Skip to main content
In May, Portland Public Schools will present a $1.83 billion property tax bond to voters, with money in it to rebuild Cleveland, Ida B. Wells and Jefferson high schools. If approved, it will cost a district homeowner an estimated $2.50 for every $1,000 of assessed value, which matches the current rate. But if those high schools are built to hold 1,700 students each, Portland State University’s Population Research Center projects the district won’t have enough students to fill most of them even close to capacity.
Dr. Ethan Sharygin, director of the Population Research Center, says PSU works with the school district regularly to conduct forecasts for general planning purposes; he wasn’t told about the bond while working on population projections for the district. “I think it’s very interesting,” he says of PPS’s decision to upgrade more schools. “We don’t see a scenario in which high school enrollment is going to increase.”
This puts PPS in a difficult position. To roll forth with the modernizations looks irresponsible given the projections. On the other hand, education experts hint that sudden changes to the bond could be politically damaging to the district.
Jan Watt, a longtime Cleveland journalism teacher who recently retired, thinks it would be a difficult curveball for the district to pitch. “If all of a sudden there is a considerable difference in what Wells and Cleveland are going to receive as opposed to what they have been promised, like everybody else, that will be very ugly.”
Melissa Ewbank, president of the PTA at Duniway Elementary School in Southeast Portland, says it would be unfair for the district to pull the plug on a promise it made to all PPS communities. She says her children deserve to attend a new high school like others in the district. “There would be outrage in the parent community,” she says when asked what would happen if Cleveland didn’t make the bond.
Ewbank recognizes the delicate balancing act the district must perform as it navigates this bond season. When presented with numbers that indicate the district’s high schools won’t be full—alongside economists’ concerns about half-empty schools—she still holds on to the idea that her kids might get to attend a new Cleveland.
“You don’t think about what is not right in front of you,” she says. “If PPS said, ‘We’re not going to modernize Cleveland,’ I would likely pull my kids out of the district.”
Dr. Andy Saultz, interim dean of Pacific University’s College of Education, says the district must ask itself if removing a project from the bond—or making other major changes—would affect its polling.
“If they reduce the number of schools they’re updating by a couple, do those communities who are not getting the updated schools then oppose the measure altogether?” Saultz says. “It’s a tricky dynamic.”
Others have already broken faith. At a March 4 meeting of the School Board, Scott Bailey, a former board member and parent activist, indicated he’d actively campaign against the bond if the district doesn’t reckon with financial realities—and pivot to a more fiscally responsible path.
“I spent a fair amount of my four years trying to get the district to link enrollment projections with modernization,” Bailey said at that meeting. “If it gets on the ballot, I will fight it because I think it’s a huge waste of money.”
Tony Morse, campaign manager for the Yes for Portland Schools bond campaign, says he and his team are ready to communicate a trove of information to bolster voter confidence ahead of election day. “Everyone can be confident that the bond campaign has a plan to win,” he says.
Rob Galanakis, a parent and School Board candidate in Southeast Portland, thinks there’s a way to guide skeptics toward supporting the bond. On Jan. 7, Galanakis stood in front of the School Board and opposed the bond on a number of grounds. He’s raised concerns about how long the bond would take to pay off (32 years) and the consequences of paying it off later on.
Still, Galanakis says, he came around to support the bond—but only after more than 20 hours of discussions with people close to the district, where he could get many of his questions ironed out. But without a clear communications strategy, he says, the bond will be in hot water.
“The district needs to get serious about the perception of financial ramifications of this bond, and speak to voter concerns,” he says, adding that many voters in the city have no kids in PPS. “We need to get the cost down and show that we’re willing to get the cost down.”
School Board member Michelle DePass says the board has been listening, and has taken steps to address the high costs of school modernizations. The School Board recently approved a framework to reassess the proposed square footage for the three high schools and to evaluate spaces like teen parent and health centers.
DePass adds that remaining money will be directed to elementary and middle school projects. “If we can be responsible with our modernizations, that will allow us to spread some of that bond money out more broadly,” she says.
“It’s important,” Morse adds, “to recognize that costs of these projects have been and will continue to be thoroughly analyzed and pushed downward where possible.”