I'm So Grateful That I Live in a Country Where I Can Speak My Voice

Image Credit

Today is Election Day.  I've always considered it a privilege to vote, but this is the first election in which I've felt such an urgency to vote.

I live in a vote-by-mail state. I completed my ballot and hand-delivered it to the election office over a week ago. Later today, I will put on a pantsuit and gather with my family and like-minded friends to watch the election results come in.

Not only do I appreciate my right to vote, I'm also extremely grateful that I live in a country where I can safely and freely give voice to issues of importance to me. I consider it an extension of my civic duty to contribute my voice to local and national issues. I care deeply about my country. Our country. And, I care deeply about my community. Our community.

Since I'm not standing in line today to cast my vote, I felt it was important to spend some time giving voice to a local issue that has been of ongoing importance to me: My local school district's high school boundary adjustment and the resulting transition process for our local high school students. Here is the letter I wrote to my school district's Superintendent and School Board members earlier today:

*****

Dear Mr. Grotting and Members of the School Board,

My heart is heavy today. Not only are we at the climax of an anxiety-ridden and divisive election cycle (both in terms of elected offices and school-funding-related ballot measures), but impacted students in the Class of 2020 have just received formal, personalized notification that they (or their friends) will no longer be attending the high school they currently call home. For some students, this letter in the mail was the first solid reality check that the changes they’d been hearing about were real, and the changes were happening to them, and/or their friends.  

While students and adults in our community watch and wait for what will happen locally and nationally as a result of the election, students in the Class of 2020 have the added burden of processing personal and individual loss related to their own high school experience. Although you are clear in your communication that plans are underway to support students and families through the boundary transition, where you and others have fallen short is with respect to the support that students need right now. Their loss is immediate. It is happening during an already stressful time in our community and in our world. It is happening while they are navigating high school mid-terms for the very first time in their lives. It is happening while they participate in awards ceremonies for fall sports teams that they won’t be returning to next school year (and in fact will be competing against next school year), and it is happening while they are preparing for try-outs for winter sports teams that they will only get to play on for one year. 

I appreciate your acknowledgement that students will need support as they navigate into their new school next year, but equally importantly, they need transition support right now, as they process the loss of their team, their mascot, their school colors, their school fight song, their current teammates and coaches, their newly minted favorite teachers and favorite school traditions, their longtime friendships, and their recently developed friendships and first loves. These students are processing a long list of personal losses, and they are processing those loses today. 

Last night I observed a student, who will not change schools, answer call after call and message after message from friends who will be leaving their beloved school next year.  These friends' emotions were raw and immediate. There was anxiety. There was anger. There was sadness. There were many “what if’s and what about’s.”  Yes, these kids are resilient. Yes, these kids will survive this transition and the losses we adults have burdened them with, but WE need to acknowledge their losses and we need to offer them support and opportunities to process these losses. There Their world is a now world, and they are processing loss, right now. How are WE helping them navigate the questions, concerns, and sense of loss they have today? 

I am also  disappointed (and sadly, a bit cynical) that the recent communication mailed to impacted families did not clearly indicate the sibling rule guidelines. Some of the students who received formal and personalized communication from the District yesterday will have the opportunity to claim the sibling exemption, but the personalized communication that they received offered no indication of this. I want to be certain that students who qualify for exceptions and exemptions receive every opportunity to exercise those exceptions and exemptions. I would also like to call for public oversight and for a transparent and accessible process for grievances and appeals to ensure that students of color, students with limited means and limited home support, and students with specialized academic circumstances (and not just specialized athletic circumstances) receive equitable treatment under the exemptions and Administrative Transfer rules. We need to ensure that students’ needs are genuinely put first during this transition. 

Lastly, I would like to call for a full, complete and transparent public debriefing of the boundary adjustment process, and I would like the Board to call for a comprehensive and transparent District assessment of what has been learned through this boundary adjustment. What worked? What didn’t work? What will WE do differently next time and what will WE repeat? What did our learning community gain from the experience? What did our learning community lose from the experience? Likewise, I would like call for the School District to utilize the opportunity of this boundary change to gather and analyze data about the actual impacts of the transition on the Class of 2020 for the duration of their high school experience. For example: Their graduation rate as compared to other classes before and after them; their participation levels in extra curricular activities; their receipt of District and regional awards (academic and athletic) as compared to classes of students before and after them; their acceptance into college and their scholarship earnings as compared to classes before and after them; and their collective responses to mental health-related surveys as compared to classes before and after them. I would like to see the information gleaned via this debriefing, learning assessment, and data collection/analysis be used to provide foundational guidance to future high school boundary adjustments and to other district-wide initiatives.

Thank you for listening, considering, and hopefully acting on my concerns. 

Sincerely,

Dawn Prochovnic

Parent, Community Volunteer and Voter

 *****

Raise your voices my friends. Each voice matters. Each vote matters.

P.S. For those who are interested in the Beaverton School District boundary transition process, the District's transition plan is here and the District has indicated that the implementation details will (eventually) be here.

Beaverton School District Boundary Adjustment Transition Plan Should Be Amended

Wow! I've been quiet for a long time. That's not like me, you might say. True, true. I have been busy summering, (more on that another time), and adjusting to the reality that I now have two kids in high school (a freshman and a senior). I've also been actively advocating for the students in the Beaverton School District.

I have posted below my most recent letter to the Beaverton School Board. Final decisions re: the high boundary adjustment process (which I've discussed previously here, here and here), are expected over the next few weeks.

It is my hope that the Beaverton School Board does the right thing for students and amends the current boundary transition plan to allow all students, including the Class of 2020, the opportunity to start and finish at the same high school.

If you'd like more information about the Beaverton School District High School Boundary Adjustment Process, you can find that here.

If you'd like to share your views with School Board members, you can find their contact information here.

The school district's Boundary Advisory Committee will be meeting tonight (September 28, 2016) to provide their input and review public input (however no additional public testimony will be allowed at tonight's meeting). The School Board is slated to discuss this issue at an upcoming meeting in October (however, the date for that meeting has been changed at least once, and I'm not currently 100% certain when it is).

The short story is that I want all students in our school district to be able to experience the benefits associated with continuity in their high school experience . . .  and the Beaverton School District seems to think it is adequate to simply mitigate the risks associated with disruption instead of avoiding the risks altogether.  I disagree. Although the District holds most of the cards on this issue, two things I can do are 1) Use my voice to raise concerns before all decisions are final and 2) Support students through the disruptions that adults seem ready to impose on them. I will do both. The letter below is one way I have brought my voice into the conversation. 

*****

Dear Members of the School Board, 

Thank you again for your careful consideration of the boundary-related issues in our school district. 

I am writing to you today to ask that you reconsider your approval of the current high school boundary transition plan.  

There were two objectives that you established at the outset of the High School Boundary Adjustment Process: 

*Relieve current and projected future overcrowding with a five-year horizon, and targeting 90% capacity or less.

*Minimize transitions for students. 

Our school district has fallen short on the objective of minimizing transitions for students, particularly for the Class of 2020. Under the current boundary adjustment transition plan, students in the Class of 2020 who are impacted by the boundary adjustment, but who do not qualify for the sibling rule, will be asked to change schools next year. Although my own two children will not be asked to change schools as a result of the boundary adjustment, I continue to press this issue with the school district because I strongly support the notion that all high school students should have the opportunity to finish at the same high school in which they started. Board Policy JC gives the superintendent authority to allow this to happen where and when possible ("At schools impacted by redrawn attendance boundaries, where and when possible, the superintendent may allow students to remain at their current school for one or more years to complete the highest grade level or levels offered.”) I ask that you direct the school district administration to innovate and find a way to make this possible for all high school students, including the Class of 2020. 

I recently gave testimony at a school district listening session and shared that I've heard district administrators' arguments that the Class of 2020 must transition to their new boundary school during their sophomore year to allow the newly built school enough attendees to operate successfully. I’ve also heard district leaders say it is simply not possible to allow members of the Class of 2020 the option to remain in their school of origin. I wondered aloud if these same people would have thought it impossible to put a man on the moon? Or impossible to develop a polio vaccine? Or find a cure for cancer? The students we are educating today are the citizens of tomorrow who will find the cure for cancer. Can we not set an example for these students by saying, “WE are Future Ready, and WE can find an innovative solution that will allow students in the Class of 2020 the option to remain in their school of origin and still have adequate enrollment in our new school to open it successfully." It may be challenging. It may be be complicated. There will likely be added short-term expense. But, it is possible, and it is important.

The most impactful study I’ve read about the importance of continuity of school was conducted by the National Institutes of Health (2012). Here is a link to the study:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4279956/ . Although studies on this topic are typically focused on the impacts of family-initiatived mobility (i.e. due to changes in housing, jobs, etc.), this particular study aimed to normalize the data for other elements of instability often found in individual students who are impacted by higher mobility (for example, poverty). 

What stood out for me in the research, is that the same types of mobility issues that are seen as concerns for individual kids who "switch schools” are the same general concerns that I and others have expressed re: the boundary-related transitions. The NIH study findings indicate that, "school mobility presents disruptions in social relationships with peers, teachers, and other important adults.” Likewise, the NIH study cites other research findings (see Parker, Rubin, Erath, Woislawowicz & Buskirk, 2006, cited in the NIH study) that indicate that "negotiating peer relationships is a central developmental task of middle childhood and adolescence, and school changes that disrupt these relationships likely impact student school engagement, behavior, and motivation to succeed academically.”)

What also stood out for me in the research (all of the research I read on mobility, not just this one study) is that researchers were looking for ways they could support kids through family-instigated mobility (i.e. mobility that the schools couldn’t control or necessarily stop from happening). This begs the question as to why our school district would knowingly create mobility disruptions for students when there are other options. I am hard-pressed to find convincing evidence that we are doing what is best for students when we ask them to disrupt their social relationships with peers, teachers and other important adults just as they are beginning their high school careers. It seems clear that the school district’s current transition plan is essentially a business decision, and the Class of 2020 will shoulder the cost of doing business. That is not okay.   

Under the current transition plan, students in the Class of 2020 will experience disruptions in their social relationships with peers, teachers and other important adults. I understand and agree that kids are resilient. I also understand that shifting students en masse is not exactly the same as individual students "switching schools." However, it is telling that the school district plans to build in the same types of supports for boundary-adjusted kids that the research suggests is of benefit to individual students facing “mobility-related” disruptions and transitions due to "switching schools.” I should also note that to my knowledge, the school district has not disputed that the transition being asked of the Class of 2020 will be disruptive, nor has the District provided evidence to suggest that there are not risks associated with disrupting students in the midst of their high school experience. The District's messaging has been focused on their confidence that the risks can be managed. It is my argument that if the District understands that this type of disruption has risks that need to managed, we need to step back and ask ourselves, “Why are we willing to subject a group of students to these risks?” and “What innovative solutions could we employ so as to avoid subjecting a class of students to these risks?”    

If we shift our thinking from, “There is no way we can afford this” or “There are too many logistical issues," to instead saying, “Let’s find and/or develop an innovative solution to this problem,” we can right this wrong. Innovative ideas might involve utilizing the transportation system that is in place for Options Schools. It might involve surveying students and families about their transition needs and preferences via their home room teacher and/or their google account and a QR code. Maybe it involves giving kids access to a TriMet bus pass. Maybe it involves allowing kids from across the District to Opt In to the new school in order to adequately populate it. There are options. WE need to focus our Future Ready minds on modifying the boundary transition plan such that all students have the opportunity to start and finish at the same high school.

Please do not rest with the belief that the current administrative transfer process is an adequate or appropriate solution for this problem. The administrative transfer process involves red tape, annual uncertainty for each individual student, and it also comes without the support of transportation, which creates equity issues. 

No matter what actual boundary lines our District finalizes, some families will be pleased, and some will not. But there are some families whose high school students will be directly impacted during the transitional years. I ask that you amend the transition plan to include a provision that allows these families the opportunity to make a transition decision that is best for them. 

Sincerely, 

Dawn Prochovnic

Parent of two Beaverton High School Students

(who are not currently slated to change schools via the boundary adjustment)

Beaverton School District Boundary Adjustment Process Recent Q and A

The Beaverton School District recently posted a summary of boundary adjustment Q and A's on their website. Not surprisingly, I had some thoughts about what the School District had to say. I shared those thoughts in the following letter to our School Board: 

May 5, 2016 

Dear Members of the School Board,

Today I reviewed the updated boundary information on the School District's website.

I read with particular interest the following Question and Answer:

"Question: Why was Free & Reduced Lunch Program (FRLP) information used as a primary criteria when student body composition is a secondary criteria?"

"Answer: The FRLP information was not used as a primary criteria. All criteria was considered by the Boundary Advisory Committee during their deliberations."

Although this may (or may not) be factually true, from my observation as a community witness to the Boundary Adjustment Process via the BAC conversations that members of the public were allowed to hear, and via the artifacts from the BAC’s meetings (for example, each map iteration), there is a great deal of evidence to support the notation that FRLP information was a dominant decision-making factor for the BAC. 

This is another example of why it would be beneficial to conduct important School District business in a manner that is genuinely transparent, whether or not the matter is legally required to comply with Oregon’s Open Meetings Laws. If the BAC’s deliberations had been recorded and fully open to the public, Board members and other members of the public who did not attend the BAC meetings could listen to the meeting audio to determine for themselves the apparent weight of FRLP information on the boundary lines proposed by the BAC and forwarded to the Board by the Superintendent. 

Further, regarding the following Question and Answer:

 

"Question: Did the School Board recently look at the criteria in Board Policy JC?"

"Answer: Yes, the School Board did review Board Policy JC and the criteria and gave the Boundary Charge to the Superintendent last June 2015. Policy JC was last reviewed in the following years: March 1997, Nov. 2007, Feb. 2009, May 2015. The criteria are to be considered by the Boundary Committee in their deliberations. They are not ranked or weighted or intended to be evenly applied."

I would like to bring to the Board’s attention the fact that although Policy JC may not require the Boundary Adjustment Committee to rank or weight the criteria, Policy JC does in fact require the Superintendent to do so:

"In planning and developing an adjustment of attendance area boundaries, the superintendent first shall consider the following primary criteria: availability of space, proximity to school, safety, and neighborhood unity. Whenever possible, neighborhood areas, particularly at the elementary level, should be retained within a single attendance boundary. The superintendent also shall consider transportation costs, student body composition, staffing patterns, feeder school alignment, and the efficient and economical utilization of the buildings.” (Emphasis added)

Given that the Superintendent relied heavily on the Boundary Adjustment Committee’s work in designing a new boundary, it begs the question how his proposal gives emphasis to the primary criteria, when the District’s answer to the above question indicates that the BAC did not rank or weight the criteria.

Shifting my attention from criteria to objectives, I continue to contend that we have fallen short on the objective of minimizing transitions for students, particularly for the Class of 2020. Policy JC reads,  ". . . where and when possible, the superintendent may allow students to remain at their current school for one or more years to complete the highest grade level or levels offered.” Although the Superintendent has argued that the Class of 2020 must transition to their new boundary school during their sophomore year to allow the newly built school enough attendees to operate successfully, I ask that we look for innovative solutions that will allow those students who wish to remain in the same school for the duration of their high school career the opportunity to do so. This might involve surveying Class of 2020 students/families about their preferences in this regard, allowing some students to transition early, allowing some students to arrange for their own transportation, and even allowing some students who are not in the boundary for the shiny new school the opportunity to fill “open slots” in that school so that it can start with a capacity that is conducive to a full complement of academic offerings and extracurricular activities. A Future Ready School District should be able to problem solve in innovative ways. Please set this expectation for our School District administration. 

Finally, I would like to point out that the Board is in a unique position to ask interested questions about the boundary adjustment process and anticipate answers in return. Although the general public has been able to ask questions, we have not been readily supplied with answers. For this reason, I request that you carefully consider the questions that have been posed by your constituents, and do your very best due diligence to seek answers to those questions in advance of your vote to approve or temporarily deny the District’s move forward on the proposed boundary adjustments.

With sincere appreciation for your service to our community,

 

Dawn Prochovnic

Beaverton Parent, Voter, and Community Volunteer  

NOTE: The School Board is anticipated to vote on whether or not "(1) the set of objectives approved by the Board at the outset were met; and (2) the superintendent applied the relevant criteria" at the May 16, 2016 School Board Meeting. 

Beaverton High School Boundary Adjustment Process, Continued

Image Source: Beaverton SD Website

Earlier this month I wrote about my displeasure with my school district's approach to a high school boundary adjustment process. This week the outgoing Superintendent made his recommendations to the School Board. The School Board will soon vote to ratify the Superintendent's recommendations. And so I write again:

April 26, 2016

Dear Members of the School Board,

Although I did not speak at last night’s Board meeting, I attended the meeting to listen and to learn, much as I attended nearly every Boundary Adjustment Committee meeting over the past several months.

We heard again at last night’s Board meeting that Policy JC reads in part, "If the objectives were met and the criteria were reasonably applied, the Board shall approve the attendance plan."

The policy does not read, “If reasonable people took on a difficult task and did the best that they could with the time and resources made available to them, the Board shall approve the attendance plan."

Similarly, the policy does not read, “If the Dr. Withycombe says that the BSD has the best Technical Team and Boundary Adjustment Committee he has ever worked with, the Board shall approve the attendance plan.” 

And most certainly, the policy does not read, “If Dr. Rose can ask Robert (or the Technical Team or the Boundary Advisory Committee) how the criteria were applied to a particular map and if Robert (or the Technical Team or the Boundary Advisory Committee) can answer those questions to Dr. Rose’s satisfaction, then the Board shall approve the attendance plan.”

The policy says that you must determine "If the objectives were met and the criteria were reasonably applied.”

I do not envy your position. If I had to make the difficult decision that you are charged with, I would need to be able to compare one map to another  (e.g. the springboard map to the final recommendation map, or to the various BAC maps in between) and reasonably understand how the final map is a better overall map than the maps before it in terms of meeting the objectives and applying the criteria. Despite my own high level of engagement in all aspects of the boundary adjustment process that were made available to the public, I’m not able to do this. Are you? If your answer is, “No," I do not see how you can vote to approve the attendance plan. 

Objectives and criteria exist so that people can understand how a decision was reached even if they disagree with the eventual decision. A school-related analogy may be appropriate to apply here: If I feel like I’m an “A” student, but my teacher assesses my work, and I get a “C,” I can refer to the learning targets, standards, and/or rubrics to self-assess how I measure up against those criteria. I may be disappointed with my grade, but at least I can see how the standards were applied to result in my grade, and likewise, I can compare my work to other students’ work to reasonably understand how their work might be in closer alignment with the standards than my own. 

I can’t do this with the boundary map(s). Despite my full engagement in the process, I can’t look at the objectives and criteria and then look at the various iterations of the BAC’s maps and say, “I get it. This map is better aligned with the objectives and criteria than others before it.” For example, I can’t determine with any level of confidence what criteria were applied when some neighborhoods' calls for unity were answered while other neighborhoods were left visibly split.

Most troubling of all is that I cannot see how the final proposed map minimizes transition for students, particularly when at least one high school will retain only 25% of its current composition of underclassmen when the transitions are made for incoming 9th and 10th graders in the year 2017. Further, when some members of the class of 2020 are required to change schools three years in a row (8th grade, 9th grade and 10th grade), I do not see how this minimizes transitions for students. Yes children are resilient, but the Board did not direct the Superintendent to bring forward an attendance plan that would test students’ resilience. It directed the Superintendent to bring forward an attendance plan that would minimize transitions for students. 

Becky, you asked Dr. Rose if the District supplied the BAC with adequate tools to do the job. I appreciate your courage and think your question has great merit and deserves a solid answer. I watched the boundary process closely and I would say that in addition to lack of clarity about criteria, the BAC was also limited in 1. Their access to supporting data to help guide their decision making process, 2. The amount of time given to complete the job, and 3. Discussion management tools such as “definitions of terms” (i.e. “When we say ’sophomores,’ we are talking about the class of 2020, the students who are 8th graders this current school year”) so that the BAC’s conversations could be focused on the issues themselves vs. on the effort to clarify what particular group of kids committee members have in mind when he/she says, “sophomores.”

Linda, you asked if the BAC deferred to the Superintendent re: the transition plan for the Class of 2020 because they ran out of time. Dr. Rose answered your question last night saying that the reason that issue was left unaddressed by the BAC is because there was a disagreement amongst the members of the BAC.

Unfortunately, since there is not an audio transcript of the meeting that you can hear for yourself, you are left to rely on the accounts and observations of others for this answer. I attended nearly every BAC meeting, including the final meeting where this particular transition was discussed. I took detailed, “live notes” that I shared with two other members of the public throughout the meeting. I am happy to share those notes with you upon your request. To note, Dr. Rose was not at that meeting. He was in Georgia. 

Here are my observations: 

Yes, there was disagreement amongst members of the BAC regarding this issue, but this was exacerbated by the fact that the team did not have at their disposal the necessary data/information to help guide their decision, and the team had in fact run out of time. Here are some supporting details: 

1. The consultant himself spent a great deal of time talking during the lead-up to each discussion about transition, such that there wasn’t much time left for the BAC itself to actually talk (again, this is where a recording of the meetings would have been helpful so you could listen to this for yourself, and not rely on someone else’s characterization of what took place at the meetings). 

2. There was not a clear definition of terms pertaining to transition, (which ideally would have been developed under the leadership of the consultant), so the BAC spent quite a bit of their “transition discussions" going back and forth trying to figure out what groups of kids and what particular recommendations they were actually talking about or being asked to vote on vs. actually discussing the merits of the proposal on the table. By this I mean, one BAC member might refer to “sophomores” and another might say the “8th graders” and there would not be clarity around the table as to whether these were the same kids (i.e. the class of 2020) they were talking about and being asked to vote on. This lack of clarity and confusion happened during the "sibling rule” discussions as well. Although the Superintendent provided the Board with a matrix to show clearly how his transition plan would impact different students/graduating classes, the BAC did not appear to have a tool like this to guide and bring clarity to their transition discussions.  

3. This confusion and lack of clarity was demonstrated early on when the BAC voted one particular way with respect to the sibling rule, (after a discussion, that was very hard to follow re: “who/what” was actually on the table for discussion). The next meeting, when those preliminary recommendations were seen in the meeting minutes, more discussion ensued (about 45-60 minutes of discussion) with the BAC members trying to seek agreement as to “what they had agreed to” vs. “what individuals thought they had agreed to.” The BAC was not able to reach clarity on what they meant or agreed to, so the issue was then tabled for another meeting (and this topic was revisited one or two meetings later). 

4. With the exception of data related to free/reduced lunch and numbers of kids in each school for each map iteration, there was not much in the way of reports related to the specific costs or implications of different transition plans). The Director of Transportation did present to the BAC to let them know that it would be difficult and expensive to design transitional transportation plans, and Carl Meade did provide a list of possible transition scenarios to the BAC, but from my vantage point of engaged observer, there was not enough information on the table for the BAC to make an informed decision (particularly given that there were people around the table with different interests and different concerns). The last meeting of the BAC had already been extended by an hour and that extra hour was nearly spent when the BAC turned its attention to the transition issues related to the Class of 2020. Although they deliberated briefly on this issue, they soon realized that they needed more information to resolve their differences of opinion/competing priorities so as to make an informed decision. The consultant reassured them that they had done good work and it was okay to return that particular aspect of the transition back to the Superintendent for further study. And so they did. 

Anne, you said it best when you said that the Boundary decision will likely outlast the next Superintendent’s tenure in our school district. This is a deeply important decision. Although I’m sure Dr. Rose would like to "finish this task” before he leaves, and although the Board is unlikely unenthusiastic about the prospect of extending this process while also searching for an Interim Superintendent and permanent Superintendent, (and although school principals and some community members want some certainty on boundary lines so they can begin to accept and adjust to the new boundaries), it is worthwhile to take a step back and take a few additional months to get the process right. When a reasonable citizen or a caring Board member can look at a final proposed map and transition process and weigh it against the objectives and criteria and say, “Yes, this map and this transition plan is better aligned with the objectives and criteria than others before it,” then we will know that the objectives have been met and the criteria reasonably applied.” We’re not quite there yet. 

Sincerely,

Dawn Prochovnic

Beaverton Parent and Community Volunteer 

Beaverton High School Boundary Adjustment Process

I have once again taken pause from my creative writing projects to give voice to issues in my local community that concern me.

Image Source: Beaverton SD Website

My local school district is undergoing a high school boundary adjustment process. Today I wrote the following letter to the School Board expressing my displeasure with the boundary adjustment process:


April 5, 2016

Dear Members of the School Board,

I live in an area within the Beaverton School District that has not been directly impacted by the proposed changes in the high school boundaries. Despite this, I have chosen to deeply engage in the High School Boundary Adjustment Process. I have done so because I care about our community, I care about our school district, and I care about children.

In the 14 years that I have been a part of this community, I have enthusiastically supported the Beaverton School District with my time, talent, and tax dollars. I have vocally advocated for this School District by calling, writing, and meeting with state and local elected officials, and I have vocally advocated for this School District to my friends, neighbors, and fellow voters in casual ways and in structured efforts aimed at raising funds and garnering voter support.

I am a friend of the Beaverton School District, and there are many times I have been proud of the District's conduct, choices, and outcomes. The High School Boundary Adjustment Process is not one of those times.

Although the intentions of the District Administration may well have been good, the High School Boundary Adjustment Process has been mishandled and flawed on many levels. On January 22, 2016, I wrote a letter to you detailing several of my concerns with respect to the chaos and lack of structure at the January 21, 2016 Public Preview meeting, the haphazard nature of public comments admitted into the record at Boundary Advisory Committee meetings, and my general concerns about the conduct and capabilities of the consultant retained by the District. Those concerns remain. I also concur with the additional concerns expressed by a variety of other community members including the issues raised by Mitzi Sandman in her recent communications with the School Board (and related follow-up communication to Maureen Wheeler dated March 4, 2016) and the concerns expressed by Lisa Corcoran in her March 9, 2016 letter to the School Board.

According to my review of School Board meeting minutes and the information currently summarized on the following District webpage: https://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/depts/facilities/boundary/Pages/HIGHSCHOOLBOUNDARYPROCESSCRITERIAANDSEQUENCE.aspx

The objectives approved by the Board at the outset are as follows: 

*Relieve current and projected future overcrowding with a five-year horizon, and targeting 90% capacity or less.

*Minimize transitions for students.

And, the Criteria for Boundary Adjustments are as follows:

*Availability of space

*Proximity to school

*Neighborhood unity

*Staffing patterns

*Safety

*Transportation

*Student body configuration

According to Policy JC, the School Board's charge will be to review the adjusted attendance plan to ensure that:  

(1) The set of objectives approved by the Board at the outset were met; and

(2) The superintendent applied the relevant criteria. 

And, "If the objectives were met and the criteria were reasonably applied, the Board shall approve the attendance plan."

Under the Boundary Adjustment Process that has been implemented thus far, I do not see how it is possible for the School Board to determine if the objectives were met and/or the criteria reasonably applied. In my view, the Board does not have the information, framework or tools to determine if the objectives were actually met and/or the criteria were applied in a meaningful way. I am of the strong opinion that the Board has no choice but to dis-approve the attendance plan and direct the District to re-start with a new, revised process that takes past oversights and omissions into consideration. 

To begin with, the boundary recommendations from the Boundary Advisory Committee are not provided in a format that indicates how they correlate to or address the objectives and criteria. I offer a classroom comparison: When student learning is assessed in our School District, we routinely ask students to provide answers to questions and to "show their work."  

As noted in my April 4, 2016 communication to Maureen Wheeler (on which you were cc’d), the Boundary Advisory Committee did not operate in a manner in which they “showed their work.” Although the efforts of the Boundary Advisory Committee may have been steadfast and diligent, and although their work may have produced answers in the form of boundary lines, the answers alone are not sufficient. The answers must be coupled with “work shown” in order to reasonably evaluate and assess those answers (i.e. boundary lines). Although the BAC may have applied the criteria in ways that could be deemed meaningful during their private sub-group discussions and huddles, the process did not allow for this to be assessed or evaluated by the general public, or likewise by the School Board.

Additionally, when student work is assessed, it is assessed against a standard framework or rubric that can be reasonably applied with similar results from school to school, classroom to classroom and teacher to teacher. In contrast, you have been asked to evaluate whether or not a list of criteria has been reasonably applied, but there is not an agreed upon standard, framework or rubric from which to consider this assessment. Dr. Rose himself has acknowledged publicly that the criteria directly compete and conflict with one another. How can one possibly evaluate whether or not criteria were met if there is no level of distinction as to the priority of the criteria and/or no record of how the criteria were applied in maps that were discarded and/or in the current map proposed?

When you look at the various iterations of the maps that have been considered in this process (from the initial Learning Map to the Boundary Advisory Committee’s current recommendation), can you honestly say that you can determine how any one map meets the objectives and the criteria whereas another might not? And if you believe you can make this determination, will you please enlighten me as to how you have done so, because if I were sitting in your chair, with your fiduciary responsibility, I could not in good conscience approve the attendance plan at the present time despite my efforts to remain engaged and informed via regular attendance at BAC meetings, close reading of meeting minutes, and active participation in opportunities for public involvement.

If we look at the Boundary Adjustment Process with the lens of an educator, it seems quite logical that the first attempt at this process might be considered a “rough draft,” from which much might be learned and applied to the final, graded draft. Although you might argue that the learnings from the High School Boundary Adjustment Process can and will be applied to the boundary processes for elementary and middle schools, I would argue that those learnings can and should be applied to a revised Boundary Adjustment Process for the high school boundaries. 

This revised process should begin with a formal debriefing process with the community. Although the Boundary Advisory Committee has had an opportunity to debrief their process and community involvement experience from their vantage point, the community-at-large has not been surveyed about the experience or invited to participate in a formal debriefing process to share insights and experiences from our vantage point. Both vantage points have merit, and both offer an opportunity for the District to learn and improve. Those collective learnings should be applied to a revised High School Boundary Adjustment Process.

At a bare minimum, if you do not choose to direct the District Administration to formally seek the public’s input and restart the process, I ask that you insist that District communication refrain from self congratulating about the process. It is insensitive to those who are grieving the loss of something important to them (i.e. an established connection with a particular school community), and it is offensive to those community members such as myself who have observed the process closely and have much constructive feedback to offer. 

Lastly, I request that you do not dismiss my comments as coming from a disgruntled citizen who simply did not get her own way. My home wasn’t affected by the boundary. My kids’ school did not change. The vast majority of my kids’ friends will not shift schools. I am disappointed with the process because I am disappointed with the process. Suffice it to say, I am displeased with the conduct of my School District at this time. 

It is my sincere hope that you carefully consider your fiduciary responsibility as you prepare to vote on the proposed attendance plan. I am of the opinion that it will be much easier for you to simply approve the Superintendent’s attendance plan and move on.  Yank the bandage, if you will. But I am hopeful that you took on the role of School Board member with an interest in representing our community, our School District, and our voters with a willingness to take a hard stand when necessary. This is one of those times.

Sincerely, 

Dawn Prochovnic

Parent of Two BSD Students Not Directly Impacted by the Proposed Boundary Adjustments

*****

If this topic interests you and you want to follow it more closely,  here are two social media sites I follow and participate in:

Beaverton High School Is Our Community Facebook Group

Community for Sensible School Boundaries Facebook Page

And . . . In case you are interested, here is my January 22, 2016 letter to the School Board referenced above:

January 22, 2016 

Dear Members of the School Board:

During the January 19, 2016 School Board meeting, Dr. Rose indicated that there was an established Boundary Adjustment process in place, and he was going to honor and adhere to that process. Much of that process stems on the work of the Boundary Advisory Committee (BAC). It is my observation that the BAC has quickly developed into a cohesive team that is working collaboratively to problem solve with the tools that have been made available to them. Their facilitator, Dr. Withycombe, appears to be doing a fine job facilitating the committee members’ direct interactions.  

What is not going nearly as well is the facilitation of the public engagement process. Here are some specific examples of my concerns:

Inconsistency in Allowing Public Comments at BAC Meetings: On the January 7, 2016 BAC meeting, like other meetings before it, the agenda indicated that there would be no opportunity for public testimony. However, during the BAC’s work session, Dr. Withycombe actively engaged with the public. Unfortunately, he did so in a haphazard manner and without any respect or consideration for due process and diversity of viewpoint. Several members of the public did share their frustrations and concerns, but since there was no structure or “process,” only the loudest voices were able to contribute. This violation of public process was exacerbated when Dr. Withycombe legitimized those comments by summarizing them publicly as he prepared to close the meeting. It is not appropriate to officially disallow public testimony, then engage with some of the public in attendance, without due process, and then further legitimize that limited input without also allowing other members of the public the opportunity to make comments in the same venue. 

Meeting minutes: As of the time and date of this writing (5:00 PM, January 22, a full two weeks after the January 7, 2016 BAC meeting, and a day after the long anticipated public viewing), the minutes for the January 7, 2016 BAC meeting are not available for public viewing (even in draft form). This is in dis-alignment with Board Policy JC, that reads in part, “The District also shall promote consistent and timely communication among the affected schools, parents and other community members.” 

Image Source: The Oregonian

Disorderly and Chaotic Structure of the January 21st Public Viewing: I was saddened, disappointed, and frustrated with the structure of January 21, 2016 public viewing meeting. I have participated in many public processes over the years (with cities, counties, transportation departments, park districts, school districts, etc), and I have never been to a meeting that was as poorly managed as this one. I had intended to bring my middle school-aged son to the meeting so that he could witness a public process underway. I am so relieved I did not bring him, because the meeting was an embarrassment to our school district and a disservice to our community. It was an embarrassment not because of the way in which members of the public behaved, but because of the lack of facilitation and structure. 

Let me give you a bit of a summary of what it was like to be an engaged community member participating in that meeting: 

I arrived at 5:45 PM in anticipation of the 6:00 PM start time. I picked up a map and demographic information at a reception table, but there were no instructions about how the meeting would be conducted or how to proceed through the room. Community members milled about and waited for the meeting to “open” without any information or instructions from the facilitator (and I use that term loosely). The facilitator, Dr. Withycombe, did not address the public until approximately 6:30 PM. 

At that time, the Dr. Withycombe welcomed attendees, explained that there were comment cards of differing colors on various tables in the center of the room, and maps throughout the room. He then explained that BAC members would soon be stationed as teams at three different table areas in the room. Community members could proceed to the table of their choosing and wait in line to share their input with a BAC member and turn in their comment card(s) at that time.

What happened in reality is that community members collected in crowds around the tables in hopes of waiting for a turn to speak to someone. There were no provisions set up for lines to be formed. There were no provisions set up so that people who were gathered around the table waiting for an opportunity to comment could hear any of the other meaningful comments taking place in line ahead of them. There were no provisions for people with physical needs to sit and still participate in the conversations going on at the tables. There were no time limits set for people who had comments to share. There was not a clear centralized location to turn in forms for community members that didn’t have the patience or energy to work their way to the front of the table areas. 

I expressed my discomfort with the process to BSD’s communication representative, Maureen Wheeler, and she said, “I’m sorry.” I expressed my concerns to the consultant, Dr. Withycombe,  and he offered to take me to the front of the line at one of the tables. That response only amplified my concerns about the illegitimacy of the process. He also suggested that I could go home and wait for the public hearing in 3 1/2 weeks. 

Dear members of the School Board, no matter how the eventual boundary lines are drawn, some people will be disappointed or even outraged by the results, but to legitimize the decisions that are made, the public process must genuinely invite community engagement, and it must allow for people in the community to feel heard. Sending letters to a public web portal that are never answered, does not satisfy that need. Hosting a disorganized and chaotic public viewing does not satisfy that need. Waiting until a public hearing scheduled near the end of the process does not satisfy that need. Although I am sure that the BAC members did have an opportunity to hear directly from several people, and some community members may have in fact felt “heard,” the structure, or lack thereof, of the January 21st public meeting was disorderly, unsatisfying, and a poor substitute for genuine and meaningful public engagement. This is not a reflection on the members of the BAC; they conducted themselves patiently and professionally. This is a reflection on the person or persons responsible for facilitating the public engagement process. 

I ask that you acknowledge that the public viewing was not satisfactory, and you hold the Superintendent accountable for providing the community with a legitimate public engagement process that is transparent, meaningful, and professionally facilitated. Dr. Withycombe seems to be an competent and appreciated facilitator for the BAC. The public deserves a similarly meaningful and satisfying public engagement process, facilitated by a community engagement professional. 

Sincerely,

Dawn Prochovnic, MA

Parent of two BSD students who are not currently slated to change schools in the boundary adjustment

*****
Update: Click here for my April 26, 2016 communication to the Beaverton School District School Board.