

50,000

Other 40,000 9-12

30,000 6-8

Enrollment K-5 20,000

10,000

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year

As shown in the chart above, these data indicate that District enrollment fluctuated from 1990 to 1996, then began a steady decline of about 650 students per year beginning in 1996-97. Forecasts predict that enrollment will continue to decline over the next decade by an average of 450 students per year to a District total enrollment of 45,884 in 2012, as compared to 51,650 in the fall of 2001 and 52,353 in 1990. If enrollment per school were held constant, this would mean closure of a little less than one school per year for each of the next ten years.

Learning is Changing Rather than taking its current buildings as given, Portland Public Schools can let innovations in instruction and learning determine the design and use of its facilities in the coming decades. With this in mind, this chapter identifies five trends in education that can guide District leaders as they think about what kinds of buildings and spaces they will need for tomorrow’s schools. The trends are:

• Pressure on schools to serve all students, not just those who learn best in traditional settings;

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

4 Executive Summary

• Demands for the personalization of learning, so that every child has a chance to learn and families have choices; • New technologies that will change how teachers teach and students learn; • Periodic shortages of teachers (and school leaders) linked to swings in the economy; and • Shifts in student population and residency patterns that will affect not only the demand for schools, but also the demands on schools.

Important Lessons Environment and Sustainability Matter We do not inherit this land from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. – Haida Indian saying

The discussion and practice of sustainability is rapidly increasing in our society. Individuals, small businesses, large corporations and public institutions of all sizes are re-examining their actions and looking for more sustainable ways to survive. Sustainability is defined as: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

Those who are pursuing sustainability are not acting solely because it is the right thing to do. Many of the companies adopting sustainable business practices are measuring their future success against the “triple bottom line” of economy, community and the environment. They recognize that in taking a long-term view, they must make progress in each of these three areas in order to be successful in any one of them.

Likewise, there are three main synergistic reasons for taking a sustainable approach in the management of Portland Public School’s facilities:

• Improving student performance and health • Improving the District's financial performance • Improving connections to the community

Considerable progress has already been made toward sustainability. Over the last year, the District was able to avoid more than $500,000 in utility costs through conservation. Energy consumption is down more than 20%, with more than $9,000,000 saved over 8 years.

Student performance can also be supported through sustainability and high performance schools measures. For example, the average middle school that incorporates daylighting will likely save $500,000 over the next 10 years, and student performance has been shown to increase 26% through high performance schools measures.

Management Challenges and Issues Population and enrollment facts As discussed earlier, school population and enrollment forecasts are a primary driver of Portland Public Schools facilities work. For the purposes of this plan’s findings and recommendations, the following are the most salient facts.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Executive Summary 5

• Portland’s school age population is dropping, and its needs are changing. PSU projects that enrollment for the District will drop by about 5,800 students (11%) between 2001 and 2012. At current school enrollment levels, this equates to ten or eleven schools, or one each year. • Portland Public Schools’ existing open enrollment system means that the intensity of a facility’s use is not directly proportional to the fluctuations in its surrounding neighborhood population. Some buildings are underused; others are overcrowded. • Portland Public Schools’ special focus programs are competing successfully with traditional schools within the District and with programs in other districts. Several small elementary schools currently share facility space with magnet or other special programs. In many of these instances, the constant or growing enrollment in the special program offsets declining enrollment in the neighborhood school. • Portland Public Schools has shrinking enrollment and resulting excess facilities capacity, but not enough money to maintain what exists. It can’t levy taxes for that maintenance, but could to build new buildings. Nevertheless, the District does and will spend millions of dollars each year on its facilities. That investment will be strategically targeted to achieve maximum instructional benefit. • Portland Public Schools facilities are older than most school districts’ in Oregon. The vast majority of Portland’s schools were built during two rapid building booms, one in the 1920s (32 schools), the other in the 1950s (36 schools). The District has more buildings constructed before 1920 (15) than since 1960 (13). Portland Public Schools has only built one school since 1970 (Forest Park, 1998). • At the same time, Portland Public Schools faces severe funding challenges. It is required to comply with many mandates from the local, state, and federal governments. Some of those most related to facilities are special education, historic buildings, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. • Since the release of the KPMG audit, the District has taken a number of actions to increase the efficiency of its space utilization. These efforts include selling and leasing-out surplus property, moving District programs from expensive third-party facilities into the District’s own buildings, charging market-driven rates for non- District use of District facilities, and eliminating or deferring maintenance costs.

Policy Confusion Many Portland Public Schools policies are unclear and/or inconsistently communicated. Some of these are strictly facilities issues; others are programmatic issues with facilities ramifications. The following are among the most pressing policies for clarification and communication: (1) the programmatic value of small schools, (2) the criteria for approval of transfer requests, (3) criteria for housing a new program, and (4) District policies and procedures for dealing with enrollment fluctuations among individual schools from year to year.

Community Interface Schools present different planning and decision-making challenges than other facilities issues because of the unique relationship between a school and its community. Almost all of Portland’s school buildings are located in residential neighborhoods. This means that the school by definition has multiple constituencies, including people who live near the school, families with students in the school, alumni, those who work in the school, and those who are active in groups that use the school building regularly, as well as the public at large. Each of these constituent groups has a distinct perspective on a school’s present and future program and facility. In all, school facilities decision-makers must balance short-term needs with long-term benefits, and understand that no decision will ever please everybody.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

6 Executive Summary

Facilities Objectives Portland Public Schools has a number of priority objectives related to its ownership and use of facilities, whether these facilities are used as school buildings, for other District functions, or as investment properties. Learning is clearly the District’s top priority in all its affairs, and facilities decisions will put learning first. Other important facilities objectives include a safe, healthy, and high performance learning environment, future flexibility to allow learning to remain the top priority in changing times, an annuity producing annual net revenue from facilities for education, and quality for the future including appropriate maintenance and reinvestment.

Learning Comes First The mission of the Portland Public Schools is to support all students in achieving their very highest educational and personal potential, to inspire in them an enduring love for learning, and prepare them to contribute as citizens of a diverse, multicultural, and international community. As such, learning and student achievement goals will determine facilities decisions.

A Safe, Healthy, and High Performance Learning Environment Maintaining a healthy environment that is safe for students, teachers, parents, staff members and other community members is also of primary importance to facilities managment. Issues include accessibility, seismic safety, fire and life safety, environmental quality, and high performance school environments.

Flexibility It is impossible for the School District to predict what’s coming with any certainty. As discussed in the Future of Learning chapter of this report, trends in K-12 education predict a very different school environment in the future. It is therefore, essential that the District increase and maintain its flexibility for future unknown events. In general, the District will avoid being stuck with a set supply of fixed assets. Property ownership will be seen more as investment than as occupancy. Enrollment will ebb and flow District-wide and from neighborhood to neighborhood; occupancy by educational programs will be adjusted to mirror these trends.

Annuity A primary purpose of this Long Range Facilities Plan is to produce annual net revenue for education from facilities. This may not be as easy as was once assumed due to recent cost cutting measures, but nevertheless, directing resources away from facilities and toward instruction must continue to be a priority. Following the advice of the Best Use of Facilities Task Force, it’s important to:

• Reduce inventory of surplus facilities through sales and/or leasing • Reduce operating costs • Recover cost when opening facilities for community use • Reserve capital gained from disposition for future flexibility

Quality Portland Public Schools is a venerable institution with a century of service to Portland’s children and families. Despite current budgetary woes, the District’s leadership have inherited a proud and accomplished legacy that not only includes outstanding academic success, but an inventory of more than 100 buildings. More than half of these buildings are more than 50 years old today and most of those continue to serve the community well. The fact that

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Executive Summary 7 current leadership has facilities assets from which to gain annual net revenue at all, is a credit to the wise investment and management of their predecessors. The District will maintain an ongoing practice of quality investment for future generations.

Long Range Facilities Plan Portland Public Schools will move promptly to respond to the lessons presented in this Plan. Actions include improvement to current facilities practices and actions to bring the facilities inventory into alignment with current and projected future needs.

Operations Goals Portland Public Schools will take a number of actions to implement its property goals of learning, environment, flexibility, annuity, and quality. First, the District will clarify existing practices. There are further actions that can be taken immediately, and some that require mid- to long-term implementation due to their complex and/or controversial nature.

Clarification of Current Facilities Practices The following are already Portland Public Schools administrative practices, but there has been inconsistency in implementation. These include: (1) special education students should be served in their ‘home’ cluster, (2) multiple programs can operate within a single facility, and (3) programmatic choices are available for parents and students.

Immediate Management Actions The most certain forecast for Portland’s schools is change. Populations will change. Educational practices will change. Funding levels will change. Technology will change. As such, Portland Public Schools will increase and protect its future flexibility. Flexibility will allow the District to adapt as times change.

Portland Public Schools can only achieve its facilities objectives if decisions are made at or near the locations they affect. This means site-specific accountability, record-keeping, and incentives. Overall, a Facilities Implementation Team will be established that includes personnel from the District and the Schools Real Estate Trust, and overseen by a volunteer panel of interested individuals including, but not limited to School Board members and Trust Board members.

To overcome a reputation of closed and arbitrary facilities decisions, the District will do a better job of keeping facilities records; clarifing policies and practices in writing and making them easy to find; making facilities decisions as transparent as possible; and dividing responsibilities for facilities among more people to avoid the reality or appearance of too much power in one place.

Research shows that small schools produce better academic performance than large schools. Small schools, however, do require a premium in support personnel and facility operations (unless several small schools share a larger facility). Determining whether the educational value of the small school environment is worth the cost is beyond the scope of this plan, but is a priority for the District’s strategic vision.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

8 Executive Summary

Long-Term Strategies Over time, Portland Public Schools will move itself out of the facilities management business to focus on its core mission of education. A semi-autonomous non-profit entity is being formed to assist the School District in implementing this plan, especially as it relates to reducing property inventory, reuse of existing facilities, and recycling land into new uses. The District will also explore ways this “Portland Schools Real Estate Trust” can provide the District with additional flexibility, annuity and quality in future facilities, while allowing the District to concentrate on instruction.

Properties Goals At the outset of this planning process, many expected this plan to recommend widespread leasing of District facilities to private parties. Many expected this plan to lay out detailed strategies for pricing, parking, tenant selection, and other technical aspects of shared use.

Detailed analysis of the District’s current inventory, however, suggests that there is less available surplus space than originally estimated. Rather than closing schools or renting portions of schools to private parties, the District will get more immediate impact by vacating several non-school properties and relocating their current users into the remainder of its buildings. Vacating the facilities identified for “inventory reduction,” will require finding new locations for 250,000 to 500,000 square feet of current activities. This represents 3-6% of the District’s space, and will require considerable juggling of users.

This will take a couple of years to accomplish. By that time, enrollment trends will have evolved to some extent, space usage will be clearer, and current needs and inventories should be considered anew.

Portland Public Schools will undertake a 5-step process of improving the flexibility, annuity, and quality of its facilities in order to better serve the needs of today’s students without compromising the ability of future generations to serve the students of their time. The District will reduce its current inventory of properties to save current operations expenses and produce future net revenue. It will reuse many facilities in creative ways, including multiple uses within single buildings, more efficient use of buildings, leasing space when appropriate, adjusting boundaries, and relieving crowding when needed. The District will retain a portfolio of property that is currently leased or is in non-traditional school use in order to have a reserve available in case of future facilities crises. The District will explore opportunities to recycle a few properties where the value of the land is disproportionate to the current value of the building and/or where the building does not serve its educational programs. The District must also routinely reinvest in its facilities to ensure an ongoing legacy of quality education for future generations.

Property Categorization The matrix on the following two pages organizes Portland Public Schools’ facilities into the five facility categories discussed above. This categorization is based on many factors. These include a review of current space utilization through the Classroom Use Survey (completed by principals in 2000, and summarized in the property information sheets in the appendix to this report), as well as calculations of square feet per student, students per classroom, and annual operating cost per student. These data were discussed with the Directors of Student Achievement (DOSAs) who collectively have responsibility for all the District’s educational programs. Extensive discussions with District facilities managers led to a preliminary categorization, which was followed by site visits to those school buildings slated for major changes. Site visits included a tour of the facility and a discussion of the

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Executive Summary 9 proposals with the principal or vice principal. In most (not all) cases, the principal was supportive of the recommendations and often already thinking of similar ideas.

For purposes of this matrix, the following definitions are appropriate:

Reduce Inventory: Priorities for Revenue Generation These properties present near- to mid-term opportunities to gain revenue for the District through sale or long-term lease (most do not currently house instructional activity); current activities will be fit into other facilities.

Reuse Space in Creative Ways: Priorities for Intensified or Changed Use This category includes properties that may have room to accommodate users dislocated during inventory reduction or earn rent from outside tenants, as well as a few overcrowded facilities in need of relief.

Retain for Future Needs (not Currently ‘Traditional’ Schools) These properties are beneficially leased to outside parties or efficiently house District functions other than neighborhood schools; they will be retained as reserve for use in case of crisis (i.e., a fire in another building).

Recycle Property into New Uses: Major Facility Redevelopment These are properties where the land is disproportionately valuable compared to the existing building, suggesting redevelopment with a new school and possibly additional uses (none of these propose closing a school program).

Reinvest in the Future of Education: Priorities for Major Work and Future Reinvestment The majority of school facilities, which are essentially full and functioning well as either Neighborhood Schools; or housing Multiple Programs. Some need major work now. All need ongoing reinvestment for the future.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Long Range Facilities Plan 11

Introduction

The Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan builds on several years of work by hundreds of people. Those individuals are inside and outside the Portland Public Schools District, both paid and volunteer.

During 1999, 2000, and 2001 dozens of public hearings, public meetings, community discussions, technical reviews, and other conversations have thoroughly explored the concepts presented herein. Innovation Partnership drafted this document under the supervision of Portland Public Schools facilities staff, the School Board, and three volunteer committees.

This Plan is organized into five sections:

1 – Background. The Background Section reviews facilities work that has been completed in recent years, upon which this Plan relies.

2 – Important Trends. The Trends Section describes how Portland’s school age population is changing and how that is likely to impact future enrollment. This Section also reviews five trends that are shaping the future of learning throughout the country.

3 – Important Lessons. The Lessons Section covers best practices in school environments for environmental and economic sustainability, as well as high student performance. This Section also outlines a number of facilities lessons derived from interviews with District personnel and school users.

4 – Facilities objectives. The Objectives Section outlines five areas of facility actions which will be developed into formal policy by the District administration and Board of Education.

5 – Long Range Facilities Plan. The actual Plan Section sets forth specific operations directives and property goals to be implemented by District Administrators with supervision for the Board of Education.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 12 Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements Many people have contributed to the multi-year effort that is behind this plan. Portland Public Schools and Innovation Partnership are grateful to them all. Together, we are confident that this process will lead to a bright and sustainable future for teaching Portland’s children.

Community Outcome Panel

Bill Scott, Chair; Director, Oregon Dept. of Economic and Community Development Don Arambula, Principal, Crandall Arambula PC Diane Linn, Chair, Multnomah County Commission Scott Bailey, Parent, Portland Public Schools Steven Lofton, Parent, Portland Public Schools Sue Brent, Vice Principal, Metropolitan Learning Center Don MacGillivray, Resident, Buckman Neighborhood Pat Burk, Assistant Superintendent, Portland Public Schools Charles McGee, Student, Portland Public Schools Miriam Calderon, Students of Color Recruitment & Retention Spec., PSU Ann Nice, Vice President, Portland Association of Teachers Shawn Engelberg, Lake Oswego PTA John Rakowitz, Chief of Staff, Multnomah County Chair Richard Garrett, President, Portland Association of Teachers Chris Raujol, Teacher, Portland Public Schools Alicia Geiger, Teacher, Portland Public Schools Michael Roth, Resident, Rice & Sacajawea Area Karen Gibson, Assistant Professor, Portland State University Judy Scott, Principal, Glencoe Elementary Cynthia Gilliam, Principal, Mt. Tabor Middle School Ethan Seltzer, Director, Institute for Portland Metropolitan Studies Ron Gould, Executive Director, Tonkin Torp LLP Amanda Shepard, Resident, CSC/Washington High School Area Cynthia Guyer, Executive Director, Portland Public Schools Foundation Grant Walter, President, Local #140 (custodians) Ybeth Iglesias, LISTOS, Oregon Council for Hispanic Advancement Noell Webb, President, Webb & Associates Paula Kinney, Principal, Arts & Communication HS, Beaverton Oregon Karla Wenzel, Zone #1, Portland Public Schools Board of Education Susan Lindsay, Co-Chair, Buckman Neighborhood Association Duncan Wyse, Executive Director, Oregon Business Council

Technical Advisory Committee

Pat LaCrosse, Chair; Retired Exective Director, OMSI Rebecca Chao, President, Regional Financial Advisors Jim Charpentier, Director of Business Development, Andersen Construction Tom Fuller, Project Manager, Shiels Obletz, Johnsen LLC Margaret Mahoney, Director, Bureau of Planning & Development Review Don Mazziotti, Executive Director, Portland Development Commission Brian McCarl, Principal, Brian McCarl & Company Tom Moisan, Principal AIA, Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects Ollie Norville, Attorney John Rakowitz, Chief of Staff, Multnomah County Commission Bart Ricketts, Senior Project Manager, Lease Crutcher Lewis Harvey Rogers, Partner, Preston Gates Ellis Jim Scherzinger, Chief Financial Officer, Portland Public Schools Carol Turner, Office of the Mayor, City of Portland Duane Schulz, Vice President, Office Printing Business, Xerox Bill Scott, Director, Oregon Economic and Community Development Gordon Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, Portland Parks Bureau Liaison to Stakeholders Committee Homer Williams, President, HGW Inc. Pam Brown, Director, PPS Facilities and Asset Management

Future of Education Work Group

Duncan Wyse, Chair; President, Oregon Business Council Pam Brown, Director, Facilities & Asset Mgmt., Portland Public Schools Carol Turner, Office of the Mayor, City of Portland Patrick Burk, Assistant Superintendent, Portland Public Schools Linda Harris, Assistant Superintendent, Portland Public Schools Lynne George, Director of Student Achievement, Portland Public Schools Paula Kinney, Principal, Beaverton Arts and Communication High School Cynthia Guyer, Executive Director, Portland Public Schools Foundation Leslie Rennie-Hill, Portland Public Schools Foundation Larry Sears, Portland General Electric Jim Scherzinger, Interim Superintendent, Portland Public Schools

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Acknowledgements 13

Schools Real Estate Trust Organizing Committee

Pat LaCrosse, Chair; Retired, OMSI David Aaroe – DPR Construction, Inc. Elizabeth Aaroe – Fisher Consulting, LLC Joan Austin – A-DEC, Inc. Julia Brim-Edwards – Portland Public Schools Board of Education Pam Brown – PPS Facilities and Asset Management Gale Castillo – Bellissima Fine Gifts Jim Eddy – formerly Spieker Properties Bill Farver – Portland Public Schools Ronald Gould – Tonkon Torp, LLP Steve Janik – Ball Janik LLP Al Jubitz – Jubitz Corporation Tom Kelly – Neil Kelly, Inc. David Leland – Leland Consulting Fred Miller – Portland General Electric Randy Miller – The Moore Company Lloyd Minten – Holliday Fenoglio Fowler LP Eric Parsons – StanCorp Financial Group John Rakowitz – Multnomah County Commission John Rees – Rees & Associates Bob Scanlan – ScanlanKemperBard Companies Jim Scherzinger, Portland Public Schools Tom Walsh – Tom Walsh & Company Karla Wenzel – Portland Public Schools Board of Education Janice Wilson – Retired, Wells Fargo Jeana Woolley – J.M. Woolley & Associates Duncan Wyse – Oregon Business Council Marc Abrams – Portland Public Schools Board of Education

School Properties Field Review Group

Pam Brown, Director, Portland Public Schools Facilities Margaret Mahoney, City Bureau of Planning & Development Review Jim Charpentier, Andersen Construction Brian McCarl, Brian McCarl & Company Larry Dully, The Dully Company Ed McNamara, Prendergast Associates Art Johnson, KPFF Engineers Tom Moisan, Ankrom Moisan Architects

Portland Public Schools Board of Education

Debbie Goldberg Menashe, Chair Marc Abrams Jennifer Lewis Julia Brim-Edwards Lolenzo Poe Sue Hagmeier Karla Wenzel Derry A. Jackson

Portland Public Schools Staff

Jim Scherzinger, Interim Superintendent Pam Brown, Director of Facilities and Asset Management Pat Burk Denny Clausen Heidi Franklin Blair Fitzgibbon Jollee Patterson Kerry Hampton Patrick Wolfe

Directors Of Student Achievement Harriet Adair Glenn Gelbrich Dr. Ed Bettencourt Lynne George Jean Fischer Maxine Kilcrease, Director of Special Education

Principals and Vice Principals James Carlile Ann Gerson Peter Hamilton Tom Pickett Lynne Buedefeldt Cynthia Gilliam Charles Hopson Judith Scott Opal Chancler-Moore Jill Gumrey Mary Kaer John Ubik Deanne Frohlich Yvonne Hachiya Jeanne Pace Greg Wolleck

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 14 Acknowledgements

Innovation Partnership Board of Innovators

Executive Team Innovators at Large Pat LaCrosse, Chair Clara Padilla Andrews Sam Adams, Treasurer Stu Hall Susan Stone, Secretary Larry Hilderbrand Kathleen Carter Ed Jensen Tim Grewe Bar Johnston Bill Scott Barbara Roberts Homer Williams *Ruth Scott, President *Brian Scott, Projects Director * ex-officio

Schools Real Estate Trust Board

Jim Eddy Steve Janik Jacob Johnson Pat LaCrosse Dick Levy Fred Miller Eric Parsons Linda Tubbs Tom Walsh

Multnomah County Commission on Children, Families and Community Diane Linn, Multnomah County Chair

Center on Reinventing Public Education at University of Washington Paul Hill, Director Mike deArmond Sara Taggart

Population Research Center at Portland State University Barry Edmonston, Director Richard Lycan Irina Sharkova

Portland General Electric Green Building Services Alan Scott, Director Katrina Shum-Miller

Best Use of Facilities Task Force

Audit Implementation Steering Committee

Others

Jane Emrick John Weekes Jeff Allen Derek Smith Dan Hess Steve Siegel James Hamrick

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Long Range Facilities Plan 15

Background

This Long Range Facilities Plan builds on several years of work by hundreds of people. Those individuals are inside and outside the Portland Public Schools District, both paid and volunteer. This Background chapter summarizes previous work and explains the foundation upon which this comprehensive effort was constructed.

Best Use of Facilities Study The most recent look at the complicated set of Portland Public Schools property issues is the Best Use of Facilities Study. A 35-member task force met monthly between June 2000 and March 2001 and twice went out into the community with a series of informational and feedback meetings at the high schools central to each ‘cluster’ of schools. This process built heavily on work instigated by two earlier reports, the KPMG Comprehensive Performance Audit and the Audit Implementation Steering Committee. As an outgrowth of previous work, the Best Use Report is clearly the most Best Use Task Force informed effort to address the many issues related to Portland Public Schools buildings and property. Sources such as the Oregon Database Primary Recommendations Initiative and Portland State University Population Research Center allowed • Use existing space more the Task Force members to clearly conceptualize the problem. efficiently; • Reduce costs per student, Problem by reducing the District’s The Best Use Task Force concluded that Portland Public Schools was inventory of space and/or spending more per student on operations and maintenance than the average by recovering costs from 1 spent by other districts, by $86 per student. The following primarily cause surplus space (i.e., this gap: charging higher rent); • • Portland’s operations and maintenance costs per square foot are lower Improve marketing and than other districts surveyed, but Portland has about 30% more building programs to slow down or space per student than other large districts. even reverse enrollment • Since Portland Public Schools buildings are older than average, they declines; and • require more maintenance and are not as flexible in adapting to new Measure progress toward programs. (84% of Portland Public Schools buildings were built more more efficient and cost- effective space utilization.

1 Although the data for the other districts are not strictly comparable, the average – June 2001 costs serves as a benchmark as to what other districts are spending and the calculated ‘gap’ serves as a reference point for cost-reduction and cost-recovery efforts. To the extent that Portland Public Schools can reduce operations and maintenance costs towards the state average, then more funds will be available to spend on instruction.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 16 Background

than 40 years ago, compared to the statewide average in this category which is only 48%.) • Portland Public Schools has several community partners who use space in school facilities. Many provide programs and activities for children and the community. The District has provided space to many of these partners at less than its own operations and management costs — thereby subsidizing these uses.

The Best Use Task Force also considered the impact of population trends on these conclusions. Enrollment forecasts predict that Kindergarten-12th Grade enrollment is expected to decline from approximately 51,900 in 2000 to 47,100 in 20102. As enrollment declines, so will state funding since state funding is based on enrollment. Nevertheless, many operations and maintenance costs are “fixed costs” that will not decrease as enrollment declines. Consequently, the Best Use Task Force concluded that the District would spend an increasing proportion of its revenues on maintaining facilities at the expense of instructional programs, unless steps are taken.

The net effect is that dollars for education go to subsidizing facilities. It’s not what goes on in the classrooms, but the classrooms themselves.

Recommendations The Best Use Task Force recommended four ways for the District to manage its facilities in order to reduce facility costs and shift funding back into the classroom:

• Use existing space more efficiently; • Reduce costs per student, by reducing the District’s inventory of space and/or by recovering costs from surplus space (i.e. charging higher rent); • Improve marketing and programs to slow down or even reverse enrollment declines; and • Measure progress toward more efficient and cost-effective space utilization. These recommendations provide the basis and organizational principals for the objectives proposed herein.

The extensive public input into the Best Use process illuminated a number of concerns regarding District facility use. Of primary concern was the closure of schools as a cost saving method. The Best Use Task Force

2 Enrollment forecasts were prepared by the Center for Population Research and Census at Portland State University’s College of Urban and Public Affairs. This number is updated from the Best Use of Facilities Report figure. The new projections are based on September 2001 enrollment and the 2000 Census.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Background 17 pointedly did not recommend closing any schools until some other possibilities, such as filling empty space and leasing buildings not currently used as schools, had been addressed. This decision was based on the disruption to surrounding communities when a school closes and the potential seen for the extra space to be filled with paying users. Also of concern was the loss of flexibility resulting from the sale of school properties. Best Use Task Force Priority Actions Priority Actions The Best Use of Facilities Task Force identified, in addition to its recommendations, seven actions seen to be of the highest priority in relation • Educational Priorities to facilities. These are: for use of school space. • Cost-per-square-foot • Portland Public Schools must clearly state its educational priorities for for use of space; use of school space. internal allocation of • Portland Public Schools should establish a cost-per-square-foot for use space costs to each of space in school buildings, and initiate a budgetary program to school. internally allocate space costs to each school. • Market rates for space • Portland Public Schools should conclude its efforts to identify and rental or lease. establish fair market rates for the rental or lease of Portland Public • Cost-recovery to reduce Schools space for outside activities. subsidizing use of • Portland Public Schools should step up cost-recovery efforts to reduce space. subsidizing the cost of PPS space to some users. • Alternative • Portland Public Schools should consider very seriously options for management or alternative management or ownership structures that would make ownership of facilities. implementation less difficult. • Communications and • Based on survey results jointly conducted by Portland Public Schools, marketing strategy. the Portland Development Commission and the City of Portland, • Monitoring effort develop and initiate a communications and marketing strategy. In June through a facilities of 2001, the District approved a budget that eliminated the spending advisory committee. gap in operations and maintenance, identified by the Best Use Task Force. This move has helped the District move away from its reliance on short-term funding, but has put more pressure on the facilities to generate revenue. • Portland Public Schools should initiate a monitoring effort by establishing a standing advisory committee on facilities.

These priority actions provide the basis for the implementation strategies outlined herein.

In August 2001, the District passed a resolution recognizing the importance of these recommendations and has set into motion the first four of these and has strongly supported the fifth in its resolution and ongoing work with

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 18 Background

Innovation Partnership in support of the creation of a Schools Real Estate Trust.

Recent Facilities Work In June of 2001, the by District Staff and Innovation Partnership As the Best Use of Facilities Task Force wrapped up its look at the District approved a District’s facilities issues, Innovation Partnership was preparing to carry budget that this work forward. The one thing that was very clear at the conclusion of the Best Use process is the District had a wide variety of issues to deal with; eliminated the most connected directly to the core competency of setting and evaluating spending gap in educational policy. However, there was also a set of issues that dealt with the implications of student population decline on the District’s real operations and property. In June of 2001, the District approved a budget that eliminated the spending gap in operations and maintenance, identified by the Best Use maintenance, Task Force. This has helped the District move away from its reliance on identified by the short-term funding, but has put more pressure on the facilities to generate revenue. Best Use Task Force. This has Implementing the Recommendations of Best Use of Facilities Report helped the District In order to pursue the recommendations laid out by the Task Force, move away from its Innovation Partnership began examining new alternatives for operations, use and ownership of school properties. A Technical Advisory Committee reliance on short- and a Community Outcome Panel were formed from diverse interested term funding but has community members, important stakeholders and individuals with specific professional knowledge of the issues at hand. The Technical Advisory put more pressure Committee informed the project with the real estate, finance, and development know-how needed to get a clear picture of the potential for the on the facilities to District’s assets. With these possibilities identified, the Community generate revenue Outcome Panel provided a “sounding board” to identify community concerns about the possible changes to the way school facilities are managed.

The goal of this effort is to make resources available for instructional programs by changing the operation, use or management of school property. There are two basic ways to accomplish this goal:

• Create new revenues for instructional programs by extracting the value of school properties by their sale, lease, or fee-for-use. • Free-up existing resources for instructional programs by reducing the District’s operations and management costs.

Of course these strategies are interrelated. If space is sold or leased, the District can reduce its own operations and management costs. The

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Background 19

Technical Advisory Committee compiled an inventory of methods to accomplish one or both of these objectives. These include:

Operations Options • Save operations and maintenance costs by using less space for education • Save operations and maintenance costs by consolidating administrative space into school buildings The goal of this • Modify internal budgeting practices to hold program operators effort is to make accountable for their use of space • Lease school space for non-school programs at market rate resources available • Outsource maintenance currently provided by Portland Public Schools for instructional • Replace existing facilities with more efficient facilities programs by Use Options changing the • Lease of Portland Public Schools facilities for adaptive reuse with or without joint school use operation, use or • Sale/ground lease of Portland Public Schools land for redevelopment • Sale/transfer of Portland Public Schools fields to Parks Bureau management of school property. Ownership Options • Create a new real estate holding entity • Sales-Leaseback

The following are illustrations of how these options might work:

• Operations As noted earlier, Portland Public Schools has more space per student than the statewide average. Despite this surplus, school activities understandably fill the space available. As a result, the District bears operations and maintenance costs for more educational space than necessary, plus additional costs for administrative space. Consolidating educational and administrative space should save the District operations and maintenance costs, which could be transferred to the non-District users of the surplus space. Current District policy, however, does not encourage such actions.

For example, a principal who found a way to make more efficient use of educational space could conceivably make space available within a school building for administrative and/or (rent paying) non-District uses. Unfortunately, under the current budget structure, such a principal would not be able to ‘capture’ these savings within that specific school’s budget for educational purposes. A different budgeting process could make it so.

• Use

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 20 Background

Portland Public Schools has a number of properties that are currently not in educational use. These properties could be sold or leased to other users, allowing the dollar value of these properties to be captured for education. Since these properties are largely in desirable, established neighborhoods, their value is considerable and likely to continue growing. As such, the most advantageous strategy for the District might well be to sell buildings while retaining ownership of the underlying land. This arrangement would allow the District to realize increasing lease revenues as property values grow.

Additionally, the School District has many active school facilities that operate with more land and/or building space than they need. School grounds often act as city parks, and could be transferred to the City for ownership, operations, and maintenance. Buildings might be redeveloped to accommodate uses in addition to, or instead of, instruction. Housing, community services, and certain commercial activities are some of the uses that might pay rent to the school district and be compatible with adjacent instructional facilities.

• Ownership

Ownership options don’t really differ from Use options in terms of the functions that might one day happen on existing District properties. The difference is in who manages the process. Fundamentally, Portland Public Schools is in the business of educating children. The alternative management and use of 112 properties is a serious real estate endeavor, which might be better handled by professional real estate managers and developers. This could be done through sales-leaseback arrangements with private firms or by creating a dedicated public ‘trust,’ tied to the District, for just this purpose. Either scenario would let the District focus on education, while others managed real estate.

Establishing a Schools Real Estate Trust In response to a projected budget shortfall, Portland Public Schools staff had identified a number of properties that were considered in excess of what was needed for the educational program and could be disposed of to generate revenue. Aware of the concerns expressed by the Best Use Task Force about selling off properties to cover operating shortfalls, Portland Public Schools Facilities staff consulted with Innovation Partnership volunteers and staff about the best way to generate revenue without sacrificing future flexibility and income from these assets. Technical Advisory Committee members volunteered services and time to assist the District directly with the disposal of these properties.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Background 21

Most valuable amongst these properties, the Child Services Center (formerly Washington High School) posed a significant challenge for the The Real Estate Trust District. On one hand, this property had the most potential value of any non-school facility. However, the best available information indicated that will: nearly half of the value could disappear if the District made a hasty sale and • Generate Annual moved the current occupants out. At the District’s request, Innovation Partnership investigated alternative methods of reusing this property that Net Revenue for would generate both short-term cash and long-term benefits. Seeing the long-term development potential of the property and the District’s inability Portland Public to manage such a complicated project in addition to its current workload, Schools; Innovation Partnership focused efforts on finding funds to purchase the facility. The funds will be channeled through a new independent non-profit • Create future organization that will act as the District’s real estate specialist, to manage flexibility in the development in a way that best benefits the needs of Portland Public Schools. property This concept of a Real Estate Trust, to serve the District’s need for management for professional real estate assistance, originated with Paul Hill in his work at the Brookings Institute and the University of Washington’s Center for Portland Public Reinventing Public Education. A Real Estate Trust would: Schools; and • Generate Annual Net Revenue for Portland Public Schools; • Allow Portland • Create future flexibility in property management for Portland Public Schools; and Public Schools to • Allow Portland Public Schools to focus its energies on its educational mission, rather than on the technical and community issues related to focus its energies on real estate. its educational In addition to the Child Services Center, the Real Estate Trust will be useful mission. in the negotiation of leases, sales, and purchases of property as needed in the changing environment in which the District operates. In the longer term, the Real Estate Trust might take on more responsibility, enhancing the effectiveness of the District by focusing each organization on its core competencies.

After establishing that the idea of a Real Estate Trust seemed promising to both the Technical Advisory Committee and the Community Outcome Panel, Innovation Partnership brought the idea to the Board of Education. In several meetings with the members of the Board of Education, strong support was generated for the idea, resulting in resolutions in support of the incorporation of the new non-profit and recognizing the policy work indicated in the Best Use of Facilities Report needs to be moved forward to support the work of the Real Estate Trust.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 22 Background

Innovation Partnership provided a working example of the assistance that the Real Estate Trust could provide by assisting District staff in negotiating the sale of the Normandale building to its long time tenant, The Early Head Start Family Center. This deal was described as both “fiscally sound and deeply compassionate” by the Executive Director of Early Head Start, Cynthia Wells. It allowed a community supported organization to take over the ownership of the building it had occupied for nearly five years and will provide both short-term and long-term income to the District. The agreement also includes a clause allowing Portland Public Schools the first opportunity to buy the property, should Early Head Start choose to sell it.

Continuing with this work, Innovation Partnership staff organized a group of volunteer experts in real estate development, engineering, architecture, planning and construction to visit four sites and evaluate each piece of property for its potential to generate financial benefits for the District. Armed with summary information about each site, the volunteers provided ideas about issues facing the development of the sites and recommendations about the real potential for new uses.

In order for these suggestions to be put into action on any larger scale, the PPS Strategic Plan Real Estate Trust and the District must be clear on the current situation of, Facilities Implications as well as the future plans for, each of the 112 facilities that make up the Portland Public Schools portfolio. • Smaller schools • All-day Kindergarten Portland Public Schools Strategic Plan • Smaller class sizes In July 2000, Portland Public Schools adopted a Strategic Plan outlining • Achievement- strategies for the District’s schools. Several educational trends and District supportive community priorities that are contained in the Strategic Plan have major facilities uses implications; other general implications also have facilities consequences. • Business partners These include: • Increased distance learning Major facilities implications Smaller schools The Strategic Plan supports the national trend toward smaller schools, and/or schools within schools. It isn’t specific, however, about how small is small according to the Portland Public School District. The current Oregon Quality Education Model suggests elementary schools of 300-500 students, middle schools with enrollments of 400-600, and high schools of 1200- 1500 (w/autonomous smaller sub-units).

All-day Kindergartens The importance of early childhood education and a child’s preparedness for school are becoming increasingly apparent in Portland and nationally. Portland Public Schools already houses a large number of Kindergarten and

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Background 23 pre-Kindergarten programs throughout the city. Another way the District can support early learning is to offer a full-day Kindergarten program more widely than is now available. Such a move has serious facilities ramifications since full-day Kindergarten occupies twice as much space as half-day Kindergarten (i.e., you can’t put two classes in the same classroom at different parts of the day).

Smaller class sizes, especially elementary Smaller classes are a widely held value, both nationally and in Portland. From a facilities standpoint, it is easy to overlook that smaller classes mean buildings with relatively more classrooms (200 students use eight classrooms at 25/class, but need ten classrooms at 20/class). As such, efforts to reduce class size produce less crowded rooms but require bigger buildings.

Community uses that assist achievement The District has made achievement for all students its primary mission. Following that rationale, the District should be looking for ways to improve achievement in everything it does, including community use of school facilities.

Business as partners in instruction in the workplace National educational trends (next chapter) suggest that partnerships with businesses and students learning in the workplace will grow. If this activity materializes in a significant way, it will relieve pressure on fixed facilities.

Increase use of technology and distance learning Technology-based distance learning is now widespread and the District is well equipped for teleconferencing and other distance learning opportunities. More technology-based and distance learning means less demand for traditional classrooms.

General Implications Pre-Kindergarten programs Again, early childhood education is increasingly a priority. Portland Public Schools already offers a broad array of pre-Kindergarten services. These use classrooms, and are likely to use more in the future.

Before and after school care In today’s society, many families need and/or want before and after school care for their school age children. This is a natural partnership with the District’s elementary schools, but again uses space. Currently, the District charges a ‘cost-recovery’ rate for space used for child care services.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 24 Background

Tutoring space More personalized and individual attention to students has many educational benefits. Offering tutoring services, or even making room for them requires facility space.

Technology and connectivity in every room The District is currently underway on a major technology and connectivity program. Staff is planning this technology to be as adaptable as possible to accommodate future advancements in technology and future facilities decisions.

Community/family/volunteer space Portland Public Schools values its connection to the communities it serves, and relies on the support of volunteers and families to make its educational programs successful. Community, family and volunteer activities take space.

Greater school-based decision-making and budget flexibility Portland Public Schools Strategic Plan calls for more school-based decision-making and greater individual school budget flexibility. For this to make sense on facilities issues, this will require budget accountability at the school level.

Future Assumptions Open enrollment The Strategic Plan anticipates that Open Enrollment will continue and expand. The Plan poses the question of a return to a K-8 format for elementary schools, which—if adopted—would have considerable facilities ramifications. The Plan assumes continuing or growing options for special focus programs, alternative and charter schools, and linkages with community colleges and universities. Finally, the plan acknowledges the certain growth in telecommunications and distance learning as viable options to traditional classroom instruction.

Other Sources Consulted In preparing this Long Range Facilities Plan, a number of reports, studies, and processes were consulted. A partial list: Audit Implementation Steering Committee. Final Report. May 18, 1999. City of Portland. Historic Resources Inventory. 1984.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Background 25

Cushman & Wakefield of Oregon, Inc. Condition and Alternative Use Analysis Portland Public Schools Portfolio, November 1, 2000. Hill, Paul T. Christine Campbell & James Harvey. It Takes a City. Washington DC: Brookings Institute Press, 2000. Innovation Partnership. Leveraging Community Assets: A Background Report on Portland’s School Buildings. January 29, 2001. James G. Pierson, Inc./ Structural Engineers, Jerry W. Estop, PE/SE, Ellis Eslick Associates/ Architects P.C. Portland Pubic Schools Current Building Conditions: Seismic, Fire & Life Safety, and ADA Upgrades., July 20, 2000. KPMG Comprehensive Performance Audit of the Portland Public Schools: Final Report. September 3, 1998. Oregon Department of Education 1999-2000; 2000-2001 assessment results, Oregon Department of Education Website, http://www.ode.state.or.us/asmt/. Accessed December 11, 2001. Parametrix, Inc. Best Use of Facilities Study: Final Report. April 20, 2001. Population Research Center, Portland State University. Changing Times Changing Enrollments: How Recent Demographic Trends are Affecting Portland Public Schools. June 26, 2000 Population Research Center, Portland State University. Elementary, Middle, and High School Enrollment Forecasts by Attendance Area Residing and School Attending Portland Public Schools for 2000-2010, July 19, 2000. Population Research Center, Portland State University. The Path Ahead: Future Enrollments in Portland Public Schools, 2000 to 2010. June 26, 2000. Portland Public Schools. Facilities Capital Improvement Program Quarterly Reports. Portland Public Schools October Enrollment Report, 1972. Portland Public Schools. Report to the Portland Public Schools Performance Audit Implementation Steering Committee: On The Current Status of Audit Implementation. January 2000. Portland Public Schools: Facilities and Asset Management. PPS Facilities Operations Costs, January 2002. Portland Public Schools: Facilities and Asset Management Division. Summary Report: Special Use and Non-School Use Facilities, November 8, 2000. Portland Public Schools: Facilities and Asset Management Division. State of the Building Reports, September 2001. Portland Public Schools: Management Information Services. Portland Public Schools Enrollment Summaries October 2001. Udziela, Matthew. Portland Public Schools April 2000 Classroom Use Survey. Portland Public Schools

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Long Range Facilities Plan 27

Section I: Important Trends

Learning is Changing

Population is Dropping

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Long Range Facilities Plan 29

Future of Learning Five national trends will affect K-12 education by Paul Hill, Michael DeArmond, and Sara Taggart Center for Reinventing Public Education Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs University of Washington

Introduction When forward-thinking educators talk about the future of learning, they generally accept the idea that tomorrow’s classrooms, students, and teachers will somehow look different than they do today. Good-bye to colossal high schools, good-bye to 52-minute class periods, good-bye to the policy of putting students in classes based on their age. The routines of the present, so the arguments go, shouldn’t restrain our thinking about what comes next.3

But all too often people who can think “out of the box” when it comes to a school’s program nonetheless see its building as a fixed frame of reference. “We’ll transform teaching and learning,” they might say, “But it’ll happen here, in this building.”

The reasons for this limitation are complex. Some people take the word “school” to mean “building.” They fear that changes in buildings will mean their neighborhood will loose its school. Others simply assume that it would take too much money and political effort to change existing Portland Public buildings. Understandable though they are, these attitudes amount to letting a given stock of buildings limit how we think about teaching and learning. Schools can let But this need not be the case. innovations in Rather than taking its current buildings as givens, Portland Public Schools instruction and can let innovations in instruction and learning drive the design and use of its facilities in the coming decades. With this in mind, this chapter identifies learning drive the five trends in education that can guide district leaders as they think about design and use of what kinds of buildings and spaces they will need for tomorrow’s schools. The five trends are: its facilities

• Pressure on schools to perform for all students, not just those who learn best in traditional settings;

3 For the limits of these and other current “routines” see Sizer, 1992, Little, 1999, and Darling-Hammond, 1997.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 30 Future of Learning

Each of these, if taken to its fullest, brings interesting new realities for public schools. In the future, “school” may encompass the local library; a science lab facility shared between the local high schools and community college; a classroom located on-site at a software developer’s corporate headquarters; or a new elementary school built with movable walls and computer wiring.

Regardless of how these trends express themselves, Portland Public Schools will have to respond to them in some way or another in the years to come. If it is constrained by a set of buildings whose location and structure were designed long ago, the District’s response will be less than effective. If, however, it thinks about the future of learning and invests in suitable buildings and spaces, the result can be schools that are more adaptable to student and neighborhood needs, and that are ultimately more effective.

By thinking broadly about the future of learning and its implications for facilities, Portland Public Schools can anticipate and plan for school spaces that will expand, not constrain, the educational opportunities it offers its children.

5 National Trends The Future of Learning: Five National Trends Impacting K-12 Education This section takes a closer look at each of the five trends, the forces behind them, and what they can mean for schools. • Performance Pressure on Schools Performance Pressure on Schools • Personalization • Schools across the country are under increasing pressure to do better. As a New technologies th • Changes in Supply of 4 grade New York City teacher says about the pressure to raise test scores, Teachers “It’s all around you, it is constant, it never lets up” (Goodnough, 2001). 4 • Changes in Student Three factors drive this pressure : Characteristics and Numbers 4 On a more general level, the drive toward performance pressure is part of the “reinventing government” movement that aims to improve government performance and efficiency by shrinking the bureaucracy, using the logic of the market model, and promoting “best practices.”

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Future of Learning 31

• The standards-based reform movement • Renewed unrest over the achievement gap • Increased competition from new school choices

Standards-based Reform. The logic behind standards-based reform is simple: society should make its expectations (i.e., standards) for student learning known; administrators and policymakers should evaluate schools based on these standards; and schools should be held accountable for student achievement.

Education Week’s most recent state-by-state review of standards-based reform indicates that policymakers find this logic attractive:

Forty-nine states have academic standards in at least some subjects; 50 test how well their students are learning; and 27 hold schools accountable for results, either by rating the performance of all schools or identifying low-performing ones (Education Week, January 2001, Executive Summary). Some states, like Texas, track student achievement data closely, offering rewards and imposing sanctions for changes in performance over time. Other states, like New York, Georgia, and Alabama, require high school students to pass statewide tests in order to graduate (Education Week, January 2001).

It is self-evident that such systems create pressure for performance. Add the Bush Administration’s education plan (more tests and accountability), and it is clear that these reforms are fast becoming “a fundamental part” of education policy and governance in America (Elmore, 2000, p. 4).

Unrest over the Achievement Gap. While attention to disparities in educational access peaked during the civil rights movement, school systems around the country are showing a renewed focus on the gap in achievement between poor minority students and their white middle-class counterparts.

In some cities (including Portland), parents and community activists organize marches and rallies to press school leaders to improve schools that serve poor and minority students. Districts and states around the country are beginning to respond by giving failing schools, sometimes called ‘focus schools’ or ‘target schools,’ extra support or intervention.

Add to this the roll-back of affirmative action in college admissions, the general focus on test scores, and the increasing ethnic and linguistic diversity in the nation’s classrooms, and it is clear why pressure for

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 32 Future of Learning

increased minority achievement is at the forefront of discussions about the future of learning in America.5

Competition from New School Choices. For many years, a family’s choices about where to send their children to school were relatively simple: attend a neighborhood public school, or (if you could afford it) pay tuition at a local private or religious school.

By contrast, today’s choices are complicated. For starters, “choice” can mean many different things: it can mean parents are able to choose where their child goes to school within a school district (through an open enrollment plan like Portland’s); or, it can mean choice between districts (through a regional or state open enrollment plan, like Minnesota’s); it can mean the presence of charter schools; or, it can mean giving parents vouchers to attend privately run schools. School choice can even mean allowing home schooling parents to enroll their children part-time in district-run classes, sports, and art programs.

All of these trends are evident nationwide, though some are stronger than others (charter schools, in particular, are growing rapidly). Though the evidence varies, it is clear that, in some districts, competitive choice has an effect on traditional public schools, leading them to try new ways to attract students and boost achievement (Finn, Manno, Vanourek, 2000). To the degree that choice in any of these forms forces schools to compete for students, it may add to the pressure on all schools to perform.

What will increasing performance pressure mean for most schools?

As standards-based reform and accountability spread, as school and community leaders search for new ways to close the achievement gap, and as competition among schools grows, several scenarios are conceivable. Among other things, performance pressure may lead to:

• More Small Schools. Research shows that the achievement gap grows more slowly in small schools and that small schools generally boost minority achievement (Wasley et al, 2000). Performance pressure, especially that associated with the achievement gap, may lead to smaller schools or other new classroom configurations (e.g. one-on-one tutoring for remedial help).

5 Professors Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips argue that narrowing the gap “would do more to move America toward racial equality than any politically plausible alternative” (Jencks & Phillips, 1998, p. 43). “To do otherwise,” says Raul Yzaguirre, the president of the National Council of La Raza “is to admit to failure, tolerate racial differences, and give up on the very fundamental ideals of America." (Johnston & Viadero, 2000).

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Future of Learning 33

• Greater School Autonomy. When schools are held accountable for performance, principals may demand more control over school resources. Such bottom-up organization allows school leaders to make program and resource decisions that fit their school’s needs – and can get results. • Changes in the Supply of Schools. Ultimately, if performance pressure is coupled with sanctions and rewards, the logic of standards-based reform raises the possibility that the supply of schools will change. Successful schools will prosper; struggling schools will ultimately change or close. • New Grade Spans. In response to standards-based reform and new graduation requirements (e.g. a certificate of mastery), parents with choices - or districts under accountability pressure - may demand new grade spans in schools. For example, some schools might focus on the transition years between junior high and high school only; others might focus on the final years of high school.6

Personalization Recent research on small high schools has highlighted the fact that some students are more successful in schools that, thanks to their size, can pay close attention to students’ individual needs. In particular, it appears that some students from minority backgrounds can do better in small schools (Wasley et al., 2000).

These findings aren’t lost on philanthropists, the federal government, or parents. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, invested $277 million to help convert large comprehensive high schools into small ones. The Clinton Administration’s Small Learning Communities Program and the Bush Administration’s new State Choice and Innovation Grants also provide money with small schools in mind (Department of Education, 2001). And as parents become more aware of state and school-level expectations for students, and have more and more choices about where to send their children, it follows that they will also increasingly demand schools that are personalized and that “fit” their needs. Taken together, these factors create pressure for smaller, more personalized schools and, in many cases, more school choices.

6 Plano Independent School District in Texas is currently doing just that at its senior high schools serving students in 11th and 12th grade. Students in each school are divided into several “sub-schools” as they focus on developing the knowledge and skills needed to graduate and enter college or the workforce.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 34 Future of Learning

What will an increasingly personalized approach to student learning mean for schools? In practice, demands for more personalized schools may lead to:

• Schools sharing space. One way to answer the demand for small, personalized schools is to put several schools in one building – a multiplex. New York City used this “schools-within-a-school” approach for its well-known Julia Richmond Complex that includes six small schools of choice (the complex also houses a professional development institute, a teen parent resource center, and a health center) (Cook, 2000). Under such arrangements schools may end up sharing gym, lab, and auditorium space while retaining distinct programs. • Students learning off campus. The demand for personalized programs may lead to more off-campus activity. Schools that offer quality school-to-work programs, for example, will provide a “work-based education coordinated with school-based instruction” (Donahoe, D. & Tienda, M, 2000, pp. 250-251). Through ties with employers, organized labor, public agencies and community groups, students - especially high school students - may spend part of their time on campus and part of their time in the community. • Ties to community colleges. As schools try to meet the students’ needs, they may make greater use of off campus resources at community colleges. Students may attend advanced placement and other courses at a community college, gaining access to more choices and benefiting from a seamless continuum of education from high school to college. The middle college/high school model (wherein students attend school on a community college campus, taking both high school and college courses) is another example of potential links between high school and college (Gehring, J., 2001).

New Technology It isn’t a surprise that technology will play an important role in the future of learning. After all, technology (especially information technology) is ubiquitous: 9 in 10 school age children now have access to computers; the Census Bureau says that the use of the Internet in America is now “pervasive” (Newburger, 2001). But technology’s importance in education is not due only to its sheer presence. It is also driven by:

• The demand for technology savvy graduates • The demand for technology based solutions to teacher/skill shortages and the increasing quality and relevance of internet-based learning tools.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Future of Learning 35

Demand for technology savvy graduates. Rapid technological change is the seminal force in our economy (Judy, R. & D’Amico, C., 1997). Looking ahead 20 years, forecasters predict that changes in technology will continue to increase the demand for technology savvy workers, creating “new jobs [that] pay better and require higher skills” than jobs lost in the wake of changes in work and business (Ibid., p. 21). Public schools will be under increasing pressure to ensure that their graduates are prepared to do these jobs.

Teacher/skill shortages increase demand for technology. As the nascent online education industry develops, schools that face skill or teacher shortages will be able to access relevant instructional programs through the internet or other interactive media. Examples of such supplemental resources already exist: Florida High School offers online courses to public and private school students in the state at www.flvs.net; former Secretary of Education William Bennett’s company K-12 Inc. offers “classical” education in the early grades at www.k12.com; Paul Allen’s Apex Learning offers Advanced Placement courses online at www.apexlearning.com. As these and other online educational services become increasingly relevant and high quality, they will offer schools new tools for reaching students, especially those who may not be learning well through more traditional approaches.

What will the demand for, and availability of, new technology mean for schools?

The demand for tech savvy workers, the need to supplement teaching with technology, and the ubiquitous nature of computers may lead to:

• New mixes of teachers and computers. Apex Learning, K-12 Inc., CyberSchool, and other online education providers allow schools to use an array of teacher-computer combinations to improve student learning. Accordingly, schools may need spaces that serve a variety of class sizes depending on whether instruction is computer-based or teacher-based. • Students learning off campus. Just as school-to-work connections will move students out of the classroom and into the community, computer coursework and distance learning create an opportunity for students to learn at home or at their local library as well as at school. • Movable walls and wiring flexibility. As technologies change, schools will need to be able to adapt their spaces to take full advantage in their efforts to promote greater student learning.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 36 Future of Learning

Changes in Supply of Teachers Today, the teacher shortage is concentrated in urban districts in certain subject areas7 (the well-known troika of math, science, and special education) (Recruiting New Teachers, 2000). But districts everywhere – urban, suburban, and rural – fear a potential shortage of teachers (and principals) that will bring significant challenges in the coming decades. The reasons behind teacher shortages are complex. On a very basic level, they are driven by three important factors:

• Increases in the demand for teachers • Stagnation in the supply of teachers • People leaving the profession

Increases in demand. The demand for teachers has been growing over time. Much of the increase is due to expanding enrollments in some regions and a more general push for smaller classes by state and local policy makers. This pattern shows no sign of changing in the coming decade (Hussar, 1999).

Inadequate supply. As the demand for teachers grows, the supply of teachers isn’t expected to keep pace. Though traditional college education programs continue to turn out newly minted, credentialed teachers each year, many of these graduates never enter the classroom (Feistritzer, January 28, 1998).

Departing Teachers. Part of the imbalance between demand and supply is also linked to the numbers of practicing teachers who leave (or will leave) the profession. Some leave out of frustration with the working environment, others to pursue different professional opportunities. Some leave for personal reasons (the birth of children or a spouse re-locating to a new area). For many districts, the largest group of potential departing teachers is retirees. Almost half of current K-12 teachers will be eligible for retirement in the next ten years (American Council on Education, 1999).

At the same time, as the nation’s population ages and the economy turns downward, new groups of adults will likely express interest in teaching. A new cohort of potential teachers will exist in retired and semi-retired professionals seeking ways to stay connected to the world of work and their

7 While there is not clear evidence to suggest a national shortage of teachers, some districts do appear to be more impacted by a limited supply than others. In particular poorer districts that struggle to compete for top quality teacher and districts that are poorly managed appear to have greater difficulties filling teacher positions.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Future of Learning 37 communities. As school districts grow and shrink, these individuals will offer an important supply of teachers willing to work in non-traditional ways, as part-timers, mentors, or adjunct faculty with specialized expertise.

What will the changing supply of teachers mean for schools?

The net result of these forces is that the projected influx of new teachers will not be large enough to replace those individuals who leave the profession and meet the increased demand. At the same time, individuals with professional expertise may be willing and able to work with schools in new and exciting ways. This may lead to:

• Technology-labor tradeoffs. Thanks to technology, schools may be able to manage periods of limited teacher supply by using high quality technology based learning programs as described above. • Changing definitions of adult roles in schools. As the supply and skill- set of teachers change, schools will want to alter traditional roles and responsibilities. Some schools will seek new configurations with regard to administration, counseling/mentoring, and classroom teaching. Leadership and management functions may become more diffuse. • Ties to community colleges and other schools. As a particular school site faces human resource constraints, it may draw on other schools or nearby community colleges and other organizations to supplement its program and teaching force.

Changes in student characteristics and numbers. Because fluctuations in the number of students enrolled, their location, and their socio-economic status impact demands on schools, districts pay close attention to demographic forecasts and trends. On a national level, K-12 enrollment is slated to continue to expand to a record 53.4 million by 2005 and then to decline to 53 million by 2011. Most of this growth will be in the western states (Hussar, W. J., & Gerald, D. E., 2001).

While enrollment drops and rises will inevitably continue, demographic shifts will take on new importance as the population of students enrolled in the nation’s schools becomes increasingly diverse. Since the Civil Rights era, the number of Black and Hispanic students in the country has grown by 5.8 million while the number of white students has shrunk by 5.6 million (Orfield, 2001). Today, the United States has the most diverse student population in its history, and in the coming decades this trend will only increase (Orfield, 2001).

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 38 Future of Learning

What will these fluctuations and shifts in demographics mean for schools? Demographic shifts driven by student characteristics or other schooling options may lead to:

• Over or undersupply of school buildings. Some parts of town may have overflowing enrollment while others are under enrolled. Within a relatively short period of time, a district may face an overall influx of students (e.g. Orlando, Florida) or it may face a long drain of school- aged children (e.g. Portland). • Trade-offs between transportation and facilities. As districts face an imbalance of facilities and enrollment, they will want to make strategic decisions about whether or not to invest in transportation – moving students to where the buildings are – or in facilities – creating more options where the students are. • Demand for new approaches to teaching students from diverse backgrounds. In particular, schools with large populations of students learning English as a second language will want to develop the most effective approaches to meeting the needs of those children.

The five trends discussed above could hit Portland harder, or less hard, than other communities. What Portland’s schools will look like in 10, 20, or 25 years depends on a complicated interplay between these national trends and state, district, and neighborhood factors. And so, in addition to the general trends discussed above, Portland should consider local conditions that promise to play a future role in shaping its schools. Among these factors, four stand out:

• Oregon’s standards-based reform; • On-going financial challenges at the state and district level; • Portland’s history of balancing neighborhood schools with some parental choice; and • Portland Public Schools’ strategic plan.

The Future of Learning: Four Key Local Factors This section takes a brief look at four local factors that, along with the five national trends, will very likely influence the future of learning in Portland.

Oregon’s standards-based reform. Standards-based reform, as envisioned in Oregon’s Educational Act for the 21st Century, will impact schools significantly over the coming decades. With statewide learning standards, assessments, and new college admissions requirements, Oregon aims to raise student achievement and better prepare students for the future.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Future of Learning 39

Of all of the reform’s provisions, Oregon’s Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM) has potential to change the demands on schools. With the CAM, the state would award a certificate to students who are able to “connect classroom learning with real life experiences in the workplace, community or school, relevant to their personal, academic and career interests and post-high school plans” (Oregon Department of Education, 2001). Though not fully implemented yet, the CAM is designed to press schools to help individual students explore new learning venues and methods outside the confines of the traditional school building.

Taken to its fullest, the CAM may shift the emphasis of learning in Portland’s twelve high schools so that the community becomes a primary venue for student learning. On a practical level, this could mean that high school students spend significantly more time off-campus than they do today. As a result, some school buildings may become underutilized during the day, opening up the possibility of renting the space to community groups, or perhaps leading schools to accommodate more students by serving them in shifts.

On-going financial challenges at the state and local level. Since the passage of Oregon’s property tax limitation legislation (known as Measure 5), Portland Public Schools has faced several budgetary crises. Additionally, with the current slow-down of the state and local economies, the District can anticipate more challenges in the future (The Oregonian, December 11, 2001). These forces, combined with a slow but steady decline in enrollment in the District, will press Portland Public Schools to consider new ways to raise revenue and to attract students. The District will look for options that allow continued school development without significant increases in public spending. They will want to maximize the efficiency of any unused or underused space available in the District. To reduce capital costs, new school spaces could be selected that include commercial or rental properties that generate income for the District. To attract more students, the District could develop a regional open-enrollment plan that allows families in outlying areas (where there is more affordable housing) to attend school in the city.

Portland’s history of balancing neighborhood schools with some parental choice. Many districts across the country are trying to find a balance between creating strong neighborhood schools and giving families real school choices. Portland has taken on this challenge with some success. The City and District, for example, promote Portland’s schools as neighborhood centers – they are places where families come together, where neighborhood groups meet, where local non-profits have their offices. At the same time, Portland’s District-wide choice program allows

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 40 Future of Learning

parents and students a chance to select the school that best meets their needs.

As performance pressures change, and parents and school leaders begin to demand new and more varied arrangements in schools, it is likely that Portland will search for a new balance in the relationship between ‘neighborhood schools’ and ‘school choice.’ Perhaps this will mean that some historic school buildings will become true community centers, as school programs demand more flexible and varied learning spaces. At the same time, it is plausible that some school programs will prefer their historic sites, but will respond to demands for different programs by creating several schools-within-a-school.

Portland Public School’s Strategic Plan. In July 2000, Portland’s school board adopted a strategic plan outlining seven strategic steps for the District’s schools. The central premises of this plan reflect quite clearly the direction of educational trends outlined in the beginning of this chapter. For instance, according to the plan, the District and its supporters will:

• Increase performance pressure by developing and monitoring standards for student achievement; • “Eliminate achievement disparities between low-income children and children of color in relation to District standards”; and • Provide schools the “means and flexibility necessary” to develop and follow a plan of action that will result in increased student learning and the accomplishment of other essential goals (Portland Public Schools, Strategic Plan, 2000).

Should the School District succeed in accomplishing these goals, Portland’s schools can be fundamentally different in the future than they are today. These changes, however, will depend in part on the District and schools’ ability to adapt their school spaces to most effectively and efficiently achieve their goals.

These Oregon and Portland-specific factors echo national trends in education. To one degree or another, performance pressure, demands for personalization and choice, and changes in demographics will impact the City’s schools in the years to come.

The Future of Learning and its Impact on School Buildings Taken together, the five national trends and local factors outlined in this chapter have serious implications for the future of school facilities.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Future of Learning 41

Above all, the future of learning implies a host of new classroom and school configurations. Performance pressure, demands for personalization, new technologies, and changes in teacher and student populations all create demands for new classroom and school arrangements.

As already mentioned, large schools, particularly high schools, may break themselves into several smaller independent units while sharing their existing building to better serve students and boost performance. Some schools in the future may be built with moveable walls and wiring to accommodate changing school needs and technological innovations (much like current commercial space in urban areas). At the farthest extreme, other schools may be “virtual schools,” engaging students in on-line learning accessed at home, in local libraries, or in special labs designed and built for these purposes.

Some students in the future may spend only two or three days a week at a dedicated school building. The rest of the week they may be engaged off- campus in internships, service learning projects, or field research. As more and more off-campus learning opportunities are demanded and developed, one can imagine some high schools that look less like a comprehensive center for all student learning and activity, and more like a home base from which students launch their individually tailored learning plans.

Education trends suggest that, to be most effective, tomorrow’s school districts will require a host of new institutional and space arrangements. The following chart illustrates just some of the possible implications for school facilities in the future.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 42 Future of Learning

Educational trends will result in complex demands for new school spaces

Trends Consequences for facilities

Performance pressures Smaller schools

Personalization Buildings used by multiple schools

Technology Buildings co-located with existing agencies, businesses

Teacher/Leader supply Buildings adaptable between school and commercial uses

Demographic shifts Buildings with moveable walls and wiring

As this chart demonstrates, the relationship between educational trends and the possible implications for school spaces is complex. As a result, a traditional (and often formulaic) plan for school facilities will not do. Instead, a more strategic approach is needed. In addition to outlining specific steps to accomplish over a specific time period (i.e., build school A by 2005; renovate school B by 2006), a strategic approach will use criteria against which to make school space decisions. The following section outlines five criteria that Portland Public Schools can use to shape its approach to school space decision-making.

How Portland’s school buildings can get ahead of the curve: Five criteria to guide school decision-making The future of learning will cause school leaders, parents and community members to demand a complicated array of classroom and school configurations. Some school districts, in an effort to simplify their school facilities decision-making, may be tempted to disregard all but the most traditional and readily achievable space arrangements. In doing so, they may inadvertently limit the educational options available to students in their

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Future of Learning 43 charge. Portland can avoid this tendency, however, if it develops a strategic, rather than fixed, approach to making school space decisions. The following criteria can help Portland shape its strategic approach:

• Focus on student learning and achievement – using ideas about teaching and learning to drive facilities decisions; • Flexibility - allowing the District to use its space as efficiently as possible; • Responsiveness - giving schools the opportunity to change their space as needs and priorities change; • Transparency - giving credibility to facilities decisions by making trade-offs and choices apparent; and • Driven by data – creating a well-informed foundation for discussing facilities options and decisions.

Focused on Student Learning and Achievement. Ideas about student learning and achievement should drive decisions about school space, rather than the other way around. School leaders, parents and students who have promising ideas for increasing student learning should be encouraged to dream about the ideal school space to achieve their goals. Of course, practical considerations and trade-offs will have to be considered, but the District need not allow those issues to become excuses for not finding or creating school spaces that will enhance teaching and learning.

Flexibility. Above all, the future of learning requires flexible facilities – flexible in design, usage, and financing. Performance pressures, personalization, technology, changes in teacher supply, and demographic shifts all have the potential to drive new methods of instruction and assessment. Many of these same factors will push for new school and classroom configurations. Accordingly, a school facilities plan for the future of learning must be agile enough to find and provide schools with a variety of spaces. It must also be able to reclaim space and redistribute it when needed.

Responsive. This criterion is closely related to the last. If performance pressure drives schools to demand more autonomy, administrators and teachers must be involved in discussions and decisions about their buildings and space. In short, in the future of learning, facilities supply needs to be more than just flexible; it also needs to be responsive to principals and teachers’ needs and suggestions about the spaces in which they work. It must be both “bottom up” and “top down.”

Transparent. This criterion follows from the last two. If facilities supply is to be flexible and responsive, it is vital that it is credible, too – principals and teachers have to have the sense that the process is fair. If costs and the

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 44 Future of Learning

rationale behind decisions are unclear, end users may see space administration and facilities decisions as capricious and inevitably come away disappointed or angry. The only way to assure confidence in the process is to conduct it in an open and public manner.

Driven by Data. Finally, in order to be flexible, responsive, and open, a facilities plan for the future of learning needs good information. Districts need information about the spaces they own (or those they have access to), including data about their location, what condition they are in, and who is using them and for how long. Accordingly, a facilities system should include yearly audits of all of its space.8 In addition to some computerized inventory, a facilities plan for the future needs accurate demographic information about enrollment trends as well as information from policymakers about program and policy decisions that are on the horizon. System administrators must use this information to plan comprehensively and proactively, not incrementally and reactively. In the end, all facility projects need to be justified by data that is consistently gathered about structures, people, and programs.

Conclusion: The Future of Learning This chapter opened by noting that people often take school buildings as a fixed frame of reference. They are seen as permanent; and, in many ways, they are moved to the background of discussions about teaching and learning. And yet, school buildings matter. They matter in the daily work of schools and in the possibilities and promise of the future. As this chapter suggests, traditional conceptions of school buildings are probably not bold enough to meet the challenges and opportunities of learning in the future.

With the development of its long-range facilities plan Portland Public Schools has an opportunity to have its goals, priorities and strategies for raising student achievement drive its facilities decisions. Rather than allowing practical constraints and a desire to satisfy all constituents determine its choices, Portland Public Schools can think about trends in education – both national and local – as it plans for the future of its school buildings.

In tomorrow’s schools, districts and teachers will not “do the same thing for everyone.” Instead, they will aim to give parents and students choices among many distinct schools. Schools across the country are already

8 This would ideally be done through something akin to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s computerized inventory (INSITETM). At MIT, INSITETM keeps track of every building and space available on campus (It provides textual information as well as CAD drawings).

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Future of Learning 45 searching for new ways to teach, new ways to organize, and new ways to focus their energy and resources to maximize the gains for students. The range of options for where learning takes place is growing broader and more complex, not narrower and simpler.

In tomorrow’s cities, schools and communities will build exciting new partnerships to meet their mutual needs. Schools in Washington, D.C. are already blending learning space with housing or commercial space, challenging quite literally the traditional separation between home, school, and community.

In tomorrow’s district’s, school leaders will demand new levels of control over decisions that affect their ability to help students succeed. Districts like Chicago are already searching for a new balance between centralized and decentralized decision-making in an effort to give schools the flexibility they need to meet their new responsibilities.

Of course, it is possible that none of the ideas discussed in this chapter will come to fruition on a grand scale. Most likely, however, all of the ideas will exist on a smaller scale somewhere. In this environment of change and uncertainty, the opportunity exists for districts like Portland to create an approach to school facilities that makes sure school space decisions bolster, rather than limit, the educational options of students.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 46 Future of Learning

References Bell, E., (September 23, 2001). Schools’ principal shortage; Fewer teachers want the job’s growing challenges. The San Francisco Chronicle. P. A21. Carter, Steven. Budget Shortfalls May Soak Schools. The Oregonian. December 11, 2001. Carter, Steven. Enrollment in Portland Drops for Fifth Year. The Oregonian. November 8, 2001. Certificate of Advanced Mastery Design, Draft. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education. July 9, 2001. Available: http://www.ode.state.or.us/cimcam/CamDesignDrft4.pdf. Cook, A. (2000). The Transformation of One Large Urban High School: The Julia Richman Education Complex. In Clinchy, E. (Ed.), Creating New Schools: How Small Schools Are Changing American Education. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools that Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Department of Education. Smaller Learning Communities. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. [Online]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SLCP/. Donahoe, D., & Tienda, M. (2000). The Transition from School to Work: Is There a Crisis? What Can Be Done?. In Danziger, S., & Waldfogel, J. (Eds), Securing the Future: Investing in Children from Birth to College. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a New Structure For School Leadership. Washington, D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute. Feistritzer, E. C. (1998, January 28). The Truth Behind the Teacher Shortage. Originally published in the Wall Street Journal. [Online] From National Center on Education Information. Available: http://www.ncei.com/WSJ-12898.htm. Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter Schools in Action: Renewing Public Education. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press. Gehring, J. (March 14, 2001). High School, With a College Twist. Education Week. [Online]. Available: http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=26middle.h20. Goodnough, A. (June 14, 2001). Strain of Fourth Grade Test Drives off Veteran Teachers. The New York Times. A1. Hussar, W. J., (1999) Predicting the Need for Newly Hired Teachers in the United States to 2008-09. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Hussar, W. J., & Gerald, D. E., (2001). Projections of Education Statistics to 2011. Washington D.C: National Center for Education Statistics. Jencks, C. & Phillips, M. (1998). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Johnston, R. C. & Viadero, D. (March 15, 2000). Unmet Promise: Raising Minority Achievement. Education Week [Online]. Available: http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew_printstory.cfm?slug=27gapintro.h19.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Future of Learning 47

Judy, R., and D’Amico, C. (1997). Workforce 2020: Work and Workers in the 21st Century. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hudson Institute. Little, J. W. (1999). Organizing Schools for Teacher Learning. In L. Darling- Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching As The Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. (pp. 233-262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Newburger, E., (September 2001). Home Computers and Internet Use in the United States. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Orfield, G. (Fall 2001). Schools More Separate: Consequences of a Decade of Resegregation. Rethinking Schools Online. Vol. 11, No. 1. Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (1998). Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies For Reinventing Government. New York: Plume. Price, H. B. (November 28, 2001). The Preparation Gap. Education Week p. 48. Quality Counts 2001. A Better Balance: Standards, Tests, And the Tools To Succeed. (January 2001). Education Week [Online]. Available: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc01/articles/qc01story.cfm?slug=17toc.h20. Sizer, T. R. (1992). Horace’s School: Redesigning the American High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Strategic Planning – Mission. Portland, OR: Portland Public Schools. Available: http://www.pps.k12.or.us/admin-c/plan/stratplan.php. To Touch the Future: Transforming the Way Teachers are Taught. Washington, D.C: American Council, 1999. The Urban Teacher Challenge: Teacher Demand and Supply in the Great City Schools. Washington, D.C.: Recruiting New Teachers Inc., Council of the Great City Schools, Council of the Great City Colleges of Education (2000). Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N. E., King, S. P., Mosak, E., Powell, L. C., Small Schools: Great Strides. New York: Bank Street College of Education.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Long Range Facilities Plan 49

Future of Populations

In 1999, Portland Public Schools began contracting with the Center for Population Research and Census at Portland State University’s College of Urban and Public Affairs for a periodic review of enrollment trends, population trends, and demographics. The purpose of this analysis is to annually forecast future school age population and enrollment.

The forecasts presented herein are based on September 2001 enrollment and the 2000 Census. The Population Center completed these forecasts in February 2002. District-wide forecasts are presented here. School-by-school forecasts are included in the property information that is appended to this Plan.

The table below shows historical enrollment numbers for 1990 – 2001 (top table) and PSU’s projections for 2002 – 2012 (bottom table).9

Portland Public Schools Historical Enrollment, 1990 – 2001

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 K-5 25,995 26,900 27,291 26,489 26,043 26,068 25,980 25,442 25,013 24,237 23,938 23,527 6-8 11,491 11,700 12,000 12,038 12,135 12,235 12,103 11,862 11,457 11,280 11,262 11,306 9-12 13,628 13,856 14,466 14,523 14,777 14,909 15,580 15,540 15,630 15,477 15,362 15,293 Other 1,249 1,235 838 1,007 1,054 1,137 1,162 1,194 1,253 1,348 1,364 1,524 Total 52,363 53,691 54,595 54,057 54,009 54,349 54,825 54,038 53,353 52,342 51,926 51,650 Change 1,328 904 (538) (48) 340 476 (787) (685) (1,011) (416) (276) Portland Public Schools Enrollment Forecasts, 2001 – 2012

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 K-5 23,527 23,434 22,940 22,545 22,285 22,238 22,161 22,149 22,192 22,287 22,435 22,628 6-8 11,306 11,361 11,360 11,230 10,966 10,500 10,207 10,021 10,033 9,970 9,917 9,865 9-12 15,293 15,088 14,949 14,864 14,807 14,876 14,757 14,473 13,973 13,594 13,298 13,117 Other 1,524 1,393 1,375 1,358 1,342 1,330 1,316 1,303 1,290 1,280 1,275 1,274 Total 51,650 51,276 50,625 49,998 49,401 48,943 48,440 47,946 47,489 47,132 46,925 46,884 Change (276) (374) (652) (627) (597) (458) (503) (495) (457) (357) (207) (41) Change from 2001 (374) (1,025) (1,652) (2,249) (2,707) (3,210) (3,704) (4,161) (4,518) (4,725) (4,766) Sources: Historical Enrollments: Portland Public Schools, 2001. Enrollment Forecasts: Center for Population Research and Census and Portland Sate University, 2002.

9 Note: Total enrollment for fall 2001 differs by 2,500 from the District’s count of 54,150. This difference is in pre-K and certain special needs students, which PSU assumes remain constant for forecasting purposes

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 50 Future of Populations

Enrollment History and Forecast

60,000

50,000 Other

40,000 9-12

30,000 6-8

Enrollment K-5 20,000

10,000

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year

These data show that District enrollment fluctuated up and down from 1990 to 1996, then began a steady decline of about 650 students per year beginning in 1996-97. Forecasts predict that enrollment will continue to decline over the next decade by an average of 450 students per year to a District total enrollment of 45,884 in 2012, as compared to 51,650 in the fall of 2001 and 52,353 in 1990. If enrollment per school were held constant, this would mean closure of a little less than one school per year for each of the next ten years. PSU’s analysis includes projections for school age population, as well as enrollment. The enrollment numbers are based on the school age population figures, as well as a prediction of capture rate by Portland Public Schools. This information is published separately and available from the School District or Portland State University.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Long Range Facilities Plan 51

Section II: Important Lessons

Environment and Sustainability Matter

Management Challenges and Issues

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Long Range Facilities Plan 53

Environment and Sustainability Matter: Sustainable and High Performance Schools

We do not inherit this land from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.

– Haida Indian saying

Introduction The discussion and practice of sustainability is rapidly increasing in our society. Individuals, small businesses, large corporations and public institutions of all sizes are re-examining their actions and looking for more sustainable ways to conduct themselves and their activities. What is “sustainability”? It was concisely defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (Bruntland Commission) in 1987 as:

“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” Those who are pursuing sustainability are not acting solely because it is the right thing to do. Many of the companies adopting sustainable business practices are measuring their future success against the “triple bottom line” of economy, community and the environment. They recognize that in taking a long-term view, they must make progress in each of these three areas in order to be successful in any one of them.

Likewise, there are three main synergistic reasons for taking a sustainable approach in the management of Portland Public School’s facilities:

• Improving Student Performance and Health • Improving the District's Financial Performance • Improving Community Connections

In this section, we will discuss the evidence for supporting sustainability in the schools, based on the criteria listed above.

Student Performance and Health There is a developing body of scientific evidence that making energy efficiency improvements to school facilities can also positively affect student performance and health. These energy improvements often result in

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 54 Sustainable and High Performance Schools

better lighting and temperature control, better indoor air quality, and reduced ambient noise. Such improvements promote the general well-being of kids and teachers, and may help improve student performance.

The most pronounced effect of this comes from the introduction of controlled natural daylight to classrooms along with allowing views to the outdoors. In the ‘Daylighting in Schools Study’ (www.h-m-g.com) conducted by the Heshong Mahone Group for Pacific Gas and Electric, effective daylighting, coupled with views of the outdoors, showed an increase in student achievement by up to 26%, compared with statistical control groups. Other studies show that daylight in classrooms can reduce illness and absenteeism and improve student behavior.

In addition to daylighting, improved indoor air quality has also been found to contribute to student performance and health. Indoor air quality is an issue that needs continual attention, and has become a greater concern as the percentage of children with asthma is increasing. Today, nearly one in thirteen school-aged children has asthma, and it is the leading cause of school absenteeism due to chronic illness. Clearly, if kids are sick or not in school, they will not learn or perform as well as those who are attentive, well and present on a regular basis.

Financial Performance A focus on sustainability can have important financial benefits for the District, stemming from such considerations as:

• Reduced energy costs • Reduced water, sewage and stormwater charges • Reduced costs for waste management • Increased Average Daily Attendance (ADA) • Changes in purchasing activities that may reduce operating costs

A clear focus on sustainability also will have important "soft benefits" for the District, and its teachers, staff and students that may be more difficult to quantify. This focus will provide a number of learning opportunities that can be integrated into the curriculum, at all grade levels. The improved facilities will improve morale at the District, especially among teachers, leading perhaps to direct benefits in retaining and recruiting teachers.

Community Connections A sustainable approach to the schools will show the community that the District is putting the best efforts possible into improving the facilities where their kids spend so much of their formative years. The reduction in operating costs is also a visible demonstration of the District’s efforts to

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Sustainable and High Performance Schools 55 conserve financial resources. This focus will reflect favorably on the District and will help it to achieve national recognition as a leader in sustainable schools.

This approach also provides the District with opportunities to partner with non-profit organizations, local government, state and federal agencies promoting sustainability, which would result in direct financial support.

High Performance Schools Sustainable schools can also be defined as “high performance schools”, buildings that create the optimal, healthy learning environment while consuming a minimum of energy and resources and producing a minimum of waste. On a national level, there is a growing movement to develop what are called "High-Performance Schools" which have these characteristics:

1) Provide a Healthy and Productive Environment

• High levels of acoustic, thermal, and visual comfort • Superior indoor environmental quality (air and natural daylight)

2) Cost-Effective to Operate

• Optimized energy performance and life-cycle cost approach • Building commissioning

3) Conforms to Sustainable Design and Operation

• Efficient use of resources (energy, water, materials) • Environmentally responsive site activities

Taking this as a measure, we should endeavor towards the creation of such facilities here in the Portland District.

Current Efforts Toward Sustainability Overview The pursuit of sustainability in schools is not a new concept to the Portland Public Schools. Over the last 10 years, PPS has made a determined effort to integrate the principles of sustainability into their schools. Their diligent endeavors have produced tremendous results in many areas, including reduced energy use, water conservation, decreased solid waste, recycling, improved indoor air quality and in general, heightened the environmental awareness in the schools.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 56 Sustainable and High Performance Schools

The various programs and measures have provided educational opportunities to the schools and have also translated to significant monetary savings for the District. Over the last year, the District was able to avoid Over the last year, over a half million dollars in utility costs through conservation. the District was These efforts have primarily been led by the Environmental Health & able to avoid over Safety Department (Environmental Services), under the auspices of the Facilities and Asset Management. The team at present is as follows: a half million Patrick Wolfe, Manager dollars in utility William Robbins, Energy Engineer Nancy Bond, Resource Conservation Specialist costs through Chris Boyce, Environmental Specialist conservation Herb Wagner, Safety Specialist Becky Hobden, Resource Conservation Coordinator, AmeriCorps Sara Richardson, Resource Conservation Coordinator, AmeriCorps The team has worked hard within limited means to initiate many projects. These have often involved the participation and partnership of numerous parties - the administrative staff, teachers and students, custodians, parents, businesses and community groups, utility companies, local and state government bodies, and the neighboring communities.

The following sections highlight some of their past and current programs and measures.

Energy Efficiency Portland Public Schools implemented an Energy Plan in 1992, initially focused on energy conservation retrofits. In the mid-90’s, the plan’s scope was broadened and became known as the Resource Conservation Plan, Significant working with schools on energy efficiency, water conservation, solid waste reductions have reduction and recycling. been realized with A seven-year plan was developed to achieve the goal of upgrading District- wide energy efficiency by the year 2000. Buildings were incorporated into energy the seven-year plan based on current energy usage per square foot (EUI- consumption down Energy Use Index), with schools having high EUI’s retrofitted first. over 20%, and As part of the Energy Plan, several key projects were successfully carried out over the past decade, including the following: over $9,000,000 • Completed surveys and audits for all the schools, establishing current saved over 8 years energy use and identifying conservation measures in light of cost- effectiveness.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Sustainable and High Performance Schools 57

• Established Energy Management Systems (EMS) for all the schools, which are programmed to run the boilers and fans only as needed, with centralized monitoring. • Implemented more effective methods for reviewing utility bills. • Upgraded some HVAC equipment with mechanical retrofits, e.g. replacing motors in some systems, and upgrading thermostat controls for all the schools. • Commenced with a Boiler Conversion program, with about 10% now converted from oil-based boilers to more efficient natural gas boilers. • Completed major lighting retrofits for all schools, converting to energy- efficient lamps (e.g. T8 lamps with electronic ballasts) that improve quality of light and standardize the lighting levels. • Introduced controls for exterior lighting in all the schools. • Completed some improvements to the building’s envelope where feasible, that will reduce energy use and improve comfort by reducing drafts, e.g. insulation, weather stripping. • Purchased Energy Star equipment and installed energy efficient vending machines. • Significant reductions have been realized with energy consumption down over 20%, and over $9,000,000 saved over 8 years, compared with the previous baseline energy use.

The capital improvements were primarily financed through the Oregon Office of Energy, Small Scale Energy Loan Program (SELP) and utility incentives and rebate programs through Portland General Electric, PacifiCorp and NW Natural Gas. PPS also participated in the Energy SMART program; a Portland General Electric sponsored program that facilitates energy awareness curricula and school facilities retrofits.

PPS’s Environmental Health & Safety Department (Environmental Services) is currently working on a new Resource Conservation Program, due to be completed in the early part of 2002.

Water Conservation Measures PPS has worked to minimize their water consumption and has taken the following measures:

• Completed plumbing retrofits such as installing spring-loaded faucets in bathrooms. • Collaborated with the City’s Water Bureau for a study that highlighted potential savings from improving the efficiency of the urinal’s automatic flushing systems.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 58 Sustainable and High Performance Schools

• Completed audits at 10 schools that utilize irrigation systems, and identified ways to conserve water more effectively. • Limited irrigation of their grounds over the last two years.

Waste, Materials and Resources PPS has a comprehensive program for waste management, with a reduction/reuse/recycling approach adopted for both the administrative facility and the schools. Various programs have been implemented with great success in reduction of waste, and the recycling efforts have paid for themselves. Recent statistics show that the administrative facility recycles 67% of its solid waste, with the system-wide figure of 47%. Some measures that have contributed to these efforts are:

• Participated in the “Oregon Green Schools” Program, which focuses on creating successful waste reduction programs and provides a platform to recognizing schools for their waste reduction achievements. To date, there are 17 schools, out of PPS’s 100 schools, in this program with a few attaining the highest rating of “premier” status. PPS has a goal of having 50% of their schools involved in this program within the next 5 years. • Worked in partnership with METRO, and participated in their programs, such as the Waste Reduction Education for Schools, which provides tools and assistance to learn how to reduce waste and conserve resources for the future. • Identified ways to recycle the more ‘challenging’ items such as electronics, polystyrene plates and plastic utensils. PPS is the only school district in the state currently to recycle electronics.

PPS has also made attempts to use recycled content materials, such as:

• Purchased supplies of post-consumer recycled content paper, and encouraged its use in all of their departments. • Reused donated surplus or used carpet. • Used recycled paint from METRO, where appropriate.

An innovative supplies ‘store’, Schoolhouse Supplies, is housed at Madison High School. This enables surplus office supplies from businesses and local governments, both new and used and often destined to be thrown out, to be channeled instead to teachers and students that need them most. Volunteers primarily staff the “store,” which was started by Portland motherKatie Gold.

Indoor Environmental Quality Portland Public Schools has worked hard to ensure that the schools have comfortable indoor environments, with attention to the health and safety of

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Sustainable and High Performance Schools 59 all occupants of the buildings. They have taken various actions to identify and mitigate problems, including:

• Performing annual health and safety reviews for all its schools covering issues such as air quality; the presence of hazardous materials like arsenic, asbestos, chemicals, mercury, pesticides, radon, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); lead in building materials; lead and copper in water; and identifying water leaks and water migration for potential mold problems. • Currently developing plans that specifically address the issues of air and water quality, radon and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). • Monitoring of problematic classrooms, and making ventilation adjustments as needed. • Currently testing the feasibility of installing carbon dioxide (CO2) sensors in large-gathering spaces with intermittent usage, such as the auditorium, cafeteria and the gymnasium. PPS has installed sensors in two schools as pilot projects. • Introduced a directive to limit the use of any materials or substances containing volatile organic compounds. For example, PPS does not use chlorinated cleaning products; but instead prefers hypoallergenic and anti-bacterial products. They also do not use insecticides, favoring instead the use of low-toxic pest management strategies. • Seeking funding for an Indoor Air Quality committee, that can further implement the Environmental Protection Agency’s ‘IAQ Tools for Schools’ program.

Stormwater and Site PPS was eager to adopt a stormwater management plan to disconnect drainage from the City’s system, hoping to capitalize on savings that could have resulted from a Bureau of Environmental Services’ program, which has now been deferred. Small measures were taken in that direction, such as:

• Introduced bioswales in the administrative facility’s parking lot, and as part of an educational activity, similar projects were completed in a couple of schools. • Established a partnership with the Urban Forestry Department of the City’s Parks Bureau, with a tree planting program for schools as part of stormwater mitigation.

In terms of transportation, PPS has acted to encourage the use of public transportation, bicycling and carpooling:

• Advocated Tri-Met’s program for discounted monthly passes for students.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 60 Sustainable and High Performance Schools

• Initiated Tri-Met’s ‘Passport’ program, providing discounted annual passes to their administrative facility staff. • Investigating offering a tax-free, pay-roll deduction scheme on Tri-Met passes for their teachers and custodial support. • Provided additional bicycle racks at selected schools and the administrative facility. • Partnered with the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) in promoting ridership and facilitating a Bicycle Safety and Awareness Program for 5th and 6th grade students. The BTA is currently working in almost half of the middle schools. • Introduced preferred parking for carpools at the administrative facility, as an incentive for carpooling.

Education and awareness PPS has taken on the concept of using the school environment as a laboratory for learning, and has expanded its efforts from energy conservation retrofits to increasing awareness in the schools of the impact of our resource use. There are many vital contributors to this objective, including: • The Environmental Health & Safety Department who acts as a valuable resource for students, teachers and staff in promoting environmental education programs and awareness in schools. • Recycling Coordinators in many schools facilitate the recycling and resource conservation efforts and attend 2 to 3 meetings per year with the Environmental Health & Safety Department. • Two AmeriCorps members provide assistance to the Environmental Health & Safety Department, and make frequent school visits and presentations. • The “Oregon Green Schools” program has not only reaped cost savings in waste management, but has raised awareness among the students and also the community. Glencoe Elementary School, for example, has a mission “to educate the community to save the environment”. They run an interesting program with extensive paper recycling and lunchroom recycling, and they also have worm bins. • Several high schools participate in the ‘Earth Club’ program, which is affiliated with the Northwest Earth Institute. The clubs allow students to participate in extracurricular activities that help the environment, and are active in their outreach efforts. • Portland General Electric’s ‘Solar for Schools’ program assists in placing educational, energy-saving solar panel systems at high schools. Franklin High School is the sole project to date, where a 2000 W system was installed on the roof of the athletic field press box. Work is currently being done to allow real time data monitoring on a web-based

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Sustainable and High Performance Schools 61

system. The Solar Energy Association of Oregon is now involved with this program and will be doing education awareness programs in the schools. • PPS has also made a unique community effort partnering with the Audubon Society in providing a unique roosting place for Vaux’s Swifts in the old chimney at Chapman School. This provides both students and the community with opportunities for learning about the swift’s migration and lifecycles.

Environmentally Sustainable Business Practices Portland Public Schools’ long-standing commitment towards sustainability was recently emphasized by the adoption of a “green” policy, the ‘Environmentally Sustainable Business Practices’. The policy, as introduced by PPS’s Environmental Health & Safety Department (Environmental Services) was adopted by the Board in May 21, 2001. The policy in its entirety is as follows:

1) To contribute to a clean environment and thriving economy for present and future generations, the District will establish business procedures that give a premium to environmentally sustainable practices.

The District will attain this goal by:

• Minimizing its impact on the use of finite natural resources and the environment as a whole. • Promoting an understanding of the importance of environmentally appropriate practices. • Using best practices in the purchase, use and disposal of materials.

2) District staff will implement the following strategies where feasible: • Reduce the waste of energy, water, paper, food and other resources by maintaining a resource conservation management program. • Use resources efficiently, recycle and work to reduce the demand for materials and resources like paper, energy and water. • Consider environmental impact and societal costs in decision-making. • Purchase products based on long-term environmental and operating costs and include environmental and social costs in short-term prices. • Purchase products that are durable, reusable, made of recycled materials and non-toxic. • Plan preventive measures to avoid detrimental impacts on the environment.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 62 Sustainable and High Performance Schools

• Enlist schools, the community and business partners to develop preventive strategies and measures. • Encourage activities that will reduce air pollution such as public transportation, carpooling, bike riding, compressed workweek and telecommuting. • Implement an integrated pest management program that includes the following practices: • Reduce and eliminate where feasible the use of chemical pesticides. Pesticides classified as Group A (known) and Group B (likely) carcinogens are prohibited. Any pesticide used by the District must have a current EPA Registration and must be used in strict compliance with labeling and EPA regulatory controls. • Seek practical alternatives to the use of pesticides. • Provide notice to the building principal of use seven to ten days before intended application of pesticide or herbicide, except in those instances where rodent or similar infestation creates an imminent risk of danger to students and staff, so that the principal shall notify the school community by notice and posting both before and for a reasonable period after application. • Report annually on practices. • It is not District policy to apply herbicides for aesthetic purposes, but to prevent damage to grounds and buildings. Except for circumstances where the health or safety of the community or the integrity of physical structures or grounds are threatened, the District will honor a school's request to designate part or all of the grounds as a pesticide-free zone on an annual basis. • Promote curriculum exploring the relationship of sustainable principles to the environment and economy.

PPS's goal with this policy was to establish PPS as a leader in introducing sustainability issues to school districts. The policy is still very much in its infancy stages in terms of implementation. Limited financial resources and a lack of staffing support at present time is hampering the District's efforts to move forward fully with these objectives.

Recommendations Toward High Performance Schools Portland Public Schools’ extensive efforts to date are an excellent platform for future endeavors toward creating High Performance Schools. The following is an outline of recommendations that could result in improved student performance and health, improved District finances through reduced operating costs and improved community connections. These recommendations are intended to identify specific strategies that could be

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Sustainable and High Performance Schools 63 implemented under the District’s Environmentally Sustainable Business Practices policy.

The recommendations below apply to existing school facilities and most would be applicable to existing facilities that will transition to mixed uses or non-school uses. Many of these strategies would also apply to any proposed new school facility or joint-venture development. Additionally, the District should adopt an overall environmental criterion such as the US Green Building Council’s LEED Green Building Rating System (www.leedbuilding.org) for any new construction. The average Energy middle school that Incorporate daylighting strategies: As discussed in the introduction to this chapter, quality daylighting is the most important component of a high incorporates performance school. The effective use of natural daylighting in schools is daylighting will the primary strategy for creating comfortable and productive learning environments for the students, in addition to being a ‘free’ resource, that likely save can either replace or augment the use of electrical lighting. The cost savings produced from this can be significant - for example, according to the $500,000 over the Passive Solar Industries Council in Washington D.C. the average middle next 10 years school that incorporates daylighting will likely save $500,000 over the next 10 years, and with rising energy costs, these savings could be even higher.

The following is a brief outline of recommended daylighting upgrades to existing schools. The University of Oregon School of Architecture, the Lighting Design Lab in Seattle and the soon to be open Portland Daylighting Lab are available as resources to assist in the design of daylighting improvements.

• Evaluate daylight availability and problems (glare, heat gain, etc.) with existing windows in classrooms and other occupied spaces and identify potential solutions. • Where appropriate, replace existing glazing with high-performance glazing selected for the window orientation (east,west, north, or south) and desired interior daylight quality. • The upper portions of windows in some schools, such as Metropolitan Learning Center, were replaced with insulating panels. Replace these panels with high-performance glazing to restore daylight with minimal change in thermal properties. • Retrofit lighting in daylit spaces with dimming ballasts and photosensitive controls. • Investigate and install appropriate shading strategies for windows to allow control of daylight, glare, and heat gain.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 64 Sustainable and High Performance Schools

• The quality of daylight in a room is usually best if it is balanced, with an even distribution of diffused daylight. In rooms where daylight cannot be balanced through control of light entering through windows, investigate opportunities to retrofit diffusing skylights or light monitors.

Building Commissioning and HVAC System Performance: Commissioning is the process of systematically testing and evaluating the performance of mechanical and electrical equipment and controls to ensure that they function efficiently as a system. Commissioning may also involve the review of operation and maintenance procedures. Moreover, this process determines if a building or facility provides a safe, efficient, and comfortable shelter conducive to the activities for which it is used. These measures have been shown to reduce energy use by 10% to 15% with minimal capital investments. They may, however, involve more effort than energy audits, training and "fine tuning."

• Investigate opportunities with the utilities and the new Energy Trust of Oregon for "retrofit commissioning" of school buildings. • Implement commissioning of schools with priority given to those with the most complex systems and those that have been subject to piecemeal modifications over time. • Look for HVAC retrofit strategies to zone and control buildings more effectively, including hot water systems, optimal system start-up, fan schedules, and boiler schedules.

Centralizing the Building Controls: The District staff has been using the Utility Manager (UM) program to monitor data. The staff is interested in upgrading to the MyE-Manager program, which would give it the capability to have real-time data monitoring, available on a web-based system, that could then be used for better control of educational facilities, increasing comfort and reducing complaints.

• Select several buildings in which to test the feasibility of this upgrade. • If successful, plan a District-wide upgrade to MyE-Manager.

Boiler Conversions: The District has recognized the need to convert the existing stock of oil-based boilers to more energy efficient and less polluting gas boilers. Conversions have already been implemented in several schools, but there are still over 300 boilers awaiting conversion or upgrades.

• Identify boilers that are the best candidates for conversions. • Work with local partners to take advantage of the sale of CO2 reduction credits and implement conversions.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Sustainable and High Performance Schools 65

CFC Phase-out: To reduce impacts on the atmospheric ozone, implement an aggressive program to phase-out the use of CFCs in all HVAC equipment.

Renewable Energy and On-site Power Generation: There are three technologies that should be considered for installation in schools; solar thermal hot water, solar photovoltaic, and micro-turbines.

Solar thermal hot water heating systems use collectors to heat water with sunlight. Despite appearances, Oregon does get enough sunlight to make these systems practical. Although solar hot water systems have higher initial costs than other water-heating technologies, the energy savings will pay back the cost of the system in less than 10 years. Recent increases in electricity and gas prices mandate another look at solar technologies. These qualify for a 35% Business Energy Tax Credit that can be passed through the District to private tax-paying entities, in turn reducing the actual costs for solar water heating systems by 25%.

• Evaluate the condition of the existing solar pool heating system at Wilson High School and make upgrades as required. • Identify other schools with recreational facilities and pools with year- round use and consider solar water heating systems to serve showers and pools. Such improvements can be bonded with other facilities upgrades.

Solar photovoltaic systems generate electricity directly from the sun and are currently a more expensive source of electricity than utility power. However, photovoltaic systems serve as a useful teaching aid and provide a true "hands-on" experience with solar energy. We will explore putting some demonstration solar systems in a few high schools and tying in their operation with the science and environmental education curriculum. The President's Million Solar Roofs initiative could help fund the education component of these systems, while additional funding may be available from other sources, such as the BPA (e.g. in partnership with the Western Sun’s Building the 1MW Powerstation project, http://www.westernsun.org), local utilities (such as Portland General Electric’s Solar for Schools program) and the Oregon Office of Energy.

Micro-turbines should be considered for an on-site power generation demonstration project. These are small, efficient natural gas-fired turbines producing electricity and ‘waste’ heat in the form of hot water that can be recovered to supplement boilers. They can be used in place of gas or diesel generators to provide emergency power as well as providing a continuous power supply enabling ‘peak shaving’, or peak demand reduction during times of maximum electrical usage.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 66 Sustainable and High Performance Schools

Water Conservation Water-efficient Plumbing Fixtures: Investigate potential retrofits of low- maintenance, water-efficient plumbing fixtures.

• Implement the recent recommendations of the City’s Water Bureau study for improving the efficiency of existing automatic urinal flushing systems. From preliminary findings, the study noted that approximately 12% of the urinals use excessive water, and if rectified, there would be potential savings of about $55,000/year District-wide. • Retrofit existing toilets with low-flush models and replace existing showers with low-flow heads. • Consider potential for waterless urinals, currently in widespread use in schools in both Washington and California. Obtain an administrative appeal for a demonstration project, as waterless urinals are not currently allowed under the Oregon Plumbing Code (code approval is expected in the near future).

Water-efficient Landscaping: Implement modifications to landscape plantings and upgrades to irrigation systems to reduce the demand for potable water use on school grounds.

• Replace water intensive landscapes with native and adaptive vegetation that requires less maintenance and little or no irrigation. • Consider the value of green lawns with the costs of their upkeep and maintenance and if appropriate, implement a typical Portland measure of "down and brown" in the summer, using only natural rainfall to grow grass. • Retrofit existing irrigation systems with central, electronic controls connected to a weather station. These controls have been shown to reduce irrigation water use by 20 – 40%.

Waste, Materials and Resources Waste Management Program: Build on the District’s waste reduction successes by enhancing recycling programs. Invest in infrastructure and equipment to aid in recycling efforts.

• Install tin washer at central kitchen. • Work with METRO to establish a pilot project to test the feasibility of a food-organics recycling program. • For all building improvement projects, require a construction and demolition waste management plan from the General Contractor. Set aggressive targets for debris recycling and require the contractor to document progress toward that goal.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Sustainable and High Performance Schools 67

• If improvement projects involve demolition of buildings or portions of buildings, consider opportunities for “deconstruction”, selective demolition to recover salvageable building materials.

Resources Efficiency: Implement policies and procedures to promote the use of resource efficient materials and practices.

• Adopt Green Purchasing Guidelines and provide training for the Purchasing Department and contractors. Consider joining an organization such as the Sustainable Purchasers Products Coalition. Review the State of Oregon Sustainable Purchasing guidelines available from the Department of Administrative Services. Contact Jennetta Fennell, DAS/Purchasing (503) 378-4655 or download at http://tpps.das.state.or.us/purchasing/sustainable_purchasing.html • For capital improvements, give preference to materials that are: • from local sources • made with recycled content • salvaged rather than new • made from rapidly renewable resources (i.e. agri-board from wheat in place of particle board) • wood products from FSC certified well managed forests • Create a web-based system for exchange of materials and supplies between schools. • Consider opportunities to reduce printing, copying and distribution of paper, e.g. utilizing web-based systems for some administrative procedures. Purchase paper that has a high recycled content and is manufactured without chlorine bleaching.

Stormwater Stormwater Management: Identify opportunities to reduce stormwater run-off from roofs and paved surfaces, thus reducing sewage charges and impacts on water quality in streams and rivers.

• Reduce impervious surface area by unnecessary paving or replacing with pervious paving. • Where site area and soils permit, construct on-site water quality treatment, detention and infiltration facilities such as stormwater filters, dry wells, bioswales, vegetated filter strips and constructed wetlands. • Conduct a pilot project on one school facility to test an eco-roof, otherwise known as a vegetated roof, which can significantly reduce stormwater run-off while potentially increasing the service life of the roof membrane due to the UV protection provided by the vegetation and planting medium. The City’s Bureau of Environmental Services is willing to partner with the District on a pilot project.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 68 Sustainable and High Performance Schools

Environmental Quality Indoor Environmental Quality: One of the primary strategies contributing to a quality indoor environment is daylighting. Recommendations for daylighting were previously covered in the Energy section above. Other strategies that contribute to student health and performance include the careful selection and installation of interior materials and finishes as well as the use of environmentally preferable cleaning products.

• During all construction projects, require a Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan from the General Contractor. • While evaluating HVAC system performance, determine the effectiveness of ventilation systems and make necessary corrections. • Use only low-admitting adhesives, sealants, paints, coatings, and floor coverings that meet strict limits on Volatile Organic Compound off- gassing. • Use only composite wood products (particle board, etc.) that contain no urea-formaldehyde. • Develop criteria for the selection and use of environmentally preferable cleaning products: • Biodegradable • Non-toxic • No phosphates, perfumes, animal by-products • Use nature-based products with anti-bacterial properties if necessary. There is potential long-term health threats from the over use of man-made anti-bacterial cleaners • Educate cleaning staff on proper use, application and disposal of all products

Integrated Pest Management: Implement a comprehensive Integrated Pest Management plan to eliminate the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides in school buildings and grounds maintenance. Ban the use of all chemicals that are known to be carcinogenic or bio-accumulative. Contact Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, (http://www.pesticide.org) for assistance on their Schools Pesticide Use Reduction program.

Food Policy: The manner in which food is grown and transported has a significant impact on the health of the environment as well as those who consume it. Investigate opportunities to purchase organically grown food from local producers.

Education and Awareness Training: People help support what they help create. Conduct sustainability training for students, faculty, staff, and parents and involve

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Sustainable and High Performance Schools 69 them in the development and implementation of sustainable school policies and procedures.

Curriculum: Integrate sustainable school initiatives with classroom curriculum to create learning opportunities for students about their connection to the earth and their ability to affect positive change.

Incentives: Create an incentives program to recognize and reward individuals, classrooms, organizations and schools who take the initiative to reduce environmental impacts and conserve school resources.

Involvement: Become involved with an organization such as the Oregon Natural Step Network (http://www.naturalstep.org), to keep current on sustainability issues and connect with other institutions and companies also pursuing sustainability.

Funding for High-Performance School Initiatives The pursuit towards “high-performance” schools is one that involves commitment, time and investment from all parties involved. In recognition of this investment, the following factors should be considered in making decisions on the prioritizing of building improvements or activities:

• Identify any “low hanging fruit” that involve minimal action or cost for maximum benefit • Evaluate the lowest initial cost options consistent with long-term benefits • Review the results from initial feasibility demonstration or pilot projects • Conduct life-cycle cost analysis to evaluate options • Assess what resources can be leveraged for particular projects • Consider the ease of implementation with constrained management resources In reviewing these investments, it is critical to consider activities that produce multiple benefits, where the results would be measured in terms of not only energy savings, but also that produce better learning environments, reducing maintenance costs, and creating potential pedagogical value. The following resources should be considered as potential funding sources for projects:

State or Federal funding There are several programs that exist through the state’s Office of Energy, including the Small Scale Energy Loan Program (SELP), and other services such as energy studies, resource conservation management training or indoor air quality studies. Public Purpose Funds for Schools from the new

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 70 Sustainable and High Performance Schools

Energy Trust of Oregon, a product of Senate Bill 1149, should be considered as they come available in 2002.

Tax credits The Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) was expanded in 2001 to allow governmental and non-profit entities such as schools and foundations to take advantage of the state's 35% energy tax credit, by passing the credit through to tax-paying entities (i.e., private enterprises). The net effect of this change is to reduce the cost of energy-efficiency and solar measures to PPS by about 27% (the value of the credit in today's dollars). Coupled with higher utility prices for gas and electricity, this change will have the effect of making a large number of energy efficiency retrofits economically and financially feasible.

Utility rebates and incentives In addition, with the higher utility prices, we expect Portland Public Schools to benefit from utility rebates and custom incentives for energy efficiency measures, which have now become more cost-effective for the utilities.

Performance contracting For large energy-efficiency measures such as boiler conversions, consider the possibility of engaging a major national company in offering the District energy savings performance contracts. In this model, an energy services company (ESCO) pays for the energy improvements, and is paid back over time through the utility bill savings the project creates. Such programs are quite common throughout the country; they are less beneficial than direct investment, but use the credit of another company to get things done faster than the District could otherwise accomplish.

Carbon Credits Again, for major energy-efficiency such as boiler conversions, that reduce

CO2 emissions, the District can sell the carbon credits to companies who are banking them. This can serve to off-set the cost of the energy upgrades. Contact the Climate Neutral Network (http://www.climateneutral.com) for information.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Long Range Facilities Plan 71

Management Challenges and Issues

Population and Enrollment As discussed earlier, school population and enrollment forecasts are a primary driver of Portland Public Schools facilities work. For the purposes of this plan’s findings and recommendations, the following are the most salient facts.

Population Portland’s school age population is dropping, and its needs are changing. PSU projects that enrollment for the District will drop by about 5,800 students (11%) between 2001 and 2012. At current school enrollment levels, this equates to ten or eleven schools, or one each year.

At the same time school age population and enrollment are dropping, Portland’s residents are getting more diverse. The School District already has students who speak more than 125 languages, come from every corner of the world, and represent a multitude of socio-economic situations. Portland has a long history of strong public schools that are attended by more of the community’s privileged citizens than other cities. While this trend continues, Portland today has a much more complex populace. The District now Additionally, society now expects public school districts to serve a more comprehensive spectrum of students with special needs than was true only a serves about 6,500 generation ago. The District now serves about 6,500 school age (5-21 years) school children children who require special education services. About 2,000 of these are in 175 Structured Learning Center (SLC) classrooms in schools throughout the who require special District. If these classrooms were all together, they would fill more than education services. seven elementary schools.

By comparison, when District enrollment was at its peak in the early 1970s very few of these children would have attended public school, and almost none in typical school buildings.

Facility capacity Portland Public Schools’ existing open enrollment system means that the intensity of a facility’s use is not directly proportional to the fluctuations in its surrounding neighborhood population. At the same time that some buildings are underused, others are overcrowded. A number of charts are presented at the end of this section, which illustrate facility capacity and operations costs as functions of current enrollment. These data are a somewhat arbitrary current snapshot, and cannot (alone) be used for

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 72 Management Challenges and Issues

decision-making. They do, however, illustrate a number of the facilities issues the District is facing.

Focus programs Portland Public Schools existing focus programs are successfully drawing students from traditional schools within the District and programs in other Districts. Several small elementary schools currently share facility space with magnet or other special programs. In many of these instances, the constant or growing enrollment in the special program offsets declining enrollment in the neighborhood school.

Neighborhood schools Portland values strong neighborhoods. The City has a long history of cohesive and established neighborhoods. The City government set a national trend by formalizing neighborhood involvement in the 1970s, and today recognizes more than ninety distinct neighborhoods. Each ‘official’ neighborhood has its own volunteer association and community organizing assistance from the City. Many people believe that schools are important to strong neighborhoods, and in many instances schools and neighborhoods gain identity from each other. In fact, fully a third of Portland’s public schools (33) share a name with the surrounding neighborhood (i.e., Laurelhurst, King, etc.).

Budget The primary motivator behind Portland Public Schools facilities work is the The District does District’s chronic budget problems. The statewide property tax limitation passed by Oregon voters in 1990 (Measure 5) shifted the preponderance of and will spend school funding from primarily local property taxes to state income taxes. Today, 88% of the District’s $361 million general fund comes from the millions of dollars State of Oregon.

each year on its Because State funding means statewide equalization of funding per student, facilities. That Portland’s historically well-funded schools have lost resources while traditionally under-funded schools elsewhere in the state have gained. investment should An important facilities ramification of State funding and local property tax be strategically limitation is capital financing versus operations funding. Property taxes for targeted for school operations are severely restricted, while taxes for capital bond financing are not limited at all. Since this is true statewide, State funding maximum allocations for K-12 education assume local property taxes will be used for instructional capital needs. In other words, a District can pass a bond measure to build or repair facilities, but not to pay teachers or custodians. benefit.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Management Challenges and Issues 73

As such, Portland Public Schools has shrinking enrollment and resulting excess facilities capacity, but not enough money to maintain what it has. It can’t levy taxes for that maintenance, but could to build new buildings. Nevertheless, the District does and will spend millions of dollars each year on its facilities. That investment should be strategically targeted to achieve maximum instructional benefit.

Inventory Portland Public Schools facilities are older than most school district’s in Oregon. The vast majority of Portland’s schools were built during two rapid building booms, one in the 1920s (32 schools), the other in the 1950s (36 schools). The District has more buildings constructed before 1920 (15) than The District has since 1960 (13). Portland Public Schools has only built one school since 1970 (Forest Park, 1998). more buildings that

Because of their age and type of construction, the District’s existing were constructed inventory of buildings is generally inflexible and not well suited to current before 1920 than it needs and future trends in teaching and learning, nor to the District’s educational strategic plan. Despite demands for technology, does built since telecommunications, small group workspaces, flexibility, and energy efficiency, Portland’s schools are mostly rigid, unwired, and poorly 1960. insulated, as well as graced with oversized circulation spaces and antiquated classroom environments.

For a variety of reasons (probably both budgetary and cultural), Portland’s educators are not skilled at thinking of facilities opportunities other than what they have today. Many teachers and administrators are very creative with new programs, but seem convinced that any new activities can only take place within the existing brick and mortar boxes with which they are familiar.

Mandates At the same time Portland Public Schools faces severe funding challenges, it is required to comply with many mandates from the local, state, and federal governments. Some of those most related to facilities are discussed below.

Special Education As mentioned above, the District now serves about 6,500 school age (5-21 years) children who require special education services. About 2,000 of these are in 175 Self-contained Learning Classrooms (SLC). Federal law requires that these children be educated in regular operating schools. District policy expects special needs students to be housed in a school in the cluster where they live. This represents about 11 special needs students per classroom as

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 74 Management Challenges and Issues

compared to about 17 students per classroom for the student population as a whole. At that rate, 2,000 students could be served in 118 classrooms. As such, the premium of 57 extra classrooms represents about 2.5 elementary schools.

Historic Buildings Oregon law requires local governments, including school districts, to give consideration to preservation of their historic buildings. Currently the District has three schools designated as historic landmarks (Benson, Duniway, and Woodstock), and another 47 that are listed on the City of Portland’s historic resources inventory. This number may underestimate the District’s historic inventory since more than twenty school buildings have passed their 50th year since the City’s inventory was completed in 1984 (50 years of age is a key milestone in historic designation).

ADA The federal Americans with Disabilities Act requires that all new public buildings be accessible to citizens with disabilities. However, for its existing facilities the District is only required to implement a plan to improve accessibility. The District has created a plan, which includes a three-tier target designation for each of its buildings: 1 – all essential programs accessible; 2 – only the main floor is accessible; and 3 – limited or no access. The District has implemented this transition plan as part of its current program of bond-funded facility upgrades. The District has designated 73 facilities in category 1, 28 in category 2, and 6 in category 3. For those buildings not yet scheduled to make all essential programs accessible, access upgrades will need to be included in any major facilities work in the future to reach the goal of making all facilities accessible. This is an expensive prospect because nearly all remaining work involves adding elevators to older facilities.

Progress to Date Since the release of the KPMG audit, the School District has taken a number of actions to increase the efficiency of its space utilization. These efforts include selling and leasing-out surplus property, moving District programs from expensive third-party facilities into the District’s own buildings, charging market-driven rates for non-District use of District facilities, and eliminating or deferring maintenance costs.

Operations savings The District’s facilities staff has made significant reductions to operations and maintenance costs by reducing custodial services and deferring facility maintenance. This has been done both by reducing the facility inventory altogether and by critical and priority maintenance work on all facilities.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Management Challenges and Issues 75

Savings in outside placements Until recently, many of the District’s special education students were housed in third-party programs. In the last few years most of these students have been moved into facilities owned by the District. This action alone is saving the District almost $1,000,000 each year.

Sales and lease receipts from surplus property In the past 2-3 years, the District has sold or leased-out several surplus properties with a return of nearly $17 million. The City of Portland purchased several properties for recreational purposes. Multnomah County leased office and operations facilities from the District. The District sold the former Collins View school to the Riverdale School District, and (just recently) the former Normandale School to its long-time tenant—the Early Head Start Center. Final negotiations are underway on the sale of ten undeveloped acres near Sylvan to a private party and on additional parks and recreation space to the City of Portland.

Cost recovery policies for outside use of District facilities The District facilities staff has followed-up the specific recommendation of the Best Use of Facilities Study to develop a cost recovery policy for outside use of District facilities. This effort has received mixed reviews. While most people seem sympathetic with the District’s financial plight, many still think that public schools should be available for public uses at little or no cost. Beyond this basic philosophical question, there are several issues with how this policy has been implemented:

• Several long-time and major non-profit organization tenants have complained about steep rent increases with inadequate notice. There are many perspectives on the reality behind this complaint, and each deal is unique. Some of these tenants were already behind on their rent and this policy change simply hastened an already deteriorating situation. In other cases, the District is working with the tenants to work out a mutually acceptable phase-in of increased rental rates. • There seems to be little issue with for-profit or individual use agreements, such as private receptions, basketball leagues, and so forth. • An especially problematic situation is the tradeoff between the public relations benefit of school use by small, neighborhood-based community organizations. While it makes little sense for the District to take on new costs for the benefit of non-educational activities, many of these organizations cannot or will not pay the cost of making school space available. As a result, a number of neighborhood associations, scout troops, and other ‘worthy’ activities have chosen to move their meetings away from school buildings. This does save the District some

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 76 Management Challenges and Issues

cash for custodial services, but those savings come with a cost in lost good will. • Additionally, this issue is loaded with misinformation, poor communication, rumor, grandstanding and hyperbole. Here and elsewhere in facilities and other areas, Portland Public Schools would be well served by more transparent decision-making, consistent communications, and proactive public relations.

• The programmatic value of small schools. Educational research indicates that small schools produce better student achievement than large schools. In this context, a small school program might be in a small building or share a larger building with other programs. Small schools do require a cost premium, both for school support personnel and facilities operations. It is currently unclear whether District leadership embraces small schools and is willing to pay a premium for them, or is willing to trade-off some achievement to gain cost savings. • The geographic placement of special education students is an ongoing debate within the District. Facilities personnel note that most principals can find room in their school facility for a computer lab or a specialized program for top-tier students, while those same principals seem to have trouble finding room for a special education classroom for behaviorally challenged students. The District made a policy in 2001 that special education students should be housed within their ‘home’ cluster, but this policy isn’t widely understood or acknowledged within the District’s own ranks. • The District has a policy of conditional open enrollment, but the criteria for approval of transfer requests aren’t well understood, widely communicated, or consistent across various programs. • The District operates dozens of special focus programs in a variety of locations and in a variety of configurations adjacent to traditional neighborhood schools. When a new program is starting up, the criteria for housing a new program are unclear, and prone to rumor and the appearance of arbitrary decision-making. • Enrollment naturally fluctuates among individual schools from year to year. Fluctuations result from changing neighborhood demographics, desirability and reputation of school programs, and many other reasons.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Management Challenges and Issues 77

Currently the District’s policies and procedures for dealing with these fluctuations are unclear.

Community Interface Schools present different planning and decision-making challenges than many other facilities issues because of the unique relationship between a school and its community. Almost all of Portland’s school buildings are located in residential neighborhoods. This means that the school, by definition, has multiple constituencies, including people who live near the school, families with students in the school, alumni, those who work in the school, and those who are active in groups that use the school building regularly, as well as the public at large. Each of these constituent groups has a distinct perspective on a school’s present and future program and facility.

Families with students currently (or soon to be) enrolled in a school are obviously among the most vested in the schools immediate decisions, but this group is also one of the most transitory constituencies. A ‘typical’ family with two children who are 3-4 years apart in age will be very interested in a school’s performance, policies, and facility from a year or two before the older child starts in the school until the younger child graduates. Once the kids have grown past school age, the family’s interest is likely to decline substantially. Thus, for an elementary school, our ‘typical’ family will be passionately interested from about age three for the older child until age 11 for the younger child, or 11-12 years total. (This, of course, assumes both children attend the same school from kindergarten through fifth grade. For many families this ‘window’ of interest may be only four or five years.)

It seems obvious that families with children in the school have the most to gain from school improvements, but because of the transitory nature of their involvement it is often in these families best interest for the school to change as little as possible during the period of their interest. For example, it might be great for a neighborhood to get a state of the art new school building, but if that facility is built while your child is in school, you’ll get all the disruption of construction and change without the benefit of the new building since your child will have moved on before it’s finished.

Conversely, neighborhood groups may be better able to see long-term impacts—both pro and con. Education advocates and school personnel may see long-term benefit most clearly, but discount the disruption of change on current students.

In all, school facilities decision makers must balance short-term needs with long-term benefits, and understand that no decision will ever please everybody.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 78 Facility Use, Capacity, and Operations Charts*

ElementaryElementarElementaryy StudentsStudents School Students 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Abernethy/EMS 422 Ainsworth 549 Alameda 622 Applegate 212 Arleta 352 Astor 337 Atkinson 543 Ball 309 Beach 504 Boise-Eliot 672 Bridger 306 Bridlemile 449 Brooklyn/Winterhaven 309 Buckman 530 Capitol Hill 310 Chapman 527 Chief Joseph 298 Clarendon 393 Clark 532 Creston 353 Duniway 431 Edwards 212 Faubion 302 Forest Park 334 Glencoe 449 Grout 295 Hayhurst 271 Hollyrood 191 Humboldt 326 Irvington 510 James John 564 Kelly 481 Kenton 233 King 710 Laurelhurst 526 Lee 408 Lent 400 Lewis 294 Llewellyn 311 Maplewood 309 Markham 358 Marysville 395 Meek 198 Peninusla 328 Richmond 470 Rieke 307 Rigler 492 Rose City Park 470 Sabin 370 Scott 512 Sitton 421 Skyline 209 Smith 252 Stephenson 393 Sunnyside 334 Vernon 445 Vestal 227 Whitman 475 Wilcox 197 Woodlawn 518 Woodmere 503 Woodstock 372 Youngson 177 Elementary Mean 389 Elementary Median 372 Enrollment: Portland Public Schools, October 2001.

* These data are a somewhat arbitrary current snapshot, and cannot (alone) be used for decision-making. They do, however, illustrate a number of the District’s facilities issues. Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Facility Use, Capacity, and Operations Charts* 79

MiddleMiddle and andHigh High School School Students Students Middle and High School Students 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Middle Schools Beaumont 670 Binnsmead 735 Fernwood 608 George 558 Gray 526 Gregory Heights 821 Hosford 374 Jackson 807 Kellog 667 Lane 696 Metropolitan Learning Center 418 Monroe 319 Mt. Tabor 700 Ockley Green 490 Portsmouth 489 Rice Sellwood 602 Tubman 517 West Sylvan 915 Whitaker-Adams 482 Whitaker Lakeside Middle School Mean 615 Middle School Median 602 High Schools Benson 1,479 Cleveland 1,366 Franklin 1,470 Glenhaven 160 Grant 1,798 Jefferson 855 Lincoln 1,469 Madison 1,204 Marshall 1,222 Roosevelt 1,141 Wilson 1,644 High School Mean 1,255 High School Median 1,366 Enrollment: Portland Public Schools, October 2001.

Elementary School Classrooms ElementaryElementary Classrooms Classrooms 051015 20 25 30 35 40

Abernethy/EMS 21 Ainsworth 25 Alameda 36 Applegate 14 Arleta 29 Astor 21 Atkinson 23 Ball 13 Beach 37 Boise-Eliot 38 Bridger 20 Bridlemile 26 Brooklyn/Winterhaven 19 Buckman 30 Capitol Hill 20 Chapman 28 Chief Joseph 19 Clarendon 21 Clark 25 Creston 19 Duniway 26 Edwards 9 Faubion 18 Forest Park 12 Glencoe 26 Grout 28 Hayhurst 22 Hollyrood 8 Humboldt 22 Irvington 30 James John 27 Kelly 28 Kenton 23 King 34 Laurelhurst 28 Lee 23 Lent 28 Lewis 19 Llewellyn 21 Maplewood 14 Markham 24 Marysville 23 Meek 15 Peninusla 28 Richmond 28 Rieke 13 Rigler 27 Rose City Park 30 Sabin 33 Scott 27 Sitton 22 Skyline 14 Smith 18 Stephenson 20 Sunnyside 24 Vernon 30 Vestal 26 Whitman 25 Wilcox 10 Woodlawn 32 Woodmere 22 Woodstock 28 Youngson 12 Elementary Mean 23 Elementary Median 23 Classrooms: Portland Public Schools Classroom Use Survey, April 2000.

Middle and High School Classrooms MiddleMiddle and and High High SchoolSchool Classrooms 020406080100 120

Middle Schools Beaumont 35 Binnsmead 36 Fernwood 26 George 30 Gray 27 Gregory Heights 41 Hosford 33 Jackson 48 Kellog 40 Lane 39 Metropolitan Learning Center 22 Monroe 32 Mt. Tabor 31 Ockley Green 34 Portsmouth 28 Rice Sellwood 32 Tubman 37 West Sylvan 41 Whitaker-Adams 61 Whitaker Lakeside Middle School Mean 36 Middle School Median 34 High Schools Benson 104 Cleveland 81 Franklin 90 Glenhaven 19 Grant 99 Jefferson 85 Lincoln 54 Madison 79 Marshall 75 Roosevelt 62 Wilson 76 High School Mean 75 High School Median 79 Classrooms: Portland Public Schools Classroom Use Survey, April 2000.

ElementaryElementary Square School Footage Square Footage

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Abernethy/EMS 48,438 Ainsworth 47,071 Alameda 61,542 Applegate 25,202 Arleta 76,489 Astor 47,360 Atkinson 58,057 Ball 20,567 Beach 66,633 Boise-Eliot 61,369 Bridger 43,158 Bridlemile 58,057 Brooklyn/Winterhaven 38,092 Buckman 82,023 Capitol Hill 46,379 Chapman 59,969 Chief Joseph 44,412 Clarendon 42,958 Clark 50,595 Creston 70,765 Duniway 67,492 Edwards 20,502 Faubion 57,846 Forest Park 40,200 Glencoe 63,482 Grout 65,838 Hayhurst 56,266 Hollyrood 15,701 Humboldt 42,920 Irvington 65,285 James John 63,697 Kelly 82,895 Kenton 48,713 King 88,957 Laurelhurst 44,251 Lee 73,276 Lent 74,131 Lewis 48,380 Llewellyn 49,755 Maplewood 32,853 Markham 82,794 Marysville 43,490 Meek 32,477 Peninusla 70,151 Richmond 77,070 Rieke 30,647 Rigler 55,312 Rose City Park 72,053 Sabin 66,929 Scott 62,681 Sitton 58,762 Skyline 37,245 Smith 38,472 Stephenson 40,539 Sunnyside 54,361 Vernon 68,091 Vestal 63,382 Whitman 68,763 Wilcox 19,102 Woodlawn 58,608 Woodmere 55,324 Woodstock 69,135 Youngson 32,824 Elementary Mean 54,124 Elementary Median 56,266 Square Footage: Cushman & Wakefield Condition and Alternative Use Analysis, November 2000.

Middle and High School Square Footage MiddleMiddle &and High High School School Square Square Footage Footage

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,00

Middle Schools Beaumont 94,431 Binnsmead 109,059 Fernwood 73,091 George 78,713 Gray 60,624 Gregory Heights 94,438 Hosford 77,050 Jackson 247,779 Kellog 94,592 Lane 87,438 Metropolitan Learning Center 68,135 Monroe 91,876 Mt. Tabor 83,076 Ockley Green 69,153 Portsmouth 75,814 Rice Sellwood 86,823 Tubman 94,775 West Sylvan 102,209 Whitaker-Adams 268,899 Whitaker Lakeside 63,501 Middle School Mean 103,672 Middle School Median 87,131 High Schools Benson 402,127 Cleveland 251,892 Franklin 237,027 Glenhaven 63,714 Grant 269,350 Jefferson 360,911 Lincoln 233,293 Madison 370,112 Marshall 271,427 Roosevelt 267,570 Wilson 326,062 High School Mean 277,590 High School Median 269,350 Square Footage: Cushman & Wakefield Condition and Alternative Use Analysis, November 2000.

Elementary School Students per Classroom Elementary Students per Classroom 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Abernethy/EMS 20.10 Ainsworth 21.96 Alameda 17.28 Applegate 15.14 Arleta 12.14 Astor 16.05 Atkinson 23.61 Ball 23.77 Beach 13.62 Boise-Eliot 17.68 Bridger 15.30 Bridlemile 17.27 Brooklyn/Winterhaven 16.26 Buckman 17.67 Capitol Hill 15.50 Chapman 18.82 Chief Joseph 15.68 Clarendon 18.71 Clark 21.28 Creston 18.58 Duniway 16.58 Edwards 23.56 Faubion 16.78 Forest Park 27.83 Glencoe 17.27 Grout 10.54 Hayhurst 12.32 Hollyrood 23.88 Humboldt 14.82 Irvington 17.00 James John 20.89 Kelly 17.18 Kenton 10.13 King 20.88 Laurelhurst 18.79 Lee 17.74 Lent 14.29 Lewis 15.47 Llewellyn 14.81 Maplewood 22.07 Markham 14.92 Marysville 17.17 Meek 13.20 Peninusla 11.71 Richmond 16.79 Rieke 23.62 Rigler 18.22 Rose City Park 15.67 Sabin 11.21 Scott 18.96 Sitton 19.14 Skyline 14.93 Smith 14.00 Stephenson 19.65 Sunnyside 13.92 Vernon 14.83 Vestal 8.73 Whitman 19.00 Wilcox 19.70 Woodlawn 16.19 Woodmere 22.86 Woodstock 13.29 Youngson 14.75 Elementary Mean 17.17 Elementary Median 17.00

Enrollment: Portland Public Schools, October 2001. Classrooms: PPS Classroom Use Survey, April 2000.

Middle and High School Students per Classroom Middle and High School Students per Classroom 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Middle Schools Beaumont 19.14 Binnsmead 20.42 Fernwood 23.38 George 18.60 Gray 19.48 Gregory Heights 20.02 Hosford 11.33 Jackson 16.81 Kellog 16.68 Lane 17.85 Metropolitan Learning Center 19.00 Monroe 9.97 Mt. Tabor 22.58 Ockley Green 14.41 Portsmouth 17.46 Rice Sellwood 18.81 Tubman 13.97 West Sylvan 22.32 Whitaker-Adams 9.84 Whitaker Lakeside Middle School Mean 17.90 Middle School Median 18.60 High Schools Benson 14.22 Cleveland 16.86 Franklin 16.33 Glenhaven 8.42 Grant 18.16 Jefferson 10.06 Lincoln 27.20 Madison 15.24 Marshall 16.29 Roosevelt 18.40 Wilson 21.63 High School Mean 16.62 High School Median 16.33

Enrollment: Portland Public Schools, October 2001. Classrooms: PPS Classroom Use Survey, April 2000.

Elementary School Students Students per Acre per Acre

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0

Abernethy/EMS 114.1 Ainsworth 137.3 Alameda 168.1 Applegate 151.4 Arleta 83.8 Astor 84.3 Atkinson 175.2 Ball 154.5 Beach 95.1 Boise-Eliot 168.0 Bridger 50.2 Bridlemile 61.8 Brooklyn/Winterhaven 65.7 Buckman 108.2 Capitol Hill 70.5 Chapman 109.8 Chief Joseph 106.4 Clarendon 119.1 Clark 83.1 Creston 41.0 Duniway 77.0 Edwards 235.6 Faubion 38.2 Forest Park 50.5 Glencoe 78.8 Grout 128.3 Hayhurst 33.9 Hollyrood 219.5 Humboldt 105.2 Irvington 124.4 James John 170.9 Kelly 51.7 Kenton 58.3 King 142.0 Laurelhurst 181.4 Lee 44.8 Lent 36.4 Lewis 53.5 Llewellyn 107.2 Maplewood 71.9 Markham 36.5 Marysville 76.0 Meek 36.7 Peninusla 47.5 Richmond 123.7 Rieke 42.6 Rigler 53.5 Rose City Park 127.0 Sabin 102.8 Scott 89.8 Sitton 66.8 Skyline 36.0 Smith 25.2 Stephenson 44.2 Sunnyside 104.4 Vernon 120.3 Vestal 50.4 Whitman 65.1 Wilcox 67.9 Woodlawn 105.7 Woodmere 91.5 Woodstock 74.4 Youngson 32.8 Elementary Mean 91.7 Elementary Median 83.1

Enrollment: Portland Public Schools, October 2001. Acreage: Cushman & Wakefield Condition and Alternative Use Analysis, November 2000.

MiddleMiddle and and High High School School Students Students per per Acre Acre 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0

Middle Schools Beaumont 117.5 Binnsmead 73.5 Fernwood 141.4 George 77.5 Gray 40.5 Gregory Heights 95.5 Hosford 56.7 Jackson 22.4 Kellog 105.9 Lane 73.3 Metropolitan Learning Center 110.0 Monroe 53.9 Mt. Tabor 93.3 Ockley Green 94.2 Portsmouth 82.9 Rice Sellwood 125.4 Tubman 255.9 West Sylvan 65.4 Whitaker-Adams 46.5 Whitaker Lakeside Middle School Mean 93.2 Middle School Median 82.9 High Schools Benson 170.0 Cleveland 113.8 Franklin 81.7 Glenhaven 29.7 Grant 179.8 Jefferson 71.3 Lincoln 133.5 Madison 60.2 Marshall 53.1 Roosevelt 67.1 Wilson 63.2 High School Mean 93.0 High School Median 71.3

Enrollment: Portland Public Schools, October 2001. Acreage: Cushman & Wakefield Condition and Alternative Use Analysis, November 2000.

Elementary School Square Feet per Student Elementary School Square Feet per Student 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0

Abernethy/EMS 114.8 Ainsworth 85.7 Alameda 98.9 Applegate 118.9 Arleta 217.3 Astor 140.5 Atkinson 106.9 Ball 66.6 Beach 132.2 Boise-Eliot 91.3 Bridger 141.0 Bridlemile 129.3 Brooklyn/Winterhaven 123.3 Buckman 154.8 Capitol Hill 149.6 Chapman 113.8 Chief Joseph 149.0 Clarendon 109.3 Clark 95.1 Creston 200.5 Duniway 156.6 Edwards 96.7 Faubion 191.5 Forest Park 120.4 Glencoe 141.4 Grout 223.2 Hayhurst 207.6 Hollyrood 82.2 Humboldt 131.7 Irvington 128.0 James John 112.9 Kelly 172.3 Kenton 209.1 King 125.3 Laurelhurst 84.1 Lee 179.6 Lent 185.3 Lewis 164.6 Llewellyn 160.0 Maplewood 106.3 Markham 231.3 Marysville 110.1 Meek 164.0 Peninusla 213.9 Richmond 164.0 Rieke 99.8 Rigler 112.4 Rose City Park 153.3 Sabin 180.9 Scott 122.4 Sitton 139.6 Skyline 178.2 Smith 152.7 Stephenson 103.2 Sunnyside 162.8 Vernon 153.0 Vestal 279.2 Whitman 144.8 Wilcox 97.0 Woodlawn 113.1 Woodmere 110.0 Woodstock 185.8 Youngson 185.4 Elementary Mean 144.0 Elementary Median 140.5

Enrollment: Portland Public Schools, October 2001. Square Footage: Cushman & Wakefield Condition and Alternative Use Analysis, November 2000.

Middle and High School Square Feet per Student Middle and High School Square Feet per Student

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0

Middle Schools Beaumont 140.9 Binnsmead 148.4 Fernwood 120.2 George 141.1 Gray 115.3 Gregory Heights 115.0 Hosford 206.0 Jackson 307.0 Kellog 141.8 Lane 125.6 Metropolitan Learning Center 163.0 Monroe 288.0 Mt. Tabor 118.7 Ockley Green 141.1 Portsmouth 155.0 Rice Sellwood 144.2 Tubman 183.3 West Sylvan 111.7 Whitaker-Adams 448.2 Whitaker Lakeside Middle School Mean 168.1 Middle School Median 141.8 High Schools Benson 271.9 Cleveland 184.4 Franklin 161.2 Glenhaven 398.2 Grant 149.8 Jefferson 422.1 Lincoln 158.8 Madison 307.4 Marshall 222.1 Roosevelt 234.5 Wilson 198.3 High School Mean 246.3 High School Median 222.1

Enrollment: Portland Public Schools, October 2001. Square Footage: Cushman & Wakefield Condition and Alternative Use Analysis, November 2000. * These data are a somewhat arbitrary current snapshot, and cannot (alone) be used for decision-making. They do, however, illustrate a number of the District’s facilities issues. Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 90 Facility Use, Capacity, and Operations Charts*

Elementary School Annual Operations Cost per Student Elementary School Annual Operations Cost per Student

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900

Elementary Schools Abernethy/EMS $386 Ainsworth $300 Alameda $348 Applegate $472 Arleta $506 Astor $424 Atkinson $324 Ball $335 Beach $438 Boise-Eliot $291 Bridger $358 Bridlemile $342 Brooklyn/Winterhav $428 Buckman $441 Capitol Hill $524 Chapman $352 Chief Joseph $465 Clarendon $351 Clark $291 Creston $550 Duniway $425 Edwards $453 Faubion $476 Forest Park $289 Glencoe $427 Grout $656 Hayhurst $492 Hollyrood $555 Humboldt $532 Irvington $367 James John $343 Kelly $463 Kenton $683 King $336 Laurelhurst $329 Lee $406 Lent $513 Lewis $432 Llewellyn $466 Maplewood $407 Markham $594 Marysville $373 Meek $610 Peninusla $586 Richmond $396 Rieke $345 Rigler $371 Rose City Park $411 Sabin $541 Scott $359 Sitton $371 Skyline $571 Smith $517 Stephenson $354 Sunnyside $468 Vernon $437 Vestal $819 Whitman $325 Wilcox $392 Woodlawn $395 Woodmere $298 Woodstock $398 Youngson $516 Elementary Mean $435 Elementary Median $424

Enrollment: Portland Public Schools, October 2001. Annual Operations cost; PPS Facilities Operations Costs, January 2002.

Middle and High School Annual Operations Cost per Student Middle and High School Annual Operations Cost per Student

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200

Middle Schools Beaumont $343 Binnsmead $361 Fernwood $400 George $401 Gray $324 Gregory Heights $307 Hosford $602 Jackson $623 Kellog $383 Lane $374 Metropolitan Learning Center $573 Monroe $740 Mt. Tabor $311 Ockley Green $431 Portsmouth $484 Rice Sellwood $381 Tubman $499 West Sylvan $297 Whitaker-Adams $984 Whitaker Lakeside Middle School Mean $449 Middle School Median $400 High Schools Benson $602 Cleveland $468 Franklin $466 Glenhaven $1,050 Grant $376 Jefferson $971 Lincoln $405 Madison $624 Marshall $556 Roosevelt $567 Wilson $498 High School Mean $598 High School Median $556

Enrollment: Portland Public Schools, October 2001. Annual Operations cost; PPS Facilities Operations Costs, January 2002.

Long Range Facilities Plan 93

Section III: Facilities Objectives

Learning Comes First

A Safe, Healthy and High Performance Environment

Flexibility

Annuity

Quality

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Long Range Facilities Plan 95

Facilities Objectives

Portland Public Schools has a number of priority objectives related to its ownership and use of facilities, whether these facilities are used as school buildings, for other District functions, or as investment properties. Learning is clearly the District’s top priority in all its affairs, and facilities decisions should put learning first. Other important facilities goals include future flexibility to allow learning to remain the top priority in changing times, an annuity producing annual net revenue from facilities for education, and quality — high quality healthy learning environments with sustainable management practices, including appropriate maintenance and reinvestment.

Learning comes first The mission of the Portland Public Schools is to support all students in achieving their very highest educational and personal potential, to inspire in them an enduring love for learning, and prepare them to contribute as citizens of a diverse, multicultural, and international community.

As such, learning and student achievement should drive facilities decisions.

All Students. Portland Public Schools chooses to support all students. As such, the District is committed to ensuring strong educational programs in all parts of the community. This also means that the District is committed to its policy of serving students with special education needs within the school ‘cluster’ in which they live if possible and practical.

School Size. Research indicates that small school programs in which children interact frequently with a limited number of students and teachers produce better achievement than larger programs. This can be true in small buildings or with several small programs that share a larger building. Portland Public Schools will explore ways to capitalize on this knowledge at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. This will require analysis, specific policy, and broad-based communication with District personnel, students, parents, funders, and other community members.

A Safe, Healthy, and High Performance Environment Maintaining a healthy environment that is safe for students, teachers, parents, staff members and other community members is also of primary importance to facilities management.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 96 Facilities Objectives

Accessibility. Portland Public Schools buildings should be accessible to all. This means a program of achieving full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Seismic Safety. Portland Public Schools is currently (2002) completing a comprehensive program of facility upgrades including seismic retrofitting of the buildings to protect users in the event of an earthquake.

Fire and Life Safety. All of Portland Public Schools facilities have been rated for fire and life safety. The District’s objective is to make its buildings as safe as possible. Priority upgrades are continuously underway.

Environmental Quality. A healthy environment both inside and outside is important for the users of the District’s facilities and for the broader sustainability of our community. Priorities include air quality, freedom from toxic chemicals, climate control, energy efficiency, and other measures.

High Performance Schools. Recent research on school facilities indicates that a high quality environment with lots of daylight can have a significant impact on student performance. Portland Public Schools’ top priority is student achievement, and thus creating high performance school environments is a major section of this plan.

Flexibility It is impossible for the School District to predict what’s coming with any certainty. As discussed in the Future of Learning chapter of this report, trends in K-12 education indicate a very different school environment in the future. It is therefore, essential that the District increase and maintain its flexibility for future unknown events. In general, the District should avoid being locked into occupying a set supply of fixed assets. Property ownership should be seen more as investment than as occupancy. Enrollment will ebb and flow District-wide and from neighborhood to neighborhood; occupancy by educational programs should mirror these trends.

Annuity A primary purpose of this Long Range Facilities Plan is to produce annual net revenue for education from facilities. This may not be as easy as was once assumed due to recent cost cutting measures discussed above, but nevertheless, directing resources away from facilities and toward instruction must continue to be a priority. Following the advise of the Best Use of Facilities Task Force, this objective can be accomplished by:

• Reduce inventory of surplus facilities through sales and/or leasing • Reduce operating costs

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Facilities Objectives 97

• Other activities • Recover cost when opening facilities for community use • Reserve capital gained from disposition for future flexibility

At the same time the District seeks to make more efficient use of its resources today, it must remember to invest in its future. Venerable buildings won’t remain so if not maintained, nor will they provide the quality educational environment that our children deserve.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Long Range Facilities Plan 99

Section IV: Actions

Operations Goals

Properties Goals

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Long Range Facilities Plan 101

Operations Goals

Portland Public Schools should take a number of actions to achieve its property objectives of learning, flexibility, annuity, and quality. First, the District should clarify existing practices and actions already taken. There are further actions that can be taken immediately, and some that require mid- to long-term implementation due to their complex and/or controversial nature.

Clarification of Current Facilities Policies The following are already Portland Public Schools administrative practices, but there has been confusion and inconsistency in implementation.

Special education Existing District practice states that students requiring Special Education services will be served within their ‘home’ cluster10 whenever feasible. This is important for several reasons. First, federal law requires special needs students to be served in regular schools close to home. Second, this spreads special education facilities throughout the District providing a diversity of experience to most students and avoiding concentrations of special education students. Finally, this saves transportation costs. (The current mixed implementation of this practice is costing the District considerably in bus and taxi services.)

The District also needs to stabilize special education locations. In the twelve months preceding publication of this plan, individual special education services were moved 26 times within the District.

Multiple schools can operate within a single facility It has been practice for many years that multiple programs could operate within a single facility, and many do. This goes from small-scale specialized programs and special education in a classroom or two, to language immersion and magnet schools operating with hundreds of kids in several grades. During the current school year, at least a dozen major programs share space with neighborhood elementary schools, and almost all middle and high schools host multiple programs.

10 “Home Cluster” means the High School attendance area in which the student resides. For instance, if a student living in one elementary school district cannot be accommodated within that elementary school, effort will be made to educate that student at another school within the same high school cluster.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 102 Operations and Properties Goals

Despite the widespread reality of multiple programs sharing facilities, many people have trouble seeing past the traditional image of a single-focus neighborhood school. When activists work to launch a new special program, they are often met with resistance from those managing individual schools.

Programmatic choice is a growing reality, as discussed in the “Future of Learning” chapter of this plan. If Portland Public Schools doesn’t facilitate the ongoing development and evolution of specialized programs, families will choose schools that do.

Programmatic choice for parents and students Portland Public Schools has a long history of conditional open enrollment. This policy works well for the District and students, but is hard to understand. Different special programs were started for different reasons (desegregation, magnet, special needs, etc.) and have different admissions policies. It is hard to get information about which programs are available and how to get into them. The criteria for different programs are different and inconsistently applied. Existing policy in this area should be clarified, organized, and communicated in a comprehensible way.

Immediate Management Actions

Flexibility The most certain forecast for Portland’s schools is change. Populations will change. Educational best practices will change. Funding levels will change. Technology will change. Everything will change, and change is happening faster all the time. As such, Portland Public Schools needs to increase and protect its future flexibility. Flexibility will allow the District to adapt as times change.

Reserve space for unforeseen crises In the past year (2001) alone, Portland Public Schools had a significant fire in an elementary school, closed a middle school for environmental reasons, and is preparing to close a special facility to avoid cost-prohibitive structural upgrades. Events like these are routine for any organization that operates more than 100 facilities with almost 10 million square feet of space, and planning for crises is simply part of ongoing management. As such, Portland Public Schools should maintain access to between 50,000 and 100,000 square feet of appropriate space for instructional activity. This space could be owned by the District and leased out or owned by others with the District holding an option to occupy it on short-notice. In either

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Operations and Properties Goals 103 case, the District should be able to occupy the space on a few weeks notice in case of a crisis.

Mobile Programs A ‘School’ is a set of programs; not a building.

The location of instructional programs is important to everyone involved. Students’ families, teachers, service workers and administrators alike often arrange their lives around travel to and from school. These issues are especially critical for school users with mobility challenges.

Nevertheless, the District cannot allow itself to get stuck. Times change. Programs change. Constituencies change. Programs grow and shrink. Budgets change. Even neighborhood programs should not be bound to specific buildings over long periods of time. District management should never lose sight of its prerogative to move programs as needed. For all the reasons just stated, such moves should be thoughtful and subject to an open decision-making process, but they should proceed as necessary.

As new special programs develop, the District should encourage and expect an ‘incubation’ period and procedure to help special programs assimilate into nearby or co-located programs such as neighborhood schools.

Routine Boundary Adjustments Most growing school districts change their individual school boundaries often. In Portland, boundaries almost never move. Such stability turns into rigidity with time. Neighborhood populations and demographics change quite naturally over time. School service areas should change with their neighborhoods. Since the District already allows open enrollment, boundaries shouldn’t be nearly as politically charged as they are. A more routine and regular process of boundary adjustments won’t make such moves easy, but will make the process more normal.

School District management should convene a meeting each fall that includes leadership in all school clusters to allocate next year’s expected students with adjustments to boundaries and the feeder system.

Open Enrollment The District already practices open enrollment policy, which is very popular with school age families. Fully 38% of the District’s students attend school somewhere other than their neighborhood school. This forward thinking practice breeds the flexibility and customer service attitude that the District should maintain.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 104 Operations and Properties Goals

Default Enrollment Should Suit District Needs As the District implements routine boundary adjustments, while maintaining open enrollment, decision makers should design a default enrollment pattern that suits the District’s current needs. Open enrollment will protect families from unwanted disruption, but appropriate boundaries will guide most families to schools where numbers will balance out according to the District’s priorities.

Establish default enrollment guidelines that respond to fluctuations in neighborhood population and demographics and help the District achieve school enrollment goals. Then have a clear procedure for families to follow if they want an exception to default guidelines.

Accountability Portland Public Schools can only achieve its facilities objectives if decisions are made at or near the locations they affect. This means site- specific accountability, record-keeping, and incentives.

Overall, a Facilities Implementation Team should be established that includes personnel from the District and the Schools Real Estate Trust, and overseen by a volunteer panel of interested individuals including, but not limited to, School Board members and Trust Board members.

Procedures/Communications In the course of developing this Plan, a constant theme was confusion — confusion about existing policy —confusion about available space — confusion about past decisions — confusion about process — confusion about everything.

Too few people trying to manage too many properties may explain part of this problem, but that doesn’t make it right. The District must:

1. do a better job of keeping facilities records;

2. clarify policies in writing and make them easy to find;

3. make facilities decisions as transparent as possible; and

4. divide responsibilities for facilities among more people to avoid the reality or appearance of too much power in one place.

Community Use of Schools The Best Use of Facilities Study recommended a cost sharing rental rate for community use of school facilities. The District staff has developed such a policy, but it has been poorly communicated and poorly received in public.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Operations and Properties Goals 105

District policy welcomes community uses, but only subsidizes those serving achievement goals. Unfortunately, this is hard to quantify and small revenue gains may not be worth the loss of community good will that comes from making space available. The new policy is sensible, but isn’t well understood. It is essential that the policy be widely publicized and available.

School Size Research shows that small schools produce better academic performance than large schools. Small schools, however, do require a premium in support personnel and facility operations (unless several small schools share a larger facility).

Portland Public Schools currently operates a number of Small Elementary Schools, which are functioning efficiently, except for the extra support and operations costs due to their small enrollment. This is also true to a lesser degree at the middle and high school levels. Determining whether the educational value of the small school environment is worth the cost premium is beyond the scope of this report, but is important for District policy.

Analysis done for this report does indicate that two-thirds of the savings from consolidating smaller schools into larger schools is in support personnel rather than facilities operations. As such, Portland Public Schools will get more results from considering its support personnel formula and from relocating additional uses into underused schools than it will by closing currently operating schools.

It should be noted, however, that considerable creative thinking is underway about the means of making several smaller schools operate within larger facilities, especially at the high school level. This work shows considerable potential and should continue. This work will be greatly facilitated if systems requiring high enrollment numbers (athletics and recreational facilities for instance) are considered as multi-school activities rather than being repeated for every program.

Middle-term Initiatives • The School District’s space allocation should be based on achievement goals. • The School District’s ‘facilities’ plan should be based on educational needs. • A strong program for every student in every part of the city, coupled with programmatic choice for parents and students.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 106 Operations and Properties Goals

• Changes to facility use should enhance the surrounding neighborhood when possible and financially reasonable.

Long-term Strategies Facilities management Over time, Portland Public Schools should move itself out of the facilities management business to focus on its core mission of education. A semi- autonomous non-profit entity is currently being formed to assist the School District in implementing this Plan, especially as it relates to reducing property inventory, reuse of existing facilities, and recycling land into new uses. The District should also explore ways this “Portland Schools Real Estate Trust” can provide the District with additional flexibility, annuity and quality in future facilities at the same time it allows the District to concentrate on instruction.

Portland Schools Real Estate Trust The Portland Schools Real Estate Trust should manage the District’s real estate assets, to allow:

• Future flexibility for the District’s educational needs; • Annual net revenue for education; • The District to focus on its educational mission.

This Trust will ultimately allow the School District to spend less on property management issues and direct those savings toward education. The Trust will operate to alleviate the financial burden of the School District while generating new revenue streams. The Trust will allow the School District to gain more control over the financial aspects of managing its school properties. The School Board recently appointed the Trust Board and each member of the Trust Board signed an agreement that he or she will not personally benefit from any transaction related to school properties.

Properties Goals At the outset of this planning process, many expected this plan to recommend widespread leasing of District facilities to private parties. Many expected this plan to propose detailed strategies for pricing, parking, tenant selection, and other technical aspects of shared use.

Detailed analysis of the District’s current inventory, however, suggests that there is less surplus space than originally thought. Rather than closing schools or renting portions of schools to private parties, the District will get more impact by vacating several non-school properties and relocating the current users of those facilities into the remainder of its buildings. Together

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Operations and Properties Goals 107 with vacating the facilities identified for “inventory reduction” in the next section of this report, it will require finding new locations for between 250,000 and 500,000 square feet of current activities. This represents 3-6% of the District’s space, and will require considerable juggling of users.

This will take a couple of years to accomplish. At that time, enrollment trends will have evolved to some extent, space usage will be clearer, and current needs and inventories should be considered anew.

New Facilities Despite the apparent surplus of space today, the District also has several overcrowded facilities and several facilities that do not well serve their educational programs. When the District moves forward with its next capital bond campaign, monies for several new buildings and reinvestment in its existing inventory must be included.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002

Long Range Facilities Plan 109

Property Categorization

Portland Public Schools should undertake a 5-step process of improving the flexibility, annuity, and quality of its facilities in order to better serve the needs of today’s students without compromising the ability of future generations to serve the students of their time. The District should reduce its current inventory of properties to save current operations expenses and produce future net revenue. It should reuse many facilities in creative ways, including multiple uses within single buildings, more efficient use of buildings, leasing space when appropriate, adjusting boundaries, and relieving crowding when needed. The District should explore opportunities to recycle a few properties where the value of the land is disproportionate to the current value of the building and/or where the building does not serve its educational programs. The District should retain a portfolio of property that is currently leased or in non-traditional school use in order to have a reserve available in case of future facilities crises. And perhaps most importantly, the District must routinely reinvest in its facilities to respond to future events and ensure an ongoing legacy of quality education for future generations of Portland children.

The matrix on the following two pages organizes Portland Public Schools’ facilities into the five facility action areas discussed above. This categorization is based on many factors. These include a review of current space utilization through the Classroom Use Survey (completed by principals in 2000, and summarized in the property information sheets in the appendix to this report), as well as calculations of square feet per student, students per classroom, and annual operating cost per student. (Charts X, Y, and Z in this report). These data were discussed with the Directors of Student Achievement (DOSAs) who collectively have responsibility for all the District’s educational programs. Extensive discussions with District facilities managers led to a preliminary categorization, which was followed by site visits to those school buildings slated for major changes. Site visits included a tour of the facility and a discussion of the proposals with the principal or vice principal. In most (not all) cases, the principal was supportive of the recommendations and often already thinking of similar ideas.

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 110 Property Categorization

For purposes of this matrix, the following definitions are appropriate:

Retain for Future Needs (not Currently ‘Traditional’ Schools) These properties are beneficially leased to outside parties or efficiently house District functions other than neighborhood schools; they should be retained as reserve for use in case of crisis (i.e., a fire in another building).

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 Property Categorization 111

Property Categorization

Reduce Inventory: Priorities for Revenue Generation

Blanchard Child Services Center Glenhaven King Community Center Whitaker Lakeside Masonic Temple Strohecker Tubman Annex Reuse Space in Creative Ways: Priorities for Intensified or Changed Use

Abernethy Applegate Arleta Beach Bridlemile Creston Annex Gray Grout Hosford Jackson Jefferson Kellogg Kenton Lee Lent Madison Markham Meek Metro. Monroe Peninsula Portsmouth Sabin Sellwood Skyline Smith Vernon Vestal Wilson Woodmere Youngson Retain for Future Needs (not Currently ‘Traditional’ Schools)

Columbia Transportation Green Thumb Holladay Annex Kelly Center Mallory Rice Sacajawea Sylvan Terwilliger Recycle Property into New Uses: Major Facility Redevelopment

Adams Ball Clarendon Fernwood Lincoln Reinvest in the Future of Education Priorities for Major Work

Ainsworth Binnsmead Forest Park Franklin Future Reinvestment

Alameda Atkinson Astor Beaumont Benson Bridger Brooklyn Boise-Eliot Buckman Capitol Hill Chapman Chief Joseph Clark Cleveland Creston Duniway Edwards Faubion Foster George Grant Glencoe Gregory Heights Hayhurst Hollyrood Humboldt Irvington James John Kelly King Lane Laurelhurst Lewis Llewellyn Maplewood Marshall Marysville Mt. Tabor Ockley Green Richmond Rieke Rigler Roosevelt Rose City Park Scott Sitton Stephenson Sunnyside Tubman West Sylvan Whitman Wilcox Woodlawn Woodstock

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002 112 Property Categorization

Additional Property Issues Small Elementary Schools Portland Public Schools currently operates Small Elementary Schools (defined here as Fall 2001 enrollment of 252 students or less) that are functioning efficiently, except for the premium demanded in support and operations costs due to their small enrollment. Determining whether the educational value of the small school environment is worth the cost premium is beyond the scope of this report.

Large School Sites Additionally, quite a number of buildings that are operating successfully as schools are on larger than necessary pieces of land. These facilities present an opportunity to consider selling some of their grounds, either for development or as open space to an appropriate conservation entity. A preliminary estimate indicates that as many as 50 acres might be made available for sale or lease. At a conservative price of $200,000/acre for residential property, this could generate $10 million for Portland Public Schools.

Small Elementary Schools (with Fall 2001 enrollment)

Abernethy(204) Applegate (212) Brooklyn (140) Edwards (212) Hollyrood (191) Kenton (233) Meek (198) Skyline (209) Smith (252) Vestal (227) Wilcox (197) Youngson (177)

Large School Sites (possible sale/lease of some grounds)

Beach Bridger Bridlemile Clark Creston Faubion Hayhurst Jackson Kelly Kenton Lane Lee Lent Madison Markham Marshall Marysville Meek Peninsula Rieke Rigler Sitton Smith Stephenson Vestal

Portland Public Schools Long Range Facilities Plan, February 2002