Schoolhouse Crock

For God's sake, let's stop with the constant lies about "cuts in school funding"!PPS have more money than ever and it's going to PERS, salary hikes, and outrageous health care that no one else can afford in the state. Either report the facts or go work for the Oregonian but don't stay at WW and lie.

LIAR! It's people like you that are trying to kill public education

My new hero: "Brandi Streeter, a middle-school teacher at Peninsula who teaches sixth-grade art, social studies and math, and seventh-grade reading and social studies".

Do y'all have ANY idea what her day is like? Five completely different subjects, taught to five completely different groups of kids, in five hours.

That's not a teacher. That is a MIRACLE WORKER!

In fact, KXL is reporting, without attribution, two PPS board members just collapsed at their desks just thinking about all that hard work... that they don't have to do.

One of the challenges is that people take individual sound bites and take a stand. This is much more complex than anyone sound bite. This needs to be more comprehensive and show the benefits, plus costs, that can come from reinventing PPS. I also think bashing unpaid board members is ridiculous. I�ve viewed DeJongs pitch twice in person. Yes we need more funds for instruction. We need a full, rich curriculum district wide. But we also need safe, clean, modern settings for our children to learn in. Without a strong school system, the city and our economy will suffer.

I suggest more focus needs to be put on efficiencies gained (lower operating costs, lower repair costs, and more appropriate facilities for higher, more condensed study bodies associated with fewer schools). We should also close more schools. Look at the projected numbers and smaller schools could still be integrated further. My school closed. I would have no issue with this IF my children were going to a modern facility, with a strong, supported teaching staff (lose the losers and we all know who they are at our individual schools) and a full rich curriculum. The efficiencies should be funneled to providing a full curriculum (and resources) so that district wide we have the same offerings in N, SW, NE and SE areas.

Partnerships are also good. Not with companies, but for other services. If Portland has an estimated 80% of households without students, why not build new facilities with additional offerings? Senior Center, Community Center, Library, Parks, museums or other services that may be valued by the 80% of households without students. It would also make the facilities more useful after school hours and on weekends.

Our grandparents paid for building roads, electric grid, phone system, parks systems, school systems and other infrastructure that we have enjoyed. The reality is things wear out. Technology changes. A strong well run school system is part of a thriving community. The way I see it, my kids will be long grown before this is implemented, but we owe it to make this investment in not only buildings, but in teachers and our children.

You say, "I suggest more focus needs to be put on efficiencies gained."

Though PPS says it saved money closing schools, I do not believe it. Gary Blackmer, city auditor, should do a complete audit of the closures before we build MORE larger schools.

For example, according to the PPS closure report, the closure of Clarendon was supposed to save a meager 20K a year. If four students transferred out of PPS and/or moved a result of this closure that wipes all the savings, plus some.

Clarendon was one of the youngest schools in Portland, with an incredible track record of improving benchmark scores, I believe PPS disenfranchised MORE than four families with this senseless closure.

Now that PPS enrollment has begun to rise again, lets consider the long-term costs from this push to larger elementary schools. The current “Reshaping Schools” process that Portland Public Schools has undertaken should be better linked to transportation policy and a true accounting of all costs. We need to take a more holistic approach to schools, neighborhoods, transportation and funding, while making the best use of our current roads and existing efficient small quality school facilities.

This is a bullshit article. PPS's facilities are falling apart, which is obvious to anyone who looks at them.

Do we need more teachers? Absolutely. But funding levels are set by the legislature and by Measure 5, which caps property tax revenues. GO Bonds for facilities are not limited by the same cap, so it's bogus to argue that fixing up facilities is somehow failing teachers.

Ms. Slovic's reflexive cynicism is devoid of any substance, so this article amounts to crabbyass complaining.

And no, I don't work for PPS.

Did you read the whole article?

I write very clearly that failing to pass a bond will mean "less money to address Peninsula parents’ and teachers’ concerns because money for repairs will have to come from the general fund or reserves. And several school buildings in Portland are in worse shape than Peninsula’s."

I then quote the president of the teacher's union saying the need "is undeniable."

Are you implying that the main thrust of your article was to highlight the need for more investment in school facilities? Beth, I actually find your response dishonest, in that you're misrepresenting the point of your article. Hiding a couple of sentences in the end makes it more deceitful, not less.

The condition of PPS schools is mixed. Some schools are well maintained and some are not. Differences in PPS school condition, stem from the PPS strategy to go without a capital bond in the past several years and deferred maintenance. This strategy allowed some schools to make capital improvements through privately raised funds, typically exacerbating socioeconomic inequities between schools, reinforcing curriculum differences and validating student transfer bias.

The current "reshaping schools" campaign is NOT about fixing roofs and siding. It is literally about reshaping OUR schools into larger regional facilities, instead of neighborhood schools. It is about turning school designed to hold 300 neighborhood students into schools to hold 600 students from around the region.

Reshaping schools it is also about developing larger school on smaller school sites to free up the larger sites for development. Once these school lands and open spaces are lost, they will not be reconstituted at any price.

I'm with Ben (#3). Before taxpayers are asked to commit to a billion $ bond issue, the district needs some significant restructuring. With declining enrollment, we have too many schools, which makes offering electives and more challenging classes difficult. It's also why one teacher has to teach 5 different classes.

Based on a review of PPS website last year, we have 10 high schools; 4 are near or over capacity, two are 50-75% and four are well below 50%. At a high school like Jeff, with only 600 students in 4 grades, there's no way the district can offer an education comparable to Grant, Lincoln, Cleveland or Wilson.

The district needs to work with the Urban Planning and Center for Population Research departments at PSU, toss our our current school map and identify where schools are needed, now and in the future. Then we can identify how our current physical plant fits into the new model; closing, remodeling and building new facilities as appropriate. Only then would I support a bond issue for physical improvements.

I am with you on this, Anne, except for the part about "The district needs to work with the Urban Planning and Center for Population Research departments at PSU." They have BEEN working with PSU on this for years, and the numbers have come out wrong every time! That is why we now have so many closed schools in the very parts of town where the school-aged population is going up. OR---

The Board deliberately closed schools in the areas where they are needed most to help force this bond through.

Take your pick--either way, the taxpayers lose, which means the kids lose too.

Anne,

I'm going to amend my earlier comment. It would be fine for PPS to continue to work with the PSU Center for Population Research as long as they do the opposite of whatever PSU recommends.

Way to go Z! I have been waiting for a real reporter (Hello Beth?) to look at PSU's predictions about population growth, school by school, over the past 20 years, and see if it was correct.

The facts, as Z suggested, will show PSU is always wrong, all the time, on their research. Always! Wrong!

I live across the street from Edwards, closed for "declining population", but there are now 23 school-aged children within five houses of mine. That's an entire classroom, on my block, a few feet from a school closed by a broad with a bad 'do, who just skipped town, in a hurry, because as Sheed said, it's all about CTC -- cutting the check -- and Vicki's is ginormous!

Mine, not so much.

OK folks - let me ask you this: How is it that Catholic schools manage to obtain direct teacher and parent involvement and deliver strong curriculum with a budget of ~$5,500 per student? Why does it take PPS ~$11,000 per student to do this poorly and why are they asking for more, more, more?? If the taxes are going up along with home values (which waaaay exceed the rate of inflation), and if the city population is increasing while enrollment decreases then we should be seeing a very strong positive on the balance sheet. The root cause is the OEA. Until we remove the OEA from the equation and align benefits with market this will only get worse.

Catholic schools do not provide a public education to anyone who walks through the door, they cherry-pick relatively well-off students. Public schools need to be planned, constructed and maintained to deliver an education to any type of student, anywhere in the city.

Public schools systems need to be maintained to degree that local population shifts do not require disruptive boundary changes, portable trailer classrooms and hastily built school annexes.

Comparing public schools to catholic schools is like comparing the profitability of a city park to that of a private golf course.

JJ,

Many Catholic schools' tuition may be $5000 per student but they have HUGE fund raisers--auctions, scrip, etc. that are REQUIRED! In addition, you have to donate at funds to the parish each month. And a generous percentage of all donations made by all parishioners to the church, whether or not they have children in the church school, goes to support the school.

Catholic (whether or not they are parish supported) schools and other private schools cost far more than a public school education. Oregon Episcopal charge $17,500/yr for a K-5 education (before fund raising obligations) and their high school tuition is over $20,000. Jesuit costs $8950 (at a $2000 deficit) and they do a lot of fund raising and have very wealthy and generous donors.

And both these schools cherry pick their students.

You are not comparing apples to oranges.

JJ - I would suggest the catholic schools are operating more efficiently. I believe we need to see more efficiency and perhaps transparency on expenses.

I outlined more support above. But we still burden our system with empty buildings, high operating costs, and too many schools. For example, if we rebuild Alemeda or Fernwood to K � 8 Models, we need to see Hollywood and Beaumont closed. Why is one of the largest facilities (Roseway Heights) projected to have only 399 students? They would have fit nicely into the Rose City Park location without the dollars spent to move the school this year. I�m ok with magnets schools AFTER we have the regular schools in order. I�m unaware of any magnet programs at the Catholic schools.

We need a full curriculum, proper teacher staffing and buildings that don�t drain operating funds. Regardless of anyone�s position, I think we all agree that we need to not spend foolishly.

Having safe, clean, modern environments that our children can learn in should and can be in parallel with operating efficiently. This is the plan I would like to see.

Buildings go down, building go up, why not have state of the Art buildings for our children, The Vicky Plan, is not good enough, effectiveness is the issue, Teachers are Glorified Baby Sitters, but let them play nice in a very nice environment. We owe it too them, if 80% of us don't have kids in school - the school buildings should be SOLID GOLD, state of the art, we should live in the moment, because our next is based on our foundation - Let the kids have it all, bulldoze the old and Put up NEW, CLASS AAA, with all the bells and whistles, look what we spend a day in IRAQ ? we could do it for the community, and REALIZE our CAPACITY of Good humans, hey do it GREEEN, like Eco Trust, and Teach it from the ground up!!!!

How is it "green" to "bulldoze" all the old schools and put up all new schools with all the bells and whistles?

Don't our children deserve well-sited schools, schools to which they can walk or bike?

Don't our children deserve a school with a ball field?

After reading the article a second time, another thought jumps out at me: the funds to support K-8 transitions would never have been necessary if the school board had not rushed to rubber-stamp these unresearched, unproven, poorly thought out and largely unwanted K-8 transitions in the first place. This unfortunate makeover of the district was sold to families with the promise of restored course offerings in arts and wellness which would attract families back to Portland Schools.

It is two years later. The promised "enrichment" courses have not materialized, and families are deserting the K-8s in favor of middle schools where possible because they still have courses to offer. Enrollment isn't falling for lack of children; it's falling for lack of programs.

In short, don't spent millions to build new schools unless you ALSO have the funds to provide the course offerings that will bring children into those schools!

Excellent recap.

I would trade off the loss of our "building" and walk and extra mile to the new or replacement building (not across town) if the curriculm had materialized.

Just a comment to "Steve" who dissed the Catholic education system. By way of reference, the Catholic school in the area for Peninsula school is Holy Cross and this school has opened it's doors to all students wishing to apply. 85% of all students currently attending receive financial aid (yes Steve, that's a gift from those you accuse of cherry picking).

Ben, you're right. We need a major financial overhaul, starting with OEA and working through real property. The answer is not hiring an off-site consulting firm to create a report intended to terrify the voters. The answer is a drive for more localized control of spending and budget management.

As to Zarwen, you are nutz if you truly believe that K-5 with middle school is easier on adolescents than a K-8 environment - or perhaps you never attended middle school? As for the course offerings and bogus claims of new school requirements though, I'm with you.

I'm still waiting for somebody (anybody?) to reply to the balance sheet theory. Can someone please explain why the schools are in crisis when the population is growing, real property values (ergo tax base) has been growing much faster than inflation and we have a declining student population? Doesn't anyone out there think this has to do with the OEA?? Come on guys! Don't you know where all the money is going??? Could it be because we've never really seen the detailed operating costs laid out in a widely available publication?

I didn't "diss" the Catholic education system; they simply do not accept all students for free. It is just an unfair comparison to public schools.

The money PPS gets is NOT tied to real estate values and the resulting taxes. The money PPS gets is controlled by the conservative state legislature, of which more representative come from rural areas. PPS gets the same amount per student as rural districts, except rural "timber dependent" areas have gotten additional Federal money and rural areas take greater advantage of the state transportation subsidy.

JJ,

I never said "K-5 with middle school is easier on adolescents than a K-8 environment." What I said was that middle schools have the course offerings to attract students, whereas the K-8s have not received the "enrichment" they were promised. If you want music, art, PE, foreign language, much less any real electives (the ones I named should be part of the core curriculum!), you need to go to a middle school to get them, 'cause the K-8s just plain don't have them.

And by the way---yes, I went to middle school. Then I grew up and TAUGHT middle school for 7 years. How many years have you been teaching?

As for your "balance sheet theory," the OEA does not receive ANY public funds. The ONLY money they receive is from their members in the form of dues.

Where is the money going? To the consultants and developers that want our school lands. To a PR department that now has 13 employees (it used to have three). To 10 newly hired grant writers. I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

What if the PPS transfer policy and resulting inequitable curriculum ends up being declared illegally discriminatory? Would the school construction supporting those policies and that curriculum also be declared discriminatory?

NEWSFLASH

I have done some checking and found out what happened to the $1 million or so that Dan Ryan et al. added to last year's budget for "enrichment" at low-income schools.

Rather than allocating it to low-income schools, Supt. Phillips made it available to ANY school in the form of grants. So, principals who applied for these grants got them, and principals who didn't apply didn't get anything. Our principal did apply and was able to increase our PE teacher by .25. But our school is not a low-income school, and I wonder how many of the other recipients were, either.

Even if they were, .25 FTE is a very small drop in the bucket. You could add to something you already have, as our principal did, but it is certainly not enough to resurrect a long-gone program.

Appalling, how Dr. Phillips violated a school board directive and got off scot-free. Wonder if this was the only occasion?

As a PPS parent and regular Willamette Week reader I have to say that I am terribly disappointed in the slipshod reporting done by Beth Slovic in her "Schoolhouse Crock" article. It is sloppy to consult limited sources that aren't representative of the various schools in the district, and it's sloppy not to take advantage of the data that is out there. It's even worse to start off the article with the premise that there is some type of battle being waged between those who support current instructional programs and those who are considering floating a bond, only to point out later that passage of the bond will free up more money for instruction.

There is a wealth of information available at the PPS website that was at Slovic's disposal. Why did she devote a mere 2 sentences on a school that is ranked "Poor," while devoting the bulk of the article on a school that is characterized as "marginal?"

For those who haven't had a chance to look up exactly how "marginal" is defined in the facilities report, check www.reshape.pps.k12.or.us/.docs/pg/... The defintion of "marginal" used in there states that "...several systems in the building need to be replaced." That sounds pretty bad, but marginal is actually in the middle of the rankings for schools. "Marginal" contrasts greatly with the lowest ranking of "Very Poor": "...should be considered for replacement or full modernization."

Of the 73 schools listed in the report (high schools were not included in this particular ranking), only one (Rosa Parks) was listed as in "Good" conditions, only 4 were listed as "Fair," 30 were listed as "Marginal," 26 as "Poor," and 11 as "Very Poor." In other words, 51% of schools listed are in poor or very poor condition. Of the 30 schools in the same category as Penisula, only 9 require less dollars per square foot to repair and renovate.

In other words, of the 73 schools listed in the report, only 13 are in better shape than Penisula, the school focused on by Slovic. Perhaps people at these 13 schools do not see the need for repairs-- key card access does seem a bit superfluous on its surface-- but to those of us whose children attend school in the 37 buildings listed as "Poor" or "Very Poor," things look a lot different. My son's classroom has a leaky roof. The entire roof needs replacing, as do windows that are rotten because they haven't been painted in years. It also needs a new heating system. Beyond that, the entire second floor is inaccessable, like several PPS buildings, to people in wheelchairs.

Again, this may not be relevant to people who are lucky enough to be in a better functioning building, but those people should consider where their students will be attending high school. Peninsula students typically move on to Roosevelt. Problems at that school include no emergency eye wash or shower in science classrooms, over 150 windows needing full replacement, multiple bathrooms with damaged fixtures, lack of accessibility to many classrooms (no elevator!), a new heating system as the old one is on borrowed time, etc., etc., etc.

For the record, Roosevelt is in pretty bad shape, but it's students aren't the district's worst off. In terms of dollars per square foot needed to repair and renovate, the biggest losers in terms of building quality are those who attend Grant.

All of this information is available on the PPS website to anyone willing to take the time to read, and do a little math. So the question I am left with is this: Why, as a reporter, is Slovic unwilling to take the time needed to write a quality story?

I do not get your beef with this article. Are you saying there is no curriculum issue? Are you saying curriculum doesn’t matter as long as the roof isn’t leaking?

Once again, this “reshaping schools” is NOT about fixing roofs, it is about making our elementary schools much larger and pushing a K-8 model.

You say, your school’s windows need replacing because they have not been maintained, and the roof needs replacing because leaks have not been fixed. How about we maintain the schools we have, instead of deferring maintenance to a point that the best solution is to demolish the school?

In most cases, the schools PPS closed were in better condition than the “receiving” school “The Real Estate Trust” left open, are you OK with now having to fix those large receiving schools while the better condition schools sit empty?

My beef with the article, Earl, has nothing to do with PPS making some very unsound decisions regarding closing some schools while keeping other schools open. And I certainly am not saying that curriculum does not matter as long as the roof isn't leaking. The fact that you would infer this from my comments, which suggest no such thing, says a lot about the impact of Slovic's article. For most of her article, Slovic runs with the premise that somehow curriculum is competing with maintaining schools, and that if you are for one you must be against the other. The article summary at the top of this page states that, "Parents and teachers question a Bond issue putting buildings before programs."

Do they really? Nicole Leggett, one of the people interviewed for the story, suggests otherwise in her comment further down this page. She says, "I can tell you that the Peninsula community isn't against a bond to pay for all the deferred maintenance of the past decade." So how is Slovic coming to the opposite conclusion in her article?

The truth is that no matter how much our community would like to float a bond to improve curriculum, it can't happen-- general obligation bond money is to be used for buildings, not curriculum. So why does Slovic make the argument that the two are in competition?

Every student deserves a quality curriculum, and it is wrong that not every student in PPS is receiving one. But every student also deserves a warm, dry place in which to learn. Unfortunately, many students in Portland are studying in a place where that isn't true.

So Earl, my comment has nothing to do with the stupidity of the Real Estate Trust or with curriculum. It does have to do with the cynicism of a reporter who looks to put a particular spin on a story regardless of the facts.

Beth didn’t say, “curriculum is competing with maintaining schools.” She is saying concerns over curriculum are undermining support for the bond, because people feel the bond creates facilities to support the current inequitable curriculum. There is also a feeling of misplaced priorities, the board has limited capacity to focus on tough issues, and they can’t tackle the “tough decisions” surrounding curriculum, when they are engrossed in a campaign to spend billions on new construction, also known as the “opportunity cost.”

Repairing a leaky roof is not the same as constructing a new building. I do not why you think so. The report suggests new construction as a second option. The first is repair. To say that this is a campaign to spend millions on new construction is off base. This is about repairing what has been left to rot for years.

Slovic says concerns over curriculum are undermining support from the bond, but she gives very little evidence to support that-- in fact, her article clearly shows that she slanted her evidence gathering by focusing on a school that is at the top of the pack in terms of its physical condition. That's a well-known trick of the yellow journalist- only look for the evidence that will support your story. I don't find it surprising that people in a school that has one of the smallest repair costs in the district would be eager to focus on curriculum instead of repairs. But if their child were at a school that had all of the problems I listed-- which is true for many students in the district-- I am sure they would feel differently. Research supports the idea that students cannot learn in certain environments (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, if you want to Google it). It doesn't matter how good or bad a curriculum is if the students are unable to learn it because they are cold or wet. To suggest that the board is incapable of handling both curriculum and building repair at the same time is foolish. They are extremely devoted, educated people, volunteering their time, and they want what's best for kids. They definitely have the capacity to tackle more than one issue at a time. There's no one size fits all solution here-- education doesn't work that way. Teachers know that they have to work on several fronts simultaneously. To wait until a quality curriculum is in place before addressing decaying rotting buildings is foolhardy.

Veronica,

Let me elaborate on the reshape schools model. The idea is to create schools for the 21st century. Technologically advanced schools with sciences labs, open and inviting spaces, and room(s)/activities for the community. It's all very touchy-feelly forward thinking. Other US districts have remodeled this way. The new Rosa Parks school received a national award for being a model of green community schools with it's design. This is not a simple maintenance report. It's a comprehensive look at every possible upgrade. They will be asking us to fund the whole kit n' caboodle! I would approve a bond for all the number 1's priorities like roofs and accessibility and some the of the lower rated 2,3,4,5's. I do believe all of our schools should have the technology upgrades.

The problem is the company looking to feed on this growth. Magellan has already turned their approved $500,000 assessment fee budget into $920,000 of spending in less then one year! They are going to want to completely transform our school infrastructure for a generation 10-20 years. Why do you think the good buildings were closed? Maybe so they could shuffle our children through these building when they rebuild existing ones? Just look at the differences in replacement cost. It lends more credence to my concerns over who really benefits from this plan. Most elementary cost $16,800,000 to replace. While schools in more affluent areas cost more. Ainsworth Elementary would need $21,000,000 to be rebuilt and Alameda needs $29,400,000. Most Middle schools need $28,800,000 for rebuild while most K-8 would need $27,900,000. Hmmm. Then there is the real pickle of why does East Sylvan Middle need a whopping $38,400,000? These variations don't equate to enrollment numbers. Of the elementary schools slotted for $16.8 million; projected 2012 enrollment varies between 280-434 students. Sellwood Middle with a projected enrollment of 474 gets it's $28.8 like the others, but East Sylvan is projected to have only 305 students for their $38.4 million building.

I'm aware that poor ventilation, heating or lighting produces hardships for learning. But isn't having the instruction at all more important? The School Board however well meaning and able have more on their plate then most volunteers. I do hope they will tackle the real issues. The inequity created by the school choice and transfer policy; ensuring the three promised enrichment courses for ALL students; boundary lines that have some schools overcrowd and leave others under populated; show us how the $5.2 million federal Magnet Schools Assistance Grant followed the students from the now closed Kenton and Applegate schools. With all this in mind, they will likely take what ever they are given on the bond plate. Remember how they OKed a budget that left 16 out of 43 of our middle and K-8 schools without the staff allocation for a guidance councilor. Preteens regularly need mediation. Accountability on this issue is up to the citizenry.

RESEARCH!!! Please look at the steak the PPS wants you to buy. IS IT MARBLED OR IS IT GRISSILY?

Nicole Leggett

www.reshape.pps.k12.or.us/.docs/pg/...

I am glad you mentioned "schools for the 21st century" and "technology." While I understand the need for good science labs in the Middle and High School years, PPS refers to needed elementary facility changes to accommodate "technology," in the abstract.

In my 15-year career as an engineer and designer of "technology furniture" for a national furniture manufacturer, the overwhelming trend is for technology to confirm the facilities, not the other way around. A good example is wireless technology, which has made miles of network cabling obsolete, while enabling high-speed connections anywhere. I would like to know more about these needed accommodations.

Nicole is right about these numbers being suspicious. Several parents from our school went to the meeting at Franklin last week. One of them, who has some expertise in finance, did some calculations in her head and realized that the "replacement cost" quoted on the handouts would pay for a building capacity of 600. Our school was built to accommodate 300. Yes, it is a magnet school and so enrollment can be increased through the lottery, but there are other issues associated with doubling the size of a program.

In any case, the information being presented is not comparing apples with apples. This is why Magellan is known as the Bill Sizemore of school bond measures. The school districts PAY THEM to convince the public to pass a bond and then PAY THEM AGAIN with the bond money to build new schools on land that may be less valuable and/or less accessible to the population it serves. They have a long track record of this which is easily read on their website.

I, too, would gladly support roof replacements, new heating and cooling, and secure windows, but card key doors? Are these schools going to be used for hotels at night? Sheesh!

I forgot to add that I would have a lot more confidence in these recommendations if they came from people who had a real stake in the long-term outcome. People whose children would actually be attending these schools, not outsiders from Texas and Ohio who view other communities' school districts as cash cows.

I just had to read the FIRST part of the

FIRST line to know where this article was headed. What a bunch of BS.

Hello Everyone,

I'd like to start by saying I don't want to be divisive. All of the interested parties to education issues have best intentions for our children. Even if have different ideas on what that means. That said my message is to all people who have opinions on education, budget, infrastructure: You need to RESEARCH the truth. Please don't compile news bites into a overview. I have spent many hours every week reading budget details, looking into grants, reading various news articles, attending school meetings, budget meetings, Reshape Schools work session, conversations with Carole Smith, hours on phone with district employees, committee meetings for school advocacy and community outreach. This isn't a simple issue and district information is anything but transparent, comprehensive, or widely accessible and readable. I can tell you that the Peninsula community isn't against a bond to pay for all of the deferred maintenance of the past decade. I do feel it unnecessary to reshape every school into a nationally noteworthy model school BEFORE we ensure equitable levels of enrichment opportunities across the district.

Knowing more so I can do more,

Nicole Leggett