Biggest Shared Concerns Across PPS Schools Regarding Rightsizing

1. Data Inaccuracies and Unreliable Enrollment Projections

• Multiple schools identified inaccurate or outdated district data, including incorrect building utilization rates, enrollment figures, and projected student populations. Lent reported utilization calculations that exclude three existing preschool programs, while other schools questioned projections that fail to account for recent enrollment growth, new housing developments, and changing neighborhood demographics. Atkinson/Creston identified a nearby development with 94 family-sized housing units potentially affecting future enrollment. Families are questioning how the Board can make irreversible decisions based on data that school communities have identified as incomplete or inaccurate, without an independent verification process.

2. Budget Deficit and Uncertain Financial Benefits

• PPS has acknowledged that rightsizing will not resolve its structural budget deficit, raising serious concerns that subsequent staffing and program reductions will undermine the very improvements consolidation is intended to achieve. Families have not been provided school-specific staffing projections or a comprehensive financial analysis demonstrating net savings after accounting for transportation, building improvements, transition expenses, and ongoing maintenance of closed facilities. There is also no clear commitment to protecting staffing levels or ensuring consolidated schools receive the resources promised. These decisions are being considered without a parallel, substantive strategy for securing adequate long-term state education funding.

3. District Transparency and Decision-Making

• The accelerated decision-making timeline, lack of school-specific justification, and absence of publicly available evidence demonstrating improved educational outcomes have significantly undermined community confidence. Despite numerous listening sessions, families report limited opportunities for direct questions and answers, unanswered submissions to the Rightsizing Committee, and insufficient publication of supporting analyses. Concerns have also been raised about Board members receiving critical information shortly before meetings, limiting their ability to conduct meaningful due diligence. Families are requesting transparent calculations, independent review, opportunities to challenge assumptions, and sufficient time for the Board and public to evaluate the proposals before a vote.

4. Facility Capacity, Infrastructure, and Student Safety

• Published building capacities do not necessarily reflect whether receiving schools can function effectively with significantly larger student populations. Families have raised concerns about overcrowded cafeterias, gyms, libraries, restrooms, hallways, playgrounds, and dedicated spaces for art, music, intervention, sensory regulation, and childcare. Atkinson, for example, reports that its library is approximately 55% of the district's educational specification standard, while its music room is approximately 67%. Questions remain about heating and cooling, covered outdoor play areas, seismic safety, and safe arrival and dismissal operations. PPS has not publicly demonstrated through school-specific test-fit analyses that receiving buildings can accommodate projected enrollment while preserving essential educational spaces and remaining within the approximately 80% utilization threshold referenced during Board discussions.

5. Transportation, Commute Times, and Safe Access

• Consolidation could substantially increase travel distances, transportation costs, and daily commute times for displaced students. Families from Sellwood raised concerns about potential bus rides of 45–60 minutes each way, while other communities identified dangerous arterial crossings, insufficient drop-off infrastructure, and increased neighborhood traffic. No comprehensive transportation plans have been presented establishing maximum travel times, bus eligibility, route schedules, fleet and driver capacity, or pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. These impacts disproportionately affect families with limited transportation options and students who currently walk or bike to their neighborhood schools.

6. Further Enrollment Decline and Loss of Neighborhood Schools

• Families fear that school closures, longer commutes, program disruptions, and uncertainty will accelerate enrollment losses as families pursue private, charter, or neighboring district options. This could further reduce district revenue and concentrate student needs in schools already struggling with limited resources. Multiple communities also raised concerns about the relocation or elimination of preschool and Head Start programs, which provide important connections between families and their neighborhood elementary schools. PPS has not presented a comprehensive student-retention or recruitment strategy, nor demonstrated how its projections account for families who may leave the district because of these changes.

7. Special Education, Inclusion, and Student Support Services

• The relocation and restructuring of specialized programs, including CRIS and Social Emotional Skills (SES), raise significant questions about educational continuity, inclusion, student safety, and compliance with students' individualized educational needs. At Creston, the CRIS program has been integrated into the school community for approximately 30 years; relocating those students separately from their established peers raises substantial social, emotional, and potential legal concerns. Families also question whether receiving schools will have sufficient trained staff, educational assistants, counselors, behavioral specialists, sensory spaces, and administrative support. Larger, more crowded environments may be especially challenging for students with disabilities, sensory sensitivities, behavioral needs, or trauma histories. No detailed transition or staffing plans have been provided to demonstrate how existing services and student relationships will be protected.

8. Equity, Title I Funding, and Specialized Program Disruption

• Consolidation could substantially alter school demographics, redistribute high-needs populations, and disrupt funding and programming designed to support educational equity. Brentwood Middle School, for example, anticipates losing Title I eligibility while undergoing a major demographic shift. Other schools face uncertainty about Title I funding transitions, protected staffing positions, and the continuation of community support services. Relocation or fragmentation of Dual Language Immersion, environmental education, and other specialized programs may disproportionately affect families who lack the resources to travel farther or pursue alternatives. Families are asking PPS to demonstrate how each proposed change advances educational equity rather than simply redistributing students.

9. Class Sizes, Staffing Stability, and Educational Quality

• The central promise of larger, better-resourced schools remains unsupported by published staffing commitments. Families have not received projected class sizes, grade-level sections, staffing allocations, or guarantees of full-time specialists and adequate support personnel. At Abernethy, families reported kindergarten classes of 24–27 students with one teacher and no aide, as well as a blended fourth/fifth-grade classroom of 30 students. Consolidation must not simply produce larger schools with equally strained staffing. Communities are requesting clear class-size targets, protections against unnecessary blended classrooms, full-time specialists, sufficient instructional assistants, and assurances that experienced teachers and administrators can remain with their students wherever possible.

10. Future of Vacant Buildings and Public Investments

• PPS has not presented a comprehensive plan for the reuse, maintenance, security, or potential disposition of closed school properties. Families are concerned about vacant buildings becoming neighborhood liabilities, the potential effects on community safety and property values, and the ongoing operating costs of facilities that may continue housing preschool or community programs. Questions have also been raised about closing buildings that recently received significant taxpayer-funded capital or seismic improvements. Communities are requesting transparent cost projections, clear timelines, and meaningful neighborhood participation in decisions about these publicly owned properties.

11. Implementation, Transition Planning, and Student Continuity

• No comprehensive, school-specific implementation and transition plans have been publicly presented, raising concerns about whether the district has adequately prepared for the logistical, educational, and emotional complexity of consolidation. Families need clarity about staff assignments, leadership transitions, student orientation, community integration, moving logistics, and dedicated transition funding. Several schools also raised concerns about students potentially being required to change schools multiple times within a short period. PPS must clarify grandfathering, sibling enrollment, and cohort-continuity policies, and consider phased transitions that preserve relationships wherever possible. Without detailed planning and adequate lead time, even a financially sound consolidation could create substantial disruption for students and staff.

12. Before- and After-School Childcare and Community Services

• Families have serious concerns that PPS has not adequately coordinated with childcare and enrichment providers, including SUN, Champions, YMCA, and Art for Life, to determine whether programs can serve significantly larger student populations. Several existing programs are already at capacity, and expanding services may require additional staffing, licensing, and dedicated classrooms that are not reflected in building utilization calculations. Reduced access to childcare would disproportionately affect working families, particularly those with limited resources, and could contribute to increased absenteeism and additional enrollment losses. PPS must demonstrate that essential childcare and community services can be maintained or expanded before approving consolidations.

13. Accountability, Measurable Outcomes, and Long-Term Sustainability

• PPS has not established a clear, measurable definition of success for rightsizing or publicly committed to specific improvements in class sizes, staffing, educational outcomes, student well-being, or financial stability. Families are asking what benchmarks will be tracked, when results will be published, who will be accountable for implementation failures, and what corrective measures will be available if consolidated schools do not deliver the promised improvements. There are also concerns that this plan may represent only the first phase of additional closures within three to five years. Without a long-term enrollment strategy and enforceable commitments to educational quality, communities cannot evaluate whether these disruptions will produce lasting benefits.

14. Lessons Learned, Closure Alternatives, and Responsible Stewardship

• PPS has not clearly demonstrated how lessons from previous local consolidations or school closure efforts in other districts have informed its proposals. Families have requested evidence-based case studies, independent analysis, and a meaningful evaluation of alternatives, including boundary adjustments, shared programming, community school models, reuse of underutilized district facilities, and reductions in non-student-facing administrative costs. Concerns have also been raised that the proposed scenarios do not offer sufficiently distinct approaches and that successful, high-demand schools are being substantially altered without compelling educational justification. Before approving changes of this magnitude, the Board should demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been rigorously evaluated and that the selected approach offers the strongest long-term educational and financial outcomes for students.