Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Portland observer. (Portland, Or.) 1970-current | View Entire Issue (July 28, 1977)
f Krs Francas Schoen-C esspaper U n iv e rs ity of Oregon Lib: t r y son 97403 -U53RS \ I 7 - u : third •P» * PORTLAND 7 Ne. 31 r, J -ly 28, 1977 10c par ______________ , '• • M 4 IpawB« I t wasn't the first. I t wasn't the second. It was the third Newman plan that the Board of Education passed Monday night before allowing the nearly 200 citizens to express their opinions. Following a statement by Superintend ent Robert Blanchard, labeled by many as demeaning and hostile (nee Column 1), Board member Frank McNamara moved that, as stated in the new plan, the section on barring King and Boise stud ents from Jefferson be deferred until January. The plan also sets goals for open enrollment schools (Benson and Monroe) and magnet programs from 15 to 30 per cent minority; disallows transfer of stud ents that would make the receiving or sending school over 30 per cent minority; provides transportation costa for trans fers that further desegregation. McNamara also moved that the M etro politan Human Relations Commission, the NAACP and the Urban League be invited to submit plans along with anyone else who choses, to the School Board by December 15 to address the problems of racial isolation at Jefferson High School. The only questions were raised by Board Member Wally Priestley, who expressed the opinion that the Board reaction to the public had not been on a positive level. T m a little bit troubled at the idea that the way we react is to scold the community when they seek to partici pate with us." Adding that the public had asked for district-wide planning, not piece-meal, and an extension of the burden to the majority community, he asked that the Board respond to that request. Stating that it seemed like an “inside job” (an agreement between McNamara and Blanchard) he added, “We don't need to deal with the public with such trepida tion.' A fter the motion was passed and Board member Jonathan Newman explained his new proposal, the public was allowed comment. During the public testimony the third Newman Plan, which had not previously been released to the public or the press, was passed out to those present. Among those testifying were: Jean BewrhsrslH. speaking for Schools for the City, asked that a broad-based panel under the auspices of a neutral group like M HRC study the desegrega tion activities of 1965-1977 and make recommendations for the entire program. UHton Heraeg, a resident of Irvington said the neighborhood has been adversely A affected by being told the “neighborhood is decaying and the children are stupid.” She urged the Board to “listen to the people in that community.” Dwight Mare, a parent, said the basic question is quality education - there is a question of quality all over the city. - --- ------- '-------- ( t S- Blanchard addresses the Board “The issue before the Board tonight is a series of policy revisions affecting the specifics by which the Board of Education addressed problems of desegregation in our school district. I'm informed that Mr. Newman has circulated a 3rd draft with additional amendments. One of the provisions of that draft sets a 80% minority enrollment criterion governing transfers. I recommend this revision. “Also, the 3rd draft contains a percent age range for attendance at district wide high schools and special programs ex pressing a goal that ranges from 15% minimum to a 80% maximum minority enrc'lment. I likewise endorse such a change in the draft policy. parents and students affected. I hope that it is also obvious that my administra tion and I are sympathetic, as I know the Board to. to such parent concerns. However, the district has the responsibil ity to make policy decisions that do the right thing. The right thing for Portland is desegregation, and this is the direction that the Board of Education has followed. We have made a significant number of attendance area shifts. Few or none of them have been without opposition. Typ ically, they were for the reason of sustain ing efforts to follow the desegregation plan of the district. This plan is to carry out a co nstructive desegregation program. Obviously, the effort has been The Beard of Education, Scbeei District Na. 1, extended the contract of Superintendent Robert Blanchard from its erigii date ef J a n e » , 1979 to June 30, 1981. D r. Blanchard’s salary lor Bocal year 1977-1978 was increased six percent above his 1976-1977 basic annual salary - with that salary adjusted to reflect the s c hoo l year - providing an annual not salary of $51, 595. Board m e m b e r WaBy Priestley opposed hot “In addition, I recommend that the boundary change proposal (Section B of the second draft) affecting attendance in the Jefferson High School area, be deferred. However, in the absence of emergence of a satisfactory alternative, it is likely that I will recommend its adoption in time for pupil enrollment forecasting for September 1978. “I'd like to give you the reasoning that has caused me to make the recommenda tions to defer this boundary change proposal for Jefferson. “Certainly ws all understand that any attendance boundary change is by its very nature an emotional issue and often a political one. When the district addresses the need to adjust school boundaries in order to level and balance the racial makeup of the schools of the system, it is obvious that it is going to receive expressions of resentment, torn most to accomplish this without the disruption of a court order. “It would be an extraordinary circum stance when students and parents are willing to volunteer to agree to go to some school other than “their own neigh borhood school" for district wide reasons that the Board and the administration must address. This is human nature and it is certainly understandable, and I know the Board sympathizes with it. However, it does not free all of us from the responsibility to make districtwide decisions. “Clearly in this regard the Black community has not exclusively borne the full burden as some are alleging. These have been districtwide decisions that have affected a cross-section of our community. An example was the 1970 transfer of the largely majority pop ulation from the Roosevelt area to the Jefferson area. These have been de cisions that have improved school oper ations both educationally as well as socially. “Admittedly, with respect to the volun tary program, the Black community has borne the heaviest responsibility. But, in recent years, the proportion of majority volunteers in Early Childhood Centers and magnet programs has been steadily increasing. In view of these facts, along with the continuing need to correct racial imbal ance, I am very troubled when influential groups and individuals take exception to proposals based upon the amount of criticism voiced rather than on the merits of the issue. No organization is likely to enjoy popularity when it makes decisions with respect to this issue. “There may be alternatives to this specific proposal changing the Jefferson boundary. However, those who are supportive of desegregation for this community and wish to see constructive efforts made to achieve it must also deal with the same factors that this Board faces. One important factor is our conclusion that a massive, compulsory cross-busing program should not be mandated for Portland. We have made regular analyses of the legal issues that gave rise to court decrees in other cities ordering massive cross-busing. Had the Portland School District engaged in actions that could be judged to have the effect of producing segregation, then such a compulsory plan might very well be ordered. This has not yet been the case in Portland. “Therefore, I am recommending here that the Board request that the NAACP, the Urban League, and the Metropolitan Human Relations Commission, or the combination of those groups, address the Jefferson imbalance issue that is now before the Board Obviously, there will be other groups and individuals that may wish to address the Board independently on this important issue. This will require a careful analysis with realistic legal and (Please turn to page 5 col. 3) “Ockley Green is overcrowded - falling apart.” People defeat levies, be said, because of dissatisfaction, not because they don't care about their children. Vesia Loving called D r. Blanchard's statements an insult to the community. “No one should have that much power over people. When they build an empire it must be demolished. Rejecting the Board’s failure to respond to the commun ity, she said, “Black people have feelings just like you. They have frustrations. They cry just like you.” Armando Laguardia, said MHRC. will be glad to accept the challenge but that the Board's decision created a climate not condusive for community participation by restricting input to Jefferson when the program needs to be studied in depth. M ary Lon Roe, President of Portland Council, P TA , said she would like to see parents, P T A ’s and all interested organi zations included. Nate Proby, United M inority Workers, and father of three bussed children, castigated the Board of talking about busing out Black children to achieve desegregation while allowing the work of its $18 million educational center to go on without adequate minority participation. Don Fuller, a parent representing PMSC and the Portland Chapter, Nation al Association for Community Develop ment, said no plan is acceptable without citizen involvement. Reverend John Jarksen, President, N A A C P Portland Branch, said that the N A A C P is always interested in desegre gation but the main interest is always quality education. Stating that the N AA CP branches cannot give approval for any desegregation plan without approval by the-National Office since it will bear the responsibility « he said “The moment D r. Blanchard named us he put us in a bad light. That makes people expect you to do certain things. Legitimacy becomes jeopard ized." He said the Board should have perused the neighborhood and asked the “ ...... people who they wanted to be on a committee. “You tell me that you still really don't understand what to going on. I'd like you to get some feedback, saying Do you want the N A A C P , the Urban League. MHRC? I f they say Yes’, H l be happy to serve. I f they say 'No', honest to God, I ’m going to refuse.” kts. Sherry Warren, a parent and advisory committee member, asked D r. Blanchard why he had told the press “Most speculation along these lines is not useful!’' in discussing refusal of white students to attend Jefferson. “To make up for your prejudice you ship us around. Don’t tell me what you can do to my child and then turn around and tell me what you can't do to your own.” Jimmy “Bang Bang” Walker, father of students in Jefferson, called for “a new superintendent for the 80’s.” f va J g f jf 9 otepwea m u u i , a x»<i jeuenaoa graa- uate, said the students at Jefferson are not racially isolated but get along to gether much better than in any other high school. He suggested that the Board’s decision should have been made after hearing the citizens, not before. Herb Cawtbans an educator and mem ber of the Board of Directors of the National Urban Leauge said he had expected the Board meeting to provide for dialogue - to pull the community together, to create harmony. “W e tried to understand your problems. The people tried to understand the problems that make you act like you do. When federal rules let you loose, why can’t we sit down together and talk. You gave a delay but you did not hear whatt every group asked you to do - to appoint a committee to look at it again.” Stating that it has been thirteen years since the Race and Educa tion study, he said there should be another evaluation. You didn’t wait to hear those recom- (Please turn to page 6 col. 4)