Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Unofficial 10/14 PTA Minutes; Field Update
You can find the full draft minutes from the October 14 PTA meeting here. The main event was a panel on the lead issue involving the soccer field. Net conclusion: A test conducted on the field this summer showed elevated levels of lead in the green turf material and dust coming from it, prompting the District's decision, along with Parks, to close the field to children pending additional tests. Three more have been conducted and produced results of less concern than the first. Additional testing will be completed in the next month in order to better characterize any risks posed by the field. With those results in hand, all parties will come together to develop a recommendation about the future of the field. The panelists stated that based on what they currently know, they didn't think it necessary to test blood lead levels of children just because they have played on the field. They stressed, however, that parents should make their own assessment of lead risks, and emphasized the importance of particular caution when renovating older homes that may contain lead paint.
Enrollment Continues Strong Upward Trend
With this year's enrollment numbers "official" as of October 1, here's what Rieke's enrollment has looked like over the last 13 years. Remember, it was at the end of the 05-06 school year that the School Board agreed to the idea of the growth plan. I'll soon be doing some posts on the growth plan and the history of Rieke; as you'll see, this growth has outstripped even the most optimistic growth under the Growth Plan (link to large PDF file on PPS web site).It's my understanding that this growth is similar, but still more substantial, than growth being seen throughout SW elementary schools.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Landslide Assistance
As most of you know, the landslide that occurred last week near Terwilliger Boulevard severely affected several Rieke and former Rieke families, as well as their neighbors. For purposes of offering assistance, you can look at this website; from that page you will be directed to separate community pages for each family established on the community service website lotsahelpinghands.com. To join the community pages at lotsahelpinghands, you will need to register on that web site. I'll list the main contact page on the right side until the situation eases -- unfortunately, it's looking like it will be a while. Our thoughts -- and the thoughts of the entire Rieke community -- go out to these families.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Capital Projects and "The Long Wait"
On occasion around Rieke, I hear discussions about the possibility of engaging in "capital improvements" at the school. Whether this is "front entrance" improvements, renovated playgrounds, or replacing the soccer field, one typical response to these proposals is "well, if the school gets rebuilt, won't any capital improvement go to waste anyway?" While this may be true, I don't think that it should foreclose us from looking -- seriously -- into this kind of substantial improvements at the school. This is true primarily because I remain skeptical -- perhaps too skeptical -- about when a "new" Rieke is likely to come to pass. After the jump, I'll explain why.
As was reported earlier in the year, Rieke is one of ten schools that deserve, in the District's eyes, a "total rebuild." What wasn't well reported in that discussion, however, is that this conclusion does not mean that the school is on the "top ten" list for the district's priorities. Let me repeat that: The conclusion that Rieke and ten other schools should be replaced when the time comes DOES NOT mean that Rieke is on the "top ten" list for capital improvements. Instead, it simply means that when the time comes to repair, renovate, or otherwise fix up the school, the district has concluded that it makes sense to replace it. This is primarily a function of community desire and the relative cost of repair to the cost of a new school. There may well be other schools that are higher on the priority list -- even if those schools will be "fully renovated" or "fully modernized" rather than entirely rebuilt.
How will the district assess which schools to prioritize? This is part of the district's current discussion -- which appears to have been resolved, at least in principle, at the October 13 Board meeting -- about setting criteria for reconstruction. (The proposed criteria are listed at pages 15-18 of the Board Meeting Book for October 13; see also this list of proposed criteria from a month before. ETA: The board has adopted new criteria substantially similar to these; I'll discuss them in a later post.) The criteria include several factors that the staff will consider when establishing priorities for the reconstruction of the district's schools. (I'm going to comment more on one of those criteria -- "fulfilling prior commitments" -- in a later post.)
Based on my observation of the Board, staff, and the facilities process, it is apparent to me that the most important of these criteria is the "Facility Cost Index" -- which is the "ratio of the repair cost to the cost of replacing the school." See the definition on this page. The higher the ratio, the more pressing the need to replace the school, and the easier it is going to be to do it. (Note that in this context, "replacing the school" basically means "doing all the necessary capital improvements, whether they take the form of renovation, modernization, or construction of an entirely new building.") It's for this reason that I've heard district staff suggest that the FCI will be a substantial, if not overwhelming, factor in the setting of criteria for school rebuilding.
So where does Rieke stand when it comes to the FCI? As far as I know, the only public information on the web is in this chart. As you will note, this preliminary chart from early in 2008 has some red highlighted numbers that (1) highlight schools that have enrollments under 400, and (2) highlight schools with an FCI above 59% or so. As you will note, Rieke's FCI is high, but not that high compared to a number of other schools. I see 23 schools and other buildings with FCIs above 59%, and Rieke is 18th on that list.
Now, I should note that there are only 8 schools that have enrollments of under 400 AND that have FCIs over 59%. Rieke is one of those, and maybe that suggests that if both of those considerations enter into the analysis, Rieke might be higher on the priority list than I expect. But I doubt that will be the case. Not least of my concerns is the fact that as enrollment increases, we're likely going to require a second (and maybe even a third) portable classroom in the next couple of years. Once the district makes that commitment -- particularly if they are new portables -- I can easily see the district arguing that "Rieke is all set" on space, and then focus their attention on other schools. (Indeed, the fact that the district would be willing to put portables at our school strongly suggests that the District doesn't think that there's much risk of losing their investment in all of the site improvements that go along with placing new portables.)
So what's the net result of all this for Rieke? In my view, at least, it means that barring some dramatic change, we are probably at least a decade away from any "new" permanent building here. At best, it seems like the school is likely to be in a second bond measure, rather than a first (my impression is that we're likely to do at most 10-12 buildings at a time). Even that seems questionable to me given the commitment of portables we're going to need here. And even if Rieke is in one of the early bond measures, it's probably at least 3 years away, and then there is all the site planning, design, and preparation to do before making the commitment to actual reconstruction. My guess: 10 years, at least, before groundbreaking on a "new" Rieke building.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. But for all the above reasons, then, I think it would be very shortsighted to simply say "let's stop talking about any capital improvements at the school." I think that a major rebuild at Rieke will be a fairly long time coming, and most of the capital improvements that I've heard proposed have been improvements that will likely themselves need replacement or renovation in 10 years or so. So there's no harm in making every effort to make Rieke the best place it can possibly be at any given moment. We certainly shouldn't stop making efforts to try and make the improvements that matter. If those efforts pan out, and we get to the point of being able to make a major decision to commit funds for a new playground or field or ...., we can double-check to make sure that nothing has changed in the criteria listing. If it has and things look better than I expect, we can hold off. But if, as I expect, we're many, many years from a full rebuild, we do more harm by waiting. So my vote, at least, is to develop those projects and seize parental and community initiative while we can.
See you around the school...
As was reported earlier in the year, Rieke is one of ten schools that deserve, in the District's eyes, a "total rebuild." What wasn't well reported in that discussion, however, is that this conclusion does not mean that the school is on the "top ten" list for the district's priorities. Let me repeat that: The conclusion that Rieke and ten other schools should be replaced when the time comes DOES NOT mean that Rieke is on the "top ten" list for capital improvements. Instead, it simply means that when the time comes to repair, renovate, or otherwise fix up the school, the district has concluded that it makes sense to replace it. This is primarily a function of community desire and the relative cost of repair to the cost of a new school. There may well be other schools that are higher on the priority list -- even if those schools will be "fully renovated" or "fully modernized" rather than entirely rebuilt.
How will the district assess which schools to prioritize? This is part of the district's current discussion -- which appears to have been resolved, at least in principle, at the October 13 Board meeting -- about setting criteria for reconstruction. (The proposed criteria are listed at pages 15-18 of the Board Meeting Book for October 13; see also this list of proposed criteria from a month before. ETA: The board has adopted new criteria substantially similar to these; I'll discuss them in a later post.) The criteria include several factors that the staff will consider when establishing priorities for the reconstruction of the district's schools. (I'm going to comment more on one of those criteria -- "fulfilling prior commitments" -- in a later post.)
Based on my observation of the Board, staff, and the facilities process, it is apparent to me that the most important of these criteria is the "Facility Cost Index" -- which is the "ratio of the repair cost to the cost of replacing the school." See the definition on this page. The higher the ratio, the more pressing the need to replace the school, and the easier it is going to be to do it. (Note that in this context, "replacing the school" basically means "doing all the necessary capital improvements, whether they take the form of renovation, modernization, or construction of an entirely new building.") It's for this reason that I've heard district staff suggest that the FCI will be a substantial, if not overwhelming, factor in the setting of criteria for school rebuilding.
So where does Rieke stand when it comes to the FCI? As far as I know, the only public information on the web is in this chart. As you will note, this preliminary chart from early in 2008 has some red highlighted numbers that (1) highlight schools that have enrollments under 400, and (2) highlight schools with an FCI above 59% or so. As you will note, Rieke's FCI is high, but not that high compared to a number of other schools. I see 23 schools and other buildings with FCIs above 59%, and Rieke is 18th on that list.
Now, I should note that there are only 8 schools that have enrollments of under 400 AND that have FCIs over 59%. Rieke is one of those, and maybe that suggests that if both of those considerations enter into the analysis, Rieke might be higher on the priority list than I expect. But I doubt that will be the case. Not least of my concerns is the fact that as enrollment increases, we're likely going to require a second (and maybe even a third) portable classroom in the next couple of years. Once the district makes that commitment -- particularly if they are new portables -- I can easily see the district arguing that "Rieke is all set" on space, and then focus their attention on other schools. (Indeed, the fact that the district would be willing to put portables at our school strongly suggests that the District doesn't think that there's much risk of losing their investment in all of the site improvements that go along with placing new portables.)
So what's the net result of all this for Rieke? In my view, at least, it means that barring some dramatic change, we are probably at least a decade away from any "new" permanent building here. At best, it seems like the school is likely to be in a second bond measure, rather than a first (my impression is that we're likely to do at most 10-12 buildings at a time). Even that seems questionable to me given the commitment of portables we're going to need here. And even if Rieke is in one of the early bond measures, it's probably at least 3 years away, and then there is all the site planning, design, and preparation to do before making the commitment to actual reconstruction. My guess: 10 years, at least, before groundbreaking on a "new" Rieke building.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. But for all the above reasons, then, I think it would be very shortsighted to simply say "let's stop talking about any capital improvements at the school." I think that a major rebuild at Rieke will be a fairly long time coming, and most of the capital improvements that I've heard proposed have been improvements that will likely themselves need replacement or renovation in 10 years or so. So there's no harm in making every effort to make Rieke the best place it can possibly be at any given moment. We certainly shouldn't stop making efforts to try and make the improvements that matter. If those efforts pan out, and we get to the point of being able to make a major decision to commit funds for a new playground or field or ...., we can double-check to make sure that nothing has changed in the criteria listing. If it has and things look better than I expect, we can hold off. But if, as I expect, we're many, many years from a full rebuild, we do more harm by waiting. So my vote, at least, is to develop those projects and seize parental and community initiative while we can.
See you around the school...
Friday, October 10, 2008
Rieke Field Issues
As you are all aware, the field has been closed to those under 11 because of concerns about the lead content in the green "turf" material (and in the dust that rises from it). The Oct. 14 PTA meeting will include a panel on this issue (see this post).The field is owned by Portland Parks & Recreation, but the land is owned by PPS. This creates a somewhat difficult "shared responsibility" issue that the relevant agencies are working out.
At the Hillsdale Neighborhood Association meeting on October 1, PPS and Parks presented more information about the field results. My unofficial notes for the event come after the jump...
This issue first arose last spring in NJ when the state noticed unusual levels of lead in an artificial turf field at a school there. After a Health Advisory issued from the Centers for Disease Control, PPS tested the field using two different methods -- one involves using a kind of "rapid response" test on the field material, and this resulted in readings of 2000 ppm for the green turf material, and only 200 ppm for the white lined turf material. If one directly converted identical material into dust -- which is of course not the case -- the CDC would recommend that children under 6 not be exposed to such dust. (CDC says that you should limit the exposure of children under 6 to 400ppm+ dust.)
Because we don't just have a pile of dust sitting around, PPS tried to test the dust based on a "wipe sample" like the one that used to conduct the tests in NJ. This wipe sample indicated that there were 654 ug/sf of lead (that's micrograms per square foot). This doesn't directly translate to the CDC standard, which assumes you have a vat of dust and sets the 400ppm limit based on that idea. There is, however, a HUD standard that indicates that indoor lead on the floor should not exceed 40 ug/sf. The field is outside, of course, and exposure isn't as constant as if it were in someone's home. So, again, there's not a direct comparison. The tests don't necessarily indicate that there is a matter of concern associated with the field, but the best equivalent limits from the government seemed to suggest a matter of concern, and so PPS and Parks decided to limit use of the field to smaller kids; certainly to those under 6, and apparently to all elementary-aged kids in light of the administrative difficulties associated with trying to bar only K / 1st grade students and not others from the field.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has tested fields in NJ. Based on CPSC’s evaluation of those fields -- which resulted in "wipe tests" of about 99 ug/sf (so well below that on our field, but there's some question about whether the sampling methodologies are actually identical or not -- CPSC's may well have been more conservative) -- they concluded that the level of exposure wouldn't be high enough to cause concern. It's not that there would be no exposure, just that the exposure levels would be only about 10% of the level of concern. (Though, as the PPS health & safety official said, this stuff isn't good, and any exposure is not a good thing.) Based on what we know, and despite CPSC’s results, it’s our understanding that NJ immediately replaced their fields.
There was a follow-up meeting at Rieke on Monday, October 6, in which Parks officials indicated that levels on the field that "weren't as high" as those found by PPS -- though they didn't say what the levels were. Both PPS and Parks are conducting additional tests on the field and on surrounding areas. (Obviously, to close the field but to send kids to a place where there are high levels of lead dust isn't an optimum solution.)
So ... that leaves us with the question of replacement, and as everyone knows (and as Parks conceded), replacement is something that is going to need to happen soon -- the field is at the end of its useful life, lead or no lead. It's my understanding that Parks is currently evaluating options and gathering information about replacement costs, but it's also likely to cost a lot (i.e., close to $500K) and it seems unlikely that there's much hope of this appearing in a capital bond any time soon. Whether it continues to be closed or not because of lead may determine the level of pressure on replacement, but it's not a triggering issue.
If you want to know more, come to the Monday PTA meeting....
Auction is Coming
Don't forget the Rieke Auction is Coming on October 25, at the MJCC Ballroom! Take a look at the many great items listed here. The Auction raises money for the Rieke Foundation, which is an arm of the Portland Schools Foundation. Foundation fundraising is the only way that parents can help directly pay for additional certified teachers at their schools -- and it's traditionally helped pay for an entire additional teacher at Rieke. Tickets are on sale in front of Rieke through the 22nd; check the Calendar for dates.
Events for October 13-17
Some events this week:
- Monday 10/13: Site Council, 3:15 in the library
- Tuesday 10/14: Intro to Chess, 5:00 in the library
- Tuesday 10/14: PTA Meeting, 7:00 in the library
Welcoming Garden
It's hard to miss, but if you did, the front porch of Rieke has received a beautiful update, thanks to the hard work of the PTA Garden Committee. Carla Asplund and the entire committee deserve a round of applause.
Welcome!
Greetings! This is the first post of an unofficial blog relating to Rieke Elementary School in SW Portland (Oregon). Included here will be minutes of various meetings at and relating to Rieke, as well as information regarding other matters in SW Portland and involving SW schools. If you have thoughts, comments, ideas, or other information you'd like to hear about on this blog, please post here....