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)