---
title: "PPS - Why They Stay and Leave - Summary Report"
source_url: "https://drive.google.com/file/d/1inDzPET-xRxzR8xZhCssQNMGI2JwSRbO/view"
parent_url: "26-10-01 Q&A tracker p.3"
retrieved: 2026-10-12
document_type: "PDF (Google Drive)"
page_count: 69
sha256: 460945bc86c2019cde19a5ac3cca1ca49ac565107ad85bbea3448119f91253b7
extraction_method: "PyMuPDF 1.28.2 page.get_text(text) in content order; tables via page.find_tables(); no OCR"
pdf_metadata_title: "PPS-Why They Stay and Leave - Summary Report - Jan 6"
pdf_creation_date: "D:20260107185407Z00'00'"
download_url: "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1inDzPET-xRxzR8xZhCssQNMGI2JwSRbO"
original_file: "originals/gd-1inDzPET-xRxzR8xZhCssQNMGI2JwSRbO.pdf"
---
# PPS - Why They Stay and Leave - Summary Report
Unofficial text extraction of a public PPS document for accessibility and research. May contain extraction errors; consult the original at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1inDzPET-xRxzR8xZhCssQNMGI2JwSRbO/view.
## Page 1
Page of
1
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
3
Executive Methods Summary
7
Recommendations
10
Conclusion and Next Steps
49
Appendix A: Qualitative Research Phase Summary
52
Appendix B: Survey Analysis Methods and Process
55
Appendix C: Survey Questions Overview
60
Appendix D: Frequently Asked Questions
65
Page of
2
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 3
Executive Summary
Memorandum
TO: Board of Education, Portland Public Schools
FROM: Symbol, LLC Survey Analysis Team
DATE: January 2026
RE: PPS Family Survey — Summary of Findings
Purpose
Portland Public Schools conducted a family survey to understand the experiences and
perceptions of families across three groups: those currently enrolled, those who left the
district, and those who considered but never enrolled. The survey captures what families
report about their school choice decisions, satisfaction levels, and concerns. This memo
summarizes validated findings from the survey analysis.
Who Participated
The survey collected responses from three paths that were available within the survey
instrument, and which were determined by the user’s answers:
•
Path A (Currently Enrolled): Valid response counts ranged from 1,075 to 2,356,
depending on the question
•
Path B (Left PPS): 55 to 60 respondents, depending on the question
•
Path C (Never Enrolled): 15 to 23 respondents, depending on the question
Page of
3
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 4
Executive Summary
Respondents self-selected to participate. Fielding dates and outreach methods are
documented in survey administration records.
Respondents self-selected to participate. Path C (Never Enrolled) sample size (n=15-23) is
below the threshold for percentage-based analysis and is excluded from prioritization.
Response counts vary by question due to skip patterns.
It should be noted that, as in the above sample size note, denominators appear to change
within the data. The reason for this is that it was decided that most questions did not require
an answer to avoid false data. As a result, the number of participants out of the total varied by
question and question group.
Key Findings
One of the primary findings was the extent to which the outcomes and themes from this
survey aligned with the qualitative research outcomes Symbol LLC previously conducted. The
survey sheds additional light on certain aspects, but overall, the opinions expressed in both
research methods were in lockstep.
๏
Concerns About Academic Quality: Among Path B (Left PPS) respondents, 45 out of
55 (81.8%) selected concerns about academic quality as a departure reason (Q9);
among Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) respondents who considered leaving, 1,043
out of 1,412 (73.9%) cited lack of academic quality (Q26).
๏
Special Learning Needs: Among Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) respondents, 1,253
out of 2,326 (53.9%) reported at least one special learning need (Q18). Among Path B
respondents, 44 out of 56 (78.6%) reported at least one special learning need. Among
those answering the satisfaction question, 422 out of 1,075 (39.3%) rated satisfaction
with learning support as Satisfied or Very Satisfied (Q21). Sentiment was from parents of
TAG (Talented And Gifted) students as well as those with learning challenges.
Indications are that parents generally feel PPS teaches to the +/-1σ portion of the
student population.
๏
Safety and Bullying Concerns: Among Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) respondents,
802 out of 2,227 (36.0%) rated confidence in bullying response as Low (Q24); among
Path B (Left PPS) respondents, 25 out of 55 (45.5%) cited safety concerns as a departure
reason (Q9).
Page of
4
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 5
Executive Summary
๏
Communication Issues: Among Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) respondents, 697
out of 2,336 (29.9%) rated "knowing where to find information online" as Poor or Very
Poor (Q13); respondents reported using a median of 3 communication channels (Q12).
๏
Where Departing Students Landed: Among Path B (Left PPS) respondents who
answered, 34 out of 41 (82.9%) reported their child is currently enrolled in private
school (Q8).
Important Content & Limitations
Sample Size Rules Applied:
๏
Percentages are reported only when valid n ≥ 30
๏
Findings with n < 30 are labeled as directional only
๏
Path C is excluded from all prioritization due to the small sample size.
Conditional Questions:
๏
Q26 (departure considerations) was asked only to Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)
respondents who indicated they had considered leaving (n=1,412), not all Path A
respondents
What the Survey Does Not Measure:
๏
Specific school performance or outcomes
๏
Causal relationships between concerns and decisions
๏
Whether addressing concerns would change family behavior
๏
Experiences of families who did not respond
Page of
5
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 6
Executive Summary
How to Interpret These Results
Appropriate Use: These findings describe what responding families reported. They provide
directional information about family perceptions and concerns. The data can inform
discussions about areas of interest to families.
What Cannot Be Concluded:
๏
The findings cannot be generalized to all PPS families
๏
The data does not prove that any one factor caused families to leave
๏
The survey does not evaluate whether specific programs or policies are effective
๏
Addressing reported concerns may or may not change family decisions
Self-Selected Sample: Families who chose to respond may differ from those who did not.
Findings describe this sample only.
Page of
6
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 7
Executive Methods Summary
Executive Methods Summary
Purpose
The quantitative survey was designed to validate and describe themes identified during
earlier qualitative interviews with PPS families. The analysis was intentionally descriptive,
not causal or predictive, and focused on understanding family experiences, perceptions, and
enrollment decisions.
Who Participated
Survey respondents were grouped into three distinct populations:
๏
Current PPS families
๏
Former PPS families
๏
Families who never enrolled in PPS
These groups were analyzed separately to ensure differences in experience were not blended
or misrepresented.
The survey was fielded from October 30 to December 5, 2025, primarily through PPS
communication channels, with additional outreach via word of mouth, LinkedIn, and
community partners to reach families who never considered PPS.
How the Survey Was Designed
Survey questions were developed directly from finalized themes identified in the
qualitative phase. These themes were locked prior to analysis and treated as fixed
hypotheses for validation.
Page of
7
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 8
Executive Methods Summary
The survey included:
๏
Structured questions to measure prevalence and patterns
๏
Open-ended questions to capture nuance and lived experience
Where comparison across groups was required, question wording and response options
were standardized.
Data Integrity and Safeguards
Before any analysis occurred:
๏
All personally identifiable information was removed
๏
Responses were fully de-identified
Additional safeguards included:
๏
Removal of spam, duplicate, and invalid responses
๏
Structural normalization of data without altering response values
๏
Batch-level verification to confirm analyzed responses exactly matched the original
dataset
No valid responses were edited, inferred, or re-weighted.
How Findings Were Developed
Analysis proceeded in stages:
๏
Each survey question was reviewed independently
๏
Comparisons across respondent groups were made only when sample sizes supported
meaningful interpretation
๏
Demographic analysis was conducted within groups, not across them
๏
Each qualitative theme was evaluated independently using both quantitative results
and verbatim responses
Findings were synthesized to assess alignment and divergence between qualitative and
quantitative evidence, without introducing new themes.
Page of
8
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 9
Executive Methods Summary
Governance and Reporting
Validated findings were reviewed under strict sample-size and confidence safeguards. A
formal governance step locked the final set of findings and limitations before any executive
or public reporting.
All executive materials, media FAQs, and presentations were produced using only this
locked evidence base, ensuring accuracy, consistency, and transparency.
Why This Matters
This approach ensures that survey results accurately reflect family experiences, clearly state
limitations, and support informed decision-making without overstating what the data can
show.
Page of
9
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 10
Recommendations
Recommendations
The order of recommendations below reflects a combination of factors:
1. Whether the sample size was larger than 30 for individual factors
2. The relative priority level for departure consideration: this factor includes how
respondents rated Q9 and Q26, whether they cited the issue verbatim, the potential
impact on departures, and the percentage of responses with significant numbers of
people who cited the issue.
3. The relative confidence level - whether evidence converged from multiple different
sources within the instrument.
Each recommendation is shown on a separate page to assist with reporting and document
organization.
Page
of
10
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 11
Recommendations
Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 can be grouped together as they all focus on providing greater
support and academic rigor for talented and gifted students.
1. Gifted/Advanced Student Program Support
๏
Action: Restructure TAG program from identification-only to active service delivery at
neighborhood schools.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) and Path B (Left PPS) families with
gifted/talented children
๏
Where it applies: District-wide TAG programming
Priority Level
Justification: 50.0% (28 out of 56 respondents) of Path B (Former PPS Families) have gifted/
talented children, while 485 out of 1,412 Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) respondents who
considered leaving (34.3%) cited special education inadequacy. Qualitative evidence
specifically identifies TAG as "nonexistent" and "labeling only.”
Confidence Level and Reasoning
Four families explicitly named the TAG program in their written responses, describing specific
problems with it. This provides direct evidence that families are requesting TAG program
restructuring as a specific action.
However, the statistical data have a limitation: the survey grouped TAG together with IEP and
504 students under "special needs," so we cannot isolate TAG-specific concerns
quantitatively. We know that 50.0% (28 out of 56 respondents) of Path B (Former PPS Families)
have gifted/talented children and 34.3% (485 out of 1,412 respondents) of Path A (Current
PPS Families) who considered leaving cited special education inadequacy — but we cannot
Page
of
11
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 12
Recommendations
determine what portion of these respondents have TAG-specific concerns versus other
special education concerns.
Additionally, the survey cannot determine whether TAG restructuring would affect departure
decisions, and there is no direct measure of current TAG service delivery quality.
Supporting Evidence
Q18 — Gifted/talented needs (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
28 out of 56 respondents (50.0%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=56)
Q9 — "Special needs better served elsewhere" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
21 out of 55 respondents (38.2%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=55)
Q18 — Gifted/talented needs (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
660 out of 2,326 respondents (28.4%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,326)
Q26 — "Inadequacy of special education or learning support services" (Path A,
conditional)
๏
485 out of 1,412 respondents (34.3%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,412)
Qualitative (Q7, Path B (Left PPS)):
"Actually have a functioning TAG program, rather than just labeling students as TAG and then
doing nothing."
Qualitative (Q28, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"I am extremely dissatisfied with the TAG program which is nonexistent and I would prefer we
stop pretending that anything is done in response to a tag identification."
Page
of
12
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 13
Recommendations
2. Advanced/Gifted Program Offerings Earlier
๏
Action: Establish honors or advanced course options at the middle school level.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families considering leaving; Paths B
and C families
๏
Where it applies: PPS middle schools
Priority Level
Justification: 81.8% (45 out of 55 respondents) of Path B (Former PPS Families) cited
academic quality as a departure reason, while 73.9% (1,043 out of 1,412 respondents) of Path
A (Current PPS Families) who considered leaving cited a lack of academic quality. Academic
quality ranks 1st among departure reasons (Q9) and 1st among departure considerations
(Q26).
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has very strong evidence from multiple statistical measures across
different family groups. Two families explicitly used the words "honors classes" in their
responses — this is not an inferred solution, but a directly requested action.
The evidence has some limitations: the Path C (Never Enrolled Families) evidence (n=23) is
descriptive only because n < 30, and Q26 was conditional (asked only of those who
considered leaving). Additionally, "academic quality" is a broad category, and honors is one
component mentioned qualitatively—we cannot isolate how many families specifically want
honors courses versus other academic improvements.
The survey cannot determine whether adding honors options would reduce departures.
Page
of
13
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 14
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q9 — "Concerns about academic quality" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
45 out of 55 respondents (81.8%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=55)
Q15 — "Academic quality" as school choice factor (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
52 out of 60 respondents (86.7%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=60)
Q15 — "Academic quality" as school choice factor (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
1,269 out of 2,333 respondents (54.4%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,333)
Q26 — "Lack of academic quality" (Path A, conditional)
๏
1,043 out of 1,412 respondents (73.9%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,412)
Q15 — "Academic quality" (Path C - Never Enrolled)
๏
20 out of 23 respondents (87.0%)
๏
Y < 30: Yes (n=23) — descriptive only, NOT used for prioritization
Qualitative (Q10, Path B (Left PPS)):
"More accelerated learning, a focus on academic excellence for all. Not a middling, try to be
all things for all people. School is for learning. Read actual books, have honors classes in
middle school..."
Page
of
14
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 15
Recommendations
3. Greater ACCESS Academy Availability
๏
Action: Expand ACCESS Academy capacity or replicate its model at additional sites.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families with gifted children on
waitlists; Path B (Left PPS) families who cited academic quality
๏
Where it applies: District-wide gifted programming infrastructure
Priority Level
81.8% (45 out of 55 respondents) of Path B (Former PPS Families) cited academic quality
concerns. However, enrollment barriers ranked last among departure considerations at 7.7%
(109 out of 1,412 respondents), and ACCESS Academy-specific concerns are identified
qualitatively only.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has limited direct evidence. The statistical data generally support
academic quality concerns, but ACCESS Academy is specifically mentioned in only 2-3 written
quotes. Two families mentioned ACCESS Academy by name, including one who reported
being "waitlisted 2yrs in a row."
However, ACCESS Academy is not measured directly in the survey — it was identified only in
open-ended responses. We cannot quantify waitlist size, demand, or the number of families
who applied to or wanted the program. The statistical measures address academic quality
broadly, not ACCESS Academy capacity specifically.
Additionally, enrollment barriers ranked 8th of 8 departure considerations in Q26, suggesting
this is not a widespread concern among the broader sample.
Page
of
15
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 16
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q9 — "Concerns about academic quality" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
45 out of 55 respondents (81.8%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=55)
Q15 — "Academic quality" as school choice factor (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
52 out of 60 respondents (86.7%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=60)
Q26 — "Inability to enroll or get information when needed" (Path A, conditional)
๏
109 out of 1,412 respondents (7.7%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,412)
Qualitative (Q10, Path B (Left PPS)):
"Our son was waitlisted 2yrs in a row, when he is exactly the kind of kid ACCESS wants. Clearly
there is more demand for advanced learning than PPS can provide."
Qualitative (Q10, Path B (Left PPS)):
"Robust TAG program outside of ACCESS or a larger more accessible ACCESS program"
Page
of
16
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 17
Recommendations
4. Staff Support for Special Learning Needs
๏
Action: Increase staffing for classroom aides in classrooms serving students with special
learning needs.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families with children who have
special learning needs
๏
Where it applies: Schools with high concentrations of students with special learning
needs
Priority Level
Justification: 39.3% (422 out of 1,075 respondents) of Path A (Current PPS Families) rated
satisfaction with learning support as Satisfied or Very Satisfied—the second-lowest satisfaction
dimension. 62.7% (304 out of 485 respondents) who cited special education concerns also
cited class size concerns. 53.9% (1,253 out of 2,326 respondents) of Path A (Current PPS
Families) report at least one special learning need.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has strong statistical evidence for the underlying concerns. The cross-
tabulation confirms that special education and class size concerns are linked — families who
cite one tend to cite the other. However, classroom aides specifically are mentioned in only
one written response.
The evidence has some limitations: it comes from Path A (Current PPS Families) only, Q21 was
administered to a subset of respondents (n=1,075) rather than all Path A, and Q26 was
conditional (asked only to the 1,412 respondents who considered leaving).
The survey cannot determine whether increasing aide staffing would improve satisfaction or
reduce departures.
Page
of
17
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 18
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q21 — "Support for different learning needs" satisfaction (Path A, Currently Enrolled in
PPS)
๏
422 out of 1,075 respondents rated Satisfied or Very Satisfied (39.3%)
๏
175 out of 1,075 respondents rated Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied (16.3%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,075)
Q26 — "Inadequacy of special education or learning support services" (Path A,
conditional)
๏
485 out of 1,412 respondents (34.3%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,412)
Q26 — "Concerns about class size and student-to-teacher ratio" (Path A (Currently
Enrolled in PPS), conditional)
๏
893 out of 1,412 respondents (63.2%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,412)
Cross-tabulation: Q26 special ed concern BY Q26 class size concern (Path A, Currently
Enrolled in PPS)
๏
304 out of 485 who selected special ed concern also selected class size (62.7%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=485)
Q18 — Any special learning need (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
1,253 out of 2,326 respondents (53.9%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,326)
Qualitative (Q28, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"Student to teacher ratio- Every class should have an aide. Also, would like to see more
chances for neurodivergent kids to get the support they need, so it is not on the teacher to
give one on one support when they have an entire class to teach."
Page
of
18
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 19
Recommendations
5. Communications Around Behavioral Expectations
๏
Action: Establish a behavioral expectations framework with transparent communication
to families about consequences.
๏
Who it affects: Path B (Left PPS) families who cited safety; Path A (Currently Enrolled in
PPS) families who considered leaving due to safety
๏
Where it applies: District-wide policy and school-level implementation
Priority Level
Justification: 45.5% (25 out of 55 respondents) of Path B (Former PPS Families) cited safety
concerns as a departure reason, ranking 3rd of 8. 33.9% (479 out of 1,412 respondents) of
Path A (Current PPS Families) who considered leaving cited safety as a departure
consideration. The Path B (Former PPS Families) rate of 45.5% is 3.5x the Path A (Current PPS
Families) school choice rate of 13.1% (306 out of 2,333 respondents).
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has strong evidence from both statistical analysis and written
comments from multiple family groups. Multiple families explicitly requested changes to
discipline and behavioral consequence policies — this is not an inferred solution, but a directly
requested action.
The evidence has some limitations: Path C (Never Enrolled Families) has n=23, which is below
the n ≥ 30 threshold. The survey cannot distinguish between physical safety, behavioral
concerns, and seismic safety quantitatively — these are grouped together under "safety
concerns." Q26 was conditional (asked only to those who considered leaving).
The survey cannot determine whether implementing a behavioral consequence framework
would reduce departures.
Page
of
19
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 20
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q9 — "Safety concerns" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
25 out of 55 respondents (45.5%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=55)
Q15 — "School safety and incident response record" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
21 out of 60 respondents (35.0%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=60)
Q15 — "School safety and incident response record" (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
306 out of 2,333 respondents (13.1%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,333)
Q26 — "Concerns about school safety and incident response" (Path A, conditional)
๏
479 out of 1,412 respondents (33.9%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,412)
Q15 — "School safety" (Path C - Never Enrolled)
๏
9 out of 23 respondents (39.1%)
๏
Y < 30: Yes (n=23) — descriptive only, NOT used for prioritization
Qualitative (Q10, Path B (Left PPS)):
"Effective policies to keep my kids from being assaulted"
Qualitative (Q29, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"improved policy regarding safety and discipline (return to rational, objective approach).
Reduced class sizes. Stability."
Page
of
20
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 21
Recommendations
Recommendations 6, 7, and 8 all relate to communication between the school system and
families. Taken together, they represent what is arguably low-hanging fruit that would help
with some of the friction that leads to parent frustration in particular.
6. Designate a Single Primary Digital Platform for
Time-Sensitive School Information
๏
Action: Instead of providing multiple channels that parents have to monitor,
consolidate into a consistent platform for parents, and possibly for both parents and
students.
๏
Who it affects: Path A families (currently enrolled in PPS)
๏
Where it applies: District-wide, all schools
Priority Level
Justification: 29.9% (697 out of 2,336 respondents) rated "knowing where to find info
online" as Poor or Very Poor — the lowest-rated Q13 dimension. However, communication
concerns ranked 5th of 8 departure considerations at 23.5% (332 out of 1,412 respondents).
This lack of a centralized communication portal was also heavily cited in the previously
conducted qualitative research.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has strong evidence from both survey statistics and written comments.
Multiple quantitative signals (Q13, Q12, Q26) converge, and multiple families explicitly asked
for a single, consolidated communication platform in their own words — this is not an inferred
solution, but a directly requested action.
Page
of
21
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 22
Recommendations
The evidence has some limitations: it comes from Path A (Current PPS Families) only, with no
data on how Path B (Former PPS Families) or Path C (Never Enrolled Families) experienced
communication. Q26 was conditional (asked only to the 1,412 respondents who considered
leaving, not all Path A), and Q12 may be capped at 3 selections per respondent.
The survey cannot determine whether platform consolidation would improve satisfaction.
Supporting Evidence
Q13 — "Knowing exactly where to find important school information online."
๏
697 out of 2,336 respondents rated Poor or Very Poor (29.9%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,336)
Q13 — "Ease of finding important information."
๏
470 out of 2,354 respondents rated Poor or Very Poor (20.0%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,354)
Q12 — Communication Channels Used
๏
Median of 3 channels per respondent (n=2,026)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,026)
Q26 — "Communication failures or information overload."
๏
332 out of 1,412 respondents (23.5%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,412)
Qualitative (Q14, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"It would streamline things to have more of a single source of truth. Right now it feels like a mix
of texts, emails, and various portals."
Page
of
22
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 23
Recommendations
7. Website Navigation Issues
๏
Action: Create unified information architecture for school websites with consistent
navigation.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families
๏
Where it applies: All PPS school websites
Priority Level
Justification:29.9% (697 out of 2,336 respondents) rated "knowing where to find info online"
as Poor or Very Poor — the highest dissatisfaction rate among Q13 dimensions. 20.0% (470
out of 2,354 respondents) rated "ease of finding information" as Poor or Very Poor.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has strong evidence from both survey statistics and written comments.
Multiple families explicitly mentioned the website as a problem area and requested better
organization — this is not an inferred solution, but a directly requested action.
The evidence has some limitations: it comes from Path A (Current PPS Families) only, with no
data on how Path B (Former PPS Families) or Path C (Never Enrolled Families) experienced the
website. Communication concerns ranked 5th of 8 departure considerations in Q26,
suggesting this is not a primary departure driver.
The survey cannot determine whether changes to the website architecture would improve
satisfaction.
Page
of
23
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 24
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q13 — "Knowing exactly where to find important school information online" (Path A,
Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
697 out of 2,336 respondents rated Poor or Very Poor (29.9%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,336)
Q13 — "Ease of finding important information" (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
470 out of 2,354 respondents rated Poor or Very Poor (20.0%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,354)
Qualitative (Q14, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"Having one central website for information that is well organized would be helpful."
Qualitative (Q14, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"The website is very difficult to navigate. During emergency situations we sometimes hear
from our kid well after the incident happens.”
Q14 (Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"I do not know where to go to find important information on the PPS website."
Page
of
24
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 25
Recommendations
8. Communication Guidance for Families
๏
Action: Publish a guide explaining where parents and students can expect
communications of various types, at and before enrollment.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families, particularly newly enrolling
families.
๏
Where it applies: Enrollment process, district-wide.
Priority Level
Justification: 29.9% (697 out of 2,336 respondents) rated finding information as Poor or Very
Poor. However, this recommendation addresses onboarding specifically, which is a subset of
the broader communication concern. Qualitative evidence mentions enrollment confusion,
but quantitative data does not isolate new families.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has limited evidence. The broader communication problem has
statistical support from Path A (Current PPS Families), but the specific idea of a guide for new
families is based on only one quote describing the new enrollment experience as confusing.
The evidence has key limitations: we cannot isolate new family experience from overall Path A
(Current PPS Families) responses, and there is no quantitative measure of enrollment-specific
communication challenges. The specific solution (a guide for new families) was not directly
requested —i t is an analyst-inferred solution based on limited qualitative data.
Page
of
25
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 26
Recommendations
9. Better Educational Setting for Neurodivergent Students
๏
Action: Develop an intermediate educational setting for neurodivergent students who
do not fit general education or life skills classrooms.
๏
Who it affects: Path B (Left PPS) families with neurodivergent children; Path A (Currently
Enrolled in PPS) families with autism spectrum or ADHD children
๏
Where it applies: District-wide program development
Priority Level
Medium
Justification: 51.3% (20 out of 39 respondents) of Path B (Former PPS Families) with special
needs cited special needs better served elsewhere. 78.6% (44 out of 56 respondents) of Path
B (Former PPS Families) report at least one special learning need. However, autism-specific
(n=9) and ADHD-specific (n=16) counts are descriptive only due to n < 30.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has important limitations. The overall special education concern has
adequate sample sizes at the aggregate level, but when we look specifically at
neurodivergent students (autism, ADHD), the sample sizes become too small for statistical
analysis. The specific recommendation comes from qualitative data, quotes that powerfully
describe a gap between general education and life skills classrooms, suggesting a need for
an intermediate setting.
However, we cannot quantify how many neurodivergent families share this experience
because the subgroup sample sizes are too small: autism (9 out of 56 respondents) and
ADHD (16 out of 56 respondents) in Path B (Former PPS Families). These numbers are too
small to calculate reliable percentages or use for prioritization—we can only use them as
descriptive counts.
Page
of
26
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 27
Recommendations
Additional limitations: the Path B (Former PPS Families) total sample is 55-60 respondents; we
cannot isolate neurodivergent concerns from the broader special education category
quantitatively, and Path C (Never Enrolled Families) evidence is limited.
Supporting Evidence
Q9 — "Special needs better served elsewhere" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
21 out of 55 respondents (38.2%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=55)
Cross-tabulation: Q9 "Special needs" BY Q18 status (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
20 out of 39 respondents with special needs (51.3%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=39)
Q18 — Any special learning need (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
44 out of 56 respondents (78.6%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=56)
Q18 — Autism spectrum (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
9 out of 56 respondents (16.1%)
๏
Y < 30: Yes (n=9) — descriptive only, NOT used for prioritization
Q18 — ADHD (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
16 out of 56 respondents (28.6%)
๏
Y < 30: Yes (n=16) — descriptive only, NOT used for prioritization
Qualitative (Q10, Path B (Left PPS)):
"If you had an environment for autistic middle/high schoolers who don't belong in a life skills
classroom but aren't able to succeed in gen ed with just learning support. The large settings
are overwhelming, loud, and the 7 period day is too much executive functioning to manage.
Where are these kids supposed to go?"
Page
of
27
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 28
Recommendations
10.Concerns About Bullying and Restorative Justice
๏
Action: Review and revise restorative justice implementation for bullying responses.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families.
๏
Where it applies: District-wide bullying response protocols.
Priority Level
Justification: 36.0% (802 out of 2,227 respondents) rated Low confidence in bullying
response, while 28.8% (641 out of 2,227 respondents) rated High confidence. Bullying
response is the lowest confidence dimension on Q24.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has limited evidence. The statistical data show that bullying response
is the lowest-rated safety dimension, but "restorative justice" as a specific topic is mentioned
in only one quote that explicitly names it. A second quote describes similar frustrations
without using the term.
The evidence has key limitations: it comes from Path A (Current PPS Families) only, and
restorative justice is mentioned qualitatively but not measured quantitatively. Only 3.4% (66
out of 1,939 respondents) of Q28 responses explicitly mention bullying at all.
The survey cannot determine whether revising restorative justice practices would improve
confidence in bullying response.
Page
of
28
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 29
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q24 — "Respond appropriately to bullying" (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
641 out of 2,227 respondents rated High Confidence (28.8%)
๏
802 out of 2,227 respondents rated Low Confidence (36.0%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,227)
Qualitative (Q28, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"Addressing increasing bullying and failure of restorative justice program."
Qualitative (Q28, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"If they actually had discipline for the bullies instead they do nothing but talk to them and the
children still get bullied."
Page
of
29
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 30
Recommendations
Recommendations 11 and 12 both reflect concerns about bullying in particular.
11.Faster/More Thorough Feedback to Families Regarding
Incidents
๏
Action: Provide feedback to families who report bullying incidents regarding actions
taken.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families.
๏
Where it applies: All schools, bullying incident response protocols.
Priority Level
Justification: 36.0% (802 out of 2,227 respondents) rated Low confidence in bullying
response. 33.9% (479 out of 1,412 respondents) of Path A (Current PPS Families) who
considered leaving cited safety concerns.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has good evidence. The statistical data show bullying response is a
significant concern, and two families explicitly asked for transparency and feedback about
how bullying incidents are handled — this is not an inferred solution, but a directly requested
action.
The evidence has some limitations: it comes only from Path A (Current PPS Families), and we
cannot quantify how many bullying incidents lack follow-up communication.
The survey cannot determine whether providing feedback would improve confidence in
bullying response.
Page
of
30
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 31
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q24 — "Respond appropriately to bullying" (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
641 out of 2,227 respondents rated High Confidence (28.8%)
๏
802 out of 2,227 respondents rated Low Confidence (36.0%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,227)
Q26 — "Concerns about school safety" (Path A, conditional)
๏
479 out of 1,412 respondents (33.9%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,412)
Qualitative (Q28, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"More clarity when incidents related to bullying occur. It is insane that my child could be
punched in the face at school, and I can't have an open dialogue with school representatives
due to policies that protect aggressors and make it hard to recognize patterns."
Qualitative (Q29, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"transparency of how they deal with kids being bullied, or what are steps taken for a kid that
actually is a bully"
Page
of
31
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 32
Recommendations
12.Bullying Intervention
๏
Action: Target bullying intervention resources for Northeast Portland schools in
particular, but also elsewhere.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families in Northeast Portland
๏
Where it applies: Northeast Portland schools
Priority Level
Justification: Northeast Portland shows 39.8% (297 out of 747 respondents) with Low
confidence in bullying response — the highest rate across neighborhoods. Southeast Portland
shows the lowest rate at 31.6% (227 out of 718 respondents). The difference is 8.2
percentage points. All neighborhood samples have n ≥ 30.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has statistical data showing geographic variation, but no
qualitative explanation for why Northeast Portland has different rates. We can see THAT
there's a difference, but not WHY.
The evidence has key limitations: there is no qualitative evidence explaining the Northeast
Portland concentration, and we cannot determine the cause of the geographic variation. We
do not know if the difference reflects actual differences in bullying incidents or in school
response quality. Families did not specifically request geographic targeting — this is an
analyst-inferred solution based on the statistical pattern.
The survey cannot determine whether targeting interventions to Northeast Portland would
improve confidence.
Page
of
32
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 33
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q24 — "Respond appropriately to bullying" — Northeast Portland (Path A, Currently
Enrolled in PPS)
๏
297 out of 747 respondents rated Low Confidence (39.8%)
๏
Mean: 2.77
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=747)
Q24 — "Respond appropriately to bullying" — Southeast Portland (Path A, Currently
Enrolled in PPS)
๏
227 out of 718 respondents rated Low Confidence (31.6%)
๏
Mean: 2.96
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=718)
Q24 — "Respond appropriately to bullying" — North Portland (Path A, Currently Enrolled
in PPS)
๏
91 out of 245 respondents rated Low Confidence (37.1%)
๏
Mean: 2.81
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=245)
Q24 — "Respond appropriately to bullying" — Southwest Portland (Path A, Currently
Enrolled in PPS)
๏
134 out of 374 respondents rated Low Confidence (35.8%)
๏
Mean: 2.87
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=374)
Page
of
33
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 34
Recommendations
13.IEP Compliance Issues and Support
๏
Action: Improve support for students with IEPs. Conduct IEP compliance audit with
structured family feedback mechanism.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) and Path B (Left PPS) families with
children on IEPs
๏
Where it applies: District-wide special education services
Priority Level
Justification: 395 out of 805 Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) respondents with special
needs (49.1%) cited special education inadequacy as a departure consideration — compared
to 90 out of 607 (14.8%) without special needs. The difference is 34.3 percentage points. Both
groups have N ≥ 30.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has strong statistical evidence for special education concerns in
general, with a useful cross-tabulation showing that families with special-needs children are
much more likely to cite inadequacy. Two families explicitly mentioned IEP compliance
failures, and one asked for transparency.
However, IEP compliance specifically is mentioned only in qualitative data — it is not
measured directly in the survey. The statistical data confirm special education is a concern,
but IEP compliance cannot be isolated from other special education issues (like TAG,
classroom support, etc.) in the survey questions. Q26 was conditional (asked only to those
who considered leaving).
The survey cannot determine whether an IEP compliance audit would improve satisfaction or
reduce departures.
Page
of
34
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 35
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q21 — "Support for different learning needs" satisfaction (Path A, Currently Enrolled in
PPS)
๏
422 out of 1,075 respondents rated Satisfied or Very Satisfied (39.3%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,075)
Cross-tabulation: Q26 special ed concern BY Q18 status — with special needs (Path A,
Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
395 out of 805 respondents with special needs cited special ed inadequacy (49.1%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=805)
Cross-tabulation: Q26 special ed concern BY Q18 status — without special needs (Path
A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
90 out of 607 respondents without special needs cited special ed inadequacy (14.8%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=607)
Qualitative (Q10, Path B (Left PPS)):
"Never. You didn't listen when I was there. My son was hospitalized due to poor training and
not following his IEP."
Qualitative (Q28, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"transparency, of how they assist kids with a IEP”
Q10 (Path B - Left PPS):
"If my child could have received a FAPE, I would have kept him. Instead he was educationally
neglected in inappropriate placements during instructional time..."
Page
of
35
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 36
Recommendations
14.Concerns Around Homework - Lack of and Expectations
๏
Action: Implement homework expectations policy with transparency to families.
Increase homework as appropriate to improve learning.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families considering leaving; Path B
(Left PPS) families
๏
Where it applies: District-wide academic policy
Priority Level
Justification: 81.8% (45 out of 55 respondents) of Path B (Former PPS Families) cited
academic quality as a departure reason. 73.9% (1,043 out of 1,412 respondents) of Path A
(Current PPS Families) who considered leaving cited academic quality. Homework is
mentioned qualitatively as a component of academic quality concerns.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has mixed evidence. The broader concern about academic quality
has strong statistical support from both Path A (Current PPS Families) and Path B (Former PPS
Families), but the specific issue of homework is supported only by written quotes. There was
no survey question specifically about homework.
Two families mentioned homework in their written comments. However, since the survey did
not ask a specific question about homework, we cannot know how many other families share
this concern. "Academic quality" includes multiple components, and homework is only one
aspect mentioned qualitatively.
The survey cannot determine whether a homework policy would affect satisfaction or
departure decisions.
Page
of
36
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 37
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q9 — "Concerns about academic quality" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
45 out of 55 respondents (81.8%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=55)
Q26 — "Lack of academic quality" (Path A, conditional)
๏
1,043 out of 1,412 respondents (73.9%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,412)
Qualitative (Q10, Path B (Left PPS)):
"They need homework! Smaller class size."
Qualitative (Q28, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"too much online learning, not enough active engagement with students, and no homework
given..."
Page
of
37
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 38
Recommendations
15.Supervision Staffing During Unstructured Time
๏
Action: Increase supervision staffing during unstructured time (recess, lunch,
transitions).
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) and Path B (Left PPS) families
๏
Where it applies: All schools, supervision protocols
Priority Level
Justification: 45.5% (25 out of 55 respondents) of Path B (Former PPS Families) cited safety
concerns. 36.0% (802 out of 2,227 respondents) of Path A (Current PPS Families) have low
confidence in bullying response. Qualitative evidence mentions supervision at recess.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has strong statistical support for safety and bullying concerns in
general, but the specific issue of supervision during unstructured time (such as recess) is
mentioned in only one quote. The statistical data broadly support safety and bullying
concerns, but the qualitative support for supervision staffing is minimal.
The evidence has key limitations: supervision is not measured quantitatively, and we cannot
isolate concerns about unstructured time from general safety concerns in the survey data.
The survey cannot determine whether increasing supervision staffing would improve safety or
reduce bullying.
Page
of
38
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 39
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q9 — "Safety concerns" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
25 out of 55 respondents (45.5%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=55)
Q24 — "Respond appropriately to bullying" (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
802 out of 2,227 respondents rated Low Confidence (36.0%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,227)
Q26 — "Concerns about school safety" (Path A, conditional)
๏
479 out of 1,412 respondents (33.9%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,412)
Qualitative (Q10, Path B (Left PPS)):
"subjected to social bullying due to lack of supervision and structure at recess."
Page
of
39
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 40
Recommendations
16.Capitalizing on Inherent Diversity
๏
Action: PPS is viewed positively as supporting diversity. Maintain current diversity levels
and practices that contribute to diversity satisfaction.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families
๏
Where it applies: District-wide enrollment and assignment practices
Priority Level
Justification: 61.1% (662 out of 1,084 respondents) of Path A (Current PPS Families) rated
satisfaction with diversity as Satisfied or Very Satisfied — the 2nd highest satisfaction
dimension. Only 8.5% (120 out of 1,412 respondents) cite lack of diversity as a departure
consideration, ranking 7th of 8. Diversity is a strength for Path A (Current PPS Families), not a
departure driver.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation is supported by strong statistical and qualitative evidence, but the
data suggest that diversity is a positive attribute of PPS rather than a problem to solve.
Families describe diversity as something they value about PPS — this is a "keep doing what
you're doing" recommendation, not a problem to fix.
Important context: 33.2% (774 out of 2,333 respondents) of Path A (Current PPS Families)
selected diversity as a school choice factor — meaning about one-third value it, while two-
thirds did not select it. Path B (Former PPS Families) shows only 15.0% (9 out of 60
respondents) cited diversity as a factor.
The survey cannot determine what specific practices contribute to diversity satisfaction.
Page
of
40
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 41
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q15 — "Diversity of student population and staff" (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
774 out of 2,333 respondents (33.2%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,333)
Q21 — "Diversity of student population and staff" satisfaction (Path A, Currently
Enrolled in PPS)
๏
662 out of 1,084 respondents rated Satisfied or Very Satisfied (61.1%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,084)
Q26 — "Lack of diversity of student population and staff" (Path A, conditional)
๏
120 out of 1,412 respondents (8.5%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,412)
Q15 — "Diversity" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
9 out of 60 respondents (15.0%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=60)
Qualitative (Q27, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"Inclusiveness and appreciation of diversity"
Page
of
41
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 42
Recommendations
17.Publication of Information About Transfers and Approvals
๏
Action: Publish transfer request criteria, approval rates, and waitlist position
information.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families seeking transfers; Path B (Left
PPS) families who experienced transfer barriers
๏
Where it applies: District enrollment office and school websites
Priority Level
Justification: Enrollment barriers rank 8th of 8 (last) among departure considerations at 7.7%
(109 out of 1,412 respondents). However, 63.3% (38 out of 60 respondents) of Path B (Former
PPS Families) cited responsiveness as a school choice factor — 5.8x the Path A (Current PPS
Families) rate of 11.0% (257 out of 2,333 respondents). Enrollment barriers are a concern for
families who leave, but not a primary driver of departure consideration.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has statistical support for responsiveness concerns and qualitative
descriptions of transfer barriers, but the evidence is mixed in strength. Two families described
specific transfer or enrollment barriers they experienced — this is directly evidenced, not
inferred.
However, the statistical evidence shows enrollment barriers rank last (7.7%) among departure
considerations, suggesting this may not be a widespread concern. Path B (Former PPS
Families) rated responsiveness as a factor at 63.3%, much higher than Path A (Current PPS
Families) at 11.0% — suggesting responsiveness matters more to families who leave, but Q15
"responsiveness" is broader than enrollment-specific accessibility.
Page
of
42
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 43
Recommendations
Additional limitations: Path C (Never Enrolled Families) has n=23, which is below the n ≥ 30
threshold, and Q9 (Path B departure reasons) does not include an enrollment accessibility
option, creating a measurement gap.
Supporting Evidence
Q15 — "School responsiveness and communication" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
38 out of 60 respondents (63.3%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=60)
Q15 — "School responsiveness and communication" (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
257 out of 2,333 respondents (11.0%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,333)
Q26 — "Inability to enroll or get information when needed" (Path A, conditional)
๏
109 out of 1,412 respondents (7.7%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,412)
Q15 — "School responsiveness and communication" (Path C - Never Enrolled)
๏
11 out of 23 respondents (47.8%)
๏
Y < 30: Yes (n=23) — descriptive only, NOT used for prioritization
Qualitative (Q10, Path B (Left PPS)):
"I needed to leave my unsafe neighborhood. PPS made it impossible to transfer to another
language immersion school- I tried."
Qualitative (Q29, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"Both my middle and elementary school children live within 1 mile of a pps school but were
not allowed to enroll there even after multiple hardship..."
Page
of
43
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 44
Recommendations
18.Concerns About School boundaries, Frequency of
Changes and Public Involvement in Decisions
๏
Action: Review boundary policies for geographic coherence and proximity. Try to
minimize disruption as much as possible.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families affected by boundary
assignments; Path B (Left PPS) families who cited neighborhood concerns
๏
Where it applies: District boundary policy
Priority Level
Justification: 75.1% (1,751 out of 2,333 respondents) of Path A (Current PPS Families) cite
neighborhood as a school choice factor — the highest-ranked factor. However, only 23.3% (14
out of 60 respondents) of Path B (Former PPS Families) cite the neighborhood. The
neighborhood is valued by current families, but is not a primary departure driver.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation includes statistical data showing that neighborhood matters to
current families, but the boundary policy is mentioned only once in a quote. The statistical
data show that 75.1% of Path A (Current PPS Families) selected neighborhood as a choice
factor, whereas only 23.3% of Path B (Former PPS Families) selected it, suggesting that
families value proximity but may leave for other reasons.
The evidence has key limitations: boundary policy is not measured directly in the survey, and
Q15 "neighborhood" is broader than boundary policy. We cannot quantify how many families
are affected by boundary assignments or how many have concerns about boundary changes
specifically.
Page
of
44
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 45
Recommendations
The survey cannot determine whether boundary policy changes would affect satisfaction or
departure decisions.
Supporting Evidence
Q15 — "School responsiveness and communication" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
38 out of 60 respondents (63.3%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=60)
Q15 — "Neighborhood where school is located" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
14 out of 60 respondents (23.3%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=60)
Q15 — "Neighborhood where school is located" (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
1,751 out of 2,333 respondents (75.1%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,333)
Qualitative (Q29, Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS)):
"Redrawing the school boundaries to make geographic sense would be a start and a huge
positive change for families. Children should be able to attend the school that is closest in
proximity to their home."
Page
of
45
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 46
Recommendations
19.Publicly-Available Capacity for Special Needs
Education Support
๏
Action: Publish school-level special education capacity and service availability
information for students on either side of the standard deviation.
๏
Who it affects: Path A (Currently Enrolled in PPS) families with children who have
special learning needs
๏
Where it applies: Enrollment information, school profiles
Priority Level
Justification: 12.4% (290 out of 2,333 respondents) of Path A (Current PPS Families) cite
special education access as a school choice factor, ranking 9th of 10. Path B (Former PPS
Families) shows 28.3% (17 out of 60 respondents) — 2.3x the Path A rate. Special education
access ranks low as a school choice factor but is elevated among families who leave.
Confidence Level and Reasoning
This recommendation has a significant evidence gap. While the statistical data show that
special education access is a consideration for some families, particularly those who leave, no
one in the survey asked for the specific action proposed. The proposed action (publishing
special education capacity information) is not mentioned in any quantitative question or
qualitative response. The analyst (Symbol team) inferred this recommendation as a potential
solution, but families did not request it.
The evidence has key limitations: capacity publication is not mentioned qualitatively, and we
cannot determine if information availability would affect school choice. Q15 special
education access ranks 9th of 10 for Path A (Current PPS Families), suggesting this is not a
primary concern for most current families.
Page
of
46
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 47
Recommendations
Supporting Evidence
Q18 — Any special learning need (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
1,253 out of 2,326 respondents (53.9%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,326)
Q15 — "Access to special education or learning support services" (Path A, Currently
Enrolled in PPS)
๏
290 out of 2,333 respondents (12.4%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=2,333)
Q15 — "Access to special education" (Path B - Left PPS)
๏
17 out of 60 respondents (28.3%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=60)
Cross-tabulation: Q15 special ed BY Q18 status (Path A, Currently Enrolled in PPS)
๏
231 out of 1,239 respondents with special needs selected the special ed factor (18.6%)
๏
Y ≥ 30: Yes (n=1,239)
Page
of
47
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 48
Recommendations
SUMMARY TABLE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ABOVE
Heavier outlines around multiple rows in the table below show groupings of similar themes.
#
Recommendation
Priority
Confidence
1
TAG program restructuring
High
High
2
Honors/advanced at middle school
High
High
3
Access Academy expansion
Medium
Moderate
4
Classroom aide staffing
High
High
5
Behavioral consequence framework
High
High
6
Single primary communication platform
Medium
High
7
Unified website architecture
Medium
High
8
Communication channel guide
Low
Moderate
9
Intermediate neurodivergent setting
Medium
Moderate
10
Restorative justice review
Medium
Moderate
11
Bullying incident feedback
Medium
Moderate
12
Northeast Portland bullying targeting
Medium
Moderate
13
IEP compliance audit
Medium
Moderate
14
Homework expectations policy
Medium
Moderate
15
Supervision staffing increase
Medium
Moderate
16
Diversity maintenance
Low
High
17
Transfer criteria transparency
Low
Moderate
18
Boundary policy review
Low
Moderate
19
Special ed capacity publication
Low
Moderate
Page
of
48
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 49
Appendix A
Conclusion and Next Steps
What the Data Shows
This research—spanning both qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey of over 2,500
families—reveals consistent patterns in what PPS families experience and value.
Families who stay cite diversity, committed teachers, and a philosophical belief in public
education as reasons for remaining. Families who leave most commonly report concerns
about academic quality, special learning needs support, and safety. These patterns held
across both research phases.
No single issue emerged as deterministic. Instead, families appear to reach departure
decisions when multiple concerns accumulate—particularly when those concerns involve their
child's specific learning needs going unmet.
What Can Be Addressed
Several concerns identified in this research are within the district's influence:
๏
Communication fragmentation was the most prevalent concern among current
families (93% in qualitative interviews; 30% rating information findability as Poor or Very
Poor in the survey). Families explicitly requested a single, consolidated communication
platform.
๏
Special learning needs support affects over half of responding families, with
satisfaction rates among the lowest measured. This concern spans both gifted/talented
and special education populations.
๏
Safety and behavioral expectations showed elevated concern among families who
left (45.5%) compared to current families' school choice factors (13.1%). Multiple
families requested clearer discipline policies.
Page
of
49
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 50
Appendix A
What Remains Uncertain
The survey describes what families reported—it cannot establish causation or predict whether
addressing specific concerns would change enrollment decisions. The findings represent a
self-selected sample and cannot be generalized to all PPS families. Path B (families who left)
and Path C (never enrolled) sample sizes, while meeting minimum thresholds, limit the
precision of findings for those groups.
A Path Forward
The consistency between the qualitative and quantitative findings suggests these concerns
are not isolated complaints but reflect broader patterns in family experience. The
recommendations in this report are grounded in that evidence, prioritized by the strength of
supporting data, and distinguished by whether families directly requested the action or
analysts inferred it as a potential solution.
Addressing the highest-priority concerns—academic quality perception, special learning
needs support, safety and behavioral expectations, and communication systems—would
respond to the issues most frequently cited by families across both research phases.
The survey cannot determine whether any specific action would prevent departures or
increase enrollment. What it can do is identify where family concerns are concentrated and
provide a foundation for informed decision-making.
Page
of
50
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 51
Appendix A
Appendices
Page
of
51
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 52
Appendix A
Appendix A:
Qualitative Research Phase Summary
Overview
Prior to the quantitative survey, Symbol Design conducted qualitative research on behalf of
Portland Public Schools to investigate factors contributing to enrollment trends. This
appendix summarizes that research.
Methodology
Recruitment limitation: Privacy rules prevented PPS from sharing contact information for
departed families, limiting the "left PPS" sample to n=3.
Key Finding
No single deterministic issue was identified. No single issue would appear to drive
families to unenroll, particularly not issues within the administration's direct control. However,
Element
Detail
Data Collection
August - September 2025
Method
Guided interviews, typically 1+ hour, mostly conducted online
Total Interviews
23 conducted; 21 analyzed (2 excluded as outliers)
Sample
14 current/former PPS parents, 3 who left PPS, 4 who never enrolled
Theme Threshold
Issues mentioned by 40%+ of participants
Research Firm
Symbol LLC
Page
of
52
69
### Table(s) detected on page 52 (PyMuPDF find_tables; verify against the original)
|Element|Detail|
|---|---|
|**Data Collection**|August - September 2025|
|**Method**|Guided interviews, typically 1+ hour, mostly conducted online|
|**Total Interviews**|23 conducted; 21 analyzed (2 excluded as outliers)|
|**Sample**|14 current/former PPS parents, 3 who left PPS, 4 who never enrolled|
|**Theme Threshold**|Issues mentioned by 40%+ of participants|
|**Research Firm**|Symbol LLC|
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 53
Appendix A
combinations of issues would likely be sufficient to drive departure decisions depending on
each family's priorities.
Themes Identified
From Current PPS Parents (n=14)
From Left/Never Enrolled Parents (n=7)
Theme
Prevalen
ce
Communication fragmentation (multiple platforms, information overload)
93%
Diversity as primary reason for choosing PPS
71%
District-wide policy responses to localized issues
63%
Special education support concerns (especially with large class sizes)
~50%
Safety and supervision concerns (including cell phone policy impact)
~50%
Theme
Description
Special education failures
System failed to accommodate special needs; interactions described
as "legalistic"
Post-COVID effects
Reduced socialization; increased awareness of alternatives
Safety and crime
Concerns about exposure to crime
Enrollment accessibility
Unable to reach PPS during critical enrollment windows
Academic rigor
Perceived differences vs. alternatives; unmet specialized program
needs
Page
of
53
69
### Table(s) detected on page 53 (PyMuPDF find_tables; verify against the original)
|From Current PPS Parents (n=14)|Col2|
|---|---|
|**Theme**|**Prevalen**
**ce**|
|**Communication fragmentation (multiple platforms, information overload)**|93%|
|**Diversity as primary reason for choosing PPS**|71%|
|**District-wide policy responses to localized issues**|63%|
|**Special education support concerns (especially with large class sizes)**|~50%|
|**Safety and supervision concerns (including cell phone policy impact)**|~50%|
|Theme|Description|
|---|---|
|**Special education failures**|System failed to accommodate special needs; interactions described
as "legalistic"|
|**Post-COVID effects**|Reduced socialization; increased awareness of alternatives|
|**Safety and crime**|Concerns about exposure to crime|
|**Enrollment accessibility**|Unable to reach PPS during critical enrollment windows|
|**Academic rigor**|Perceived differences vs. alternatives; unmet specialized program
needs|
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 54
Appendix A
Notable Context
Despite research focusing on negative experiences, virtually all parents volunteered sincere
respect for PPS teachers and staff. Many expressed philosophical support for public
education and valued the exposure to diversity that PPS provides.
Departure pattern: Families who left typically experienced an accumulation of failures rather
than a single incident (except for safety events, which could trigger immediate withdrawal).
Special education needs created the highest departure risk.
Potential return factors: Improved special education services, better enrollment
accessibility, clear communication about school capabilities, and evidence of academic rigor.
Limitations
๏
Small sample sizes, particularly for left PPS (n=3) and never enrolled (n=4)
๏
Self-selection bias (engaged parents are more likely to participate)
๏
Unable to recruit departed families directly due to privacy rules
Relationship to Quantitative Survey
The 10 themes from this qualitative research informed the Phase 2 survey design. The
quantitative survey (n=2,524) tested the prevalence of these themes across the broader PPS
parent population.
Page
of
54
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 55
Appendix B
Appendix B:
Survey Analysis Methods and Process
Overview
The quantitative phase of this research was designed to validate and quantify themes that
emerged from earlier qualitative interviews with PPS families. Rather than testing causes or
making predictions, the goal was to describe patterns in family experiences, perceptions, and
decisions and assess how consistently those patterns appeared across a larger group of
respondents.
Throughout the process, the analysis followed three guiding principles:
1. Respect lived experience by grounding the survey in prior qualitative work
2. Maintain transparency and accuracy through careful data handling and verification
3. Avoid over-interpretation by clearly stating limitations and using descriptive methods
only
What follows is a step-by-step explanation of how the survey data was prepared, analyzed,
and reported.
Step-by-Step Analysis Process
Step 1: Define Research Objectives
We began by clearly defining the purpose of the analysis: to understand family experiences
and enrollment decisions in Portland Public Schools, and to assess whether themes identified
in earlier interviews were broadly reflected in survey responses. From the outset, the scope
was intentionally descriptive, meaning the analysis describes what families reported without
attempting to explain causes or predict outcomes.
Page
of
55
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 56
Appendix B
Step 2: Establish Respondent Paths
Survey respondents were grouped into three distinct categories based on their relationship
to PPS:
๏
families currently enrolled in PPS
๏
families who had left PPS
๏
families who never enrolled in PPS
These groups were analyzed separately to ensure that differences in experience were not
blurred or misrepresented. All comparisons respected these boundaries.
Step 3: Finalize Qualitative Themes
Before analyzing survey results, themes identified during the qualitative phase were finalized
and locked. This prevented the survey analysis from reshaping or redefining themes after
seeing the data, and ensured the quantitative work functioned as a validation exercise rather
than an exploratory one.
Step 4: Design Survey Instrument
Survey questions were deliberately designed to align with the finalized qualitative themes.
Both closed-ended questions (for consistent measurement) and open-ended questions (for
nuance and context) were included. When comparisons across respondent paths were
needed, question wording and response options were kept consistent.
Step 5: Field the Survey
The survey was open from October 30 to December 5, 2025. Distribution primarily occurred
through PPS communication channels, with additional outreach through word of mouth,
LinkedIn, and community partners to reach families who never considered PPS. Participation
was voluntary.
Page
of
56
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 57
Appendix B
Step 6: Ingest and De-identify Data
Once the survey closed, responses were imported into the analysis environment. All
personally identifiable information was removed before any analysis occurred, ensuring
privacy and confidentiality. All subsequent work used fully de-identified data.
Step 7: Remove Invalid Responses
Responses identified as spam, duplicates, or otherwise invalid were removed. No valid
responses were edited, reweighted, or excluded beyond these criteria.
Step 8: Normalize Data Structure
To support accurate analysis, the data was restructured into a standardized format. For
example, matrix-style questions were expanded so each response could be analyzed clearly.
Importantly, response values themselves were never altered during this process.
Step 9: Verify Participant-Level Accuracy
The normalized data was checked in batches against the original de-identified dataset to
confirm that every response matched exactly. Any discrepancies were resolved by correcting
structure, not content. This ensured that what was analyzed precisely reflected what
respondents submitted.
Step 10: Question-by-Question Descriptive Analysis
Each survey question was analyzed independently to understand response patterns,
variation, and missing data. This step ensured that every question was well understood on its
own before looking for broader patterns.
Step 11: Cross-Path Comparisons
For questions asked across multiple respondent paths, responses were compared
descriptively between current, former, and never-PPS families. Comparisons were only
interpreted when sample sizes were sufficient to support meaningful contrast.
Page
of
57
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 58
Appendix B
Step 12: Demographic-Within-Path Analysis
Within each respondent path, responses were examined by neighborhood, household
income, and race or ethnicity. Demographic comparisons were not conducted across paths,
avoiding misleading conclusions driven by structural differences between groups.
Step 13: Qualitative Theme Validation
Each qualitative theme was evaluated independently by mapping it to relevant survey
questions and reviewing both quantitative results and verbatim open-ended responses.
Themes were classified based on the level of support observed, without combining or
redefining themes.
Step 14: Synthesis
Findings across questions and themes were reviewed together to assess where qualitative
and quantitative evidence aligned, diverged, or revealed gaps. This step integrated insights
but did not introduce new themes or interpretations.
Step 15: Evidence Prioritization and Packaging
Validated findings were assembled and reviewed with strict safeguards. Findings were
classified based on sample size sufficiency and analytical confidence, with clear rules
governing when percentages could be emphasized and when results should be treated as
directional or contextual only.
Step 16: Governance Lock
A formal governance step locked the approved set of findings and documented limitations.
From this point forward, no findings were added, removed, or reinterpreted. All reporting was
required to reference this locked evidence base.
Step 17: Executive Q&A Preparation
Locked findings were translated into executive Q&A materials designed to support informed
discussion. Each response included context about sample size and limitations, and no new
interpretations or recommendations were introduced.
Page
of
58
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 59
Appendix B
Step 18: FAQ Development
The FAQs were developed using only locked findings and neutral, descriptive language.
Questions that could not be answered reliably with the available data were explicitly
deferred.
Step 19: Executive Memo and Reporting Materials
Finally, a one-page executive memo and presentation materials were created to summarize
the findings and methods. All materials adhered to the same governance, statistical, and
language safeguards established earlier in the process.
Why This Approach Matters
This step-by-step process was designed to balance rigor, transparency, and accessibility.
By separating data preparation, analysis, validation, and reporting into clearly defined stages,
and by locking findings before executive or public communication, the approach minimizes
the risk of misinterpretation while ensuring that family voices are represented accurately and
responsibly.
The result is a quantitative analysis that complements the qualitative research, provides clear
descriptive insight, and supports informed decision-making without overstating what the data
can or cannot show
Page
of
59
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 60
Appendix C
Appendix C:
Survey Questions Overview
This appendix summarizes the survey instrument used in the quantitative phase of the
research. It outlines the questions included in the survey and indicates which respondent
groups (paths) each question applies to.
The survey was designed to align directly with themes identified in the qualitative phase (see
Appendix A) and to capture both structured responses and open-ended feedback.
How to Read This Appendix
This appendix provides an overview of the survey questions included in the quantitative
phase of the research and identifies which groups of respondents were asked each
question.
Survey participants were routed into one of three paths based on their relationship to
Portland Public Schools:
๏
Path A: Current PPS families
๏
Path B: Former PPS families
๏
Path C: Families who never enrolled in PPS
Not all questions were asked of every participant. Each question listed in this appendix
indicates the specific respondent path(s) to which it applied. This routing ensured that
families were only asked questions relevant to their experiences and decisions.
Questions are grouped by topic to help readers understand how different aspects of family
experience, school choice, communication, and demographics were measured. Both
structured and open-ended questions were included to capture consistent patterns and
individual perspectives.
This appendix is intended as a reference for understanding the survey instrument itself.
Detailed findings and interpretations based on these questions are presented in the main
body of the report.
Page
of
60
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 61
Appendix C
Survey Questions by Topic and Path
Enrollment Status and School History
1. Do you currently have a child enrolled in Portland Public Schools (PPS)?
Paths: A, B, C
2. Have you ever enrolled a child in PPS?
Paths: A, B, C
3. Where did your child go after leaving PPS?
Paths: B only
4. What was your child(ren)’s grade level when you made the decision to leave PPS?
Paths: B only
School Choice and Enrollment Decisions
5. What were the top three reasons you decided to move out of Portland Public Schools?
Paths: B only
6. Which of these kinds of schools do your children currently attend?
Paths: C only
7. What were the top three reasons you chose not to enroll in PPS?
Paths: C only
8. Please choose the five main factors that ultimately influenced your school choice.
Paths: A, B, C
9. Have you ever considered leaving PPS or choosing an alternative school to PPS?
Paths: A only
10. What are the top five reasons that led you to consider leaving PPS?
Paths: A only
Communication and Information Flow
6. How would you rate the following aspects of school communication when you were
enrolled in PPS?
(Matrix question)
Paths: B only
Page
of
61
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 62
Appendix C
7. How would you rate the following aspects of school communication?
(Matrix question)
Paths: A only
8. In your opinion, how can the communication from the school and the district be better?
(Open-ended)
Paths: A, B
Redistricting Experience
16. Has redistricting affected your school choice?
Paths: A, B, C
17. Was redistricting a factor in leaving or not choosing PPS?
Paths: A, B, C
Special Learning Needs and Support
18. Do any of your children have special learning needs?
Paths: A, B, C
19. How satisfied are/were you with the special education support provided?
(Scale question)
Paths: A, B
20. Please describe how concerns about special education support influenced your school
choice decisions. What could have been done differently?
(Open-ended)
Paths: A, B
School Experience and Satisfaction
21. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your child’s current school?
(Matrix question)
Paths: A only
22. How much do you agree with the following statements?
(Scale question)
Paths: A only
Page
of
62
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 63
Appendix C
23. How confident are you in your school’s ability to handle safety and communication
situations?
(Matrix question)
Paths: A only
Recommendation and Perceptions
23. How likely are you to recommend Portland Public Schools to another friend or family
member?
(Rating scale)
Paths: A, B, C
24. What is it about your child’s current or former PPS school experience that you value most?
(Open-ended)
Paths: A, B
25. What specific changes would most improve your experience with PPS?
(Open-ended)
Paths: A, B
26. What would need to change for you to consider PPS?
(Open-ended)
Paths: C only
27. If you could share one message with PPS leadership about what would make you start or
continue enrollment, what would it be?
(Open-ended)
Paths: A, B, C
Demographic Information
31. What area of Portland do you live in (or lived in when your child attended PPS)?
Paths: A, B, C
32. What is your approximate annual household income?
Paths: A, B, C
33. Which best describes your race or ethnicity?
Paths: A, B, C
Page
of
63
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 64
Appendix C
School Identification
34. Which PPS school has your family had the most recent experience with?
Paths: A, B
35. Is there another school that you’ve had experience with before?
Paths: A, B
36. Please select the other PPS school your family had experience with.
Paths: A, B
Notes on Survey Questions
๏
Not all questions were shown to all respondents.
๏
Routing ensured that participants answered only questions relevant to their experience.
๏
Both structured and open-ended questions were used to balance consistency and
nuance.
๏
All questions were analyzed descriptively and within their appropriate respondent
paths.
Page
of
64
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 65
Appendix D
Appendix D:
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ 1: Survey Purpose and Scope
QUESTION What was this survey trying to find out?
ANSWER The survey gathered feedback from three groups of families: those currently
enrolled in PPS (Path A), those who left PPS (Path B), and those who considered but never
enrolled in PPS (Path C). Questions covered school choice factors, satisfaction with specific
dimensions, departure reasons, and departure considerations. The survey described reported
experiences and perceptions; it was not designed to evaluate specific programs or measure
student outcomes.
FAQ 2: Participation Numbers
QUESTION How many families participated in this survey?
ANSWER In total, 2524 people participated in the survey. 85 responses were removed due to
spam or non-qualification of the answers. The survey received responses from three groups:
Path A (currently enrolled) had valid response counts ranging from 1,075 to 2,356, depending
on the question. Path B (families who left) had 55 to 60 respondents, depending on the
question. Path C (families who never enrolled) had 15 to 23 respondents, depending on the
question. Response counts vary because not all questions were asked to all respondents and
some questions were optional.
CONTEXT NOTE Valid n varies by question due to skip patterns and non-response.
FAQ 3: Representativeness
QUESTION Are these results representative of all PPS families?
ANSWER No. Respondents chose to participate; this was not a random sample. Findings
describe this self-selected sample and cannot be generalized to all PPS families. Families who
chose to respond may differ from those who did not respond.
Page
of
65
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 66
Appendix D
FAQ 4: Departure Reasons — Families Who Left
QUESTION According to this survey, why did families choose to leave PPS?
ANSWER Among Path B respondents (families who left), 45 out of 55 (81.8%) selected
"Concerns about academic quality" as a departure reason. 25 out of 55 (45.5%) selected
"Safety concerns." 21 out of 55 (38.2%) selected "Special needs better served elsewhere."
These are the reasons reported by respondents; the survey cannot determine whether these
factors caused departures with statistical confidence.
CONTEXT NOTE Q9 allowed multiple selections; percentages do not sum to 100%. Path B
n=55 for Q9.
FAQ 5: Concerns Among Current Families
QUESTION What concerns did current PPS families report?
ANSWER Among Path A respondents who indicated they had considered leaving PPS, 1,043
out of 1,412 (73.9%) selected "Lack of academic quality" as a concern. 893 out of 1,412
(63.2%) selected "Concerns about class size and student-to-teacher ratio." 485 out of 1,412
(34.3%) selected "Inadequacy of special education or learning support services." 479 out of
1,412 (33.9%) selected "Concerns about school safety and incident response."
CONTEXT NOTE Q26 was asked only to Path A respondents who indicated they had
considered leaving (n=1,412), not all Path A respondents.
FAQ 6: Safety and Bullying
QUESTION What did the survey find about safety and bullying?
ANSWER Among Path A respondents who answered Q24, 802 out of 2,227 (36.0%) rated
confidence in their school's ability to "Respond appropriately to bullying" as Low (ratings 1-2).
This was compared to 641 out of 2,227 (28.8%) who rated High confidence (ratings 4-5).
Bullying response had lower confidence ratings than the other three safety dimensions
measured (communicating about incidents, keeping students safe during school hours,
handling emergencies).
CONTEXT NOTE Q24 was asked only to Path A respondents. Bullying response confidence
was not measured for Paths B or C.
Page
of
66
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 67
Appendix D
FAQ 7: Communication
QUESTION What did families report about school communication?
ANSWER Among Path A respondents who answered Q13, 697 out of 2,336 (29.9%) rated
"Knowing exactly where to find important school information online" as Poor or Very Poor.
Path A respondents reported using a median of 3 communication channels (Q12, n=2,026).
Among Path A respondents who considered leaving, 332 out of 1,412 (23.5%) cited
"Communication failures or information overload" as a concern.
CONTEXT NOTE Communication experience was measured for Path A only.
FAQ 8: Special Learning Needs Prevalence
QUESTION How many families reported children with special learning needs?
ANSWER Among Path A respondents, 1,253 out of 2,326 (53.9%) reported at least one
special learning need for their child. Among Path B respondents (families who left), 44 out of
56 (78.6%) reported at least one special learning need. "Special learning needs" in this survey
includes gifted/talented identification (28.4% of Path A), IEP, 504 plans, ADHD, autism
spectrum, and learning disabilities.
CONTEXT NOTE The 53.9% prevalence includes gifted/talented; this may differ from typical
definitions of "special education."
FAQ 9: Special Learning Needs Satisfaction
QUESTION Were families satisfied with support for special learning needs?
ANSWER Among Path A respondents who answered Q21, 422 out of 1,075 (39.3%) rated
satisfaction with "Support for different learning needs" as Satisfied or Very Satisfied. Among
Path A respondents with special learning needs who considered leaving, 395 out of 805
(49.1%) cited special education inadequacy as a concern, compared to 90 out of 607 (14.8%)
among those without special learning needs.
CONTEXT NOTE Q21 was administered to a subset of Path A respondents (n=1,075), not all
respondents.
Page
of
67
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 68
Appendix D
FAQ 10: Gifted/Talented (TAG) Program
QUESTION What did the survey find about gifted and talented programs?
ANSWER Among Path B respondents (families who left), 28 out of 56 (50.0%) reported
gifted/talented needs for their child. Among Path B respondents with any special learning
need, 20 out of 39 (51.3%) selected "Special needs better served elsewhere" as a departure
reason. Qualitative responses describe concerns about the TAG program, but the survey
question combined TAG with IEP and 504 categories. TAG-specific concerns cannot be
isolated quantitatively.
CONTEXT NOTE TAG-specific concerns are documented in qualitative responses but cannot
be separated from other special education categories in the statistical data.
FAQ 11: Path B Sample Size
QUESTION Can you trust results from only 55-60 families who left?
ANSWER Path B (families who left) had 55 to 60 respondents depending on the question.
This meets the minimum threshold of 30 for percentage reporting, but findings should be
interpreted with appropriate caution. Subgroups within Path B with fewer than 30
respondents (such as autism spectrum with 9 respondents, ADHD with 16 respondents) are
reported as counts only and excluded from percentage-based analysis.
CONTEXT NOTE The n≥30 threshold is applied consistently; subgroups below this threshold
are flagged as directional only.
FAQ 12: Path C Findings
QUESTION What about families who never enrolled in PPS?
ANSWER Path C (families who considered but never enrolled) had 15 to 23 respondents
depending on the question. This sample size is below the threshold for percentage-based
analysis. Path C data is reported as counts only, described as directional, and excluded from
prioritization.
Page
of
68
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]
## Page 69
Appendix D
FAQ 13: Redistricting Findings
QUESTION What did the survey find about school redistricting or boundary changes?
ANSWER The survey did not include questions specifically about redistricting or school
boundary changes. This topic is outside the scope of the locked findings. One qualitative
response mentioned "redrawing the school boundaries," but redistricting was not measured
quantitatively.
FAQ 14: Causation
QUESTION Does this survey prove that these issues caused families to leave?
ANSWER No. The survey shows what respondents selected or reported as reasons and
concerns. It cannot establish that any specific factor caused families to leave or that
addressing any factor would prevent departures. The data describes associations between
family characteristics and reported experiences; causal relationships were not measured
FAQ 15: What the Survey Does NOT Measure
QUESTION What can this survey NOT tell us?
ANSWER The survey cannot identify specific schools, measure student academic outcomes,
evaluate program effectiveness, establish causal relationships, or generalize findings to all
PPS families. The survey captures reported perceptions and experiences from a self-selected
sample. It does not include administrative data, enrollment records, or performance metrics.
CONTEXT NOTE The survey describes what respondents reported; it does not independently
verify these reports or measure actual school performance.
—End of report—
Page
of
69
69
[Note: this page contains a map, chart or other graphic. Only its text labels are captured above; the map's lines, shading, boundaries and imagery are not captured in text.]