Portland Public Schools committee reviews boundary proposals amid equity, transportation and budget concerns

The Portland Public Schools Boundaries Committee on Oct. 23 reviewed community engagement about proposed school boundary changes and discussed possible policy and budget actions to reduce harms for families who would be reassigned.

Committee members heard repeated concerns from multilingual families and parents that a number of students who would be moved have already experienced multiple school changes. “I don't want people to hear this and say this is happening, because we're still in the process,” the committee chair said, asking participants to treat the maps as proposals under development.

The committee’s discussion centered on three linked goals: balancing utilization across schools so resources reach schools more equitably; reducing differences in rates of economically disadvantaged students across schools; and preserving walkable, neighborhood schools where practical.

Why it matters: committee members and school leaders said the changes could improve parity of school experiences but also could impose disproportionate burdens on students who are already vulnerable. Staff flagged that, under the current proposal, 118 of 193 elementary students who would be moved are economically disadvantaged and that 71% of the students proposed to move at the middle-school level are economically disadvantaged; the district’s overall economically disadvantaged rate was given in the meeting as about 57%.

The committee summarized community feedback gathered in meetings and by email: multilingual families and parents of students who already have moved multiple times raised specific concerns about walkability and access to services. One recurring example: students who currently attend King Middle School and use an on-site health clinic would be reassigned to Lyman Moore under the proposal and would lose that clinic access unless alternative arrangements are made.

Superintendent Scallon framed possible policy levers beyond changing boundaries, including limits on admission of nonresident students, strategic use of tuition or out-of-district placements, targeted allocation of federal Title I funds, and locally funded supplements that would be distributed like Title I to create additional supports for high-need schools. “We could set aside another $2.5 million in our local budget and treat it the same as Title I funding,” the superintendent said as an example of how the district might invest locally to reduce disparities.

Budget and implementation: staff said some changes could be costly and that implementation timing affects cost. “I don't think our analysis will capture all costs or all savings,” the superintendent said, noting transportation and staffing choices would be key cost drivers. The committee asked staff to provide updated student geocoding and a budgetary snapshot for the next meeting (planned virtually on Nov. 13) and to prepare an in-person, interactive session (tentatively Nov. 20) to finalize committee recommendations for the board.

Equity concerns and policy detail: committee members discussed McKinney-Vento (homeless-student) placement rules under policy JFABD and the need for possible set‑asides for McKinney-Vento supports. Members also raised questions about class-size policy adjustments tied to economically disadvantaged percentages, targeted reading interventionists, and whether some positions now automatically staffed in each school could be made more flexible to redirect funds where need is higher.

Local impacts: specific neighborhoods and schools named repeatedly in the meeting included Longfellow, Ocean, King Middle School, Lyman Moore, Libbytown, the Deering Triangle, Parkside, Lyseth, and portions of the East End and Kennedy Park. Speakers reported mixed reactions: parts of Libbytown and the Deering Triangle expressed support for particular changes because of improved walkability; other neighborhoods and multilingual families urged more gradual transitions, waivers, or grandfathering so students could finish at their current schools.

Next steps: staff will update enrollment geocoding and provide a budget/implementation snapshot for the Nov. 13 meeting and pursue an in-person, multi‑hour workshop (Nov. 20 proposed) to prepare a committee recommendation for the board in time for a December board agenda. The committee chair emphasized continued community engagement, noting upcoming listening sessions and board business meetings where the public can offer comment.

Ending: committee members emphasized trade-offs between boundaries and other levers (policy, staffing, and budget) and asked staff to return with concrete data and cost estimates to aid a final recommendation.