By Taxpayers Association of Oregon Foundation,
The Portland Public Schools board recently discussed plans to modernize three high schools: Jefferson, Ida B. Wells, and Cleveland. The board is trying to balance creating high-quality schools with keeping costs down, but it is running out of time to finalize details before Election Day in about two months.
For Jefferson High School, the plans include reducing the theater from 1,000 to 500 seats and possibly removing some community partner spaces. Despite having fewer than 600 students and declining enrollment, the plans call for 1,000 lockers. PPS hasn’t explained how 400 empty lockers will improve academic achievement.
At Ida B. Wells, the project team highlighted the site’s steep grade change challenges. They’re working to maximize space efficiency while including features like a health center.
Cleveland High School’s presentation revealed significant cost savings by extending the construction timeline from two to three years. This change disappointed some community members, but board member Julia Brim Edwards noted it was necessary to stay within budget.
Some board members expressed concerns about reducing spaces for performing arts, athletics, and teacher planning. There were also questions about including health centers and teen parent centers at each school. The district is clear that it will build the teen parent centers only if there is a “demonstrated need.” But, staff indicated that they have no idea what “demonstrated need” means or whether any schools have such a need.
Despite assurances from project teams that the reduced designs still meet educational specifications, skepticism remains about the district’s ability to manage costs effectively. The need for such significant reductions so late in the planning process suggests a lack of foresight in the initial budgeting and design phases.
Remember, this is two months before voters turn in their ballots, and basic issues are still up in the air.
The board emphasized the importance of community input and flexibility in the design process. Even so, at an earlier meeting, Brim-Edward complained this bond had “the least information and no community stakeholder group.”
The board’s struggle to balance modernization needs with budget realities reflects broader concerns about Portland’s governance and spending priorities.
As the district continues to ask voters for increased funding through bonds and levies, the ability to deliver projects on time and within budget becomes increasingly questionable.
