---
title: "Equity Audit Evaluation of PPS SE Enrollment and Program Balancing Initiative - School-by-School Analysis"
source_url: "https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xKJXsjio70jEAndFTHpr1_9FF3dQptlY/view"
linked_from: "https://www.pps.net/about/portland-public-schools-information/rightsize/segc-documents"
retrieved: 2026-10-12
document_type: "PDF (Google Drive)"
page_count: 130
sha256: 331c4e32c26a39f56f2a8860cd7c664c0af8b70805c3dca84cdc7b317f02bdb1
extraction_method: "PyMuPDF 1.28.2 page.get_text(text) in content order; tables via page.find_tables(); no OCR"
pdf_metadata_title: "Equity Audit Evaluation_PPS_SEGC_School-by-School Analysis_June 2026 (w/principal feedback)"
---

# Equity Audit Evaluation of PPS SE Enrollment and Program Balancing Initiative - School-by-School Analysis

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/1xKJXsjio70jEAndFTHpr1_9FF3dQptlY/view.

## Page 1

1 
 
 
Equity Audit Evaluation of Portland Public 
Schools’ (PPS) Southeast Enrollment and 
Program Balancing Initiative 
School-by-School Analysis  
 
June 29, 2026  
 
Prepared by Dr. Terrance L. Green1 and Dr. Havala Hanson 
 
 
 
1 Please send all inquiries to the lead author, Dr. Terrance L. Green at [email address removed]  
 

## Page 2

2 
Gratitude and Acknowledgements 
 
We want to express our heartfelt gratitude to Superintendent Dr. Kimberlee Armstrong, Dr. Jon 
Franco (Senior Chief of Operations), Dr. Renard Adams (Chief Accountability and Equity 
Officer), Deborah Kafoury (Chief of Staff), the Portland Public Schools (PPS) Board of 
Education, and the broader PPS community for entrusting us with the important task of 
conducting the SEGC Equity Audit Evaluation. We are deeply grateful for your leadership, 
openness, and commitment to learning from the experiences of students, families, staff, and 
community members in service of creating a more racially equitable and socially just school 
district.   
 
Additionally, we extend a very special thank you to Margaret Calvert (Assistant Superintendent 
of School Planning and Modernization) whose leadership, coordination, and support made this 
work possible. Margaret helped facilitate key connections, coordinate logistics, and support 
communication across the district which helped the evaluation team to engage with the people, 
processes, and information needed for the study. We are especially appreciative of the way she 
helped move this work forward with both professionalism and care.  
 
We also extend our sincere appreciation to the PPS principals, educators, and staff who 
participated in interviews, focus groups, surveys, and other data-gathering efforts. Your time, 
honesty, and insights strengthened the quality and depth of this evaluation. Finally, we offer 
special thanks to the families who shared their experiences, perspectives, hopes, and concerns 
with us. Your voices are central to this work, and we are deeply grateful for your participation. 
 
Finally, while this study was led by Dr. Terrance L. Green, it was made possible through the 
work of an exceptional team of researchers who brought deep care, skill, and commitment to the 
project. Although members of our broader team are located across the country, we intentionally 
worked with primary data collectors who are based in the Portland metro area. This local 
presence was essential not only for supporting the local economy, but also for bringing 
place-based knowledge and deeper sensitivity to the communities, histories, and school contexts 
that shaped this evaluation. We are grateful to every member of the team whose expertise, 
insight, and care helped make this study possible. 
 
If citing this report, please use the following citation: Green, T. L., & Hanson, H. (2026, June 
29). Equity audit evaluation of Portland Public Schools’ (PPS) Southeast Enrollment and 
Program Balancing [Unpublished report]. 
 
 
 

## Page 3

3 
Detailed Executive Summary of Findings  
Portland Public Schools, hereafter referred to as (PPS), implemented the Enrollment and 
Program Balancing initiative as part of a broader district effort to address enrollment imbalances, 
program access, and related equity concerns across Southeast Portland schools. As part of this 
effort, PPS partnered with and commissioned Dr. Terrance L. Green and his team to conduct an 
equity audit evaluation of the enrollment and program balancing initiative process and its 
implementation. The partnership officially began on January 20, 2026, and the final report was 
submitted on June 10, 2026 and the final school-by-school analysis was submitted on June 29, 
2026. . 
 
Many PPS stakeholders and participants commonly referred to this effort as SEGC, which stands 
for Southeast Guiding Coalition. Since SEGC was frequently used by participants during 
interviews and conversations to describe the broader process, we use SEGC in many places 
throughout this report to reflect participants’ language. Unless we are specifically referring to 
members of the Southeast Guiding Coalition itself, references to SEGC in this report should be 
understood as referring to the broader Enrollment and Program Balancing initiative and its 
related processes. 
 
The purpose of this evaluation is to provide PPS with empirical data to better understand how 
SEGC-related changes were experienced by students,2 families, principals, educators, and staff, 
in schools that experienced boundary changes, program relocations, enrollment shifts, and other 
related transitions. The report also examines patterns in student outcomes in these impacted 
schools before and after SEGC implementation, while recognizing that these outcomes are 
shaped by multiple factors and should not be interpreted as solely caused by SEGC. 
 
Findings from this evaluation are intended to identify areas of equity and inequity across the 
SEGC process, implementation, and outcomes, including how decisions were made, 
communicated, implemented, supported, and experienced over time. Through this report, we aim 
to provide useful, evidence-based, and humanizing data that can inform PPS’s future decisions 
about enrollment balancing, boundary changes, program relocation, school consolidation and 
closures, and other districtwide changes in ways that are more equitable, transparent, and 
responsive to school communities. 
 
Brief Data Sources for This Report (a detailed description of our data sources and methods 
in later in this report)  
2 While students’ experiences are deeply important to understanding the full impact of SEGC, this evaluation did not include 
direct student interviews or focus groups for several reasons. This decision was shaped primarily by the compressed timeline for 
completing the report. The evaluation began several months later than originally anticipated, in part because the district was 
engaged in the Jefferson Rising conversations and related work, as well as ongoing budget concerns. Based on our prior 
experience, securing parent or guardian consent for student participation can require a longer timeline than was available for this 
phase of the evaluation. Similarly, this evaluation did not include new data collection from central office stakeholders. In 
consultation with the district, we understood that many of the central office leaders who led or were most directly involved in 
SEGC were no longer with PPS. Given the scope and timeline of this evaluation, we prioritized understanding how SEGC was 
experienced at the school level by educators, school leaders, families, and community members, as well as examining patterns in 
school-level outcomes before and after implementation. 
 

## Page 4

4 
For this audit, we collected data from all 20 schools that were impacted by SEGC changes. As 
such, we collected data from a variety of sources to address each focus area. Our data collection 
sources for this report includes:  
 
Survey Responses  
●​ 905 respondents to a family and caregiver survey  
●​ 327 respondents to an administrator, teacher, and staff survey  
 
Administrative Data3  
●​ Summary records of 51,983 students enrolled in PPS elementary and middle schools 
from 2020–21 through 2024–25, and for 4,717 school-based personnel from 2020–21 
through 2025–26.   
 
●​ School enrollment data: Five years of school-level enrollment data from 2020–21 
through 2024–25, including school enrollment dates and exit dates. Students who 
transferred into PPS after October 1 of each year were not included in the dataset. High 
schools were not included. For analyses, students were assigned to the school they 
attended for the most days during each school year.  
 
●​ Student demographic and enrollment records: Student-level records, using masked 
student IDs, including grade level, gender, race and ethnicity, special education status, 
multilingual learner status, and home or primary language. 
 
●​ Student attendance data: Student-level attendance records, including number of days 
present and absent. 
 
●​ Student discipline data: Number and type of student-level exclusionary disciplinary 
incidents. 
 
●​ Student achievement data: Student-level Oregon Statewide Assessment System (OSAS) 
math and English language arts (ELA) scaled scores, used to examine academic 
outcomes and patterns over time. 
 
●​ Dual language immersion (DLI) program access and enrollment data: School- and 
student-level data on Dual Language Immersion programs, including which schools 
offered these programs and which students were enrolled in them. 
 
●​ Personnel data: School staff-level data from 2020–21 through 2025–26, including 
position, school assignment, race and ethnicity, years of overall experience, years of 
experience in the district, exit dates, and exit reasons. The dataset included instructional 
and administrative staff (e.g., teachers, educational assistants, principals, assistant 
principals, librarians, instructional specialists, and office administrative assistants).  
 
3 Administrative data refers to information routinely collected and maintained by a school district or public agency for 
operational, compliance, or reporting purposes, such as enrollment, attendance, discipline, staffing, program participation, and 
student outcome records. 
 

## Page 5

5 
●​ School-level free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) eligibility in 2022–23 from the 
National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. 
 
●​ PPS Board Documents related to SEGC Changes and notes prior consulting firms that 
helped the district through the SEGC process.  
 
Focus Groups and Interviews with approximately 100 people  
●​ Approximately 50 focus groups with administrators (i.e., school principals and assistant 
principals), staff, families, and/or SEGC members  
 
●​ 10 interviews with administrators, staff, families, and/or SEGC members  
 
Finally, we developed the anticipated SEGC changes for each school by reviewing district and 
Board documents related to SE Enrollment and Program Balancing Phase 2. Our primary source 
was the SE Enrollment and Program Balancing Phase 2 School by School Impact Analysis 
report, which provided school level details on proposed boundary changes, feeder pattern 
changes, program relocations, projected enrollment, and projected building utilization. We also 
cross checked these summaries against the Implementation Impacts by School, Program, and 
Year document and Board Resolution 6513, SE Enrollment and Program Balancing Phase 2, 
which formally adopted the major boundary changes, program relocations, grade 
reconfigurations, transportation commitments, and implementation supports. To better 
understand the rationale, community concerns, implementation assumptions, and broader system 
design behind the school specific changes, we also reviewed the May 10, 2022 Staff Report on 
Phase 2 SE Enrollment and Program Balancing, the SEGC Phase 2 Final Report, the Community 
Engagement Summary, and the SE Final Proposal Assignment Graphic. We used later enrollment 
and utilization materials only to contextualize current conditions and distinguished those data 
from the original anticipated SEGC changes. 
 
 

## Page 6

6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 1:  
School-by-School Findings of SEGC Changes 
 

## Page 7

7 
Introduction to School-by-School Findings  
This section presents school-by-school findings from the SEGC Equity Audit Evaluation, and to 
do so, we draw on both qualitative, quantitative and survey data. While our prior report 
summarized findings across all schools, this section examines how SEGC-related changes were 
experienced, implemented, and interpreted within individual school communities. This 
school-level analysis is important because SEGC did not land the same across all schools. In 
part, because each school entered the process with different histories, enrollment patterns, 
program identities, leadership conditions, staffing capacity, facility contexts, and relationships 
with families and communities. For that reason, the findings below are intended to show both the 
common themes that emerged within SEGC-impacted schools and the local conditions that 
shaped how each school absorbed, responded to, and made meaning of SEGC-related changes. 
 
Methodological Notes About Our Qualitative School-by-School Analysis  
First, the perspectives shared in the qualitative findings section reflect the experiences and 
viewpoints of the administrators, teachers, staff, and other participants who contributed to this 
study. These perspectives offer important insight into how SEGC-related shifts were experienced 
within particular school communities. However, they should not be interpreted as representing 
every perspective within a given school. Schools are complex communities, and individuals 
within the same school may have experienced these shifts in different ways. Consistent with 
qualitative research principles of thick description,4 5 the findings here are intended to elevate 
patterns and themes that emerged from participant accounts while providing sufficient context 
for readers to understand the conditions under which these perspectives were shared. As such, we 
honor the value of participant voices while also recognizing that additional perspectives may 
further deepen, extend, or nuance our understanding. 
 
Second, our preliminary analysis draws on in-depth qualitative case data collected from 9 of the 
20 schools (45%) impacted by SEGC changes. In this analysis, we treat each school as a 
qualitative profile or case. A case, in qualitative research, is a bounded setting or unit of analysis 
that allows researchers to examine experiences, processes, relationships, and conditions in 
context.6 Here, each school case helps illuminate how SEGC-related changes were understood 
and experienced within a particular school community. 
 
These schools were not intended to serve as a statistically representative sample of all affected 
schools. Rather, they were selected to provide deeper insight into varied school-level 
experiences. Therefore, as noted earlier, our approach is best understood as purposeful sampling 
6 Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). 
SAGE Publications. 
5 Younas, A., Fàbregues, S., Durante, A., Escalante, E. L., Inayat, S., & Ali, P. (2023). Proposing the “MIRACLE” narrative 
framework for providing thick description in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–13. 
4 Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2024). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th ed.). 
SAGE. 
 

## Page 8

8 
of information-rich cases, which is a common qualitative research strategy used to support deep, 
contextualized analysis rather than statistical representativeness.7 8 The purpose of these case 
data is not to claim that the perspectives from these 9 schools represent every experience across 
all 20 schools. Rather, these cases provide rich insight into how SEGC-related shifts were 
experienced, interpreted, and implemented in particular school communities. 
 
In qualitative research, the strength of a sample is often judged by its relevance to the research 
questions, the depth and specificity of the data, and the extent to which it supports meaningful 
interpretation, sometimes referred to as information power.9 Accordingly, the qualitative findings 
that we present in this report should be understood as patterns from information-rich cases, not as 
population-level estimates.  
 
At the same time, these qualitative findings are not interpreted in isolation. Throughout the 
report, we augment the school-level case findings with survey data, administrative data, and 
other available documents when those sources help clarify, contextualize, confirm, complicate, 
or disconfirm patterns that emerged in the qualitative data. In some instances, survey or 
administrative data reinforced what participants described in interviews and focus groups. In 
other instances, those data added nuance or suggested that a participant experience was more 
context-specific than broadly shared. This mixed-methods approach allows us to honor the depth 
of school-level perspectives while also situating those perspectives within broader patterns 
across SEGC-impacted schools. 
 
Since qualitative findings are not intended to generalize in the same way as survey, 
administrative or experimental findings, we attend instead to transferability, which is the extent 
to which readers can understand the conditions, contexts, and meanings surrounding the findings 
and consider how they may relate to other settings.10 For this reason, the findings are presented 
with attention to context, participant perspectives, and recurring themes, while also honoring, 
again, the possibility that additional school-level perspectives may deepen, extend, or nuance the 
analysis. 
 
Third, we include attention to nuances, tensions, and variations to make sure that the qualitative 
findings do not flatten the complexity of participants’ experiences but instead reflect both the 
broader patterns emerging across the data and the important differences, contradictions, and 
10 Stalmeijer, R. E., Brown, M. E. L., & O’Brien, B. C. (2024). How to discuss transferability of qualitative research in health 
professions education. The Clinical Teacher, 21(6), Article e13762. 
9 Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information 
power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. 
8 Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive 
sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. 
7 Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for 
qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health 
and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. 
 

## Page 9

9 
context-specific experiences that help explain how SEGC-related shifts were understood and 
experienced across school communities. 
 
Analytic Note on Lived Experience, Observation, and Perception 
It was important for our team to distinguish between participants’ lived experiences and direct 
observations, on the one hand, and their broader perceptions or generalized interpretations, on 
the other. We aimed to make this distinction because both forms of evidence are important, but 
they do different analytic work. Lived experiences and direct observations help us understand 
what participants personally saw, did, heard, or experienced. For example, teaching in 
classrooms with more than 30 students, navigating student behavioral crises, losing a colleague, 
or supporting families through confusing transitions were treated as direct experiences. 
 
At the same time, participants often used those direct experiences to make sense of broader 
patterns, including their perceptions of the SEGC process, the district’s intentions, 
decision-making fairness, or which students, families, and schools were advantaged or harmed 
over time. These perceptions should not be dismissed, because they help explain how 
participants interpreted the meaning and consequences of what they experienced. 
 
However, differentiating between direct experience and broader interpretation is important 
because it allows us to be clear about the kind of evidence each claim represents. So, in this 
report, when we refer to what participants saw, experienced, or described directly, we treat those 
accounts as evidence of lived experience. When we refer to what participants felt, believed, or 
perceived about intent, cause, fairness, or systemwide impact, we treat those accounts as 
meaningful interpretations grounded in experience, but not as formal causal evidence on their 
own. 
 
This distinction helps preserve the integrity of our analysis. It also allows us to honor 
participants’ voices and the patterns that emerged across their accounts, while also being careful 
not to overstate what the data can establish. In this way, perceptions are not treated as “less real” 
than lived experiences, but rather, they are treated as important evidence of how people made 
sense of district decisions, trust, equity, and harm in the context of SEGC-related change. 
 
Influence of Context on Findings  
We treat participants’ accounts as important and credible evidence of how SEGC-related changes 
were experienced within school communities. Throughout the analysis, we also triangulated 
interview and focus group findings with available survey responses, administrative data, 
enrollment records, staffing records, and other district documents when those sources were 
available. At the same time, the context in which data were collected should be acknowledged. 
During parts of the data collection period, participants were navigating budget reductions, 
staffing cuts, declining enrollment, and rumors or concerns about possible school closures or 
 

## Page 10

10 
consolidation. Given this context, it is possible that some participants emphasized the strengths, 
resilience, or value of their schools in ways that were shaped by a desire to protect their school 
communities. This does not make their accounts less meaningful or trustworthy. Rather, it means 
their responses should be interpreted within a broader climate of uncertainty, where staff and 
families may have felt that how they described their school could matter for future district 
decisions. For this reason, we read participant accounts both as evidence of lived experience and 
as narratives shaped by the high-stakes conditions surrounding the study. 
 
How to Read The School Profile Cases  
Each school case is organized around six guiding questions that align with the audit’s broader 
domains and research questions. For each school, we use these questions to examine how 
SEGC-related changes were experienced, interpreted, and implemented within that specific 
school context: 
1.​ To what extent did the SEGC process affect administrator, educator, and staff morale and 
retention, including among personnel of color where the data allowed us to examine this? 
2.​ To what extent did administrators, educators, and staff feel equipped to support students 
and families during and after SEGC-related changes? 
3.​ How did administrators, educators, and staff experience SEGC-related changes in terms 
of emotional well-being and professional support, including personnel of color where this 
information was available? 
4.​ How did students and families from historically underserved communities experience the 
quality of learning environments after SEGC-related shifts? 
5.​ How did administrators, teachers, and staff describe the quality of learning environments 
after SEGC-related shifts, particularly in relation to middle grades programming and 
supports? 
6.​ How did SEGC-related changes play out at each school, and what factors shaped how the 
school experienced, absorbed, and responded to those changes? 
 
For each case, we first summarize the intended SEGC-related changes for that school, based on 
district documents and available SEGC materials. This provides important context for 
understanding what changes were planned or formally adopted before we discuss how 
participants experienced, interpreted, and responded to those changes at the school level. 
 
 
 

## Page 11

11 
Bridger Creative Science School SEGC Analysis  
 
Anticipated SEGC Changes  
District-related SEGC documents identified four anticipated changes for Bridger: 
●​ a program relocation out of the school  
●​ a program relocation into the school  
●​ a change in instructional model 
●​ attendance boundary changes 
 
At the time of SEGC planning, Bridger was described as a co-located K–5 school with a small 
two-strand Spanish DLI program and a single-strand neighborhood program. The school had 337 
students in 2021–22 and a projected enrollment of 338 students for 2025–26. Under the SEGC 
recommendation, Bridger’s Spanish DLI program would relocate to Lent, while Creative Science 
School would move from Clark to Bridger and become the instructional model for the combined 
Bridger and Creative Science student body. New Bridger neighborhood students were expected 
to be automatically assigned to the Bridger Creative Science program, with the option to request 
transfer to a standard program, and lottery access was expected to be reduced to prioritize 
neighborhood enrollment.Actual enrollment data indicate that the school exceeded projected 
enrollment by over 150 students after the Creative Science School relocated to Bridger. 
 
Figure 1.1 Bridger estimated, annual, and October 1 enrollment, 2020–21 through 2024–25.  
 
 

[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

12 
Note: Enrollment is measured by enrollment in the building, not by program. Adding grades 6–8 with the Creative Science 
program in 2023–24 accounts for some of the enrollment increase. Annual enrollment is based on assignment of students to the 
school they attended for the most days during the school year. October 1 enrollment counts students enrolled in the school on that 
single date.  
 
Bridger Creative Science School (hereafter Bridger) was also expected to experience attendance 
boundary changes. Specifically, kindergartners living between Division Street and Woodward 
Street would enroll at Atkinson, while those living between Woodward Street and Powell 
Boulevard would enroll at Arleta, unless they had older siblings at Bridger or received transfers. 
 
As a result of these changes, Bridger’s building utilization was projected to decline slightly, from 
66.1% to 61.2% if the changes had been in place in 2021–22, and from 66.3% to 62.4% in the 
2025–26 forecast. In short, Bridger was expected to shift from a co-located neighborhood and 
Spanish DLI school into a neighborhood-based Creative Science focus option model, while 
sending Spanish DLI students to Lent and shifting portions of its neighborhood boundary to 
nearby schools.11  
 
Overview  
In this profile case, we share findings from survey data interviews and focus groups conducted 
with Bridger participants to better understand how SEGC-related changes were experienced 
within the school community. Since participants included individuals who were at Bridger 
before, during, and after SEGC implementation, their accounts offer insight into how the school 
changed over time and how those changes were understood by people working inside the 
building. Rather than treating SEGC as the sole cause of later conditions at Bridger, this chapter 
examines how participants connected SEGC-related shifts to broader patterns they experienced 
in morale, professional support, school climate, learning environments, student and family 
experiences, and the school’s capacity to absorb and respond to change. These accounts help 
illuminate how district-level decisions were lived, interpreted, and managed at the school level. 
 
Participants  
We conducted three focus groups and one individual interview with Bridger-based participants, 
which included nine school-based participants in total. Of these participants 6 of 9 (66%) of them 
were at either Bridger or Creative Science school prior to SEGC changes. Collectively, they 
spoke from the perspective of educators and staff who experienced SEGC-related changes in the 
daily life of Bridger, including changes connected to enrollment, programming, staffing, student 
needs, family communication, school culture, and transition support. Additionally, 15 Bridger 
staff responded to the staff survey and there were 87 Bridger respondents to the family and 
caregiver survey. Importantly, where the data did not clearly identify participants’ own racial 
identities or provide explicit information about personnel of color, we do not make claims about 
differential experiences among staff of color. 
11 Portland Public Schools. (n.d.). SE enrollment and program balancing phase 2 school-by-school impact analysis [PDF]. 
 

## Page 13

13 
Findings  
 
Morale and Retention 
Participants described the SEGC-related changes as contributing to low morale, emotional 
exhaustion, and concerns about retention, layered on top of other system-wide stressors such as 
curriculum shifts, behavior challenges, and full time equivalency (FTE) reductions. Several 
teachers shared that during the first merged years, they regularly contemplated leaving the 
profession or taking extended leave, and they spoke of colleagues who had already taken leave 
and might not return. One participant described a year in which the combination of new 
grade-level expectations, class composition, and post-merger dynamics made continuing feel 
unsustainable, noting that they considered formal leave because “another year like that” felt 
untenable. Another participant described a year of teaching following the merger as one in which 
they “wanted to quit, like, every day,” underscoring the depth of strain experienced at the 
classroom level. 
 
Participants also linked morale to declining support and resource cuts over time. One participant 
explained that while the school initially received additional positions and support roles following 
SEGC, within a relatively short period those “gifts” were rolled back, with roughly a dozen or 
more FTE lost over two years. Classroom teachers echoed that they previously had a social 
worker and two counselors, but now saw neighborhood students receiving fewer services even as 
needs remained high. Altogether, these lived experiences fed a perception that staff were being 
asked to absorb major structural changes and higher needs with shrinking support, which, in 
participants’ view, contributed to the erosion of morale and increased the risk of burnout and 
attrition. 
 
The staffing record tracks the arc participants describe. Total staffing at Bridger stood at 46 FTE 
in 2020–21, declined to a low of about 33 FTE in 2022–23, then rose to 49 FTE in 2023–24 as 
the Creative Science team arrived (see Figure 1.1). It settled near 39 FTE in the two years that 
followed. The pattern participants summarize as an initial boost that was later rolled back is 
visible across these swings, and the scale of loss they describe, on the order of a dozen or more 
positions, is consistent with the size of the movements in the record. The leanest year, 2022–23, 
coincided with the conversion itself, when the building had the fewest adults available even as it 
was absorbing the most change. 
 
 
 

## Page 14

14 
Figure 1.2. Staffing at Bridger Creative Science School, 2020–21to 2025–26  
 
 
Note: The sample includes instructional employees, such as administrators, teachers, educational assistants, counselors, and 
specialists in addition to front office staff. Adjusted FTE distributes FTE evenly across positions in cases where employees held 
multiple positions and were assigned 1.0 FTE for every position.   
 
While participants frequently discussed race, equity, and impacts on students and families of 
color, the Bridger conversations did not provide enough explicit, disaggregated information to 
analyze morale or retention specifically for staff of color. For that reason, this synthesis focuses 
on overall morale and retention concerns at Bridger, while noting where participants raised 
broader equity-related themes. 
 
Participants described SEGC-related changes as emotionally and professionally difficult. One 
participant stated: 
 
“This time last year, I didn't think I was going to make it through the year… if I got another year 
like that… I’m looking at mental health leave.” 
 
The personnel record allows a distinction between two strains that participants described. In the 
transition year of 2022–23, staffing turned over sharply. About 73% of that year’s staff did not 
return to Bridger the following year. Part of that turnover was planned, as the Spanish DLI team 
relocated to Lent, but the relocation accounts for only about a third of the churn (nine educators). 
About 40% relocated to other PPS schools and about a quarter left the district.  Separately, of the 
28 Creative Science educators who relocated into the building in the 2022–23 to 2023–24 
 

[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

15 
transition, 24 returned for the 2024–25 school year (about an 86% retention rate). This excludes 
the Creative Science principal who moved to Bridger in 2022–23, and who did not return to 
Bridger the following year. Building-wide retention rates also rose in the years after the 
transition; about 86% of 2024–25 educators continued at Bridger in 2025–26. 
 
Feeling Equipped to Support Students and Families During and After SEGC Changes 
Across the conversations, participants differentiated between their own efforts to support 
students and families and the systems and structures provided to help them do so. At the 
individual level, educators described extensive work to maintain communication, build 
relationships, and provide continuity for families, even as they themselves felt under-informed 
and overextended. For example, some teachers talked about regular newsletters, informal 
meet-and-greets, and early relationship-building so that the first real contact with families did not 
happen only at parent-teacher conferences. These were framed as deliberate choices to buffer 
students and families from the confusion and stress of the transition. 
 
At the same time, participants frequently emphasized that they did not feel systemically 
equipped. Teachers reported that information given to families about SEGC-related changes 
sometimes did not match what staff were told, or that messages arrived at different times or with 
different levels of detail, which made it hard to answer questions or provide consistent guidance. 
One participant characterized their experience of supporting families during and immediately 
after the SEGC transition as “flying blind,” explaining that each fall always brings a new group 
of families, but in this period there was no additional clarity or structure provided despite the 
scale of change. Another participant described the absence of deliberate planning for a smooth 
merger, such as joint community-building, clear protocols, and coordinated messaging, saying 
they did not see “deliberate, intentional” efforts to make the transition run well. 
 
Another participant similarly described walking into the merged context without transition plans 
or clear district guidance, recounting that it felt like the school had simply been handed “two 
buildings” with an expectation to make them function as one without a roadmap. Over time, 
participants perceived that promised supports, like dedicated community agents or mental health 
staff, were removed, which they felt further undermined their ability to respond to student and 
family needs once the immediate transition period had passed. Participants indicated:  
 
“Sometimes it felt disconnected from what parents got versus what staff got… there was just so 
much happening that it was really hard to keep everyone on the same page that first year.” 
 
“I'm just flying blind. I just approach everything the same way I always approach it… it's just 
another new group of families.” 
 
 

## Page 16

16 
Survey respondents often felt the same way. Among the staff who answered the information 
items, few felt well informed: 2 of 11 agreed the changes affecting their school were 
communicated clearly, and 1 of 11 had a reliable source to turn to during implementation. One 
staff member captured the experience this way: 
 
"We lack direction, consensus and clarity. Things are never fully thought out or planned. 
Everything is by the seat of our pants. It's hard to get a handle on things when surprises are 
constant." 
 
Emotional Well-Being and Professional Support 
Participants’ descriptions of their emotional well-being point to high levels of stress, anxiety, and 
emotional wear-and-tear, with SEGC-related changes acting as a significant contributing factor 
alongside other system pressures. Teachers talked about needing daily personal strategies, such 
as meditation, therapy, or medication, simply to sustain the work, even when they also 
emphasized that they cared deeply about students and often loved key aspects of teaching. 
 
Some participants described feeling set up to fail by the combination of expectations and 
conditions. They pointed to large class sizes with many students who had significant academic, 
behavioral, or safety needs; complex new curriculum requirements; and insufficient staffing or 
training to meet those demands. This produced a recurring emotional theme, which was that 
educators’ sense that no matter how hard they worked, it was impossible to fully meet 
expectations, which contributed to feelings of inadequacy and dread about coming to work. 
 
One participant noted that the broader climate of district instability, including leadership turnover 
at the central office and frequent changes at the school-level, intensified the emotional load on 
staff. At times, they described receiving meaningful individual support from a supervisor who 
intervened when community interactions became toxic, but this was contrasted with a larger 
pattern in which staff felt they were often left to absorb community anger and confusion without 
consistent backing. Participants stated:  
 
“I have to meditate every day. Otherwise I would… I mean, I love doing the job. It's just that it's 
so hard that I have to really focus.” 
 
“There’s always more demands… and then not being trained on any of these things, they just 
throw it at you, and then they say, ‘Good luck.’” 
 
The survey data suggests the emotional toll was sharpest during the SEGC implementation 
period and has since eased without fully resolving. None of the staff who responded felt 
emotionally supported through the process (0 of 10) (0%) and none agreed that their workload 
was manageable during the transition (0 of 9). Reflecting on their current working conditions, 6 
 

## Page 17

17 
of the 14 who answered reported that they currently feel emotionally supported. Likewise, 6 of 
14 respondents agreed their current workload is manageable. This locates the sharpest difficulty 
in the process of change while suggesting that strain persists. 
 
Experiences of Students and Families from Historically Underserved Communities 
During our conversations, participants did not clearly identify themselves as staff of color or 
describe distinct emotional or professional-support experiences tied explicitly to their own racial 
identities as employees. Instead, discussions of race and equity focused primarily on students and 
families of color and on structural patterns, such as segregation and transfer patterns, which we 
discuss below. 
 
Participants described SEGC-related changes as having mixed but differential impacts on 
students and families from historically underserved communities. Much of this discussion 
centered on the movement of the dual language immersion program, shifts in Title I status, and 
observed experiences of students of color, especially Black students and Spanish-speaking 
families. 
 
At Bridger, staff recalled an earlier period when the school’s combined dual language immersion 
and neighborhood population created a more visibly diverse, multilingual community, with 
regular cultural celebrations and an explicit emphasis on honoring different cultures. After 
SEGC, when dual language immersion moved to another site, participants experienced the 
Bridger student body as becoming more white and more affluent, while also losing the additional 
staffing and Title I support that had previously accompanied a higher-poverty enrollment. Some 
participants perceived that the dual language immersion community, now housed in a single dual 
language immersion school, gained benefits, such as a more cohesive linguistic environment, 
while Bridger’s remaining neighborhood students lost access to robust support and to the daily 
presence of their dual language immersion peers. 
 
The compositional change of student demographics participants described is visible in the 
enrollment record, and it tracks the program relocation. As the Spanish DLI program relocated to 
Lent, Bridger's white enrollment share rose from 49% in 2022–23 to 66% in 2023–24 and 69% 
in 2024–25, while the Latino/a/x share fell from 32% to roughly 9% over the same period (see 
Figure 1). The share of multilingual learners dropped from 16% to about 5%, and DLI 
enrollment, which had been a majority of the building at 57% in 2022–23, reached zero by 
2023–24 as the program completed its move. In building-occupancy terms, Bridger's share of 
students who identify as Black, Indigenous or persons of color fell from 51% in 2022–23 to 31% 
in 2024–25.  
 
 
 

## Page 18

18 
Figure 1.3. Bridger’s enrollment composition shifted as the Spanish DLI program relocated 
 
Note: Enrollment is based on assignment of students to the school they attended for the most days during the school year. 
 
Participants also described observations about Black students’ trajectories, noting that they often 
saw Black students leave Bridger and move to other schools. One participant speculated that 
differential discipline and how behaviors were interpreted and responded to might be 
contributing factors, based on their direct observations in the building, though they did not have 
formal data to confirm patterns district-wide.  
 
The enrollment record is consistent with participants' observations. The number of Black 
students at Bridger declined from 31 in 2020–21 to 14 in 2024–25, a 55% decline, while white 
student enrollment rose from 216 to 334, a 55% increase. Much of the white increase reflects the 
Creative Science program moving into the building. The decline in Black enrollment, however, 
does not correspond to either the Spanish DLI or Creative Science program relocation, and the 
enrollment data cannot explain its causes. 
 
 
 

[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

19 
Figure 1.4.. Black and White student demographic shifts between 2020-2025 
 
Note: Enrollment is based on assignment of students to the school they attended for the most days during the school year. 
 
At the middle-level, teachers reported that new lottery or transfer students with very high needs 
were being placed at Bridger without the corresponding adult support they felt those students 
would have received at a larger, better-resourced comprehensive middle school. As a result, these 
students were in classes where an individual adult could not realistically provide the level of 
one-on-one support required, which teachers described as a disservice both to those high-needs 
students and to their peers. Participants perceived this as a structural inequity, even though they 
continued to work intensively with the students in their own classrooms. Participants stated:  
 
 “I think that the immersion community may have gained some things at their new school, but the 
students of color and neighborhood students here lost that everyday connection and support.” 
 
“The last transfer students we've had through the lottery are so high needs… they would need a 
one-on-one, but they're not going to get that because that's not what we’ll be budgeted for.” 
 
Perceived Quality of Learning Environments After SEGC Shifts 
Participants’ descriptions of the post-SEGC learning environment emphasize a tension between 
strong classroom-level practice and strained school-level conditions. In K–5, teachers continued 
to describe a commitment to project-based learning, relationship-building, and affirming student 
identities; in middle grades, staff spoke of a historical tradition of integrated, inquiry-driven 
humanities and multi-age learning. Survey respondents had positive perceptions about learning 
 

[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

20 
environments: 11 of the 14 who responded to the items rated student learning environments as 
high quality, and 9 of 14 agreed staff collaboration supports teaching and learning. 
 
However, they also reported that structural and policy changes linked to SEGC and subsequent 
district decisions often undermined these strengths. K–5 participants highlighted the collapse of 
multiple sections into large classes with many students on individualized education plans (IEPs), 
504 plans, or safety plans, and the loss of roles like social workers and extra counselors, which 
they felt reduced the overall quality of support and the sustainability of high-quality instruction. 
They also noted a reduction in school-wide cultural celebrations and explicit multicultural 
programming, interpreting this as a shift away from visible acknowledgment of cultural diversity 
in the daily life of the school. 
Middle-level participants described a marked shift from flexible, integrated curriculum to more 
rigid, scripted programs. They shared that where students had once engaged with longer novels, 
independent reading, and large cross-disciplinary projects, the newer structures emphasized short 
texts and narrower, test-aligned materials. Educators perceived this change as reducing student 
engagement and diminishing the richness of the learning experience, particularly for students 
who had previously thrived in more inquiry-based environments. The attempt to offer a 
“comprehensive middle school” menu of electives and structures within a small K–8, without 
additional FTE or appropriate space, was seen as especially problematic, leading to schedule 
designs that disrupted K–2 programming and created logistical challenges for older students. 
Participants also noted:  
 
“We generally believe in kids and want to make education interactive and fun and more 
project-based…but now there’s these big classes, kids with major needs, and fewer supports.” 
 
“It used to be multi-disciplinary, multi-age…all of that is done now. Everything seems to be 
locked into grade levels and a pretty scripted curriculum.” 
 
The staffing record supports these perceptions. As Bridger programs transitioned, its staffing mix 
changed in ways that match what participants describe. The DLI teaching block left with the 
program, and a social worker position present during the transition did not persist. At the same 
time the building added the elective and specialist roles a K–8 requires, including art, music, 
physical education, and a foreign language teacher appearing from 2022–23 onward, alongside 
growth in counseling and special education staff. Total staffing fell to its lowest point, about 33 
FTE, in the 2022–23 conversion year before rebuilding. In other words, the building was 
assembling a broader grade span and program menu during the same window in which its overall 
staffing was thinnest, which is the structural version of the "comprehensive menu without the 
FTE" experience participants named.  
 
 
 

## Page 21

21 
How SEGC-Related Changes Played Out at Bridger and Factors Shaping the Experience 
Across our Bridger-specific conversations, participants collectively described SEGC as 
reconfiguring Bridger’s identity, enrollment, and internal dynamics, with effects that were then 
amplified by leadership churn (three principals during a three year period), resource cuts, and 
district-level instability. Before SEGC, participants remembered Bridger as a Title I school with 
a mix of neighborhood and dual language immersion students, extensive cultural celebrations, 
and a strong sense of being a close-knit, collaborative community. The SEGC decisions moved 
dual language immersion, shifted Title I status, and brought in a focus-option community used to 
a high degree of autonomy and parent influence, which participants experienced as changing 
both the student body and the power dynamics within the school. 
 
Staff were generally very skeptical that the SEGC changes advanced equity. Among the staff 
who answered these survey questions, very few believed the changes were shared fairly across 
schools, and none believed the changes avoided creating new barriers for underserved students. 
Staff were also not convinced that SEGC made class sizes more equitable or balanced enrollment 
in meaningful ways. In short, staff survey responses suggest that many saw the changes as falling 
short of the equity goals PPS had attached to the process. Participants said:  
 
“Barriers were only created, and I don't even know how to accurately capture that here. 
Everyone is adjusting, but we're all worse for it.” 
 
“We were promised a classroom teacher for 3 years. That promise was broken and we have 
EXTREMELY high needs students and only 2 teachers instead of 3.” 
 
Participants perceived that the merger unfolded without a clear, shared vision or adequate 
planning. They described minimal structured opportunities for joint culture-building, limited 
clarity about how positions and roles would be allocated, and repeated changes in school-level 
leadership during the early years of the transition. Over time, they reported that after an initial 
“boost” in staffing, the school experienced substantial cuts that left larger classes and fewer 
adults to manage increased student needs and more complex programming expectations. One 
survey respondent commented:  
 
“It stressed all the teachers with the unknown and lack of leadership from principals from either 
schools. They made the merger harder than it needed to be and created more divide and lack of 
accountability and communication.” 
 
Participants also situated their experiences of SEGC within a broader context of trauma and 
instability. In addition to the merger, they referenced the COVID-19 period, the loss of a beloved 
colleague, and the deaths of two students as events that deeply affected the community and 
shaped how staff interpreted subsequent changes. These lived experiences fed perceptions that 
 

## Page 22

22 
the system did not adequately recognize or address compounding harms, and that the school was 
often left to manage large-scale change with insufficient guidance and repair. As some 
participants indicated:  
 
“We went from a close and connected community to being torn apart from our colleagues and 
community…and then trying to rebuild with less support.” 
 
“We’re trying to do everything that a comprehensive middle school can do without the FTE or 
resources available. It almost feels like the system is trying to kill mid-level.” 
 
The accounts above suggest that Bridger’s post-SEGC experience cannot be understood as the 
result of a single change or decision. Rather, participants described a layered and cumulative 
process in which program relocation, enrollment shifts, staffing reductions, leadership instability, 
reduced supports, and unresolved community tensions interacted over time. While participants 
continued to describe deep commitment to students, families, and the school’s educational 
vision, they also portrayed a school community that was asked to absorb significant change 
without the level of planning, communication, staffing, and emotional repair needed to make that 
change sustainable. For PPS, Bridger’s experience points to the importance of treating school 
reconfiguration not only as a technical enrollment or facilities matter only, but as an equitable, 
human, relational, and instructional transition that requires sustained support before, during, and 
well after implementation. 
 
 
 

## Page 23

23 
Clark Elementary School  
 
Anticipated Changes  
District-related SEGC documents identified four anticipated changes for Clark Elementary 
School (hereafter Clark):  
●​ a building use change 
●​ a program relocation out of the building 
●​ a new student and program assignment into the building 
●​ the reopening of Clark as a K to 5 elementary school connected to the Harrison Park 
pathway 
 
Prior to SEGC implementation, the Clark building housed Creative Science School, a K–8 focus 
option program with 419 students in 2021–22 and a 2025–26 forecast of 452 students. Under the 
SEGC recommendation, Creative Science would relocate from Clark to Bridger, and the Clark 
building would become the new K–5 location for Harrison Park elementary students, including 
students in the Mandarin DLI program. The expectation was that Clark would serve a newly 
configured K–5 school made up of Harrison Park neighborhood students and Mandarin 
elementary DLI students, with an estimated 349 students if the change had been in place in 
2021–22 and a 202–26 forecast of 372 students. The projected utilization for the new Clark K–5 
was 70.5% if it were in place in 2021–22 and 75.2% in the 2025–26 forecast. 
 
In short, Clark was expected to shift from housing a K–8 focus option program to serving as a 
neighborhood K–5 school connected to Harrison Park. The recommendation was intended to 
keep Harrison Park K–5 students together, maintain the Mandarin DLI program at the 
elementary level, and locate elementary students in a building aligned with their assigned middle 
school pathway. 
 
Overview  
In this profile, we share findings from our data collection with participants at Clark to better 
understand how SEGC-related changes were experienced within this school community. 
Participants included less than five individuals. Their accounts offer insight into how the 
reopening and reconfiguration of Clark as a neighborhood K–5 school was experienced by 
people working inside the building during and after the transition. Rather than treating SEGC as 
the sole cause of later conditions at Clark, we examine how participants connected SEGC-related 
shifts to broader patterns they experienced in morale, professional support, school climate, 
learning environments, student and family experiences, and the school’s capacity to absorb and 
respond to change. These accounts help illuminate how district-level decisions were lived, 
interpreted, and managed at the school level. 
 
 

## Page 24

24 
Figure 2.1 Clark estimated, annual, and October 1 enrollment, 2020–21 through 2024–25.  
 
Note: Enrollment is measured by enrollment in the building, not by program. Losing grades 6–8 with the relocation of the 
Creative Science program in 2023–24 accounts for some of the enrollment decline. Annual enrollment is based on assignment of 
students to the school they attended for the most days during the school year. October 1 enrollment counts students enrolled in the 
school on that single date.  
 
Participants 
We share our findings based on the qualitative and quantitative data that we collect at and about 
Clark. This case draws on 15 staff survey respondents and 9 family and caregiver survey 
respondents from Clark. However, to protect participant anonymity, we do not report the exact 
number of Clark participants because fewer than five individuals contributed input. In small 
school-level samples, reporting exact counts can make it easier to infer who participated or 
connect particular comments to specific individuals, especially when participants hold 
identifiable roles or speak about highly contextualized experiences. For that reason, using “fewer 
than five” serves as a confidentiality threshold and helps protect participants while still allowing 
us to summarize the themes that emerged.  
 
Findings  
 
SEGC’s Impact on Morale and Retention 
Overall, participants described Clark as a highly diverse Title I school serving many students of 
color, multilingual learners, students with disabilities, newcomer and refugee students, and 
students from historically underserved communities. Their accounts also suggested that the 
 

[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

25 
return of a neighborhood K–5 school to the Clark building was viewed positively by many 
families, even as participants identified ongoing concerns related to implementation support, 
staff well-being, schoolwide systems, cultural belonging, and the consistency of learning 
environments across classrooms. 
 
However, participants described the SEGC-related school reconfiguration to a K–5 and 
reopening of Clark as having mixed but significant consequences for morale, with some 
long-term benefits for students and learning conditions alongside persistent stress, frustration, 
and a sense of missed opportunity among adults. 
 
One participant described entering an elementary school environment that felt highly 
dysregulated during the transition period at the prior site, including frequent fights, concerns 
about safety, and limited time for sustained instruction. This context created an intense starting 
point for the transition, where staff were not only implementing a major school change but also 
trying to stabilize daily routines, rebuild trust, and create the conditions for teaching and 
learning. In this participant’s view, district leaders responded primarily by emphasizing 
outcomes, accountability, and perceived shortcomings, rather than fully acknowledging the 
complexity of the conditions staff had inherited and were trying to address. One person asserted: 
 
“I felt like there was a lot of blame on us [as a school], even though we inherited the school and 
we inherited all the problems…Changes like this take time and it doesn’t happen overnight. And I 
felt like we were getting a lot of pressure…to turn the school around overnight.” 
 
Additionally, participants in the focus group characterized overall morale as low, and emphasized 
internal tensions, leadership issues, and a small but “very vocal” group whose influence they saw 
as amplifying negativity. Participants simply described the morale as:  
 
“Overall, I'd say poor.” 
 
“There is a select group that's a small group, but a very vocal group that kind of has tentacles 
reaching out, and it just impacts everyone.” 
 
Participants perceived that retention data might look stable on paper, but that many educators 
would leave if they had feasible options, suggesting a hidden fragility in the workforce at Clark. 
A participant highlighted that:  
 
“When you talk about retention, I could tell you at least, probably close to five teachers who 
would leave tomorrow if they could. But the reality is, there's just been nowhere for them to go 
for the last three years.” 
 
 

## Page 26

26 
“I'm sure our retention actually looks fine…But like, we have at least three teachers…that would 
happily leave.” 
 
Year-to-year retention since the SEGC changes reinforces the “looks fine on paper” point. Of the 
staff present in 2023–24, 80% were still at Clark the following year. Of those present in 
2024–25, 78% remained the year after. Decomposing the departures tracks what the participant 
described from the other side. Across both years, most of those who left did not leave the district. 
In fact, they transferred to other PPS schools, several back to Harrison Park, while only a small 
number, on the order of one to three per year with confirmed termination dates, voluntarily left 
PPS entirely.  
 
Figure 2.2. Clark staff retention since SEGC changes 
 
Note: The sample includes instructional employees, such as administrators, teachers, educational assistants, counselors, and 
specialists in addition to front office staff. 
 
Among Clark survey respondents, 62% (8 of 13) agreed they planned to be at the school the next 
year, well below the 79% who said the same across all PPS staff respondents. Of the remaining 5 
respondents, 4 neither agreed nor disagreed they planned to stay, and 1 strongly disagreed. The 
cluster of noncommittal responses supports the participant's claim: a meaningful share of 
respondents were not affirmatively committed to stay nor actively looking to leave.  
 
The participants did not solely connect this to SEGC changes. In fact, participants also tied 
current district-level budget shortfalls and layoffs, including for central-office colleagues of 
color, to deep anxiety and anger, with ripple effects on morale and trust. One participant stated:  
 
“Many of them colleagues of color were called into a meeting…and basically told… if you don't 
see your name, you don't have a job… It just seems so inhumane… that we would treat our 
people like that.” 
 
These experiences contributed to participants feeling vulnerable about their own roles, worried 
about additional cuts, and emotionally depleted. One participant reported not sleeping well for 
weeks, while another described needing a five-week mental health leave due to stress. Of 14 
 

## Page 27

27 
survey respondents, only three agreed that morale at Clark is high (21%). This reflects what 
focus group participants stated:  
 
“I haven't really slept much in two weeks…it's impacting staff attendance… So yeah, I'd say that 
it's not… the morale isn't great.” 
 
“One person took a several week mental health leave because it's not good… I would say overall 
the staff is not well.” 
 
While participants did not explicitly identify themselves or other speakers by race, they did, from 
their perception, highlight that colleagues of color in central positions were heavily impacted by 
layoffs, raising concerns about equity and the message this sends about whose labor and 
expertise are valued. 
 
Feeling Equipped or Not to Support Students and Families 
Participants consistently indicated that they did not feel adequately equipped or supported to 
serve students and families, especially during the initial SEGC transition and in the immediate 
aftermath of reopening Clark as a K–5 school. 
 
One participant described arriving to a severely under-structured and unsafe elementary 
environment with little prior groundwork laid, despite the scale of change involved, that is 
reconfiguring a school. They reported feeling that the school had to prioritize putting basic 
behavioral and safety systems in place before they could turn meaningfully to academics. 
 
“We walked into… a school that we realized on day one needed to have systems and structures in 
place and as a school we are to take charge of that, but also we needed to create a school culture 
and climate…that was safe.” 
 
Similarly, a family survey respondent with a student starting kindergarten in the building’s first 
year as Clark K–5 wrote: 
 
“It felt like it took these past two years to even begin to start a community…There was a 
leadership vacuum and we needed more support as a school establishing community.”  
 
District support in this phase was described as misaligned and, at times, counterproductive. For 
example, some of the people assigned to the school during the reopening period were described 
as inexperienced and behaviorally challenging in ways that created more work, conflict, and 
stress rather than relief for the school. One person indicated:  
 
 

## Page 28

28 
“They [the district] gave us [some people], but [they were] brand new… it ended up causing 
way more hours and stress… which took away from our school.” 
 
Other supports that might have helped, such as science-of-reading training and coordinated tier-3 
supports, arrived later and were seen as a meaningful but delayed response. 
 
Moreover, participants described feeling almost completely unequipped during the SECG 
transition. One participant summarized their sense of support when asked to what extent did you 
feel equipped to support students and families, the person proclaimed:  
 
‘Not at all, I would say as close to zero.’” 
 
They perceived the district’s implementation of tier-3 supports as focused on curricular tools 
rather than the structural and leadership issues they believed were most critical. 
 
“We’re a tier three school, which means we get a lot of support, but like, they're not the support 
that is helpful. It’s help that’s not helpful… what [we] need you guys to do is help our [school] 
become more cohesive.” 
 
Participants indicated they often did not know who to talk to about these concerns or did not feel 
confident that raising them would lead to action. Participants made comments like:  
 
“Do you feel safe raising these kinds of concerns or ideas? 
 
‘I don't know who to talk to.’” 
 
Survey respondents conveyed that they feel personally capable yet structurally unsupported to do 
their jobs. Eight of 14 respondents agreed they could carry out their responsibilities effectively 
but only 6 felt they had the resources to do so. One staff respondent described their working 
conditions, writing that “the toxic work environment and high staff turnover at this school, as 
well as lack of systems and organization even after three years, have severely impacted my 
ability to serve students and families.” 
 
Emotional Well-Being and Professional Support 
Participants at Clark reported that the emotional toll of the SEGC transition, ongoing school 
demands, and district-level fiscal crises has been substantial. While the current fiscal deficit of 
PPS was not the focus of our conversations, participants consistently brought the topic up.  
 
One participant described feeling deeply unsettled by current budget shortfalls, potential 
furlough days, and large-scale layoffs, particularly among long-serving colleagues, many of 
 

## Page 29

29 
whom were identified as people of color. They perceived the process as abrupt and “inhumane,” 
and reported that they and others were having trouble sleeping, worried both for students and for 
their own futures. As one participant stated:  
 
“I absolutely feel vulnerable…It's just very hard, and I'm sad for all my colleagues that are 
impacted. 
 
Participants linked this distress to a mix of workload, perceptions of inconsistent leadership, 
reactive systems, and lack of clear vision, as well as to the high cost of living and financial 
uncertainty tied to furloughs and cuts. Participants suggested that:  
 
“Staff want a clear vision… because right now, it feels like everything we do… is reactive… it 
kind of feels like we're not even quite treading water.” 
 
“Whenever we do feel like we're making a couple steps forward…we hit a wall where there is 
something that we need that only an administrator can do, that doesn't get done… it's this 
constant battle to just like, stay at the line.” 
 
Moreover, participants acknowledged the presence of district-provided supports, especially in the 
tier-3 framework (which, again, they stated arrived too late), but consistently emphasized that 
these supports felt misaligned with their most pressing emotional and professional needs, which 
centered on leadership capacity, relational trust, and coherent schoolwide systems. 
 
The survey findings suggest a mixed picture. While the Clark survey respondents align with the 
strain described in interviews and focus groups, they also show that staff experiences were not 
uniformly negative. On whether they felt emotionally supported at work, 9 of 14 Clark 
respondents agreed. An open response about what had most affected well-being at work surfaced 
the same leadership and communication theme the focus groups raised, “the change from 
[Harrison Park] to Clark was fine. But the leadership at Clark is non-existent. Emails are not 
replied, questions are not answered, events and changes are not communicated and planned.” We 
interpret this comment not as a comprehensive assessment of any individual leader, but as 
evidence that some staff experienced gaps in communication, follow-through, and planning as 
consequential for their well-being. 
 
It is also important to note that much of the distress participants raised extended beyond the 
SEGC transition itself. Concerns about layoffs of long-serving colleagues, fears of furloughs, 
and the manner in which budget cuts were communicated reflected current working conditions 
that appeared to compound the stress of earlier SEGC-related change. 
 
 

## Page 30

30 
Experiences of SEGC Changes for Students and Families from Historically Underserved 
Communities 
While these conversations did not include direct testimony from students or families, participants 
described Clark as serving a highly diverse, heavily historically underserved population, and they 
reflected on how the SEGC changes shaped the experience of that community. 
 
Participants highlighted that Clark is a Title I school with majority students of color, substantial 
numbers of emergent bilingual students, students with disabilities, and historically underserved 
students. Participants noted that the surrounding neighborhood community area includes both 
relatively affordable single-family housing and multiple Section 8 housing complexes, and that 
the school serves many newcomer and refugee families from around the world. One participant 
shared that:  
 
“We are one of the most diverse elementary schools… The majority of our students are students 
of color… about 44% English language learners…52% historically underserved…we have a lot 
of students that are newcomers, refugees from all over the world.” 
 
Enrollment records track how sharply the building’s population changed when it reopened as a 
neighborhood K–5 with a Mandarin DLI program. Through 2022–23, under Creative Science, 
the building enrolled about a third of students of color (32–33%) and few multilingual learners 
(4–5%). When the Harrison Park K–5 students arrived in 2023–24, those figures moved to 78% 
students of color and 39% multilingual learners, holding at 78% and 41% the following year. 
 
Figure 2.3 Changes in student composition at Clark, 2020–21 to 2024–25 
 
 

[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

31 
Note: Enrollment is based on assignment of students to the school they attended for the most days during 
the school year. 
 
Participants reported that families in this community were largely pleased with the SEGC-driven 
shift that brought a neighborhood K–5 school back to the Clark building and separated 
elementary students from middle schoolers. According to one participant:  
 
“In our particular community, families were very excited and happy to have the elementary 
school back in the neighborhood… They were also very excited to have the middle schoolers be 
separated from the elementary school students.” 
 
Participants observed that younger students had previously been exposed to older students’ 
language and behaviors, which they perceived as developmentally inappropriate and harmful. 
They saw the reconfiguration into a separate K–5 as reducing that exposure and creating more 
age-appropriate environments. 
 
At the same time, participants pointed to missed opportunities to advance racial equity and 
belonging for this diverse community. A particularly salient example was the decision to 
maintain the existing school name, despite concerns about its historical association and its 
mismatch with the student population. One participant shared that:  
 
“We put a largely Black population to a school named after a slave owner. We didn't change the 
name, even though it was brought up multiple times…Why not use that opportunity to rebrand 
the school and make it something more appropriate for the demographic that it serves?” 
 
They also described limited and fragmented cultural programming, such as relying on a 
multicultural event at another campus and having a single annual event on site, rather than 
building a cohesive, multi-faceted approach to honoring and engaging all communities. 
Participants perceived this as contributing to ongoing gaps in mutual understanding and episodes 
of discrimination among student groups. As one participant noted:  
 
“There just seems to be kind of a lack of cohesion amongst the subgroups…I think a lot of our 
students of color . . . there's not a lot of understanding of different cultures… which causes some 
opportunities for discrimination towards each other based on a lack of understanding.” 
 
Participants also raised concerns about students receiving special education services and 
newcomer student experiences, noting that some specialized programs, such as a new 
Communication and Behavior Classroom, were not well understood by staff or students, 
potentially increasing stigma and misunderstanding. Finally, a participant described high rates of 
chronic absenteeism and limited external accountability for what they described as educational 
neglect, which they saw as particularly harmful to students in historically underserved 
 

## Page 32

32 
communities and at odds with district rhetoric about equity and opportunity. According to one 
participant:  
 
“We were at 40% last year, on average… for chronic absenteeism… it’s hard to educate kids 
when they're not here, and I can't hold anybody accountable…it’s like, the one thing that can set 
them up, if they can read, they can do anything, but they don't come to school.” 
 
The chronic-absenteeism the participant flagged bears out in district attendance records. 
Building-level chronic absenteeism stood near 43–44% in the years after the SEGC transition. 
 
In sum, these accounts should not be read as evidence that SEGC-related changes directly caused 
all of the experiences at Clark, nor should they be read as an assessment of any single school 
leader. Instead, they reflect how school-based employees understood the conditions students and 
families were navigating in a school community that had been affected by SEGC-related 
reconfiguration. Importantly, participants described both perceived benefits, such as the return of 
a neighborhood K–5 school and a more age-appropriate elementary environment, as well as 
ongoing concerns related to cultural belonging, chronic absenteeism, newcomer students, 
students receiving special education services, and uneven learning conditions. More than 
anything, their accounts help illuminate the conditions within a school community that had been 
impacted by SEGC-related changes, as well as the kinds of student and family experiences 
district leaders should attend to when evaluating the longer-term effects of school 
reconfiguration. 
 
Post-SEGC Learning Environments for Administrators, Teachers, and Staff 
Participants agreed that the quality of learning environments at Clark after SEGC is highly 
variable, both academically and in terms of climate. They described wide differences across 
classrooms in safety, sense of student belonging, academic rigor, and curricular integrity. 
Participants said:  
 
“I honestly think that it varies widely between classrooms. Some classrooms are very accepting 
and safe learning environments, and I feel like others are not as much.” 
 
“From an academic perspective…there are some classrooms where it's like high rigor, high 
expectations, high integrity to curricular materials, and then others… we just have both ends of 
the spectrum.” 
 
The staff survey captures the variation the focus group participant noted. Asked whether students 
experience high-quality learning environments, 8 of 15 Clark staff agreed. Agreement that the 
school climate is supportive for students and staff was lower, 5 of 15, and agreement that staff 
collaboration supports teaching and learning was the same, 5 of 15. Views on whether class sizes 
 

## Page 33

33 
were distributed manageably were similarly mixed, 5 of 13, as was whether the current workload 
is manageable, 8 of 14. These are markers of the “both ends of the spectrum” participants 
described, with quality varying classroom to classroom.  
 
Participants also noted that a positive school climate and strong academic rigor did not always 
take place in the schools as some classrooms excelled in one and struggled in the other. 
However, over time, one participant described moving from “out of control” conditions at the 
previous site (prior to Clark separate school) to gradually more solid systems, especially in 
behavior and safety, and then in academics, as more instructional leadership became possible. 
They attributed this progress to both school-based work and an eventual increase in district-level 
support, while stressing that the work remains incomplete. 
 
“Our first year was really prioritized around just general safety and student behavior… we got 
positive behavior interventions and support in place… Every year we've gotten better… We're in 
a much better place [than year one].” 
 
In sum, participants’ accounts suggest that Clark’s post-SEGC experience was marked by both 
meaningful gains and unresolved strain. Mainly, participants described the return of a 
neighborhood K–5 school as important for families and students, particularly because it created a 
more age-appropriate elementary environment and restored a local school presence in the 
community. Yet, at the same time, they described the transition as unfolding within a context of  
substantial instability, including urgent behavior and safety needs, variable classroom conditions, 
leadership and systems challenges, staff stress, and concerns about whether district support 
matched the school’s actual needs. Clark’s experience underscores the importance of pairing 
school reconfiguration with sustained implementation support and coherent schoolwide systems, 
both of which research identifies as central to school improvement and successful transition.12 It 
also points to the need for culturally responsive community building and clear structures that 
support the emotional and professional well-being of the adults responsible for helping students 
and families experience change successfully.13 
 
13 Ishimaru, 2019; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Mapp & Bergman, 2019 
12 Bryk et al., 2010; de la Torre & Gwynne, 2009 
 

## Page 34

34 
Lent Elementary School  
Anticipated SEGC Changes  
According to district-related SEGC documents, Lent Elementary School was expected to 
experience three major types of changes:  
 
●​ a program reconfiguration 
●​ a program relocation into the building 
●​ a reassignment option for neighborhood students not enrolling in Spanish DLI 
 
Lent was described as a co-located K–5 school with a single strand neighborhood program and a 
single strand Spanish DLI program, with 277 students in 2021–22, which was estimated to hold 
steady through 2025–26 if no SEGC changes were made. Under the SEGC recommendation, 
Lent would convert to a whole school Spanish DLI model by adding two strands of Spanish 
immersion from Bridger. Participants described this change as making Lent one of the district’s 
whole school Spanish DLI sites. Students in Lent’s neighborhood school program and future 
Lent neighborhood students who did not enroll in Spanish DLI were expected to have a pathway 
to Marysville, with bus service provided where applicable. Since district documents also called 
for additional transition planning for the Lent neighborhood school program, this move should be 
understood as part of an implementation process that required further planning with students, 
families, staff, and school leaders. 
 
The expectation was that Lent’s total enrollment would increase substantially, from 277 students 
in 2021–22 to an estimated 527 students in 2025–26. Building utilization was projected to rise 
from 43.8% to 87.5% if the recommendation had been in place in 2021, and from a 2025 forecast 
of 43.8% to 83.4%. 
 
In short, district related SEGC documents anticipated that Lent would shift from a small 
co-located neighborhood and Spanish DLI school into a larger whole school Spanish DLI site. 
The stated goals were to create a more robust immersion program, increase enrollment, and 
improve building utilization, while also creating a Marysville pathway for neighborhood students 
not participating in Spanish DLI. 
 
 
 

## Page 35

35 
Figure 3.1. Lent estimated, annual, and October 1 enrollment, 2020–21 through 2024–25.  
 
Note: Enrollment is measured by enrollment in the building, not by program. Annual enrollment is based on assignment of 
students to the school they attended for the most days during the school year. October 1 enrollment counts students enrolled in the 
school on that single date. 
 
Overview  
In this profile, we share findings from the qualitative and quantitative data that we collected with 
school-based staff at Lent Elementary School (hereafter Lent) to better understand how 
SEGC-related changes were experienced within this school community. Participants’ accounts 
offer insight into how the reconfiguration of Lent from a neighborhood K–5 school into a 
full-school Spanish dual language immersion K–5 program (losing its neighborhood option) was 
experienced by people working inside the building before, during, and after SEGC-related 
changes. 
 
The findings in this profile should be understood as school-based employees’ (whom we spoke 
with) accounts of conditions within a school community impacted by SEGC-related changes. 
Overall, participants described both significant strain, including grief, staff and student turnover, 
loss of neighborhood access, under-communication, and front-line staff absorbing family 
frustration. However, they did describe important sources of affirmation at the school, including 
the current strength of Lent’s dual language mission, greater cultural affirmation for Latino/a/x 
students and families, improved cohesion under current leadership, and pride in the school 
community’s resilience. Together, these accounts provide a nuanced view of how SEGC-related 
 

[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

36 
changes were experienced at Lent over time and what PPS should consider when evaluating the 
longer-term consequences of school reconfiguration. 
 
Participants and Important Distinctions  
Participants included approximately 15 staff members across our conversations, 12 staff who 
completed the staff survey, and 33 respondents to the family and caregiver survey. Participants 
described a rich mix of lived experiences, what they directly saw, did, felt, or heard, and 
perceptions or generalizations built from those experiences over time. Lived experiences 
included concrete events, such as students being reassigned to other schools, staff turnover, 
specific comments made by colleagues, the loss of neighborhood walkability, or the struggle to 
support particular students. Perceptions and generalizations emerged as participants interpreted 
these events and their patterns, for example, beliefs about which communities benefited or were 
harmed, how district leaders value Latino students and families overall, or whether specific 
program changes “gentrified” the school. Where participants generalized, for instance, about “the 
district,” “Bridger families,” or “West Side parents,” those perceptions were typically grounded 
in years of working at Lent and multiple episodes of advocacy or conflict, but they remain 
interpretations, not directly observed facts. 
 
Findings  
 
Morale, Retention, and Lent’s Identity After SEGC 
In this report, we understand school morale as being closely connected to the organizational 
climate of a school, including the quality of relationships among staff, trust in leadership, 
collegial support, and the extent to which educators experience the school as a healthy and 
supportive workplace.14 Participants consistently described the SEGC implementation period as 
emotionally intense, marked by emotional experiences such as grief, anger, and a strong “us 
versus them” dynamic, particularly in the first years after the merger and reconfiguration. One 
staff member summarized the emotional tone of those early years as: 
 
“Those years were really terrible, those first few years…There were a lot of tears during the 
transition.” 
 
Participants who had been at Lent before SEGC described losing long-standing colleagues and 
neighbors, and the arrival of a large group of new staff and students who often felt like a separate 
community. One participant recalled: 
 
14 Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2002). The development of the Organizational Climate Index for high schools: 
Its measure and relationship to faculty trust. The High School Journal, 86(2), 38–49. 
 

## Page 37

37 
“When the merger happened, we lost two thirds of our staff again. And so the people, the 
teachers, who are left, are left because we want to be here, and we love this environment… we 
have put in the blood, sweat and tears, we have chosen this.” 
 
Over time, many participants reported that morale has improved significantly under current 
leadership and with a fully dual-language immersion (DLI) configuration. As one participant 
observed: 
 
“Now… I feel like we feel as a whole unit. I feel like we’re moving together. We’re working as 
one towards one goal… more cohesive.” 
 
Another participant described the staff’s resilience in the face of changes, “I am proud of Lent’s 
resilience despite constant change.” 
 
Experiences of Staff of Color and Bilingual Staff 
For some educators of color and bilingual staff, the SEGC changes intersected directly with 
racial and linguistic identity. One participant of color reflected on the demographic shift this 
way: 
 
“As a brown person, I blended in here from day one, and I’ve loved it. It has been amazing, and 
all of a sudden. That was dope. People of color, yeah?” 
 
Interestingly enough, a participant in the same school had a completely different experience 
regarding speaking Spanish. That is, another participant described being explicitly told not to use 
Spanish in front of colleagues: 
 
“I’ve gotten staff members to come to me in my face and tell me, ‘don’t speak in Spanish in front 
of me.’ And that was in the beginning of my school time here at Lent and that was in front of 
other staff members.” 
 
This participant connected such incidents to a broader feeling that dual-language staff were being 
asked to “stay in their lane.” They remarked, “It did feel that…it was like you stayed in your 
lane. We’ll stay in our lane, but make sure that your lane doesn’t spill out of your classroom.”  
The administrative record shows the demographic realignment that participants described. As the 
school converted after the 2022–23 school year, white staff left at 79% while staff of color left at 
50%. Over the longer arc, the share of staff of color staff at Lent rose from 40% in 2020–21 to 
64% in 2025–26, the highest of any SEGC school. Because Lent staff numbers declined over this 
period, the school became smaller and, concurrently, more heavily staffed by bilingual and staff 
of color aligned with the dual-language mission.  
 
 

## Page 38

38 
Figure 3.2. Racial and ethnic composition of Lent staff, 2020–21 to 2025–26 
 
Note: The sample includes instructional employees, such as administrators, teachers, educational assistants, counselors, and 
specialists in addition to front office staff. 
 
At the same time, multiple participants described the current school as a profoundly affirming 
professional space for bilingual and Latino/a/x educators, especially in contrast to prior 
placements where they felt unwelcome or constantly challenged. One person shared: 
 
“I went from a much harder gig, emotionally, to a school where I don’t have to explain who I am 
to any staff member. I don’t have to question how I’m speaking. I don’t have to overthink my 
language. I can just be… My well-being is higher. I lost a lot of weight in one year.” 
 
This same participant described the dual-language mission as deeply personal and restorative: 
 
“Being able to come to work… to a place where I can use my [Spanish] language and my culture 
for the benefit of others and [it] feeds my own personal soul… I did not have that at the last 
place I was working.” 
 
Perceptions of Staff Retention at Lent  
Participants reported significant staff and student turnover linked to SEGC changes. One staff 
member noted: 
 
“When the merger happened, we lost two thirds of our population, yeah, maybe more.” 
 
 

[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

39 
According to participants, long-time bilingual educators connected to the neighborhood side, 
non-DLI, were displaced to other schools, particularly Marysville, and some described deep grief 
about leaving their “home” community. A participant recounted: 
 
“We had [teachers] that were the native speakers over 20–30 years teaching here who were 
pushed over to Marysville.” 
 
Participants also observed that some of the families and staff who had most strongly advocated 
for the DLI expansion did not ultimately remain at Lent. As one participant recalled: 
 
“A lot of the parents who pushed from Bridger for their kids to come to the school didn’t end up 
staying…they felt like it was out of their way [and that] their students didn’t feel supported.” 
 
By contrast, multiple participants emphasized that the current staff is composed largely of people 
who have chosen to stay at Lent despite the upheaval, and who feel deeply tied to the 
community. 
 
The scale of turnover participants described is also reflected in the personnel records. After 
2022–23, the SEGC implementation year, 63% of Lent staff left the school, nearly double the 
SEGC-school average of 32%. Only Bridger, the school from which the Spanish DLI program 
relocated to Lent, had a higher left-school rate, at 73%. Lent and Bridger, the two schools at 
either end of the Spanish DLI program relocation, experienced substantial staff churn during the 
SEGC transition. This compounds an earlier wave of turnover that occurred in 2020–21: 46% of 
Lent staff and 48% of Bridger staff were no longer working at those schools the following year, 
compared with an SEGC-school average of 26%.  
 
After the transition to whole-school Spanish DLI, many of Lent’s staff were new to the school, 
and by 2025–26, only about one-quarter of the staff working at Lent had been there before the 
SEGC changes. Lent also cycled through four principals across six years. These shifts were not 
only about how many staff members left or arrived, they also changed the composition of the 
school’s instructional model. Between 2022–23 and 2023–24, ten full-time general classroom 
teaching positions were removed, while DLI teaching positions increased from 8to 15. In this 
sense, Lent did not simply lose staff. It was substantially reconstituted around the DLI 
instructional model. 
 
The participant account of long-tenured neighborhood teachers being “pushed over to 
Marysville” is also verifiable. Of the 41 staff at Lent in 2022–23, 15 remained the following year. 
Eight of the departing teachers moved to Marysville, the school that received Lent’s displaced 
neighborhood students.  
 
 

## Page 40

40 
Figure 3.3. Sources and destinations of Lent staff through the transition to whole school DLI  
 
Note: The sample includes instructional employees, such as administrators, teachers, educational assistants, counselors, and 
specialists in addition to front office staff. 
 
Against this history of disruption, surveys point to the more hopeful direction that participants 
described under new leadership. Among the roughly twelve staff who responded to the survey, 
most reported positive working conditions. Nine of 12 agreed that morale at the school is high, 9 
of 12 that the climate is supportive for students and staff, and all 12 that they can carry out their 
responsibilities effectively. This is consistent with the participant sense of a staff that has 
stabilized into “one unit... moving together” after the upheaval, composed largely of people who 
chose to stay. The survey cannot speak to how the SEGC transition itself felt; too few staff 
answered the retrospective items for those figures to be reported. However, among participants 
present during that period, testimony is direct and consistent: the early years were, in one 
respondent’s words, “really terrible.” 
 
Feeling Under-Informed and Under-Supported During SEGC Transition  
Participants widely reported feeling under-equipped during the SEGC transition itself, both in 
terms of information and practical resources. One participant described the sudden disappearance 
of the central office SEGC lead after decisions were implemented: 
 
“The person who was foreseeing all the Southeast Guiding Coalition was no longer in office 
after everything took effect. So all of the frustration that parents had…they had no one to say [it 
to], and that was really frustrating.” 
 
Another participant summarized their own understanding during the SEGC changes: “I knew 
pretty much nothing…the former principal…was very much for [the change]… any like upset 
feelings that we had… we weren’t able to think about it.” From another participant’s perspective, 
there was also a sense that key contextual information about the school’s recent history and 
 

[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

41 
community distrust had not been communicated. Moreover, other participants described being on 
the front lines of community anger, particularly from families who had lost neighborhood access 
or were unhappy about the Spanish-immersion focus. One participant explained: 
 
“We have been cussed out. We have been yelled at…by parents who moved into the 
neighborhood that do not want their students to speak Spanish, and that feel that it’s unfair that 
their students can’t go to their neighborhood school.” 
 
Participants also referenced feeling caught between district-level promises and the reality of 
implementation. As one participant noted: 
 
“What I understand is we were promised certain things to make this go better, and those certain 
things were not upheld. [For example] the fourth grade parents were really upset… they were 
promised it would be a three strand school…and the parents [started] bringing the letters that 
they were promised.” 
 
These accounts suggest that participants did not experience the SEGC transition as simply 
difficult because change itself is difficult. Instead, they described feeling under-informed, 
under-supported, and left to manage the consequences of the SEGC decisions that had been made 
by the district. Based on participant responses, the absence of clear communication, continuity of 
leadership, and reliable follow-through placed school-based staff in the position of interpreting 
district decisions for families, absorbing frustration, and trying to maintain trust without the 
information or resources they needed from the district.  
 
Staff Experiences Years After SEGC Changes  
Several participants, including those who joined more recently, felt that under the current 
administration they are now more able to raise issues and see concrete responses. An one 
participant shared: 
 
“Since administration has changed… I have noticed a lot of actual things getting done. Like, you 
could actually say something…it won’t take forever to discuss it.” 
 
At the same time, staff still pointed to significant structural challenges, especially combined 
grade classes, insufficient staffing, and cuts to services such as English Language Development 
(ELD), that they believe will strain their capacity to support students effectively. 
 
 
 

## Page 42

42 
Staff Experienced Emotional Costs of Grief, Anger, and Feeling Unheard with SEGC 
Changes  
Participants described significant emotional strain associated with the SEGC changes such as 
grief for lost community, anger about process and outcomes, and a sense that their advocacy was 
not meaningfully heard. One participant recalled: 
 
“There were a lot of tears during the transition, very upsetting…the staff was a little more 
delicate with the staff being transitioned now than what it was like with becoming [a merged 
site]…For us, it was more than that…this community meant everything to me.” 
 
Another participant, reflecting on district responsiveness, said: “We went to the board meeting 
and everything…There were a lot of petitions signed… and still didn’t feel like it made a 
difference…The district doesn’t care.” From the teachers’ perspective, student and family 
activism, marches, testimonies, organized advocacy, was experienced as powerful but ultimately 
dismissed. One teacher put it this way: 
 
“Students and families…rallied…and like it felt that no one was being heard…they felt like they 
were just being show ponies, because the district was like, ‘yes, we want to hear you guys’…and 
in the end… ‘thank you for your comments, but we’ll decide.’” 
 
Alongside these emotional experiences, participants also described important emotional benefits, 
especially in the current context of the school that included a stronger sense of shared purpose, 
cultural affirmation, and pride in the community’s resilience. 
 
Another  participant described the dual-language school as a deeply meaningful sanctuary for 
Latino/a/x families in a broader national and local context of immigration enforcement. The 
person shared that:  
 
“To be able to offer and provide [dual language] in a year when our federal government is 
picking up our families off the streets… We still are supporting families that ICE has picked up… 
to have a sanctuary…is amazing.” 
 
That same participant described families’ willingness to travel long distances to keep children at 
Lent. They shared, “We do have parents who go out of their way… even after moving, we find a 
lot of families that move to a different district, and they’re like, we’re committed to bringing our 
students even if we have to drive 20 to 30 [minutes].” 
 
Teachers and staff also highlighted everyday acts of allyship from some white families, such as 
organizing informal protections against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity. 
One participant described:  
 

## Page 43

43 
 
“For the last five months, a group of people… show up every single day… to watch for ICE… 
They are white families protecting our brown families.” 
 
Multiple participants expressed pride in the school’s ability to hold together through constant 
change. People shared that, “I’m proud of Lent’s resilience despite constant change.” “Our 
community and support for one another. Staff and students [are] very supportive.” 
 
Impacts on Learning Environments and Racial and Ethnic Diversity  
Before SEGC, participants described Lent as a highly diverse neighborhood school with many 
local students walking to school together and a rich mix of racial and linguistic backgrounds. 
One staff member remembered: 
 
“We had the… Chinese families, Russian families, Chinese families, Vietnamese families, very 
diverse… It was probably the most beautiful thing about this school and this community.” 
 
According to participants, after the changes, many of those neighborhood students, particularly 
non-Latino/a/x families of color and third-language learners, for example, Somali, Vietnamese, 
Russian, no longer attend Lent and instead travel further to other schools such as Marysville. A 
participant reflected: “This is the Jade district…Vietnamese and Chinese and a lot of different 
people that are no longer [here].” 
 
Staff described the loss of daily neighborhood presence as a major change in the learning 
environment, “We had a walking school bus every day…We don’t have that anymore, because 
our entire population gets on a bus to go home at the end of the day.” A family survey respondent 
echoed this loss from the parent side, describing a “loss of community...loss of walking commute 
to school...loss of neighborhood friends” alongside what they “gained” in “the wonderful Lent 
community” and “an all dual immersion school." The learning environment before the SEGC 
conversion gave the building its neighborhood character. This was largely displaced, and a more 
linguistically coherent but less racially diverse community took its place. 
 
SEGC’s DLI Decision as Both Opportunity and Trade-Off 
Participants framed the full-school Spanish DLI program as a powerful opportunity for 
bilingualism, cultural affirmation, and equity for Latino/a/x students, and also as a structure that 
imposes trade-offs, particularly in middle school. On the positive side, teachers emphasized the 
intentionality and coherence of a full immersion model, contrasted with earlier split models 
where DLI was one strand among others. A participant shared:  
 
“Being at a program that was neighborhood and dual language immersion combined, and now 
being at a full immersion school, it feels much more intentional in strengthening kids’ native 
 

## Page 44

44 
languages and also exposing our non-native speakers… The prior program had a lot of 
inequities…and now that’s much more equitable.” 
 
At the same time, participants raised serious concerns about the downstream middle-school 
experience at Kellogg for DLI students. Staff explained that these students often lose access to 
electives because of the need to continue Spanish coursework: 
 
“When they go to [names a middle school], our Spanish speaking students, who have now been 
doing DLI for their whole careers, now don’t get electives…where all the other kids get two 
electives. They get one and more Spanish.” 
 
Interestingly, teachers worried that students feel punished for staying in the program, “They’re 
thinking that they have all these electives that they can take, [but] no, they can’t… they’re almost 
getting punished for learning a second language.” 
 
Experiences of Underserved Communities and Equity Lens 
Participants connected SEGC’s local impacts to broader questions of racial equity across PPS. 
Some expressed skepticism that the district fully prioritizes Latino/a/x students within its stated 
equity framework and specifically centers Black and Native students and families. One person 
shared:  
 
“For a long time in [the district], Latinos were not on the priority list of equity. It’s only Native 
and Black…For this entire population, it feels a little bit like, do you care?” 
 
Another staff member captured a widely shared perception about who bore the brunt of SEGC, 
“Who was harmed…? Marysville and us, yeah, the Lent community.” At the same time, one 
participant emphasized that, at least at Lent, discipline data no longer showed racial disparities 
for Latino/a/x students, and interpreted this as evidence that the current model can support more 
racially equitable experiences. One participant noted:  
 
“This is the first school I’ve been at that has no racial disparity in discipline, specifically for 
Latino students… that’s impressive… this is a racially equitable way to serve Latino students.” 
 
Indeed, for 2022–23 Lent students who persisted through the transition to 2023–24, exclusionary 
discipline incidents fell steadily, from 0.15 per student to effectively zero by 2024–25. However, 
Lent family survey respondents expressed some skepticism about the equity of the changes 
overall. Seven of the 42 families answering agreed that the SEGC changes moved PPS closer to 
racial equity, and 10 of 42 that they reduced barriers for historically underserved students. 
Families saw a school that serves their own children well and a district process they did not 
experience as equitable, consistent with staff perspectives. 
 

## Page 45

45 
 
In sum, participants’ accounts suggest that Lent’s experience after SEGC cannot be reduced to a 
simple story of harm or improvement. In a more nuanced way, participants described a complex 
set of changes in which the school lost aspects of its prior identity as a diverse, walkable 
neighborhood school, while also becoming a more intentional and culturally affirming Spanish 
dual language immersion school for many Latino/a/x students, families, and educators. These 
accounts align with research showing that school reconfiguration and closure processes often 
create substantial burdens for students, staff, families, and communities, particularly when 
schools serve as important neighborhood institutions.15 At the same time, participants’ 
descriptions of Lent’s current dual language model also reflect, according to participants, the 
promise of well-supported dual language education to promote bilingualism, cultural affirmation, 
and stronger educational opportunities for multilingual students.16 For PPS, Lent’s experience 
underscores the importance of evaluating school reconfiguration not only by enrollment targets 
or program placement, but also by how changes affect school identity, staff morale, family trust, 
cultural belonging, neighborhood access, and the daily learning conditions of students and 
educators.17 
 
Who Stayed and Who was Displaced: Tracking the Racial Implications Lent Community 
through the Reconfiguration  
Participants described the school’s reconfiguration as a change that helped one community and 
cost another. Administrative records confirm participants’ perceptions. Before the conversion, in 
spring 2022–23, 265 students attended Lent. The following year, as the school became a 
whole-school Spanish DLI, 113 students (43%) stayed at Lent, while 152 (57%) left. Of those 
who left, 79 moved to Marysville, the designated non-DLI receiving school, 39 were 
middle-school-age students who aged into Kellogg, and 13 went to other schools. Within two 
years, 49 students from the original group, (18.5%), had left PPS entirely. The students who 
stayed were primarily the Spanish DLI families. The students who left were largely the 
neighborhood families the conversion did not retain. 
The racial composition of who stayed and who left tracks one participant's observation that 
“non-Latinx families of color and third-language learners” no longer attend Lent. Of the 129 
Latino/a/x students in the pre-conversion group, 86 stayed (about two-thirds). Of the 67 white 
students, 20 stayed, and most of the rest moved to Marysville or, if they were entering middle 
school, Kellogg. The school’s Black and Asian students were almost entirely displaced of 27 
Black and 20 Asian students at baseline. Meanwhile Marysville absorbed the most racially 
diverse slice of the displaced group (13 Black, 23 white, 19 Latino/a/x, 11 Asian, and 13 
Multiracial students). During the reconfiguration,the Latino/a/x share of students at Lent rose 
from about 50% to 69% and the white share held near 22%. This shift is best read as two distinct 
17 Bryk et al., 2010; Hoy et al., 2002 
16 Lindholm-Leary, 2001 
15 de la Torre & Gwynne, 2009; Ewing, 2018; Ewing and Green, 2022 
 

## Page 46

46 
mechanisms running at once, the arrival of an established Spanish DLI program and its families, 
and the departure of neighborhood families without a DLI connection, rather than as a single 
group replacing another. 
Two Lent family survey respondents captured the lived texture of the displacement that these 
numbers describe, including the geography that “loss of walkability” refers to: 
"Removing the neighborhood kids from Lent was a real struggle... The Lent 
neighborhood families loved their school and the original decision to move them to 
Marysville wasn't handled with very much understanding or transparent 
communication... You move into a neighborhood with a school so your kids can walk 
to and from. Disrupting before and after school routines REALLY causes a burden 
on families, especially ones who are balancing multiple jobs and precarious 
childcare situations." 
"To get to Marysville from right by Lent, students have to cross 205, 92nd and 82nd 
Ave." 
As such, the racial equity implication of this finding is that school reconfigurations and program 
changes can strengthen one form of equity while creating new forms of racialized displacement. 
Lent’s conversion to whole-school Spanish DLI appears to have created a stronger and more 
coherent Spanish DLI model and increased the share of Latino/a/x students at the school, which 
is a positive. However, the same change also coincided with a substantial decline in Black and 
Asian student enrollment and the movement of a more racially diverse group of neighborhood 
students to Marysville and other schools. This means that the equity question cannot only be 
about whether the school grew its Latino/a/x enrollment or whether the DLI model was 
educationally valuable. The more complex and nuanced question is whether PPS sufficiently 
accounted for how the school reconfiguration would affect Black students, Asian students, 
multiracial students, non-DLI neighborhood families, and the receiving schools expected to 
absorb students who no longer remained at Lent. In future program conversions, PPS should 
evaluate racial equity not only by who benefits from a strengthened program, but also by who is 
moved, who loses access, and whether receiving schools are resourced to support the students 
and families affected by that change. 
Moreover the school reconfiguration changed the district-retention pattern for this community as 
well. In the year before the conversion, the Lent group left PPS at 7%, below the district rate of 
9%. This was a population the district retained at above-average rates. In the conversion year, 
departures rose to 13%, nearly double the prior rate and above the district's 9%. The 
displacement turned a below-average-departure community into an above-average one. 
For the students who stayed at Lent, academic and behavioral outcomes (which we mentioned 
above) are positive, supporting participants’ sense that the full DLI model has been good for the 
 

## Page 47

47 
children it now serves. Tracking the DLI stayers against their own prior-year performance, the 
group gained ground academically (math growth reached +0.235 standard deviations and ELA 
+0.409 standard deviations by 2024–25). Chronic absenteeism fell from 42% to 24%, and, again, 
exclusionary discipline incidents fell to zero among this group. The displaced students fared less 
well at their receiving schools. Those at Marysville and Kellogg showed flat-to-negative growth 
in math and ELA scores and chronic absenteeism in the 39–43% range. A smaller group that 
scattered to other schools fared worst on academic growth, attendance, and discipline. While 
these results do not prove causality, they describe diverging outcomes for a cohort of students, 
some of whom stayed at Lent and others who left. 
Ultimately, the roughly 43% of students who stayed fared well in the reconfigured Spanish DLI 
school, most of whom were Latino/a/x or white. There were measurable costs for the 57% who 
were displaced, including longer commutes and bus rides, adjusting to new school climates and 
rules, and building new relationships with peers and adults, and these students were 
disproportionately Black and Asian Lent neighborhood families.  
Overall Conclusion About the Lent Case 
The Lent case, again, cannot be accurately described as either a simple success story or a simple 
story of harm. Instead, Lent illustrates one of the central tensions of SEGC, which is that a 
school reconfiguration can strengthen one equity goal while simultaneously creating new equity 
concerns. On one hand, participants described Lent’s current whole-school Spanish DLI model 
as more coherent, intentional, culturally affirming, and professionally sustaining for many 
Latino/a/x students, families, bilingual educators, and staff of color. Staff morale also appears to 
have improved over time, and students who remained at Lent showed positive academic, 
attendance, and behavioral patterns. 
 
At the same time, these gains were accompanied by significant costs. Lent’s conversion 
disrupted the school’s prior identity as a racially and linguistically diverse, walkable 
neighborhood school, produced substantial staff turnover, left some staff feeling under-informed 
and under-supported during implementation; and displaced a majority of the pre-conversion 
student group. The displacement was racially disruptive, with Black and Asian neighborhood 
students especially likely to leave Lent, while Marysville and other receiving schools absorbed a 
more racially diverse group of students who did not experience the same positive outcome 
patterns as students who remained at Lent. In sum, Lent demonstrates the promise of a strong, 
culturally affirming Spanish DLI model, but it also shows the racial equity risks of achieving that 
model through a process that displaced other students of color and altered the school’s 
neighborhood identity.
 
 

## Page 48

48 
Marysville Elementary School  
 
Anticipated SEGC Changes  
 
According to district SEGC documents, Marysville K–5 was impacted through 4 anticipated 
changes:  
●​ three attendance boundary changes 
●​ one additional receiving school role connected to Lent Elementary School’s 
reconfiguration to a full Spanish DLI model. 
 
The district documents also indicated that Marysville remained a K–5 neighborhood school 
assigned to Kellogg Middle School and Franklin High School, but its attendance area was 
adjusted through boundary changes with nearby schools. The proposal added one area from 
Arleta to Marysville, reassigned one area from Marysville to Arleta, and reassigned another area 
from Marysville to Woodmere. In total, the boundary changes were expected to impact 26 
students when implemented. In addition, Marysville was expected to receive future Lent 
neighborhood students who did not enroll in Spanish DLI, although the district’s enrollment 
projections for Marysville did not yet include those students. The expectation from the boundary 
changes alone was that Marysville’s enrollment would increase modestly, from 248 students in 
2021–22 and a 2025–26 forecast of 246 students to an estimated 260 students if the changes had 
been in place in 2021–22 and a 2025–26 forecast of 281 students. In short, Marysville was 
expected to remain a small K–5 neighborhood school, but with somewhat stronger enrollment 
through boundary adjustments and the additional possibility of receiving non DLI Lent 
neighborhood students (see Figure 4.1). Later family accounts suggest that Marysville became 
part of the broader receiving school experience connected to Lent’s conversion to the whole 
school Spanish DLI.  
 
Participants   
This case profile draws on survey respondents from 11 staff and 6 family members and 
caregivers, focus groups and interviews. Across conversations at Marysville, we heard from 10 
school-based participants who represented a range of roles and vantage points within the school 
community. Several participants also brought family or caregiver insight, either because they 
were parents of Marysville students or because they had first become connected to the school 
through parent or volunteer roles before later joining the staff. 
 
The participant group included people with deep historical knowledge of Marysville, including 
staff who had worked at the school for many years and could describe changes in the school’s 
identity, leadership stability, enrollment, student needs, and relationship to the broader Southeast 
Portland context. Seven of the 10 participants had experienced Marysville before SEGC-related 
changes were implemented, which provided important pre-SEGC context. Eight participants 
 

## Page 49

49 
were present during the SEGC transition, allowing them to speak directly about how the changes 
unfolded and how staff, students, and families experienced the implementation period. 
 
The conversations also included participants who had worked in other PPS schools before 
joining Marysville, including some with direct experience at Lent before the SEGC-related 
transition. As a result, the Marysville conversations included both long-standing Marysville 
perspectives and cross-school perspectives from staff who experienced the Lent–Marysville 
connection more directly. 
 
Participants spoke from experience across early, intermediate, and upper elementary grades, as 
well as from roles involving day-to-day support for students and families. These perspectives 
were especially important because participants described how families navigated housing 
instability, utility debt, food insecurity, attendance challenges, language access needs, and other 
forms of economic or social vulnerability. Together, these accounts provide insight into how 
district-level decisions and communication practices were experienced by families who often 
relied heavily on school-based staff for information, interpretation, and support during and after 
the SEGC transition. 
 
Figure 4.1. Marysville estimated, annual, and October 1 enrollment, 2020–21 through 2024–25.  
 
Note: Annual enrollment is based on assignment of students to the school they attended for the most days during the school year. 
October 1 enrollment counts students enrolled in the school on that single date.  
 
 
 

[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

50 
Overview  
Participants described Marysville as a racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse school 
community with long-standing relationships, deep staff commitment, and significant student and 
family needs. Rather than treating SEGC as the sole cause of later conditions at Marysville, this 
chapter examines how participants connected SEGC-related shifts to broader patterns they 
experienced in morale, retention, professional support, school climate, student and family 
experiences, learning environments, and the school’s capacity to absorb and respond to change. 
 
Findings  
 
Impact of SEGC-Related Changes on Marysville 
Participants described Marysville as a resilient, community centered school that had already 
navigated several major transitions before and around the SEGC period, including shifting from 
a K–8 to a K–5 configuration, rebuilding after a devastating fire, and adapting to changes in how 
students with social emotional and disability related needs were served. In participants’ accounts, 
SEGC did not arrive in isolation. Rather, it layered onto a school community that was already 
managing significant organizational change. 
 
Also, participants described the SEGC process and related district policy shifts as bringing an 
additional cluster of changes to Marysville. These included Marysville taking on a receiving 
school role for some Lent neighborhood students and staff connected to Lent’s conversion to a 
whole school Spanish DLI model, serving students from a broader set of neighborhood and 
pathway changes, transitioning toward a more neighborhood inclusive model for students with 
IEPs, and continuing to support a growing number of students experiencing poverty and housing 
instability, including students connected to a nearby shelter. In considering these changes, 
participants framed Marysville not simply as a school with a modest boundary adjustment, but as 
a school absorbing multiple layers of transition at once. 
 
Despite these mounting pressures, staff consistently described Marysville as a “good place to be” 
with strong relationships, a stable and long-serving principal, and a culture where people tend to 
stay once they arrive. At the same time, they emphasized that SEGC-related enrollment and 
program shifts intensified challenges that were already present, including very large class sizes, 
increasingly complex behavioral and academic needs, and frequent crises that left staff feeling 
overextended and emotionally drained. Participants often held two truths at once, that is, 
Marysville was a caring, joyful, and inclusive community that many were proud to work in, and 
it was also a place where burnout felt “imminent for everybody” under current conditions, 
according to one teacher.  
 
 
 
 

## Page 51

51 
Figure 4.2. Marysville student demographics, 2020–21 to 2024–25 
 
Note: Enrollment is based on assignment of students to the school they attended for the most days during 
the school year.  
 
As one participant summarized, staff felt constantly in motion, trying to keep the system 
functioning in the face of compounding changes: 
 
“We’re surviving, like we’re keeping the boat afloat. But am I really like, am I doing, like, my 
very best quality work with each child? Probably not…I’m like, putting out fires.” 
 
 

[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

52 
Enrollment records are consistent with participants’ portrait of Marysville as a racially, 
culturally, and linguistically diverse school serving students with significant support needs. 
Across the 2020–21 to 2024–25 period, students of color made up roughly 54% to 63% of 
Marysville’s enrollment. During that same period, students receiving special education services 
made up approximately 19% to 26% of enrollment, and multilingual learners made up 
approximately 13% to 18% (see Figure 4.2). 
 
The enrollment data also show changes that are consistent with participants’ accounts of 
Marysville absorbing students affected by the Lent reconfiguration. Black student enrollment 
declined to about 5% in 2021–22 and then rose to roughly 12% by 2024–25. Across this same 
period, Marysville remained one of the more racially diverse SEGC schools. 
 
Indicators of student need were also persistently high. Chronic absenteeism remained in the high 
30% to high 40% range across the 2020–21 to 2024–25 period. These patterns support 
participants’ sense that SEGC-related shifts intensified the demands on a school that was already 
serving a racially diverse student body with significant academic, linguistic, social-emotional, 
and family support needs. 
 
Morale, Burnout, and Staff Retention 
Across roles, participants described Marysville’s staff as unusually committed, collaborative, and 
cohesive, often using the language of “community” and “family” to characterize their 
relationships. Teachers and paraeducators spoke of working closely across grades, supporting 
each other’s students, and building strong ties with colleagues over many years. One staff 
member noted that many educators had completed their student teaching at Marysville and then 
remained for a decade or more, reinforcing a sense of continuity and deep investment in the 
school. 
 
At the same time, this cohesion was often described as emerging in part from shared hardship. 
Several participants characterized the staff as “trauma-bonded,” referencing cumulative 
experiences of school fire and displacement, K–8 restructuring, SES program transition, 
COVID-19 disruptions, and then SEGC-related shifts layered on top. In this context, morale was 
described as both strong, in the sense of commitment and mutual care, and simultaneously 
fragile, in the sense that staff felt pushed to or beyond their sustainable limits. Participants 
shared:  
 
“I think part of that is like a trauma bond, you know, it’s a lot…we’re pretty tight.” 
 
“Marysville has always been a good place to be.” 
 
 

## Page 53

53 
Staff survey responses reflect this same tension. Marysville staff rated the school climate more 
positively than they rated overall morale, and most respondents who answered the retention 
items indicated that they intended to stay. At the same time, responses to several well-being 
items were mixed or negative. Only 2 of 10 staff respondents agreed that morale at the school 
was high, and ratings related to well-being at work generally fell at or below the neutral point on 
the agreement scale. In other words, staff attachment to Marysville as a school community 
appeared to coexist with significant concern about burnout, workload, and sustainability. 
 
Participants echoed this tension in interviews and focus groups. Even as they affirmed their 
commitment to the school and its students, staff spoke candidly about exhaustion and the sense 
that current expectations were unsustainable. 
 
According to participants, SEGC-related changes contributed to larger class sizes, with some 
kindergarten and first-grade classes serving approximately 27 students and some upper-grade 
classes serving more than 30 students. Participants described these larger classes as occurring 
alongside high behavioral, academic, and social-emotional needs, creating what they experienced 
as “constant crisis mode.” The daily reality of frequent behavioral incidents, uneven access to 
support staff, and continuous interruptions made it harder for educators to feel that they could do 
their best work with each child, even as they worked persistently to keep students safe, 
supported, and engaged. 
 
Staff Turnover, Unassignment, and Job Insecurity 
Participants also connected SEGC-related enrollment shifts and the inclusive neighborhood 
model to staffing instability and job insecurity, particularly among para-professionals, education 
assistants, and some classroom teachers. Several participants described turnover not simply as a 
personnel issue, but as part of the cumulative strain created by high student needs, limited 
support, changing enrollment, and uncertainty about staffing allocations. One participant 
reported that, in two consecutive years, staff members left mid-year “due to the trauma, due to 
the burnout and lack of support,” underscoring how these overlapping stressors contributed to 
attrition. 
 
Paraprofessionals and education assistants described the experience of being “unassigned” at the 
end of the school year despite strong performance and extensive responsibilities supporting 
students with significant needs. Since some positions were shaped by seniority rules, enrollment 
projections, and shifting staffing allocations, participants described months of uncertainty about 
whether they would have a position at Marysville the following year. Participants explained: 
 
“At the end of the year, it’s a seniority-based job, and we were, I was just unassigned…I have to 
wait months to find out…This is my first time working in a seniority-based job and not a 
performance-based job.” 
 
 

## Page 54

54 
“We’re projected to have four paras for next year with adding a kindergarten class…that’s 
terrifying.” 
 
Participants linked this staffing instability to enrollment projections, budget decisions, and 
district staffing formulas rather than to SEGC alone. However, they also emphasized that the 
promise of a “stronger combined school” (per SEGC) or an inclusive neighborhood model had 
not been matched by stable adult capacity in classrooms. One educator summarized this 
mismatch directly: 
 
“I would say that when they moved everybody in together for the inclusive model, I feel like they 
grossly underestimated the amount of support that was actually going to take to execute 
everything that we’re supposed to do.” 
 
The qualitative data suggest that while some staff, especially long-tenured staff and school 
leaders, remained deeply anchored at Marysville, paraprofessional roles and some classroom 
positions felt more precarious. Participants described repeated cuts,un-assignments, and 
uncertainty even as student needs remained high. At the same time, participants did not provide 
enough systematic information to analyze staff retention by race or ethnicity, so this section does 
not make claims about differential retention patterns for staff of color. 
 
However, personnel records support the broader pattern participants described: Marysville had 
school leadership continuity, but substantial staffing movement beneath that stability. Marysville 
retained the same principal across all six years of the study window, making it the only school in 
the Bridger-Clark-Lent-Marysville cluster with unbroken principal continuity. This aligns with 
participants’ descriptions of stable, long-tenured leadership. Beneath that stability, however, 
staffing shifted considerably. 
 
In 2022–23, the year the reconfiguration took hold, approximately 39% of staff turned over. In 
2023–24, roughly 37% of staff were new to the building as Marysville absorbed incoming 
students and staff from Lent. Education assistant and paraprofessional roles showed the most 
persistent year-to-year movement, consistent with participant accounts of unassignment and job 
insecurity (see Figure 4.3). 
 
The personnel data also show that the staff who transferred from Lent to Marysville did not 
remain as a stable, long-term group. Eight staff members moved from Lent to Marysville as 
neighborhood students arrived, including seven teachers and one education assistant, all of whom 
first appeared at Marysville in 2023–24. Within two years, six of the eight had left the school. 
This pattern is best understood as movement followed by attrition among reassigned positions, 
rather than as a durable staffing transition. Marysville’s staffing transition involved both 
 

## Page 55

55 
leadership stability and significant instability in the classroom and support roles most directly 
connected to daily student support. 
 
Figure 4.3. Turnover among Marysville instructional staff by role, 2020–21 to 2024–25 
 
Note: The sample includes instructional employees, such as teachers, classroom educational assistants, counselors, and 
specialists.  
 
Capacity to Support Students and Families 
Across the Marysville conversations, administrators, teachers, education assistants, and student 
support staff converged on a common concern: Marysville was asked to implement the inclusive 
neighborhood model and absorb neighborhood students from Lent without the corresponding 
increase in adult support, training, mental health resources, and staffing stability needed to make 
the model work well. Participants did not describe resistance to inclusion itself. Rather, they 
described a gap between the district’s inclusive vision and the level of support needed to 
implement that vision effectively for students, families, and staff. 
 
Participants also described classrooms where multiple students had IEPs, significant 
communication or behavioral needs, trauma histories, or other intensive support needs, while 
para-educators and education assistants were stretched across several students and multiple 
rooms. In some cases, participants described students who appeared to require near one-to-one 
adult attention for safety, even when their IEPs did not formally designate them for that level of 
support. This left staff responsible for constant vigilance without the staffing ratios they believed 
students’ needs required. Participants explained: 
 
 

[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

56 
“Many students [are] coming in without any extra support, especially with our kinder and the 
first…you can see that they are suffering through every day with the kids needing one-on-one 
support, but all the one [adult] is surviving with multiple kids… not vocal, who have extra 
needs.” 
 
“If I have seven cases in my classroom on my caseload…everybody’s needs are getting met, but 
are we all thriving? I don’t know.” 
 
Participants also described district processes for adding support, such as securing an additional 
special educator or other adult capacity, as slow and bureaucratic. They described weeks or 
months of documentation, repeated requests, and delayed responses before help materialized. 
Even when additional staffing did arrive, participants said it sometimes coincided with other 
cuts, creating a zero-sum dynamic rather than a meaningful net increase in capacity. 
 
Despite these constraints, participants consistently emphasized that Marysville staff collaborated 
creatively and persistently to meet students’ needs. Staff described “spreading the love,” 
improvising sensory breaks and walks, sharing responsibility across classrooms and grade levels, 
and stepping in for one another throughout the day. These strategies reflected strong internal 
commitment and collaboration. However, participants also described this level of improvisation 
as exhausting and difficult to sustain. 
 
Staffing records and survey data support participants’ account that the inclusive model arrived 
without sufficient capacity to support it over time. After an initial staffing increase when Lent 
students and staff transferred to Marysville, the school lost approximately 13 FTE, or 11 staff, 
over two years. Participants described these reductions as including restorative justice staff, 
interventionists, specialist time in art, music, and physical education, a multilingual education 
assistant, a special education teacher, and coaching roles. The staff survey reflects the same 
capacity concern in which only 3 of 10 (30%) staff respondents agreed that they had the 
resources needed to do their job effectively, and none of the 10 (0%) respondents agreed that 
class sizes were distributed across grade levels or teams in a manageable way. Taken together, 
the qualitative and survey data point to a central finding, which is Marysville staff were deeply 
committed to students and families, but they were trying to implement a high-need inclusive 
model within a staffing structure they experienced as insufficient and unstable. 
 
Supporting Families and Providing Communication During SEGC 
Participants described family support and communication during SEGC as another area where 
school-based staff carried much of the burden. This was especially true for families of color, 
families with limited English proficiency, and families navigating economic instability. 
Participants described school staff as the people families most often turned to for interpretation, 
 

## Page 57

57 
explanation, reassurance, and practical help, even when staff themselves did not always have 
clear or timely information from the district. 
 
One participant described organizing meetings for Vietnamese-speaking families to explain 
boundary changes and program shifts because many families had not received or understood the 
district’s communication. The participant explained: 
 
“I had to gather the Vietnamese population…to let them know, ‘Hey, we have a meeting with the 
principal about the change coming up.’ And they say, ‘What? There’s a change coming up?’” 
 
Participants also described challenges with new communication systems. The move from 
Remind to ParentSquare reportedly left many families disconnected from school communication. 
At the time of the focus group, participants reported that fewer than 100 accounts, including staff 
accounts, were active in a school serving roughly 300 students. This limited the school’s ability 
to share timely information about events, options, and support with families who were already 
navigating complex transitions, long commutes, and changing school routines. 
 
Transportation emerged as a central equity issue. Before SEGC, participants described 
Marysville as a largely walkable school. After the boundary expansion and the Lent transition, 
Marysville had multiple bus routes, and some families had to travel several blocks just to reach a 
bus hub. Participants described long bus rides, missed buses, difficulty attending half-days, and 
the burden placed on families who had to take time off work for very short school days. One 
participant explained: 
 
“Now we go across the highway…It was the first time we ever had since we were dislocated, 
having to have buses…the inconvenience again, falling on families who had the least amount of 
means for getting around and traveling.” 
 
Participants acknowledged that district-funded buses were sometimes provided for evening 
events to make Marysville more accessible to Lent families. However, some participants 
experienced these efforts as limited because they still required families to gather at a secondary 
pickup location and did not fully address the broader access barriers created by the new 
geography. 
 
Within these constraints, Marysville staff invested heavily in community-building and outreach. 
Participants described summer popsicle and chalk events, family game nights, music and 
festival-style gatherings, and proactive efforts to bridge Marysville and Lent staff and families. 
Staff spoke with pride about these efforts, but they also emphasized that much of this work was 
school-initiated rather than part of a comprehensive district transition plan. 
 
 

## Page 58

58 
Family voice on the Marysville transition is available primarily through open-ended survey 
responses because the closed-ended family items were answered by too few caregivers to report 
without overstating their precision. Within that limitation, family comments echoed staff 
concerns about strain. One caregiver wrote that Marysville had “shouldered a lot of strain in the 
changes,” contrasting Marysville with nearby schools they perceived as less disrupted and 
describing the school as “less calm, more crowded and more chaotic now.” A family of color 
described a similar gap between growing demand and shrinking support, writing that “the class 
sizes have grown and the support has not; in fact, teachers have been cut despite student 
population growth.” Other families also pointed to larger classes, reduced services, and the need 
for more teachers and smaller groups. These family responses reinforce the staff account of a 
transition whose logistical, emotional, and instructional load was carried heavily by the school 
community. 
 
Emotional Well-Being and Professional Support 
Participants described SEGC-related changes as emotionally taxing, especially when layered 
onto existing stressors, high student needs, budget reductions, and staff shortages. Again, 
educators and staff spoke about frequent behavioral crises, students with significant trauma 
histories, and the strain of balancing academic instruction with intensive emotional support for 
children and families. 
 
Education assistants and teachers, especially in the early grades, described days when they were 
physically and emotionally drained. Participants described managing students who hit staff, 
monitoring nonverbal children for safety, responding to meltdowns and elopement, and trying to 
maintain instruction while also keeping students safe. One participant shared: 
 
“Some days, some of one of my kids will body slam me multiple times and like, not only am I like 
physically exhausted, but then I’m just also mentally exhausted from just having having to keep 
that calm exterior… that’s hard to contain.” 
 
Another participant described the cumulative strain across the building: 
 
“By the end of the year…I feel like we’re spread really thin… You’ve got a fifth grader flipping 
desks in the hallway, and girls looking over the stalls at each other in the bathrooms… 
everyone’s just running.” 
 
These accounts suggest that SEGC-related restructuring did not simply introduce logistical 
complexity. Participants experienced it as intensifying emotional labor, reducing recovery time, 
and increasing the daily strain of supporting students and families with significant needs. 
 
 

## Page 59

59 
At the same time, participants repeatedly emphasized that Marysville’s internal culture and 
leadership served as protective factors. Stable administration, collaborative teams, and a strong 
sense of shared purpose helped make the school feel emotionally supportive even when the work 
itself felt overwhelming. Participants described Marysville as a place where staff cared for one 
another, shared responsibility, and worked to maintain joy and community even during difficult 
periods. 
 
One participant described intentionally drawing on previous schoolwide work around staff 
well-being and emotional regulation, initiated after an earlier school fire and displacement, to 
help staff navigate the discomfort and conflict surrounding SEGC. This participant framed 
change as a constant and emphasized the importance of centering the whole person, not only 
academics: 
 
“We realized that we needed to center the whole person and well-being for all… By the time four 
years later we moved back to this campus, we had tried to have that as a thread running 
through… we needed to attend to that as much as the academics.” 
 
Participants also pointed to leadership continuity as unusual and stabilizing. One participant 
explained: 
 
“Since 1998 we’ve had four administrators as principal…that is pretty much unheard of… 
People want to be here because we have people that care.” 
 
Participants described feeling comfortable raising concerns with building leadership and 
characterized school administrators as strong advocates with the district. However, they 
distinguished this from their perceptions of district responsiveness, which they viewed as 
inconsistent, constrained by budget decisions, or disconnected from the daily realities of the 
school. 
 
Experiences of Historically Underserved Students and Families 
Participants widely perceived that SEGC-related changes placed disproportionate burdens on 
historically underserved communities, particularly Lent families, Black and Latino/a/x families, 
families experiencing poverty, families who are linguistically diverse, and families navigating 
housing instability or other forms of economic vulnerability. Participants were especially 
concerned that students from a working-class, multicultural neighborhood were reassigned 
across major roads and I-205 into a more gentrified area where Marysville is located. Several 
participants understood this as echoing older patterns of displacement, where students and 
families with fewer resources carried the inconvenience and risk of district decisions. 
 
Participants explained: 
 

## Page 60

60 
 
“Now, once again, we’re back to like busing students, mostly BIPOC students, over into a now 
gentrified neighborhood… even though we might say we’re doing this equity, it really does still 
fall hardest on those [Lent] community.” 
 
“It was weird for the district to do that in the 2020s…to bus kids out of their multicultural, 
working-class neighborhood across 82nd Street to a more affluent area.” 
 
Participants also described Marysville as serving students and families with significant needs 
beyond the SEGC transition. One participant reported that all students residing in a nearby 
shelter were assigned to Marysville, even though the shelter was roughly equidistant from 
several schools. This participant emphasized that students in the shelter were often navigating 
trauma and instability, making Marysville’s role especially complex: 
 
“Somehow that shelter is within our boundary… all that kid did not have any extra support 
beside us.” 
 
Participants also observed that families with greater financial and social capital, often described 
as white and more affluent, were better positioned to exercise school choice or avoid SEGC’s 
impacts on Marysville. Participants described families using charter or private schools, changing 
addresses, or otherwise navigating systems in ways that were less available to lower-income 
families and families of color. In contrast, participants described many low-income families and 
families of color as having fewer practical options, especially if they needed transportation or 
access to specialized programs. 
 
Administrative records support participants’ accounts that the Lent-to-Marysville transition 
involved a racially diverse group of displaced students. Of the 265 students enrolled at Lent in 
2022–23, the year before Lent’s whole-school Spanish dual language conversion, 79 were 
reassigned to Marysville as their designated neighborhood school. That group included 13 Black 
students, 23 white students, 19 Latino/a/x students, 11 Asian students, and 13 multiracial 
students. This is consistent with participants’ observation that many neighborhood families 
moved while the dual language population largely remained at Lent. 
 
The tracked student data also suggest that this displaced group experienced a difficult transition. 
Compared with their own prior-year performance, the cohort showed a small positive change in 
math in the first year and roughly flat results afterward. Reading results declined in the first year 
and then improved slightly. Chronic absenteeism for this group remained in the 39% to 43% 
range. These data should not be interpreted as estimates of Marysville’s effect on students or as 
causal evidence about SEGC. Rather, they provide cohort-level context showing that the students 
 

## Page 61

61 
who bore the costs of displacement entered a school environment that participants described as 
already carrying substantial demands. 
 
One family survey respondent from the displaced community described that harder landing 
directly, writing that the move from Lent to Marysville “was not handled very well.” The family 
reported a rise in behavioral issues and bullying, larger classes, reduced learning time, and 
diminished support for an older child with an individualized education program who eventually 
transferred schools. This single account does not represent every displaced family’s experience. 
However, it provides a concrete example of how the transition was experienced by at least one 
family and helps contextualize the cohort-level patterns. 
 
Participants also reflected critically on how SEGC’s stated equity goals around dual language 
immersion and regional balance played out in practice. One participant recalled that early phases 
of SEGC framed dual language immersion as a strategy for better serving students whose home 
language was not English. However, participants questioned whether final decisions fully aligned 
with that intent. They noted that the DLI strand was concentrated in a school farther from many 
Latino/a/x families, while Atkinson, located in a whiter and more affluent neighborhood, retained 
a single-strand DLI program. Participants also observed that some immigrant families may have 
been hesitant to enroll their children in full Spanish immersion in the broader political climate, 
preferring rapid English acquisition for reasons of perceived safety. One participant said: 
 
“The intention, I think, can really be there…But what ended up, though, was not what 
necessarily happened… If [DLI] was a real driver for this process, I’m not sure that that really 
was fulfilled.” 
 
At the school level, participants described Marysville’s own efforts to support belonging for 
historically underserved students. Staff highlighted culturally specific affinity groups, including 
groups for Pacific Islander students, neurodivergent students, and LGBTQ+ students. 
Participants described these groups as important mechanisms for helping students feel seen, 
supported, and connected to school. One participant explained: 
 
“We run a lot of affinity groups that embrace the student and motivate the student to come to 
school, make them feel a sense of belonging.” 
 
Together, these accounts suggest a complex equity picture. Participants viewed the regional 
SEGC process as producing mixed and sometimes inequitable outcomes, particularly for families 
who were displaced or had fewer choices. At the same time, they described Marysville as 
investing in school-level practices designed to support belonging, affirmation, and care for 
historically underserved students once they arrived. 
 
 

## Page 62

62 
Quality of Learning Environments After SEGC-Related Shifts 
Participants described Marysville’s post-SEGC learning environment as both deeply caring and 
significantly strained. Again, educators consistently characterized the school as inclusive, 
relationship-rich, and committed to students. At the same time, they described large classes, wide 
skill ranges, intensive behavioral needs, and frequent disruptions as making it harder to provide 
the academic instruction, differentiation, and enrichment they wanted all students to receive. 
 
Teachers in early grades described classrooms of approximately 25 to 28 students, including 
multiple students with IEPs, students who are nonverbal, and students with developmental or 
safety needs that required significant environmental adaptation. Participants described removing 
materials that could be swallowed, limiting some enrichment activities because they were unsafe 
for particular students, and managing transitions with intense adult supervision.  
 
Upper-grade teachers described classes with more than 30 students, but with many students 
performing two or more grade levels below expectations, alongside students who were on grade 
level or advanced. Participants said this range made differentiation extremely difficult. One 
participant noted that students who were ready for deeper learning sometimes received less 
attention because staff had to prioritize crisis management and foundational skills. 
 
At the same time, participants described powerful examples of social inclusion that they 
associated with the inclusive model. They described classmates making room for a child who 
rarely joined carpet time, students helping nonverbal peers access preferred items, and entire 
classes “rallying around” students with significant needs. One participant reflected: 
 
“It was like the class just rallied around him and he was so loved and cared for… That’s the kind 
of thing that I think is what we need in the world. But we also somehow need to get them to show 
growth in MAP scores or whatever.” 
 
Another participant described the tradeoff this way: 
 
“I feel like it’s a slight on the academic side for a boost on the social aspect of it.” 
 
Participants therefore did not describe Marysville’s learning environment as simply weak or 
strong. Rather, they described a caring and inclusive environment where social-emotional 
growth, empathy, and peer inclusion were visible, but where academic instruction was harder to 
deliver at the desired level because of class size, student needs, staffing constraints, and frequent 
interruptions. 
 
The staff survey supports this mixed picture. Among staff who answered, 4 of 11 (36%) agreed 
that students experienced high-quality learning environments, and only 3 of 10 (30%) agreed that 
 

## Page 63

63 
the learning environment was equitable. Staff collaboration was rated more positively, with 6 of 
10 (60%) respondents agreeing. This suggests a school where committed adults were working 
collaboratively within constrained conditions. The survey pattern aligns with participants’ 
descriptions of genuine social inclusion and strong staff commitment alongside large classes, 
wide skill ranges, and frequent behavioral disruption. 
 
Schoolwide test-score records should be interpreted cautiously. Marysville’s standardized math 
and reading scores were below the district average across the period and moved only modestly 
between 2021–22 and 2024–25. Math scores changed from approximately -0.61 to -0.53 
standard deviations, while reading scores changed from approximately -0.52 to -0.41. Because 
Marysville’s population changed over this same period as the school absorbed a displaced and 
higher-need cohort, these schoolwide figures reflect shifting student composition as well as 
classroom conditions. They should not be read as evidence that SEGC caused academic 
improvement or decline. Instead, they provide context in that Marysville’s measured outcomes 
did not collapse under the added strain participants described, but schoolwide test scores alone 
cannot resolve questions about instructional quality, differentiation, or the daily experience of 
learning after SEGC. 
 
How SEGC-Related Changes Played Out at Marysville 
Participants described SEGC-related changes at Marysville as a convergence of boundary 
adjustments, enrollment shifts, program changes, grade reconfiguration, and the implementation 
of the inclusive neighborhood model. These changes occurred within the context of a Title I, 
shelter-serving school already supporting students and families with substantial needs. 
 
Marysville became the neighborhood school for a group of students reassigned from Lent. 
Participants estimated that roughly 90 to 100 students and about 11 staff members, including 
teachers and para-educators, transferred from Lent to Marysville in the initial year of the 
transition. Marysville’s catchment area also expanded from a compact, walkable zone to a much 
larger area stretching roughly from 72nd to 112th, crossing major roads and I-205. As a result, 
Marysville shifted from a school participants described as bus-free to one with multiple bus 
routes, including routes serving students from the shelter. 
 
Marysville also transitioned from a K–8 to a K–5 school as Kellogg reopened for middle grades. 
At the same time, the school phased out self-contained SES classrooms and became a fully 
inclusive neighborhood school, serving students with diverse IEP needs in general education 
settings unless they required alternative placements. Two pre-K classrooms were also added and 
initially integrated into Marysville’s staffing and support structures, though participants 
described those classrooms as later becoming more administratively separate while remaining on 
campus. 
 
 

## Page 64

64 
Participants identified several factors that shaped how Marysville absorbed these changes. 
Leadership stability and staff culture were repeatedly described as central. Participants pointed to 
the principal’s long history at the school and the deep roots of many staff as helping Marysville 
approach the transition with a sense of shared identity and purpose. Participants also described 
proactive community-building as a major factor. School staff visited Lent, participated in 
difficult community conversations, and worked to validate the anger and grief families felt. One 
participant described the stance this way: 
 
“There was a lot of really… upset and tears and anger… I’m fine with that. I’m not going to try 
and convince you it’s not… but I’ll be here whatever happens.” 
 
In the spring and summer before and after the transition, Marysville hosted joint family game 
nights, festivals, and informal “popsicle and chalk” events to help Lent and Marysville families 
meet one another and begin building trust. Staff also waited to revisit the school’s values until 
the communities were together, then co-constructed shared commitments for the combined 
school community. One participant explained: 
 
“We did a lot of work around it as a team here, and tried to do a lot of community building work 
and events and sort of redid our values… We waited till we were all together so we could… talk 
about our combined sense of what we wanted to do.” 
 
At the same time, participants were clear that district-level design decisions shaped the broader 
conditions in which Marysville operated. Several participants believed that SEGC drew a “hard 
line” that excluded more affluent Southeast schools from major changes, leaving Marysville and 
similar schools to absorb more disruption. Some participants also argued that DLI and 
focus-option decisions advantaged families with greater mobility, information, and political 
access. In their view, enrollment balance in some schools came “at the expense” of others, and 
financial or political considerations often appeared to outweigh the district’s stated equity goals. 
 
Administrative data help clarify why participants experienced the 2022–23 to 2023–24 window 
as especially intense. During that period, Marysville moved through its pandemic enrollment 
trough, absorbed displaced families, experienced approximately 39% staff turnover, brought in 
roughly 37% new staff, lost 8.5 FTE, saw its exclusionary discipline rate rise from effectively 
zero before the changes to among the highest among SEGC schools, and added bus routes for a 
community that had previously been largely walkable. The clustering of these changes in a short 
period supports participants’ account that Marysville was absorbing multiple major transitions at 
once. 
 
Overall, participants framed Marysville as a case where SEGC may have “worked” in a narrow 
enrollment sense by stabilizing the school’s size and sustaining a robust school community, but 
 

## Page 65

65 
only because school-level leadership, staff culture, and community-building efforts compensated 
for gaps in district planning, resourcing, and communication. What distinguished Marysville’s 
response was the stability underneath the change. The school retained the same principal across 
all six years of the study window and maintained a core of long-tenured staff. The data show 
how much Marysville had to absorb; the participant accounts show why many experienced that 
absorption as survivable rather than wholly destabilizing. This should not be interpreted as proof 
that SEGC caused any single outcome at Marysville. Rather, it shows how SEGC, pandemic 
effects, budget reductions, student need, staff stability, leadership continuity, and local 
community-building interacted to shape Marysville’s experience. 
 
 

## Page 66

66 
Lewis Elementary School  
Anticipated SEGC Changes  
 
According to district SEGC documents, Lewis Elementary School was impacted mainly through:  
●​ a boundary change (which made its catchment smaller) 
 
Lewis Elementary School (Lewis) remained a K–5 neighborhood school. Under the SEGC 
recommendation, the eastern portion of the Lewis attendance area was reassigned to Whitman 
Elementary School. District documents identified Lewis as a school that had exceeded the 
district’s 80% target utilization in recent years, with a 2025–26 forecast utilization of 80.6% 
before the recommended change. After the boundary adjustment, Lewis’s projected 2025–26 
enrollment decreased from 358 students to 281 students, and its projected utilization decreased 
from 80.6% to 63.3% 
 
Figure 5.1. Lewis estimated, annual, and October 1 enrollment, 2020–21 through 2024–25.  
 
Note: Annual enrollment is based on assignment of students to the school they attended for the most days 
during the school year. October 1 enrollment counts students enrolled in the school on that single date.  
 
In short, Lewis was expected to become a smaller and less crowded school, while Whitman was 
expected to receive additional students and move toward a more stable enrollment level. The 
change was part of the broader SEGC effort to balance enrollment across Southeast schools. At 
the same time, before SEGC was implemented, community feedback reflected concerns about 
 

[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

67 
the limited scope of the process, opposition to split feeder possibilities between Sellwood and 
Lane, and mixed views about shifting some students toward Whitman and Lane. 
 
Participants 
In this chapter, we share findings from survey respondents interviews and focus groups 
conducted with school based participants at Lewis. Across the Lewis conversations, we heard 
from 13 unique school-based participants. The participant group provided a strong longitudinal 
perspective on the SEGC transition. Eleven of the 13 participants, or 84%, worked at Lewis 
before, during, and after SEGC-related changes. Their perspectives allowed us to compare how 
participants described Lewis’s pre-SEGC identity, staffing, enrollment, and school conditions 
with how they described the school after SEGC implementation. The remaining 2 participants 
were connected to Lewis during and after the SEGC-related changes, which offered insight into 
how those changes continued to shape the school’s current conditions even for staff who did not 
have the same pre-SEGC point of comparison. Eleven Lewis staff responded to the staff survey 
and there were 43 respondents to the family and caregiver survey.  
 
Overview  
In this chapter, we examine how participants connected SEGC related changes to broader 
patterns they experienced in morale, retention, professional support, school climate, student and 
family experiences, racial and socioeconomic diversity, and the school’s capacity to absorb and 
respond to change. These accounts help illuminate how district level decisions were lived, 
interpreted, and managed at the school level by the educators, staff, and administrators 
responsible for supporting students and families through transition. The goal of this profile is to 
illuminate how SEGC related decisions were experienced at Lewis not only as boundary or 
enrollment balancing changes, but as changes that affected the daily work of educators, the 
experiences of students and families, the school’s racial and socioeconomic composition, and the 
identity and functioning of the school community.  
Findings  
Participants Described Lewis as a High-Functioning School Community Strained by 
SEGC-Related Enrollment Loss  
Overall, at a high level, participants described SEGC as reshaping Lewis primarily through 
boundary changes that reduced enrollment, shifted the school’s racial and socioeconomic 
composition, contributed to staffing reductions, and disrupted some students’ middle school 
pathways.  
At the same time, participants consistently described Lewis as a high-functioning, tight-knit, and 
“special” school community whose staff culture, whole-child focus, and neighborhood 
relationships helped the school absorb some of the SEGC changes. One person summarized the 
school this way: 
 

## Page 68

68 
“If we walked through the building right now, you would see basically everybody 
doing what they're supposed to be doing… it's a pretty special little place here… I've 
been in some rough and rumbles in my career, and this is definitely a little sweet 
spot.” 
Teachers echoed this image, emphasizing both the relational culture and the neighborhood feel. 
Participants said:  
“The staff here… very healthy and supportive, and just really have each other's 
backs.” 
“It's like the neighborhood feel here… the school is this meeting place where kids 
just show up. You can drive by on a Friday at five o'clock and there might be a kid 
playing basketball that you taught.” 
Essentially, participants depicted Lewis as a small, relationship-rich elementary school whose 
strengths lie in its culture and staff cohesion. These are precisely the kinds of intangible assets 
that can be most vulnerable when enrollment shrinks and resources are cut. 
Survey data corroborate this portrait of a strong school-level community. Among Lewis families 
responding to the survey (N = 50), ratings of the school itself were high. Families rated their 
student's sense of belonging at about 4.5 on a five-point scale where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 
is strongly agree. This means that roughly half of families strongly agree and half of families 
agree their student feels a sense of belonging at Lewis. Similarly, families indicated that their 
students felt safe (mean 4.3/5), and about 9 in 10 families reported feeling welcome 
communicating with the school and feeling that their family belongs and is respected there. Staff 
also had positive perceptions of their working conditions. All 11 responding staff agreed that the 
climate is supportive for students and staff (mean 4.6/5). Nearly all agreed that students 
experience high-quality learning environments (mean 4.6/5) and that staff collaboration supports 
teaching and learning (mean 4.5/5). 
Morale, Retention, and the Impact of SEGC on Staff Stability 
According to participants, morale at Lewis was described as a tightrope between a strong school 
culture and chronic stress. Participants generally described day-to-day morale as relatively high, 
especially compared to other schools in the district, but layered with profound fatigue, grief over 
repeated cuts, and growing distrust of district leadership. One educator captured the dual reality: 
“I'd say, relatively speaking, compared to a lot of other schools…morale [here] 
probably higher than those. At the same time…budget goes down, expectations go 
up…I feel like we're like on this tightrope right now.” 
Another person similarly distinguished between internal climate and system-level pressures: 
 

## Page 69

69 
“Morale wise, like overall is good…when you talk about just the day-to-day, come 
in, close your door, do your job, have fun with your kids. But as soon as you start 
bringing in the reality of what's going on just as a district…that's where it's tough. 
You still get a lot of the ‘what’s next?’ questions.” 
The survey data is consistent with this dual reality. Among responding staff, the 
current-conditions well-being items sat in positive territory, with school climate rated supportive 
(mean 4.6/5, all 11 respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing) and most staff reporting they felt 
emotionally supported at work (mean 4.2/5). At the same time, the items related specifically to 
the SEGC period were uniformly negative. Across the SEGC implementation period items about 
well-being, the average response was 2.5 on a five-point scale (9 survey respondents were at 
Lewis during the transition), with staff disagreeing that changes were implemented with dignity 
and care (mean 2.4/5) and reporting that the changes added stress and lowered morale during the 
process. The split between a positive present and a negative SEGC-period recollection mirrors 
the “tightrope” participants described. In other words, participants described Lewis as a locally 
strong culture carrying the weight of district-level strain. Workload was the one 
current-conditions survey item that fell into negative territory. Staff rated workload 
manageability at an average of 2.7 out of 5, which is consistent with participants’ descriptions of 
staff feeling stretched thin as positions have been reduced. 
Staff morale at Lewis appears to rest on a strong, locally cultivated culture of collaboration, 
kindness, and mutual support. At the same time, participants described anxiety and 
disillusionment as being driven largely by district-level conditions and decisions, including 
SEGC-related enrollment changes, budget shortfalls, staffing reductions, and perceived 
inequities in how resources and burdens were distributed. Participants did not attribute all of 
these concerns directly to SEGC. However, the current budget deficit and related staffing cuts 
were clearly on their minds and shaped how they made sense of the school’s current conditions. 
Repeated Cuts and Churn to Staff Impacts on School Morale  
Multiple participants described a pattern of annual FTE reductions, un-assignments, and staff 
bouncing between schools, largely as a function of declining enrollment triggered by SEGC 
boundary changes and broader PPS trends. One teacher explained: 
“We’ve lost staff…not because they're moving on to something else, because they 
want to, but because the district has unassigned them or cut our FTE, which is a 
little heartbreaking when you've invested so much in your relationships…we’ve had 
several staff who have had to bounce back and forth between [schools].” 
Another participant summarized the pattern over time: 
“Every single year that I've been here, there has been a reduction in at least a 
half-time staff member or a full-time staff member… in the library that’s meant 
 

## Page 70

70 
going from a position that covered two half-time workers to now just one half-time 
worker, but I still have the same amount of books and almost the same number of 
classes.” 
These are lived experiences of concrete staffing losses and reassignments that participants 
described. However, participants then generalized to a broader narrative that Lewis and similar 
schools are, as one participant stated, “bleeding out” staff year after year, not due to internal 
(school) dysfunction but because of structural decisions about boundaries, enrollment targets, 
and budgets.  
The administrative record complicates, but does not dismiss, participants’ description of Lewis 
as “bleeding out.” Participants’ sense of loss was grounded in real year-over-year reductions in 
staffing, positions, and school capacity. However, the personnel data suggest that Lewis was not 
an outlier in overall staff turnover compared with other SEGC elementary schools. The share of 
staff leaving the building reached approximately 22% in 2023–24 and 20% in 2021–22, but 
across SEGC elementary schools, the share of staff leaving schools generally ranged from about 
20% to 26%. Lewis therefore sat at or below the peer range throughout this period. In 2022–23, 
the year the boundary change took effect, Lewis’s staff departure rate was approximately 15%, 
which was lower than both the broader SEGC elementary comparison range and Lewis’s own 
surrounding years. 
Figure 5.2. Lewis elementary staff turnover rates relative to other SEGC elementary schools, 
2020–21 to 2024–25 
 
 

[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 71

71 
Note: The sample includes instructional employees, such as administrators, teachers, educational assistants, counselors, and 
specialists in addition to front office staff. 
This distinction helps tell the fuller story. Personnel records do not support interpreting Lewis as 
an outlier for turnover, and this is consistent with participants’ own descriptions of Lewis as 
having stronger morale and cohesion than many peer schools. At the same time, the records do 
confirm the pattern of staffing contraction that participants experienced as heartbreaking. For 
Lewis staff, the concern was not only who left, but what the school could no longer sustain as 
enrollment and staffing declined. 
Additionally, several participants emphasized the importance of school leadership in shaping 
how staff experience district-level change. Since Lewis was getting smaller, leadership 
continuity could not prevent enrollment-related staffing reductions, FTE losses, or the broader 
effects of budget constraints. However, it appears to have helped buffer some of the relational 
and organizational strain associated with those changes. Lewis was one of the few schools in the 
analysis that had the same principal across the full six-year study window, from 2020–21 through 
2025–26. This continuity helps contextualize participants’ repeated praise for the current leader’s 
role in maintaining trust, protecting staff culture, and helping the school remain cohesive during 
a period of shrinking enrollment and reduced staffing capacity. It also distinguishes Lewis from 
schools where SEGC-related change occurred alongside leadership turnover, making it harder for 
staff to experience stability, communication, and relational trust during major change. 
Feeling Equipped or Not to Support Students and Families Through SEGC Changes  
Participants across our conversations highlighted a persistent information gap between 
district-level decision-making and school-level implementation during SEGC and its aftermath. 
School-level staff were expected to hold family anxiety, explain boundary lines, and promote 
new feeder patterns without clear or timely guidance. One participant described the experience of 
fielding boundary questions this way: 
“We had to answer a lot of questions…a lot of questions we didn’t have answers to. 
Parents were always, ‘Is that my street? One more street over?’ And then they’d  
[the district] send us these maps that were like, even with a magnifying glass you 
couldn't see on your computer…Does that say 43 or 45? I don't know.’” 
Another participant similarly reflected: 
“We felt like we did a lot of listening…[and would respond] Yeah, I'm really sorry, 
that's not fair,’ but I don't feel like we were equipped very well… and neither were 
families. Families were confused, why the wealthier schools weren't impacted, and 
what their options were.” 
 

## Page 72

72 
In the same manner, another participant characterized the district communications more bluntly 
during SEGC: 
“We got emails…[but] we didn’t get the sense that any of us had any say. I think it 
always felt like it was kind of like, well, they're gonna do it. The process went on for 
a really, really long time, and then it was kind of like, ‘It’s done,’ without big 
announcements or ‘This is how it's gonna work.’” 
These personal accounts of specific practices, including having to explain unreadable maps to 
families, mass emails, and long online meetings that all hurt communication and the schools 
ability to respond to SEGC changes. From these experiences, participants inferred a broader 
pattern, which was that the central office “listening sessions” felt performative rather than 
genuinely responsive, and building leaders were left to absorb community distress with little real 
support. 
Both the staff and family surveys corroborate this information deficit. Among responding staff, 
the SEGC-period access-to-information items averaged 2.6 on a five-point scale,18 with staff 
disagreeing that the changes were communicated in a way that made the timeline and 
expectations clear, and that they had a reliable point of contact for accurate answers about SEGC 
changes. The SEGC-period support items were similarly low (category average 2.4/5). 
Current-conditions access to information was rated only modestly better (mean 3.7/5), and 
current access to the resources needed to do the job remained negative (mean 2.5/5), which 
tracks the accounts of staff covering gaps left by reduced positions. 
The family survey complements the qualitative findings and points in the same direction, adding 
another direct source of family voice about communication, manageability, and trust. Among 
Lewis families, fewer than half agreed that they understood what was happening during the 
2023–24 SEGC year or that the changes were manageable for their family. Moreover, the pattern 
is notable that only about one-third of respondents agreed that their voice was heard in decisions 
about programs or services for their child. Families rated district listening lowest of all with no 
responding family agreed that PPS listened to families’ concerns when making decisions 
affecting the school community. By contrast, school-level supports were rated more positively, 
with about 6 in 10 families agreeing that the school made support accessible. This reinforces the 
case’s broader distinction between families’ positive experiences with Lewis as a responsive 
school community and their more negative experiences with the district-level SEGC process. 
 
 
18 “Nonmissing N” refers to the number of respondents who provided a usable response to a specific survey item. In this case, the 
statistic is based on 9 respondents who answered the item, rather than the full survey sample. 
 

## Page 73

73 
Figure 5.3. Lewis family perceptions about the SEGC process and current support at their 
school.  
Note: The green bar indicates a survey item concerning perceptions of current school climate. Red bars represent items about 
perceptions of the SEGC process in 2023–24 and before.   
Moreover, staff at Lewis devoted significant energy to helping fifth graders and their families 
transition to middle school under new, split feeder patterns brought on by SEGC changes. One 
teacher described the isolation of two students now assigned to Lane while the rest of their peers 
go to Sellwood: 
“We have two kids that are isolated from all their peers that they've been with 
because of this boundary…they live on the other side of 52nd. They were allowed to 
stay at Lewis once the division changed, but they weren't allowed to go to middle 
school with the rest of their peers. It's so isolating. I just can't believe it.” 
Families also described how new feeder patterns disrupted peer continuity, leaving some students 
separated from classmates they had attended school with for years. In these accounts, the harm 
was not only logistical; families described students feeling socially isolated when boundary 
changes allowed them to remain at Lewis for elementary school but prevented them from 
following the same middle school pathway as their peers. 
Another participant explained what they could offer families: 
“There really wasn't much we could tell them… A lot of the conversation was, 
‘Families make schools better. If you have this perception about the middle school 
your child is going into, get really involved.’ That was what we were sharing, but 
that's really all we could offer.” 
 

[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 74

74 
Participants also described feeling under-equipped when trying to support students with high or 
complex needs. In several accounts, staff said they reached out to the district for help, but 
experienced the response as focused more on monitoring, documentation, or compliance than on 
providing additional support. One participant described a case involving a young student of color 
who spoke a less common home language and had significant learning needs: 
“We have a situation this year, young student of color who really struggles with learning… the 
amount of effort that has gone into trying to get somebody from the district to help out a little 
bit…instead, it literally feels like, as a school, we're on a plan of improvement, and we have to 
document all this stuff. We didn't get any help, we just got oversight.” 
Another participant described this as a broader pattern: 
“Sometimes you get told what you're supposed to do, rather than support in doing what you'd 
like to do… with a new student they’ll say, ‘Do a better job,’ instead of, ‘Can we give you 
temporary support while you figure this out?’” 
These comments help explain why participants did not always feel equipped to support students 
and families after SEGC-related changes. The concern was not that school staff lacked 
commitment or knowledge. On the contrary, participants felt that the school was expected to 
meet increasingly complex student needs without enough practical assistance from the district. In 
these accounts, staff experienced a gap between being held accountable for student support and 
being given the staffing, expertise, and temporary resources needed to provide that support well. 
Analytically, the specific student case and the associated documentation demands represent 
participants’ direct lived experience. The broader conclusion that the system prioritized 
documentation over substantive assistance is an interpretation participants drew from those 
experiences. This distinction matters, but the pattern remains important: staff felt less equipped 
when district support arrived primarily as oversight rather than as concrete help. 
Emotional Well-Being and Professional Support 
Participants described significant emotional strain, burnout, and, in some cases, moments when 
educators came close to leaving their roles. Several participants spoke directly about the 
cumulative effects of larger classes, reduced support staff, tighter schedules, and changing 
assignments. One teacher explained: 
“I've almost almost quit…larger classes plus tighter duty schedules, and then an absence of 
support staff… makes you feel like a really bad teacher when you're not able to pick up the 
needs. You know what kids need, but you can’t meet it.” 
 

## Page 75

75 
Other participants linked morale and stress to the ongoing experience of doing more with less 
after SEGC-related enrollment changes and subsequent staffing reductions. Participants 
described the strain this way: 
“Smaller school, less support staff… it just made it harder on everybody, trying to pick up the 
gaps that are suddenly gone, not feeling like you can do a good enough job at it.” 
“We are being cut and we are losing classes… I've done a 2–3 blend, I've done second grade, 
I’ve moved classrooms, now I'm teaching first grade, now I'm going to be teaching a 1–2. It is 
very stressful and draining and traumatic at times.” 
These accounts describe direct lived experiences of burnout, role churn, emotional fatigue, and 
professional frustration. Participants were not speaking abstractly about change. In fact, they 
were describing what it felt like to work in a school where staffing reductions, changing 
assignments, and increased student needs made it harder to provide the level of support they 
believed students deserved. The interpretive layer is that participants understood SEGC-related 
enrollment shifts, budget constraints, and broader district decisions as collectively creating a 
teaching environment that felt increasingly unsustainable, even for highly committed educators. 
Survey findings reflect this same tension between strain and commitment. Several responding 
staff members agreed they had considered leaving the school due to SEGC-related changes, and 
several also reported considering leaving PPS. These responses align with accounts from 
educators who described coming close to quitting. At the same time, staff also reported a strong 
intention to remain, with nine in ten agreeing that they planned to work at the school the 
following year. Together, these findings suggest that staff commitment to the school remained 
strong, even as educators reported significant stress, fatigue, and concern about the sustainability 
of current conditions. 
Participants also described being pulled between care for staff and families and a lack of timely, 
transparent information from the central office, especially during the recent budget crisis. One 
participant explained: 
“We just learned… we have a $14 million shortfall, and people are like, ‘Who's running that 
checkbook?’… They never told the principals in the district. We all heard about it on the same 
day as everybody else. And now, like, we're hearing nothing.” 
Participants described the emotional labor of managing staff anxiety about unpaid days, shifting 
calendars, and uncertainty about pay. One participant shared: 
“Teachers are like hyperventilating… ‘Do I save my money this month because I might not have 
four days worth of pay in June?’… As an admin, we're just dangling… I came in this morning 
and triaged. I can move Field Day. I can move promotion. But I can't solve anybody's pay.” 
 

## Page 76

76 
These comments reflect direct experiences with high-stakes uncertainty, limited information, and 
the emotional labor of trying to support others without clear answers. Participants then extended 
those experiences into a broader critique of district communication and decision-making, 
describing a pattern in which central-office uncertainty cascaded into stress for school staff, 
students, and families. The concern was not only that difficult decisions were being made, but 
that the lack of timely, actionable communication made those decisions harder for school 
communities to absorb. 
Trust, Safety, and District Feedback 
When asked whether they felt safe raising concerns during SEGC-related changes, most 
participants distinguished between feeling safe within the school and feeling confident that 
district leaders would listen or respond. Participants generally described Lewis as a place where 
they could raise concerns with school leadership, especially with the current administrator. 
However, they expressed much less confidence that concerns raised beyond the school level 
would lead to meaningful district action. One person drew a distinction: 
“I felt safe raising concerns to my principal, but at the same time I didn't feel like 
anyone else was going to be listening… I didn't feel like we had a voice there.” 
Another participant reframed the issue as less about fear and more about low confidence in 
district responsiveness: 
“It's probably not safety, it's just apathy. It's like, well, why bother? I just don't have 
confidence that they're going to make a good decision… we talk a lot, but it doesn't 
go anywhere.” 
A third participant described the emotional cost of watching students, families, and staff testify 
during the SEGC decision-making process without seeing that testimony meaningfully reflected 
in final decisions: 
“The district needs to do a better job of not graciously accepting testimony and 
feedback as if they're gonna implement it… Kids get up at a board meeting and talk 
about how they're losing their entire friend world, and the board says, ‘We really 
respect and value your voice,’ and then they do what they were going to do 
anyway… If I did that to a fourth grader, they would be so upset with me.” 
These comments combine direct observations, such as board meeting testimony, unanswered 
questions, and perceived gaps in follow-through, with participants’ broader interpretations of 
district listening and decision-making. The central concern was not primarily fear of retaliation. 
Rather, participants described a sense of futility: they felt compelled to advocate for students and 
families but did not believe that advocacy would meaningfully shape district decisions. 
 

## Page 77

77 
Survey data suggest that this low trust was shared by both staff and families. Among responding 
staff, the trust category averaged 1.9 on a five-point scale among nine respondents. Agreement 
that the district could be trusted to handle rightsizing decisions fairly and equitably averaged 
1.6/5, and no responding staff agreed that PPS followed through on its commitments. Families 
reported similar concerns. Agreement that the district could be trusted to handle rightsizing fairly 
and equitably averaged about 2.1/5, with only about one in ten families agreeing. No responding 
family agreed that the benefits and burdens of SEGC changes were distributed equitably across 
Southeast Portland schools. 
The qualitative and survey data synthesized above suggest a sharp distinction between trust in 
Lewis as a school community and trust in district-level decision-making. Staff and families 
generally described Lewis’s teaching, learning environment, and school-level relationships 
positively. However, they expressed much lower confidence in PPS’s ability to listen, follow 
through, and distribute the burdens of major district decisions fairly. 
Equity, Diversity, and Learning Environments After SEGC 
Across our conversations with Lewis participants, a consistent theme was that SEGC-related 
boundary changes altered the school’s racial, socioeconomic, and neighborhood composition. 
Participants repeatedly described the loss of specific boundary areas as a loss of diversity, 
community connection, and neighborhood identity. One participant described the shift this way: 
 
“We were a much more diverse school… half of [my child’s] class was out of neighborhood 
boundaries, and there was a lot more diversity coming in. Now the demographics have changed 
a lot. The school community has gotten smaller and whiter.” 
 
Another staff member connected this directly to the boundary change: 
 
“Because of the boundary change we just have fewer students of color. Those 10 blocks we lost 
from 52nd to 62nd, that’s a pocket with much more diversity.” 
 
A third participant described the change in even more relational terms: 
 
“You literally took all the cultural diversity we had out of here…That was part of the love of this 
building, making everybody feel like it's a true community that supports everybody. People were 
really sad about that. ‘Why are you doing this to us?’” 
 
These accounts reflect participants’ direct observations of changes in the school community, 
especially the loss of particular neighborhood areas that staff understood as more racially, 
 

## Page 78

78 
culturally, and socioeconomically diverse. They also reflect participants’ perceptions of how 
those changes affected the feel of the school and the experiences of students of color and 
lower-income students who remained. In their view, Lewis became smaller and less connected to 
some of the diverse neighborhood relationships that had previously shaped the school’s identity. 
 
Although students and families of color were not direct participants in these Lewis staff 
conversations, participants described what they saw and heard regarding impacts on 
lower-income students and students of color. One participant reflected: 
 
“I think our poor students are affected the most… they feel more isolated in the community as 
we've grown richer, as we've cut that 52nd… there’s more othering as the school community has 
gotten smaller and whiter.” 
 
Participants also described specific cases in which boundary and feeder-pattern decisions created 
disproportionate burdens for students and families who needed additional support navigating 
transfer processes. One participant described two fifth-grade students who were separated from 
their peers because of the boundary change: 
 
“These are also families that need a lot of support with [transfer paperwork] and wouldn't know 
otherwise to jump through these hoops, and there's no guarantee. So there's two kids that are 
isolated…It’s so nuts to me. I just can't believe it.” 
 
These accounts are grounded in participants’ direct observations of particular children, families, 
and neighborhood changes. The broader conclusion that SEGC concentrated harm on 
lower-income students and students of color by making some students more isolated and less 
supported is an interpretation participants drew from those concrete experiences. That 
interpretation is important to report, but it should be understood as participant meaning-making 
rather than formal causal evidence on its own. 
 
Family survey responses are consistent with participants’ sense that families did not experience 
SEGC as advancing equity at Lewis. Among Lewis families, agreement that SEGC changes 
increased diversity at the school averaged 1.7 on a five-point scale, where 1 is strongly disagree 
and 5 is strongly agree. Agreement that the changes moved PPS closer to racial equity averaged 
1.9/5, and 0% of responding families agreed that the benefits and burdens of SEGC changes 
were distributed equitably across Southeast Portland schools. 
 
 

## Page 79

79 
At the same time, student enrollment records both support and qualify participants’ descriptions. 
Lewis enrollment declined substantially, from 375 students in 2020–21 to 275 students in 
2024–25. White student enrollment accounted for most of that numerical decline, falling from 
281 to 177 students. As a result, the share of Lewis students identifying as white declined from 
approximately 75% to 64%, while the combined share of students of color increased from 
approximately 25% to 36%. In this sense, Lewis became smaller and proportionally less white 
over time, even as participants experienced the school as having lost particular sources of racial, 
cultural, and socioeconomic diversity. 
 
Figure 5.4. Lewis elementary enrollment decline and composition shift, 2020–21 to 2024–25 
 
Note: Enrollment is based on assignment of students to the school they attended for the most days during the school year. 
 
Interestingly, both findings can be true at the same time. The administrative data do not support a 
simple claim that Lewis became proportionally whiter overall. However, the qualitative data 
show that participants were not only describing percentages. They were describing the loss of 
specific neighborhood blocks, relationships, peer groups, and forms of community diversity that 
had mattered to the school’s identity. In other words, the findings would suggest that the 
diversity participants mourned was tied to place, relationships, and neighborhood access, not 
only to the schoolwide racial percentage. 
 
A second pattern is also worth noting carefully. The share of students receiving special education 
services rose over the period, from approximately 20% to 28%, while the actual number of 
students receiving special education services stayed relatively stable, from roughly 73 to 77 
students. This appears to be a denominator effect,19 which is that as total enrollment declined, 
19 A denominator effect occurs when the percentage or share of a group changes primarily because the total population used to 
calculate the percentage changes, rather than because the number of people in the group changed substantially. In this case, the 
number of students receiving special education services remained relatively stable, but total school enrollment declined; as a 
result, students receiving special education services became a larger share of the school population. This follows the basic logic 
of proportions, where a percentage is calculated by dividing a subgroup numerator by the total population denominator. 
 

[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 80

80 
students receiving special education services became a larger share of the school population, 
even though the number of students receiving those services did not substantially increase. This 
does not, by itself, establish a change in the student population or explain why the shift occurred. 
However, it does help explain why participants may have experienced Lewis as a smaller school 
with fewer resources but continued responsibility for serving students with significant support 
needs. 
Perceptions of Middle School Options and Unequal Access to Choice 
Participants described how family perceptions of middle school options shaped how some 
families responded to SEGC-related feeder pattern changes. Importantly, these accounts should 
be read as participants’ perceptions and second-hand observations, not as a direct evaluation of 
Lane or Sellwood as schools. The central equity issue participants raised was not simply that 
families preferred one middle school over another, but that families with more information, time, 
resources, and social capital appeared better positioned to navigate around new assignments. 
One participant described the difficulty of helping families adjust when students who previously 
expected one middle school pathway were assigned elsewhere: 
“In this community, everybody went to Sellwood…we switched the boundaries…our whole low 
socioeconomic group is now going to either Whitman or Lane, which the community was really 
upset about… Lane is a middle school that has struggled for years…the district has done nothing 
to make Lane exciting.” 
The same participant described efforts to make the new middle school pathway feel more 
welcoming and positive for students: 
“We did our fifth-grade move-up day… We sent them with a teacher, we paid for them to go to 
Dairy Queen…‘This is going to be awesome. Look what’s in your neighborhood.’ They had a 
great time when they got there. But the community culture is like, ‘I don't want my kids there.’” 
Other participants described how families with greater resources could sometimes use formal or 
informal strategies to avoid assigned pathways. One participant noted: 
“We have families who file grievances…kids who went to Sellwood and Cleveland who had 
access to information and privilege to use the narrowest of loopholes…whereas some of our 
families wouldn't know how to do that. And there are families who literally rent apartments or 
find another address to get into a different school.” 
These accounts are important because they show how boundary and feeder pattern changes can 
interact with unequal access to information, advocacy, and choice. The specific examples of 
move-up days, grievances, and address changes reflect participant accounts of what they 
observed or heard in their school community. The broader equity concern is that even when 
assignment rules appear neutral, families with more time, knowledge, flexibility, or resources 
 

## Page 81

81 
may be better able to navigate exceptions, while lower-income families may be more likely to 
absorb the assigned change. For PPS, this suggests that future feeder pattern or boundary 
changes should include proactive family support, clear transparent transfer rules, and careful 
monitoring of whether exceptions and workarounds reproduce inequities by race, income, 
language, or neighborhood. 
How SEGC Played Out at Lewis and What Shaped That Experience 
Across the Lewis data, participants described SEGC as reshaping the school primarily through 
enrollment loss, boundary changes, staffing reductions, and disrupted student pathways. 
Participants consistently described Lewis as becoming smaller after SEGC-related boundary 
changes, with enrollment declining from roughly 400 or more students to approximately 260 
students. They connected this decline first to the loss of key boundary areas, including areas east 
of 52nd Avenue and, in earlier boundary changes, areas between 39th and 41st, and then to 
COVID-19-related shifts and broader demographic changes. Participants emphasized that, from 
their perspective, Lewis lost boundary area and enrollment without receiving an offsetting 
program, population, or resource addition in return. 
Participants also described significant staffing and program reductions as part of Lewis’s 
post-SEGC experience. These included the loss of multiple paraeducators, Learning Center 
paraeducators, reading specialists, partial reductions in PE and music, and substantial reductions 
in library and ELL staffing. Staff also anticipated the possibility of multilingual learner services 
dropping to zero FTE despite the continued presence of students needing multilingual learner 
support. In participants’ view, these reductions affected the school’s ability to provide the same 
level of individualized support, intervention, enrichment, and whole-child programming that had 
long been central to Lewis’s identity. 
Participants further described one-class cohorts and blended grades as important features of 
Lewis’s current conditions. Some cohorts now have only one classroom moving through the 
grade levels, and staff anticipated multiple 1–2 and 2–3 blended classrooms in the coming year. 
Participants viewed these structures as challenging because they may be misaligned with the 
adopted curriculum, developmentally difficult for students, and demanding for teachers who 
must plan for multiple grade levels within the same classroom. 
Overall, these are concrete school-level changes, including enrollment decline, boundary 
shrinkage, reduced FTE, fewer support positions, and changing class structures. Staff interpreted 
these changes as evidence that Lewis experienced SEGC largely as a loss of students, staff, and 
capacity rather than as a reconfiguration that brought new resources or opportunities. This does 
not mean SEGC alone caused every challenge Lewis now faces. However, the Lewis case shows 
how boundary changes, declining enrollment, staffing formulas, budget pressures, and broader 
demographic shifts can combine to make a strong school feel increasingly vulnerable. 
 

## Page 82

82 
Several factors shaped how SEGC landed at Lewis. First, participants pointed to district process 
design. They described long virtual meetings that felt difficult to follow and not always 
responsive, complex documents and maps that were challenging for families and even school 
leaders to interpret, and limited visible district presence at Lewis to explain the rationale, 
tradeoffs, and consequences of the proposed changes. 
Second, participants described frustration with what they perceived as the inequitable 
distribution of burden across Southeast schools. Several participants believed that nearby, more 
affluent schools with strong parent networks were largely protected from major SEGC-related 
changes, while Lewis and other less affluent schools absorbed more of the disruption. 
Participants experienced this as inconsistent with the district’s stated racial equity and social 
justice commitments. 
Third, local leadership and staff culture shaped how Lewis absorbed the changes. Participants 
widely described Lewis as having a strong culture of collaboration, care, and mutual support. 
They credited school leadership with helping rebuild trust, protect staff culture, and preserve 
some programming, including specials, for as long as possible despite shrinking allocations. This 
local culture appeared to buffer some of the harm associated with SEGC-related changes. At the 
same time, because relationships at Lewis were so strong, the loss of staff, students, and services 
was experienced as especially painful. 
Finally, participants placed SEGC within a broader neighborhood and citywide context. They 
pointed to rising housing costs, gentrification, limited rental housing, and fewer young families 
in the immediate neighborhood as additional forces contributing to enrollment decline. In this 
sense, Lewis’s experience was shaped not only by SEGC decisions, but also by larger housing, 
demographic, and fiscal conditions beyond the school’s control. 
 
 
 
 
 

## Page 83

83 
Harrison Park Middle School  
 
Anticipated SEGC Changes  
 
According to district SEGC documents, Harrison Park K–8 was impacted through five major 
anticipated changes:  
 
●​ a grade reconfiguration 
●​ a relocation of K–5 students to Clark 
●​ one boundary change 
●​ two middle school feeder changes 
●​ one program receiving change 
 
Harrison Park was designated to convert from the last neighborhood K–8 program in Southeast 
Portland into Harrison Park Middle School. Its K–5 students, including students in Mandarin 
DLI, were expected to move to Clark K–5, while Harrison Park became a middle school serving 
a newly configured set of neighborhood and program students. The proposal moved one 
boundary area from Harrison Park to Kellogg, and added one boundary area from Mt. Tabor to 
Harrison Park. It also shifted the Atkinson neighborhood feeder from Mt. Tabor to Harrison 
Park, and shifted the Vestal neighborhood feeder from Roseway Heights to Harrison Park. 
Overall, the changes were anticipated to impact approximately 240 students once implemented. 
In addition, the Woodstock Mandarin DLI middle school pathway, which had previously fed to 
Hosford, was relocated to Harrison Park, involving 116 students. 
 
The expectation was that Harrison Park Middle School would open with an estimated 558 
students if the changes had been in place in 2021–22 and a 2025–26 forecast of 588 students, 
with projected utilization of 62.7% and 66.1%, respectively. In short, Harrison Park was 
expected to become a larger regional middle school, keep its existing elementary community 
together at Clark, and serve as the consolidated middle school location for Mandarin DLI (see 
Figure 6.1). 
 
Participants 
Across the Harrison Park conversations, we heard from three school-based participants who 
brought broad perspectives on the school’s SEGC-related transition. In addition, there were 4 
staff and 13 family and caregiver survey respondents. Together, their accounts provided insight 
into how the school experienced changes in grade configuration, student enrollment, school 
identity, staff culture, student support, and day-to-day implementation. Two of the three 
participants had experience at Harrison Park before SEGC-related changes took effect, when the 
school operated as a K–8. All three participants were present during the SEGC transition or 
implementation period, and all three remained connected to Harrison Park after the school 
 

## Page 84

84 
became a comprehensive middle school. As a result, the Harrison Park conversations provide a 
before, during, and after view of how SEGC-related changes were experienced, managed, and 
understood within the school community. 
 
Figure 6.1. Harrison Park estimated, annual, and October 1 enrollment, 2020–21 through 
2024–25.  
 
Note: Enrollment is measured by enrollment in the building, not by program. Annual enrollment is based on assignment of 
students to the school they attended for the most days during the school year. October 1 enrollment counts students enrolled in the 
school on that single date.  
 
Overview  
This chapter examines how SEGC-related decisions were experienced at Harrison Park. The 
analysis looks beyond the formal changes themselves, including boundaries, feeder patterns, 
program relocation, and grade reconfiguration, to consider how those changes affected the daily 
work of school staff, the experiences of students and families, the school’s racial and 
socioeconomic composition, and the identity and functioning of the school community. 
 
This school-based analysis is especially important because participants described Harrison Park 
as experiencing both meaningful gains and significant strain. That is, on one hand, participants 
described expanded middle school opportunities, improved facilities, increased access to 
electives and specialist teachers, and a more developmentally appropriate structure for middle 
school students. On the other hand, they described demographic shifts, concerns about the loss of 
racial and socioeconomic diversity, stress associated with district processes, limited 
 

[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 85

85 
implementation guidance, and ongoing questions about whether SEGC fully reflected PPS’s 
stated equity commitments. 
 
Overall, the Harrison Park case shows that SEGC-related changes cannot be understood only as 
policy adjustments to enrollment or program placement. They also reshaped how the educators in 
the school understood itself, how staff supported students and families, and how the promise of a 
stronger comprehensive middle school was experienced alongside concerns about equity, 
implementation, and community change. 
 
Findings  
 
How SEGC Shaped Harrison Park 
SEGC-related changes at Harrison Park unfolded as part of a dense web of transitions. The 
school shifted from a K–8 model to a comprehensive 6–8 middle school, underwent major 
capital construction, absorbed new feeder patterns, received the middle-grades portion of a 
Mandarin DLI program, and navigated the broader context of the pandemic, labor actions, and 
budget instability. Participants emphasized that these changes did not land as isolated policy or 
technical adjustments. Together, they reshaped Harrison Park’s demographic profile, learning 
opportunities, school identity, and day-to-day functioning. 
The central story of Harrison Park is therefore one of expanded opportunity accompanied by 
significant disruption. Participants described meaningful improvements for middle school 
students, including a more developmentally appropriate grade configuration, more electives, 
greater access to specialist teachers, a stronger library experience, improved classrooms, air 
conditioning, and a rebuilt interior environment. At the same time, they described demographic 
shifts, equity concerns, limited district implementation guidance, and a sense that school-level 
staff had to absorb and solve many of the practical challenges created by SEGC. 
Administrative records support participants’ account that the reconfiguration year marked a clear 
shift in the school’s composition. During the K–8 years, Harrison Park’s enrollment was about 
81% students of color. After SEGC-related changes, that share declined to 72% in 2023–24 and 
67% in 2024–25. White enrollment rose from about 19% during the K–8 years to 33% in 
2024–25, Black enrollment declined from roughly 23% to 14%, and multilingual learner 
enrollment declined from about 36% to 23%. Participants experienced these shifts not only as 
demographic changes, but also as changes in the culture, identity, and equity context of the 
school. 
 
 
 

## Page 86

86 
Figure 6.2. Harrison Park racial/ethnic and multilingual learner composition, 2020–21 to 
2024–25 
 
Note: Enrollment is measured by enrollment in the building, not by program. Annual enrollment is based 
on assignment of students to the school they attended for the most days during the school year.  
These transitions were concentrated in a short period. In 2023–24, Harrison Park experienced the 
enrollment inflection from 618 students to 355 students, the shift in racial composition, the 
simultaneous staffing of Clark and Harrison Park, the relocation of the Mandarin DLI 
middle-grades pathway, and continued construction-related disruption. Participants described this 
period as one in which the school had to manage multiple forms of change at once, while also 
maintaining stability for students, families, and staff. 
Morale, Retention, and Adult Well-Being 
Across the Harrison Park conversations, participants described a strong internal school culture 
that helped buffer the strain of SEGC-related change. They repeatedly emphasized staff 
cohesion, leadership stability, and shared commitment as reasons staff continued to stay, even 
when external conditions were difficult. One participant summarized the staff climate this way: 
“We don’t have a lot of staff turnover, and that, in of itself, is a testament of, like, the climate and 
culture that [the principal] has created and maintained.” 
Participants also described the K–8 to middle school transition as revealing staff commitment to 
the school. When the elementary and middle grades separated, all classroom teachers whose 
 

[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 87

87 
roles placed them in the middle school program returned to Harrison Park  after its 
reconfiguration to a middle school. Personnel records support this account. Of the 22 Harrison 
Park staff in 2022–23 whose position titles placed them clearly in the middle school program, 20 
continued at Harrison Park Middle School in 2023–24, a continuation rate of 91%. When 
narrowed to classroom teachers, the continuation rate was 20 of 20. 
The post-reconfiguration record adds nuance. Harrison Park maintained very high teacher 
retention in the first two years after conversion: 25 of 26 teachers, or 96%, returned from 
2023–24 to 2024–25. In the most recent year, however, school-based staff reported that teacher 
retention declined to 73%, with 24 of 33 teachers returning for the 2025–26 school year, due in 
part to budget-related staffing cuts. 
Participants connected the school’s ability to absorb change to long-standing leadership and a 
strong sense of collective responsibility. One participant described the staff’s response to 
construction, room moves, a strike, and SEGC-related change as a shared experience: 
“We’ve gone through a strike… all of this construction… I had more than half of my staff have to 
move mid year… and our staff has been really flexible, and I think a lot of part of that is because 
we’re all in it together.” 
At the same time, participants were clear that this internal resilience did not eliminate the 
emotional toll of the process. SEGC meetings, construction disruption, pandemic conditions, 
labor actions, and budget instability were described as cumulative stressors. One participant 
described the weekly SEGC sessions during the pandemic as emotionally taxing: 
“It was three hours of my life every Thursday night, sitting in my room on a computer… there’s 
some trauma… I had to pick up a rock.” 
Another participant connected adult well-being to broader district systems, especially for staff 
and leaders of color. This participant described Harrison Park as a school where their racial, 
cultural, and linguistic identity felt valued, while also naming a larger district pattern of 
insufficient support: 
“I’m in a much better place now that I’m at a school where my racial, cultural, linguistic identity 
is an asset… That wasn’t the case in previous spaces.” 
“I continue to see… an exodus of administrators of color, of staff of color, because there aren’t 
systems and supports in place.” 
These accounts suggest a dual reality. Harrison Park’s internal culture, staff cohesion, and 
leadership stability helped sustain morale and retention through significant change. At the same 
time, participants experienced district-level processes as stressful, uneven, and insufficiently 
attentive to adult well-being, particularly for staff and leaders of color. 
 

## Page 88

88 
School-Level Capacity and District Support During and Post SEGC Implementation 
Participants consistently described SEGC implementation at Harrison Park as a process in which 
school-level staff had to create systems, solve problems, and manage complex implementation 
tasks without a clear district playbook, defined responsibilities, or sufficient central-office 
guidance. Participants did not describe themselves as lacking commitment or capacity. Rather, 
they described having to rely heavily on their own experience, relationships, and initiative 
because the transition did not come with a clear implementation playbook. One participant 
described the challenge of staffing and planning the new middle school while simultaneously 
managing the departing elementary school: 
“I was in charge of doing the staffing and hiring and getting all the people ready for the middle 
school, and at the same time doing all of that work for the elementary school that was 
departing… There was not this, ‘Here’s this guidebook, here’s what you’re supposed to be 
doing.’ It was just I had to figure it out.” 
Participants also described how some SEGC implementation supports were not clearly defined. 
In one account, a person assigned to support planning arrived without clear direction from the 
district about what the role was supposed to involve. As the participant recalled, when asked, 
“What were you told to do?” the person responded that they had not been given specific 
guidance.  
Participants also described this lack of clarity as part of a broader district pattern. Harrison Park 
staff often acted first, solved immediate problems, and communicated upward afterward rather 
than waiting for central office direction. One participant described this posture as grounded in 
responsibility to the school community: 
“I don’t need that support. That’s not who I am… I’m just gonna do what I need to do… because 
that’s what our community needs.” 
Participants also pointed to missed opportunities to strengthen support for historically 
underserved students. One participant described a grant opportunity that could have connected 
the building renovation to expanded student programming, but said it was not supported by 
district leadership. Another described the creation of a newcomer hub for recently arrived 
multilingual students, which participants saw as successful but short-lived: 
“We worked really hard to build a newcomer hub…and we ran it for a year. It was very 
successful… and we were really seeing a different set of growth… Unfortunately, [the 
department] pulled back on it right away. It was really heartbreaking.” 
These examples shaped participants’ broader view that district support was often episodic and 
fragile. They saw Harrison Park as capable of building strong local solutions, but not always 
 

## Page 89

89 
supported by durable district systems. One participant summarized this concern by describing 
PPS as large but lacking clear, consistent processes: 
“We’re a huge district that doesn’t seemingly have very clear systems on how to do, like, almost 
anything.” 
For Harrison Park, then, staff felt equipped to support students and families largely because of 
school-level expertise, trust, and improvisation, not because SEGC came with a comprehensive 
implementation infrastructure. 
Historically Underserved Students and Families 
Participants described SEGC changes as significantly altering Harrison Park’s racial and 
socioeconomic composition. Before the transition, participants described Harrison Park as one of 
the most racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse schools in the district, with a small white 
student population, a large Somali and broader African student population, and substantial Asian 
and Latino/a/x communities. One participant recalled: 
“When I started here, I think we were probably the most diverse school…We were 14% white. 
And…we had like 38 languages…our black population was about half African American and 
half African.” 
Another participant emphasized the scale of the shift: 
“When I came here… we were about 17% white… one of the largest Somali populations… very, 
very diverse… now we are, I think at least 42% white, and that has really shifted things in the 
building.” 
Administrative data show a similar pattern. When Harrison Park shifted from a K–8 to a middle 
school, the more diverse K–5 population left for Clark along with the elementary portion of the 
Mandarin DLI program, while a reconfigured middle school population arrived through new 
feeders. In raw counts, Black enrollment declined from 143 students in 2022–23 to 57 students in 
2023–24, white enrollment declined from 118 to 98, and total enrollment declined from 618 to 
355. The following year, the middle school grew to 411 students with a whiter racial composition 
than the prior K–8 school. 
Participants also raised concerns about how power and voice operated during SEGC. Several 
participants perceived that white, middle-class, and more affluent parents from across the region 
had greater influence in SEGC deliberations, while families of color, immigrant families, and 
lower-income families had less access to the process. One participant described the subtext they 
heard in some parent concerns about Harrison Park: 
“We want our kids to be in the neighborhood school… we want this, or we want that… what 
wasn’t being said is they didn’t want to come here. That was very clear… what it really came 
 

## Page 90

90 
down to is, ‘I don’t want my kids to go to school with those kids.’ And we know who those kids 
are… our students of color.” 
Another participant summarized the broader pattern this way: 
“The more white and affluent a community was, the less change that they saw, and the more 
likely that their voice was heard and their desires honored.” 
Participants worried that historically underserved families, including Black, Latino/a/x, Native, 
immigrant, and low-income families, had less time, language access, familiarity with district 
processes, and political influence to shape SEGC decisions. As one participant explained: 
“Our white population is definitely the predominant population [districtwide], and they’re also 
the noisiest, and they also know how to work the system the best… Our families [at Harrison 
Park] aren’t the ones that are getting heard as much… I worry… the voices of our Black, Latinx, 
Native families weren’t heard.” 
Family survey responses add nuance to this picture. Among current Harrison Park family 
respondents, 83% agreed that their student’s culture and language were valued at school, 78% 
felt welcome communicating with the school about their student’s needs, and 76% reported that 
their student felt a sense of belonging. At the same time, instructional and equity items were 
more mixed as 46% agreed that the learning environment was high quality, 54% agreed that the 
school responded helpfully when their student needed additional support, and 66% agreed that 
learning experiences had been fair or equitable. 
Open-ended family responses also complicate the diversity-loss theme. Many current families 
entered Harrison Park through new SEGC feeder patterns and therefore compared Harrison Park 
to their prior middle school pathway, not to Harrison Park’s former K–8 baseline. One family 
described the challenge as “mainly proximity to middle school now farther” and a “perceived 
loss of prestige switching from Tabor Middle to Harrison Park,” while also naming benefits such 
as “attending a more ethnically and socio-economically diverse school,” having a reliable bus, 
and seeing their child learn to use TriMet independently. This does not contradict staff accounts 
of diversity loss. Rather, both can be true: Harrison Park became less diverse than it had been as 
a K–8 school, while still being more diverse than some of the schools from which new students 
arrived. 
A Spanish-speaking DLI family also described the transition as an adjustment while emphasizing 
that teacher continuity helped: 
“El cambio por un año a Clark (5to. Grado) y luego de regreso a Harrison fue un ajuste que 
tomó un poco de tiempo… Afortunadamente los maestros se mantuvieron en su puesto y eso 
ayudó mucho.” 
 

## Page 91

91 
Translated, the caregiver was essentially saying that“The move for one year to Clark (5th grade) 
and then back to Harrison was an adjustment that took a little time… Fortunately, the teachers 
stayed in their positions, and that helped a lot.” This comment reinforces a broader theme in the 
Harrison Park case: the transition was difficult, but continuity in relationships helped some 
families and students absorb the change. 
Learning Environments After SEGC 
Participants were clear that, from a programmatic and facilities standpoint, Harrison Park’s 
middle school students now experience a richer learning environment than they did under the 
K–8 model. Participants described the K–8 configuration as limiting the school’s ability to fully 
serve middle school students. One participant reflected: 
“We were not doing our middle school students justice when we were K–8… nine grade levels… 
a Mandarin immersion school… a district behavioral classroom… I could do all of those things 
marginally, but never felt like I was doing an outstanding job at any one thing.” 
As a comprehensive middle school, Harrison Park was able to offer more electives, arts and 
music opportunities, library access, and interventions. One participant described the shift this 
way: 
“Our middle school students definitely have a richer experience… they didn’t have a whole lot of 
electives… now they have access to librarian, band, art, more often.” 
Family survey responses align with this programmatic improvement. Sixty-four percent of 
current Harrison Park families agreed that their student could access the classes, programs, or 
learning opportunities they needed, and 74% agreed that their student had access to programs 
and opportunities regardless of race, language, disability, or family background. Participants also 
described the capital project as a major improvement to the learning environment. One 
participant emphasized that the rebuilt interior signaled care and respect for students: 
“This school now has been rebuilt from the inside. The outside facade is the same, but 40 million 
has been put into this building… every student deserves to be in a space that is aesthetically 
pleasing where they feel valued.” 
Participants also noted improvements in the behavioral climate after the shift to a focused middle 
school grade span. With K–1 grades no longer in the building and the school focused on grades 
6–8, participants described fewer serious behavioral incidents and a generally calmer middle 
school environment: 
“What’s happening here… it’s pretty minimal. It’s a pretty chill environment in terms of 
behaviors…We don't have very many fights. We don’t have very many big problems… we have a 
lot of little problems.” 
 

## Page 92

92 
At the same time, participants described classrooms where students had very different levels of 
academic preparation and family resources. Some students were at or above grade level and had 
strong support outside of school, while others were significantly below grade level or needed 
more intensive academic, behavioral, or social-emotional support. Participants said this wide 
range of needs made it more difficult for teachers to differentiate instruction and support all 
students equitably. One participant described the challenge: 
“We have a significant chunk of students who are at or above grade level, and a significant 
chunk who are well below, and there isn’t a significant middle ground… that sets a really difficult 
space for teachers.” 
This growing disparity, combined with limited intervention resources, made differentiation more 
difficult. Participants therefore described the learning environment as improved in structure, 
facilities, and opportunities, but still challenged by academic stratification and uneven student 
need. 
Overall Interpretation 
The Harrison Park case shows why SEGC cannot be evaluated only by whether a school gained 
or lost enrollment, received a program, or changed grade configurations. According to 
participants, Harrison Park experienced real gains, including a stronger middle school structure, 
improved facilities, more electives, better access to specialist teachers, and a clearer 
developmental focus for early adolescents. Participants consistently recognized these benefits 
and, in many cases, viewed the shift to a comprehensive middle school as educationally 
important. 
At the same time, these gains came alongside substantial disruption and unresolved equity 
concerns. Harrison Park became less racially and socioeconomically diverse than it had been as a 
K–8 school, lost a substantial portion of its Black and multilingual learner population, and 
entered a new phase in which families’ experiences of diversity differed depending on whether 
they were comparing Harrison Park to its former K–8 identity or to the schools and 
neighborhoods from which they arrived. Participants also described a district process that felt 
reactive, overly responsive to the loudest voices, and insufficiently guided by a coherent 
equity-centered implementation strategy. 
What helped Harrison Park absorb the change was not simply the design of SEGC. It was the 
school’s internal stability. Long-standing leadership, strong staff cohesion, shared hardship, and 
deep commitment to students helped the school manage a concentration of transitions that might 
otherwise have produced greater instability. The personnel record supports this interpretation: 
staff continuity through the immediate conversion was unusually strong, even though more 
recent retention patterns suggest that the strain may be catching up over time. 
 

## Page 93

93 
In sum, SEGC at Harrison Park functioned as an intense, locally managed remaking of the 
school. It expanded opportunity for middle school students while also raising difficult questions 
about demographic change, equitable voice, implementation support, and district accountability. 
 

## Page 94

94 
Kellogg Middle School  
 
Anticipated SEGC Changes  
 
According to district SEGC documents, Kellogg Middle School was impacted through three 
major anticipated changes:  
 
●​ one feeder or boundary change to Hosford 
●​ two small boundary changes to Lane 
●​ one Spanish DLI program receiving change from Mt. Tabor.  
 
Kellogg was expected to remain a Franklin High School feeder middle school serving both 
neighborhood students and Spanish DLI students. However, the SEGC recommendation adjusted 
Kellogg’s enrollment in two directions. On one hand, Kellogg was expected to lose the Creston 
neighborhood feeder to Hosford, along with two small areas on the southern edge of Kellogg’s 
boundary that would shift to Lane. On the other hand, Kellogg was expected to receive the 
Spanish DLI program from Mt. Tabor, specifically the Atkinson-fed Spanish DLI middle school 
pathway. Altogether, 177 students enrolled at the time of implementation were expected to be 
impacted by the changes.  
 
The net effect was expected to be a modest enrollment decrease. District documents listed 
Kellogg’s enrollment at 684 students in 2021–22, with a 2025–26 forecast of 727 students. If the 
recommended changes had been in place in 2021–22, Kellogg’s estimated enrollment would 
have been 659 students, with a 2025–26 forecast of 694 students. Utilization was also expected 
to remain high, shifting from 87.9% in 2021–22 and 93.4% in the 2025–26 forecast to 84.7% and 
89.2%, respectively. In short, Kellogg was expected to remain one of the larger and more highly 
utilized middle schools in Southeast Portland, while becoming the consolidated middle school 
site for Spanish DLI. 
 
Participants  
Across the Kellogg Middle School conversations, we heard from three school-based participants 
who brought broad perspectives on the school’s post-SEGC experience alongside 11 staff and 21 
family survey respondents. Together, their accounts provided insight into school climate, 
staffing, student support, intervention services, dual language programming, and the ongoing 
effects of boundary and program changes. Since Kellogg had recently reopened as part of the 
broader Southeast Portland middle school reconfiguration, most participants spoke primarily 
from a post-SEGC vantage point. They described how Kellogg was experiencing the effects of 
SEGC after implementation, including the consolidation of the Spanish DLI pathway, staffing 
reductions, student support needs, and the development of the school’s middle school culture. 
 

## Page 95

95 
One participant also brought a broader cross-school perspective connected to the Spanish DLI 
consolidation. This perspective helped illuminate how SEGC-related changes were experienced 
before, during, and after implementation across schools connected to that program pathway. 
Importantly, the Kellogg conversations provide insight into how a newly reopened middle school 
absorbed SEGC-related boundary changes, program consolidation, and post-implementation 
staffing and student support challenges. 
 
Figure 7.1. Kellogg estimated, annual, and October 1 enrollment, 2021–22 through 2024–25.  
 
Note: Enrollment is measured by enrollment in the building, not by program. Annual enrollment is based 
on assignment of students to the school they attended for the most days during the school year. October 1 
enrollment counts students enrolled in the school on that single date.  
 
Overview  
The aim of this chapter is to illuminate how SEGC related decisions were experienced at Kellogg 
not only as boundary, feeder pattern, or program placement changes, but as changes that affected 
the daily work of school leaders and educators, the stability of the Spanish dual language 
immersion program, the supports available to students, and the broader functioning of the school 
community.  
 
 
 
 
 
 

[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 96

96 
Findings 
Overall Impacts of SEGC-Related Changes at Kellogg 
Across the Kellogg conversations and survey respondents, participants described SEGC-related 
changes as part of a larger set of structural shifts that shaped the school after its reopening. 
Kellogg was described as a diverse middle school with a substantial Spanish DLI program, a 
strong internal commitment to students, and a staff culture that participants viewed as improving 
over time. At the same time, participants emphasized that the consolidation of Spanish DLI, 
boundary adjustments, and post-reopening growth occurred alongside deep budget cuts, staffing 
reductions, and ongoing uncertainty about the school’s capacity to sustain the support students 
needed. 
Additionally, participants described SEGC as strengthening the coherence and identity of the 
Spanish DLI pathway, while broader fiscal and staffing conditions limited the school’s ability to 
fully realize the benefits of that change. In their accounts, Kellogg’s staff remained committed to 
students and to one another, but the school was repeatedly asked to do more with fewer adults, 
fewer support roles, and less stability. 
Participants described Kellogg as a place where students want to be and where families actively 
seek access. One participant pointed to the school’s strong demand for transfers and its “unique 
diversity,” including Latino/a/x, Black, Asian American, Native, Pacific Islander, multiracial, 
and white students. Administrative records are consistent with this portrait of Kellogg as a 
substantively diverse middle school. Latino/a/x students increased from 30% of enrollment in 
2021–22 to 34% in 2024–25. Black students remained between 5% and 6%, multiracial students 
remained at about 10%, and Asian students declined from 11% to 7%. White students remained 
the largest single racial group, at approximately 41% to 42% across all four years. In other 
words, Kellogg’s diversity was real and stable through the SEGC implementation window, rather 
than simply a new outcome produced by SEGC. 
Participants also emphasized that Kellogg’s diversity and program strengths unfolded within a 
difficult staffing context. They described the school as losing 11 staff members in one year and 
five more the next, including key support roles and experienced DLI teachers. Participants did 
not always separate SEGC-related impacts from broader budget and staffing challenges. 
However, they consistently described the same pattern: SEGC created or reinforced important 
programmatic possibilities at Kellogg, but the school’s ability to deliver on those possibilities 
was constrained by staffing cuts, increased workloads, and fragile student support systems. 
Morale and Retention 
Participants described morale at Kellogg as both improved and fragile. On one hand, participants 
described a stronger internal culture, better relationships with current building leadership, and a 
more cohesive staff climate than in earlier years. One participant described staff survey results as 
 

## Page 97

97 
having improved sharply over time, especially around staff relationships with building 
administration. They attributed this improvement to a people-centered approach that emphasized 
listening, matching staff to roles that fit their strengths, and creating opportunities for teachers to 
lead in areas such as advisory and social-emotional learning.  
Teachers also described a strong sense of collegial respect. One teacher described Kellogg as “a 
fairly united staff” where “everyone on staff has a really high regard for everyone.” This internal 
cohesion mattered because many staff had worked together across multiple years and schools, 
and those relationships helped stabilize the school during a difficult period. 
At the same time, participants repeatedly described burnout, insecurity, and fatigue. Connected to 
SEGC changes, one teacher noted that “we have been burnt out for a number of years,” 
connecting that burnout to repeated staffing reductions, expanding roles, and the emotional toll 
of trying to maintain support for students with fewer adults. Retention and job security emerged 
as central concerns. One teacher reported having been “cut or unassigned twice… in five years,” 
describing how hard it was to imagine a long-term future in the district under such conditions. 
Another described living “year to year” and concluded, “this doesn’t feel like a secure job.” A 
different participant’s account reinforced this sense of instability. This participant described the 
pain of seeing two long-serving, highly regarded DLI teachers unassigned because of staffing 
reductions: 
“This year was rough because we had to take two 10-year veterans or DLI teachers that are 
loved by the kids, loved by the community, loved by their peers, and we had to unassign them… 
Those are hard because we love them. We care about them.  
Personnel records support participants’ description of ongoing instability. Of approximately 75 
staff present each year, between 24% and 32%, left Kellogg after each of the first four years. 
New-staff intake remained between 18% and 30% each year. This level of sustained turnover 
was unusual among SEGC schools, where turnover more often spiked during a transition year 
and then stabilized. At Kellogg, turnover was elevated from the beginning and remained 
elevated. Confirmed district-exit rates were 20% and 23% in the first two years, indicating that 
early churn included a substantial share of staff leaving PPS entirely rather than simply 
transferring to other district schools. 
The staffing footprint also contracted substantially. Total staff FTE fell from 74 in 2021–22 to 55 
in 2025–26, a net reduction of 19 FTE. Kellogg also experienced three different principals across 
its first five years. Participants described current staff-leadership relations as improving, but that 
improvement occurred within the context of prior leadership turnover, repeated staffing cuts, and 
ongoing uncertainty. Thus, Kellogg’s morale story is best understood as a partial recovery in 
internal culture amid continued structural instability. 
 
 

## Page 98

98 
Figure 7.2. Kellogg's turnover rate 
 
Note: The sample includes instructional employees, such as administrators, teachers, educational 
assistants, counselors, and specialists in addition to front office staff. 
 
Capacity to Support Students and Families 
Participants consistently described Kellogg staff as deeply committed to supporting students, 
while also feeling under-resourced and structurally constrained. Teachers described clear 
awareness of students’ needs in areas such as social-emotional learning, regulation, conflict 
resolution, restorative approaches, and individualized support. However, they also said the 
training and staffing needed to implement those supports were often insufficient, especially for 
teachers expected to meet a wide range of needs in general education classrooms. One teacher 
explained: 
“We have a real need for social, emotional skill building… and it needs more specific attention 
and more expert approach… Kids who need a check in, check out or need an escort plan, we 
struggle to follow through on things like that because teachers are being spread too thin.” 
Participants described the work as a “management beast,” where teachers were expected to plan 
instruction, meet legal and IEP-related responsibilities, cover for missing adult roles, manage 
student behavior, and respond to crises with limited backup. Teachers described calling the office 
during a crisis and reaching voicemail or not receiving in-person follow-up because there were 
not enough administrators or support staff available to respond. One participant described similar 
constraints from a resource-allocation perspective. With limited discretionary FTE, the school 
had to choose between hiring climate or coaching staff and investing in reading and math 
 

[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 99

99 
intervention. The participant framed the decision to prioritize intervention as a moral necessity 
because so many students were reading or performing below grade level. 
Other participants agreed that intervention classes were making a meaningful difference for 
students. They described reading and math intervention as helping students feel “seen and heard 
and helped and met where they are.” However, these interventions were fragile because 
preserving them required sacrificing other support roles. One teacher described working as a 
full-time math interventionist while also teaching a PE elective and leading a grade-level success 
work, essentially carrying multiple jobs within one FTE. Another teacher warned that 
intervention access could shrink as staffing was reduced: 
“These intervention classes are what’s making the difference overall, and we’re having to 
scramble to keep them… Those classes are going to grow. Those kids are going to have less 
access to interventions if they need them.” 
Personnel records align with participants’ accounts of reduced support capacity. Counselor FTE 
declined from 4.0 in 2021–22 to 3.0 in 2024–25. Social worker FTE declined from 2.0 in 
2021–22 to zero in 2025–26. The combined student-management, behavior, and mental-health 
category dropped from 3.5 FTE in 2022–23 to 1.5 FTE in 2025–26. Kellogg also lost about 2.5 
FTE in education assistant roles between its opening and 2025–26. 
Staff survey findings reinforce the same pattern. Among the 11 staff who responded, only three 
(27%) agreed that they had the resources they needed to do their jobs effectively, and all 11 
indicated that SEGC-related changes added stress to their work. One staff respondent wrote that 
Kellogg needed “another elective teacher and more teachers in general to create more flexibility 
in our master schedule,” noting that classes were “full, especially electives,” and that scheduling 
students had become difficult. These findings suggest that Kellogg had committed staff and 
promising student supports, especially interventions, but lacked the stable staffing capacity 
needed to make those supports broad, sustainable, and reliable across the school. 
Emotional Well-Being and Professional Support 
Participants described emotional well-being at Kellogg as shaped by two opposing realities: 
meaningful relational support inside the school and persistent stress from workload, staffing cuts, 
and district-level decisions, in which some of these participants contributed to SEGC changes. 
One participant described receiving useful professional development, mentoring, and induction 
support, including coaching on difficult tasks such as staffing conversations. This participant 
described being able to call district leaders and mentors when they felt “lost,” and characterized 
that support as important for sustaining new principals. 
Teachers also described collegial and principal support as strengths. They described a staff that 
“get[s] along really well” and “work[s] together very well.” One teacher noted that with the 
current principal, “if I have any questions or concerns or needs, I can raise them,” while another 
 

## Page 100

100 
said they “could bounce any idea off” the principal. These relationships helped create a sense of 
local trust, even when staff felt the larger system constrained what could actually change. 
At the same time, participants described significant emotional fatigue. Teachers repeatedly 
referenced burnout, “doing more with less,” and the stress of filling gaps left by staffing 
reductions. They described teaching multiple preps, covering electives outside their primary 
expertise, leading schoolwide initiatives, and taking on unpaid or informal duties such as 
supervising dismissal and after-school safety. One teacher described the daily stress of dismissal 
this way: 
“I’m just trying to help the special ed buses get out, or help kids get across the street without 
getting hit by a car, and then parents are actively trying to hit them with their cars… Parents 
have only tried to hit me with their cars three times.” 
Another participant described days when behavioral crises were happening simultaneously 
across the building, leaving limited adult capacity to respond: 
“If there’s like a fight on the third floor and then there’s a kid having a crisis on the second floor 
and then there’s something happening on the first floor, and there’s only one administrator in the 
building, you have to pick which kid to go deal with.” 
Staff survey responses are consistent with this mixed picture. Of the 11 staff who responded to 
the workload item, five agreed (45%) that their current workload was manageable. Four of 11 
agreed that morale at the school was high, and five of 11 agreed that they felt emotionally 
supported at work.  
Class-size pressure was another major source of stress. Only 1 of 11 staff (9%) respondents 
agreed that class sizes were distributed in a manageable way. One staff member wrote that 
“classes of almost 40 are too large for students to thrive in.” Another wrote that “staff cuts and 
increased classroom sizes create a culture of stress,” with student behaviors “taking over and 
causing disruptions, which create an unproductive learning environment.” 
Participants also expressed frustration with district-level decisions, including shifting deficit 
figures and investments they perceived as disconnected from direct student support. One 
participant argued that the system had become “top heavy” and that more licensed educators 
should be working directly with students: 
“More people who are licensed to work with kids should be working with kids, and there should 
be less roles outside of the classroom… If you’re in our industry and you’re not working with 
kids, I think that you need to be put under a magnifying glass.” 
These accounts reflect professional pride and commitment alongside a perception that the system 
is not adequately configured to sustain the emotional health of school-based staff. Participants 
 

## Page 101

101 
discussed initiatives for historically underserved students, but they did not provide enough direct 
evidence to analyze whether emotional well-being differed by staff race or ethnicity. 
Experiences of Historically Underserved Students and Families 
Participants repeatedly described Kellogg’s diversity as central to the school’s identity and 
mission. They described the school as serving Latino/a/x students, Black students, Asian 
American students, multiracial students, Native and Pacific Islander students, and white students, 
as well as students in Spanish DLI and students needing academic, social-emotional, and 
behavioral support.  
Administrative records support the description of Kellogg as a diverse middle school with a 
substantial Spanish DLI pathway. The Spanish DLI program grew from 159 students at 
Kellogg’s opening in 2021–22 to 233 students in 2023–24, where it remained in 2024–25. The 
consolidation of Spanish DLI from Mt. Tabor is visible in the data between 2022–23 and 
2023–24, when Kellogg’s DLI enrollment rose by 62 students. 
Participants described this consolidation as especially important for Latino/a/x students and 
Spanish DLI students. One teacher argued that having “the dual language community all 
centered in one location is much more helpful,” especially compared with the prior configuration 
in which there was only “one section per grade” and limited collaboration among DLI teachers. 
At Kellogg, the DLI team initially grew, allowing for stronger collaboration and a more coherent 
program. 
At the same time, participants offered a critical interpretation of the broader SEGC process. One 
participant argued that the schools and communities most affected by boundary and program 
changes were often communities of color and lower-income communities, while wealthier and 
whiter neighborhoods experienced less disruption. The participant stated:  
“If you live in Sellwood, your school didn’t change. If you live in Laurelhurst, your school didn’t 
change… across all five or six schools that had big changes, it was communities of color who 
were most affected and lowest socio-economic.” 
The same participant recalled early SEGC proposals that would have placed both Chinese and 
Spanish immersion at Harrison Park rather than in the new Kellogg building. Families perceived 
this as racially inequitable: 
“That was the perception of shoving all the Latino kids and all of the Chinese immersion 
students at Harrison Park and letting a bunch of white neighborhood kids be here at the brand 
new school… It was a big racial issue.” 
According to participants, advocacy helped shift Spanish DLI into Kellogg, and the current 
configuration is viewed as better serving Latino/a/x students and DLI students by placing the 
 

## Page 102

102 
program in a more central and well-resourced middle school building. However, participants also 
worried that repeated budget cuts, especially the unassignment of experienced DLI teachers, 
undermined the stability of the very program SEGC had consolidated. 
These accounts suggest a nuanced equity finding. At Kellogg, SEGC appears to have 
strengthened one important equity goal by consolidating Spanish DLI into a larger, more 
coherent middle school program. At the same time, participants believed that the broader SEGC 
process placed disproportionate burdens on lower-income communities and communities of 
color across Southeast Portland. In other words, SEGC may have advanced equity in one 
programmatic respect at Kellogg while also reinforcing perceptions that communities with less 
power carried more of the disruption. 
Quality of Learning Environments 
Participants described Kellogg’s learning environment as shaped by the tension between a 
standardized comprehensive middle school model and the diverse needs of the students the 
school serves. Participants noted that PPS uses high-quality instructional materials aligned to 
state and national standards, which can provide consistency across schools and smoother 
transitions for students who move between buildings. However, a participant also described 
limits to this approach: 
“The curriculum doesn’t always speak to the diverse needs of our kids… teaching and learning 
for… brown and black populations works differently than a standardized kind of sit and get type 
of model.” 
One person argued that Kellogg needed more differentiated, inquiry-driven, and experiential 
approaches to better engage its students. However, implementing that kind of pedagogy at scale 
was difficult under current staffing and resource constraints, especially when many students 
entered below grade level in reading and math. Other teachers’ accounts reinforced this concern. 
They described large classes, multiple preps, and wide-ranging academic needs as barriers to 
deeper instruction. One teacher framed the challenge this way: 
“Teachers can only go so deep when you’re doing three different things with 35 different kids. So 
how can we get more adults… working with smaller groups of kids?” 
Within this context, intervention classes were described as a bright spot. Teachers described 
reading and math interventions as transformative for some students, especially when students’ 
behavioral challenges were connected to academic frustration or low skill levels. Participants 
described students in intervention classes as feeling “seen and heard and helped and met where 
they are.” They also described notable academic growth among some participating students. 
However, administrative records complicate any simple interpretation of the learning 
environment. Kellogg’s exclusionary discipline rate increased across the SEGC implementation 
 

## Page 103

103 
window, from 0.13 incidents per student in 2021–22 to 0.17 in 2022–23, 0.27 in 2023–24, and 
0.38 in 2024–25. Chronic absenteeism remained between 38% and 40% across the four years, 
while attendance remained between 87% and 88%. These are descriptive school-level trends, not 
causal estimates of SEGC’s effect. Still, the direction of the discipline trend sits in tension with 
participants’ descriptions of intervention gains for participating students. It also overlaps with the 
period when behavior, student-management, and mental-health support staffing declined. 
The most accurate interpretation is that Kellogg’s learning environment contained both 
promising and strained elements. The school offered important intervention support and a more 
coherent Spanish DLI structure, but large class sizes, reduced support staffing, contributed to 
increased discipline incidents, and persistent absenteeism limited the extent to which those 
supports could reach all students consistently. 
How SEGC Changes Played Out at Kellogg 
At Kellogg, SEGC-related changes were experienced most directly through the consolidation of 
the Spanish DLI program and related boundary and feeder-pattern adjustments. Spanish DLI 
students from Mt. Tabor arrived in 2023–24, two years after Kellogg’s reopening. Administrative 
records show 58 students leaving Mt. Tabor’s Spanish DLI program and 62 students being added 
to Kellogg’s enrollment. One teacher described moving from another middle school to Kellogg 
along with students when DLI was centralized. The participant acknowledged that the transition 
was disruptive for students, some of whom experienced being “tossed together” and continued to 
describe the move as “mildly traumatic.” Over time, however, this participant viewed the 
consolidation as programmatically beneficial: 
“Specifically here, having the dual language community all centered in one location is much 
more helpful… It is better for the teachers and it’s better for the program at the middle school 
level, in my opinion.” 
This consolidation did not occur in isolation. Participants located it within a broader sequence of 
events. Kellogg’s reopening, the multi-year SEGC process, leadership transitions, the end of 
pandemic relief funds, declining state and district budget capacity, and repeated staffing 
reductions. During 2023–24 and 2024–25, several pressures converged: Spanish DLI 
consolidation, principal transition, major FTE reductions, and an exclusionary discipline rate that 
more than doubled between 2022–23 and 2024–25. These patterns do not prove causation, but 
they show how SEGC-related changes interacted with other conditions that shaped Kellogg’s 
experience. 
Participants also pointed to leadership, staff culture, and district communication as key factors in 
how Kellogg absorbed these changes. They contrasted earlier leadership instability and strained 
teacher-administration relationships with the current principal’s more relational, people-centered 
approach, which they believed helped repair “super old wounds” and rebuild trust. They also 
 

## Page 104

104 
described a relatively cohesive staff, many of whom had prior working relationships, as an 
important buffer against the stress of change. 
At the district level, participants’ experiences were more mixed. One participant described 
central office leaders as generally accessible and responsive when called. Others, however, 
expressed skepticism about district priorities and communication, citing shifting deficit numbers, 
confusing SEGC scenarios, and contested investments. One teacher argued that the district took 
too long in SEGC planning and that a shorter, clearer, more transparent process that 
acknowledged fiscal realities and equity tradeoffs would have better served communities. 
Overall, participants’ accounts suggest that SEGC-related changes at Kellogg, especially the 
Spanish DLI consolidation, were experienced as educationally sound in principle but difficult to 
sustain in practice. The consolidation strengthened the program’s identity and coherence, but 
underfunding, staffing reductions, leadership transitions, and reduced support capacity limited 
the school’s ability to realize the full promise of those changes for students, families, and staff. 
Overall Interpretation 
The Kellogg case illustrates one of the central tensions of SEGC which is that a structural change 
can be programmatically sensible and still be difficult to implement equitably if the school does 
not have stable staffing, adequate support roles, and sufficient resources. Kellogg appears to have 
benefited from the consolidation of Spanish DLI in several important ways. Participants 
described a stronger DLI identity, more collaboration among DLI teachers, and a clearer middle 
school pathway for students. Administrative data show the program grew substantially after 
consolidation. 
At the same time, Kellogg’s ability to sustain these gains was undermined by repeated staffing 
reductions, ongoing turnover, reduced support capacity, large classes, increased discipline rates, 
and persistent absenteeism. Participants described a school with strong commitment, improving 
internal culture, and promising interventions, but also one where staff were stretched thin and 
where key student supports remained fragile. 
 
 
 
 

## Page 105

105 
Mt. Tabor Middle School  
 
Anticipated SEGC Changes  
 
According to district SEGC documents, Mt. Tabor Middle School was impacted through three 
major anticipated changes:  
 
●​ one boundary change 
●​ one middle school feeder change 
●​ one program change.  
 
Mt. Tabor remained a middle school serving its neighborhood, Japanese DLI, and, at the time, 
Spanish DLI students, but the proposal removed some students and program enrollment from Mt. 
Tabor to reduce crowding and support broader regional program consolidation. A small 
boundary area east of NE 60th Avenue was reassigned to Harrison Park. The current Atkinson 
neighborhood feeder pattern also shifted from Mt. Tabor to Harrison Park. In addition, the 
Atkinson Spanish DLI pathway shifted from Mt. Tabor to Kellogg. These changes were 
estimated to impact 180 students in total once implemented. 
 
The expectation was that Mt. Tabor’s enrollment and utilization would decline substantially, 
from 645 students in 2021–22, to a 2025–26 forecast of 660 students, to an estimated 479 
students if the changes had been in place in 2021–22, and to a 2025–26 forecast of 456 students. 
In short, Mt. Tabor was expected to become less crowded, while Harrison Park gained 
neighborhood feeder enrollment and Kellogg became the regional home for Spanish DLI at the 
middle school level. 
 
Participants  
Across the Mt. Tabor Middle School conversations, we heard from seven school-based interview 
and focus group participants who brought a range of perspectives on the school’s SEGC-related 
experience. In addition, 11 staff and 27 family members and caregivers responded to surveys. 
Collectively, participants spoke about changes in enrollment, staffing, student support, 
specialized services, school culture, learning conditions, and the broader identity of the school 
community. 
 
The participant group included both long-standing members of the Mt. Tabor community and 
participants who became connected to the school as SEGC planning or implementation was 
underway. Three of the seven participants were at Mt. Tabor before, during, and after 
SEGC-related changes, which allowed them to describe how the school shifted over time. Four 
participants were present during and after the SEGC-related changes, offering insight into how 
 

## Page 106

106 
the school experienced implementation and how those changes continued to shape current 
conditions. 
 
Together, these perspectives provide both historical and current insight into Mt. Tabor’s 
SEGC-related experience, including how participants understood changes in the school’s 
enrollment, diversity, staffing, learning environment, student support capacity, and internal 
culture. 
 
Figure 8.1. Mt. Tabor estimated, annual, and October 1 enrollment, 2020–21 through 2024–25.  
 
Note: Enrollment is measured by enrollment in the building, not by program. Annual enrollment is based on assignment of 
students to the school they attended for the most days during the school year. October 1 enrollment counts students enrolled in the 
school on that single date.  
 
Overview  
In this chapter, we share findings from survey respondents, administrative data, interviews and 
focus groups conducted with school based participants at Mt. Tabor to better understand how 
SEGC related changes were experienced within this school community. More specifically, the 
aim of this chapter is to illuminate how SEGC related decisions were experienced at Mt. Tabor 
not only as boundary, feeder pattern, or program placement changes, but as changes that affected 
the daily work of educators, the supports available to students, the school’s racial, linguistic, and 
socioeconomic diversity, and the identity and functioning of the school community. 
 
 
 

[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 107

107 
Findings 
 
A Strong School Community Experiencing Cumulative Loss 
Across the Mt. Tabor administrative data, survey response, and conversations, participants 
described SEGC-related changes as a multi-year process that reshaped the school’s size, 
composition, staffing, and program capacity. Participants repeatedly emphasized that Mt. Tabor 
entered SEGC as a large, over-capacity middle school with multiple feeders and language 
pathways. After SEGC-related changes, the school lost a feeder, portions of another boundary 
area, and its Spanish DLI program. Participants connected these changes to a substantial 
enrollment decline, repeated staffing reductions, larger classes, fewer electives, reduced supports, 
and diminished racial, linguistic, and socioeconomic diversity. 
 
Administrative records support the broad arc participants described, while clarifying some of the 
details. Mt. Tabor’s enrollment declined from 680 students in 2020–21 to 473 students in 
2024–25, with the steepest single-year drop occurring between 2022–23 and 2023–24, the year 
the Spanish DLI program left. Staffing also declined substantially, from about 58 FTE in 
2020–21 to about 33 FTE in 2025–26. The largest headcount drop corresponded with the 
departure of the Spanish DLI program. 
 
 
Participants did not describe this as a single moment of disruption, but as a slow erosion. Each 
year brought new reductions, sometimes several staff positions at a time, until Mt. Tabor fell 
below the enrollment level participants understood as necessary to sustain a robust 
comprehensive middle school. Several participants described this as especially frustrating 
because SEGC had been presented as part of a broader regional balancing strategy, but the 
anticipated future changes that might have replenished Mt. Tabor’s enrollment did not occur. 
 
Nevertheless, nearly every participant emphasized Mt. Tabor’s strong internal culture. 
Participants described the school as caring, collaborative, well-organized, and deeply committed 
to students. They praised the strength of staff relationships, the consistency of schoolwide 
systems, and the sense that students experience Mt. Tabor as a safe and supportive place to learn. 
As one participant explained: 
 
“This is such a good school because we have great, seasoned, caring teachers who 
collaborate…I wish more kids could come to the school, because they get a good education.” 
 
Another participant described the school’s climate this way: 
 
“We have a really inclusive learning environment at the school…We work really hard to promote 
a safe, positive school climate where kids can feel like they belong.” 
 
 

## Page 108

108 
Participants essentially held two truths at once: Mt. Tabor remained a strong school community, 
and it also experienced SEGC as a process that reduced its enrollment, staffing, diversity, and 
program breadth without the compensating support or future balancing changes participants 
expected. 
 
Figure 8.2. Mt. Tabor enrollment and staff counts, 2020–21 to 2025–26 
 
Note: Student enrollment is based on assignment of students to the school they attended for the most days during the school year. 
The staff sample includes instructional employees, such as administrators, teachers, educational assistants, counselors, and 
specialists in addition to front office staff. Adjusted FTE distributes FTE evenly across positions in cases where employees held 
multiple positions and were assigned 1.0 FTE for every position.   
 
Morale, Retention, and Trust 
Participants drew a sharp distinction between trust inside the school and trust in district-level 
decision-making. Within Mt. Tabor, participants described strong collaboration, supportive 
school-based leadership, and shared systems that helped staff maintain a sense of cohesion 
despite repeated cuts. Participants described colleagues as working well together, supporting one 
another, and sustaining a strong learning environment for students. 
 
The staff survey supports this picture of a strong internal climate. Among 11 Mt. Tabor staff 
respondents, 10 agreed that staff collaboration supported teaching and learning, 10 agreed (90%) 
 

[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 109

109 
that the school climate was supportive for students and staff, and all 11 agreed that students 
experienced high-quality learning environments. However, the same respondents were more 
divided on morale as only 4 of 11 agreed (36%) that morale at the school was high.  
 
Participants connected morale concerns to repeated staffing cuts. They described years of losing 
multiple staff positions, including educators they viewed as newer, more diverse, more 
energized, or more connected to equity and inclusion work. Participants experienced these losses 
as both practical and relational because fewer adults meant fewer support for students, but also 
fewer colleagues carrying the school’s culture and equity commitments. 
 
Personnel records help clarify this pattern. Staff departures from Mt. Tabor did not spike 
dramatically over time. In fact, departures eased across the study period. The larger issue was 
that departing staff were not replaced. New staff hires fell sharply after SEGC-related enrollment 
losses, which meant the school’s workforce shrank. Staff FTE declined substantially even though 
most departures were internal moves within PPS rather than exits from the district. In other 
words, participants’ sense of loss was not primarily about a mass exodus from the profession. It 
was about the school enrolling fewer students and employing fewer staff over time. 
 
The personnel data also complicate participants’ perceptions about staff diversity. The share of 
staff who were white remained relatively stable, while the absolute number of staff of color 
declined as the total workforce shrank. Participants who described losing colleagues of color 
were therefore naming a real loss in people, even though the proportional composition of the 
staff did not shift in the same way. The administrative data do not capture the age, energy, 
disability inclusion practices, or equity orientation that participants also associated with the 
colleagues they lost. 
 
While participants described strong trust in school-based relationships, they expressed very low 
trust in district-level follow-through. Participants described unrealized promises, limited access 
to transitional supports, late changes to SEGC recommendations, and engagement processes that 
felt unlikely to alter final decisions. Several participants recalled that SEGC was supposed to be 
part of a broader multi-phase regional process, with future boundary work expected to bring new 
enrollment to Mt. Tabor. From their perspective, that follow-up work did not materialize, leaving 
the school smaller and less resourced. 
 
One participant summarized this sense of broken promise: 
 
“There were some promises from the district that weren’t actualized… we’ve dropped… to 430, 
so we’ve lost about 300 students… and there’s no support to make sure that we’re still able to 
offer that robust programming.” 
 
 

## Page 110

110 
Another participant described the engagement process as feeling performative: 
 
“They spent so much money doing all of these research and focal groups [for SEGC]…but, you 
know, they basically did what they wanted to do in the first place. So what was the point?” 
 
Survey responses reflect this lack of system-level trust. None of the 10 respondents who 
answered the question agreed that PPS followed through on its commitments, only 1 of 11 
agreed (9%) that the district could be trusted to handle rightsizing fairly and equitably, and none 
of 11 agreed that SEGC changes were distributed equitably. Yet 10 of 11 respondents (90%) still 
planned to return to Mt. Tabor the following year. This pattern reinforces the larger finding that 
participants remained committed to the school, but expressed deep distrust in the district systems 
shaping the school’s future. 
 
Capacity to Support Students and Families 
Participants described Mt. Tabor staff as a committed to supporting students and families, but not 
consistently equipped with the information, resources, or staffing needed to manage 
SEGC-related changes well. Some district support was available, including communication 
templates, offers for central staff to attend meetings, and limited transition funding. However, 
participants emphasized that much of the practical work of helping families understand and 
navigate the changes fell to individual schools. One participant explained: 
 
“More of it… was on individual schools to be responsive to their own communities and figure 
out, how do we do that?… It really was like on individual schools to figure out, how do we 
support our students and their parents in the best ways possible?” 
 
Participants described local efforts to support families, including transition events where staff 
from receiving schools came to meet students and families, explain new school settings, and 
answer questions. However, participants also said that many classroom teachers, counselors, and 
staff working with students receiving specialized services did not receive enough practical 
guidance about how to respond to family questions or support students through the changes. One 
participant stated: 
 
“No one talked to us at the building level or asked us our opinions about these [SEGC] 
changes… There wasn’t anything given to us like that.” 
 
The staff survey aligns with this sense of limited support. Among Mt. Tabor respondents, only 2 
of 11 agreed (18%)  that they had the resources needed to do their jobs effectively. During the 
SEGC process specifically, none of 10 respondents agreed that they had the information and 
resources needed to respond to student and family questions, none agreed that they had support 
to address challenges, and only 1 of 10 agreed (10%) that they had the support needed overall. 
 

## Page 111

111 
 
Participants also described feeling unable to offer families meaningful solutions when students or 
siblings were affected by boundary and feeder changes. Staff said they could explain the rules, 
but they could not change them. In some cases, the only practical advice participants felt able to 
give families was to pursue hardship transfers or move into the desired boundary. One person 
stated:  
 
“When families would talk to me about… their older sibling went here… all I could say was, 
there’s nothing I can do to help you unless you move into our neighborhood boundary.” 
 
These accounts suggest that Mt. Tabor staff carried significant relational and communication 
labor during SEGC, but did so without a coherent field-level implementation strategy that 
equipped them to answer questions, support transitions, or resolve the concerns families brought 
to them. 
 
Emotional Well-Being and Professional Support 
Participants described SEGC conditions as emotionally taxing, even though many felt supported 
within the school. The emotional strain was especially evident in descriptions of reduced 
staffing, larger classes, increased caseloads, and the feeling of not being able to meet students’ 
needs as fully as educators believed they should. 
 
One participant described the impact of losing specialized staffing and absorbing additional 
student needs midyear: 
 
“It’s hard because it’s just me… I have students that I know their needs are not getting met, even 
though I try really, really hard every single day…” 
 
Other participants described classes with more than 40 students, multiple course preparations, 
and the loss of intervention positions and specialist supports. These conditions affected both 
instructional quality and professional efficacy. One participant explained: 
 
“It’s more difficult to feel that you’re doing your job well. We’ve spread so thin, so many 
students, so many preps… I feel like just when you start to get momentum in one class… the 
other two get left behind.” 
 
Staff survey responses converge with these accounts. Only 2 of 11 respondents (18%)  agreed 
that their current workload was manageable, and only 2 of 10 agreed (20%) that workload was 
manageable during the SEGC process. These findings suggest that participants’ concerns about 
workload were not isolated comments, but reflected a broader pattern among survey respondents. 
 
 

## Page 112

112 
At the same time, participants again distinguished between system-level strain and school-level 
support. Several participants said they felt safe raising concerns within the school and credited 
school-based leaders and colleagues with communicating updates, solving problems, and 
buffering staff where possible. One participant stated that:  
 
“In my building, with my community, my principal, my staff, my students, it’s… wonderful, but 
the systemic issues make morale lower.” 
 
One participant added an important disability justice perspective. This participant described 
experiencing the school and district as inaccessible and marginalizing for disabled staff and 
students, even while others described Mt. Tabor as an inclusive school. They described serious 
facility and access barriers, including inaccessible restrooms, doors too narrow for a wheelchair, 
and the need to map which entrances and exits a wheelchair-using student could safely use. The 
participant also described broader district practices that made disabled staff feel unsupported: 
 
“We’re left out, we’re ignored, we’re forgotten… My students are not considered. They’re not 
included…” 
 
This testimony complicates the broader story of Mt. Tabor’s strong culture. It shows that an 
organization can be experienced as caring and inclusive by many participants while still failing 
to provide adequate structural access and belonging for students and staff with disabilities. This 
distinction matters because internal goodwill does not substitute for accessible facilities, 
adequate accommodations, or inclusive systems. 
 
Survey findings reinforce the difference between current school-level support and SEGC-period 
support. Seven of 11 respondents (63%) agreed that they currently felt emotionally supported at 
work, while only 2 of 10 agreed (20%) that they felt emotionally supported during the SEGC 
process. This suggests that participants may now experience Mt. Tabor as a supportive school, 
but did not feel adequately supported during the period of SEGC-related change. 
 
Experiences of Historically Underserved Students and Families 
Participants consistently described SEGC as reducing Mt. Tabor’s racial, linguistic, and 
socioeconomic diversity, especially through the removal of the Spanish Immersion program and 
changes to feeder patterns. Participants said the departure of the Spanish DLI program reduced 
the number of Latino/a/x and Spanish-speaking students, shifted the school’s culture, and left 
remaining neighborhood Latino/a/x students with fewer peers who shared similar cultural or 
linguistic backgrounds. 
 
One participant explained: 
 
 

## Page 113

113 
“It’s not as diverse as it was before, meaning that we no longer have a large population of 
students who were in the Spanish Immersion program… The neighborhood Hispanic students 
don’t have as many students to identify with.” 
 
Administrative records support the specific loss participants described while complicating the 
broader claim that the school became “whiter.” Latino/a/x enrollment declined from about 11% 
to 12% before the program moved to 8.5% in 2023–24, dropping from 71 to 43 students that 
year. Multilingual learner enrollment also declined, from 4.4% to 2.0%, as the Spanish DLI 
program moved to Kellogg. These figures support participants’ accounts that Mt. Tabor lost a 
particular linguistic and cultural community. 
 
However, the overall racial composition did not become whiter by percentage. The white student 
share declined from 63% in 2020–21 to 58% in 2024–25, while the multiracial share increased 
from 19% to 26%. The reconciliation is that both counts and proportions matter. The number of 
students of color declined as the school became smaller, and the Latino/a/x and Spanish-speaking 
community declined in both count and share. Participants were therefore describing real 
departures and the loss of a specific community, even though the school’s overall percentage of 
white students did not increase. 
 
Participants also described the loss of support and spaces that had centered Spanish-speaking 
families and Latino/a/x students, including a monthly Spanish-speaking family coffee, a 
Hispanic student affinity group, and more regular translation and interpretation practices. 
Someone shared:  
 
“We used to have a monthly… coffee for Spanish speaking parents. We lost that… We used to 
have a student affinity group for Hispanic students. So we lost that…” 
 
Participants also described Spanish DLi students as experiencing repeated instability. They noted 
that the program had been relocated before and was moved again under SEGC, requiring some 
students to change schools late in their middle school experience. One participant described 
students who had completed seventh grade successfully at Mt. Tabor but were required to move 
for eighth grade because of SEGC: 
 
“For us to uproot those kids… that’s not providing stability… that is once again being like your 
program doesn’t matter.” 
 
At the same time, another participant suggested that consolidating the Spanish DLI program at 
another school could provide students with a larger peer community and stronger wraparound 
support. This points to an important tension in the Mount Tabor accounts. Mount Tabor lost an 
important source of diversity and program identity, while the receiving school may have gained a 
 

## Page 114

114 
more coherent Spanish DLI pathway. Since these are staff perspectives rather than direct 
accounts from students and families after the move, claims about benefits at the receiving school 
should be understood as perceptions rather than established outcomes. 
 
However, enrollment records show the program shift clearly. Spanish DLI enrollment at Mt. 
Tabor declined from 75 students in 2020–21 to zero after the program moved to Kellogg. Of the 
Spanish DLI students enrolled at Mt. Tabor in 2022–23, 36 transferred to Kellogg the following 
year and remained enrolled in Spanish DLI. The students followed the program, but the staff did 
not move as a full team. Meanwhile, Mt. Tabor’s Japanese DLI program remained at the school 
and grew to represent a much larger share of total enrollment after the Spanish DLI program 
departed. 
 
Overall, participants viewed the loss of Spanish DLI as more than a program change. They 
understood it as a loss of cultural community, family engagement structures, peer representation, 
and equity-centered practice within Mt. Tabor. 
 
Quality of Learning Environments After SEGC 
Participants described Mt. Tabor’s learning environment as both strong and constrained. On the 
positive side, they highlighted consistent schoolwide systems, collaborative teacher planning, 
strong student support routines, standards-based grading, and a culture where students 
experience classrooms as focused on learning. Participants described Mt. Tabor as a school 
where adults work closely together, expectations are clear, and students are supported 
academically and socially. One participant explained: 
 
“They definitely see that the teachers work closely together, even on the curriculum… it’s 
rigorous and grade level appropriate… there’s a real culture of learning in the classroom.” 
 
Another participant described the school’s inclusive climate: 
 
“We have a really inclusive learning environment…We work really hard to differentiate 
instruction so [students] can access it, and we work really hard to promote a safe, positive 
school climate where kids can feel like they belong.” 
 
At the same time, participants were explicit that SEGC-related enrollment loss and staffing 
reductions weakened the school’s ability to sustain the full range of learning opportunities and 
support associated with a comprehensive middle school. They described core classes with more 
than 40 students, multiple course preparations for teachers, fewer elective sections, reduced 
intervention supports, and fewer adults available for restorative practices, student support, and 
enrichment. Participants also described the library becoming less accessible because the librarian 
had to teach content classes. A participant shared that:  
 

## Page 115

115 
 
“Kids can’t go to the library throughout the school day because our librarian now has to teach 
content classes… our book circulation this year is abysmal.” 
 
Another participant summarized the central issue: 
 
“Class size… is the foundation of all of our success. It’s the foundation of all of our problems.” 
 
Survey findings show the same dual reality. All 11 respondents agreed that students experience 
high-quality learning environments, and 9 of 11 agreed that the learning environment is 
equitable. Yet only 1 of 11 agreed that class sizes are distributed in a manageable way. Only 3 of 
11 agreed that students have equitable access to high-quality programs and opportunities, and 
only 2 of 11 agreed they have the resources needed to do their jobs effectively. This suggests that 
participants believed Mt. Tabor still provided strong teaching and climate, but did so under 
resource conditions that made equitable access harder to sustain. 
 
Participants also raised concerns about disabled students in specialized programs who joined 
mainstream electives. With 40 or more students in some classes, participants worried that general 
education teachers did not always have the time, training, or capacity to implement 
accommodations and modifications well. A person indicated that:  
 
“You put [students receiving specialized services] into 40 plus students, the teachers don’t have 
the time or the energy to make the modifications or accommodations… so then they’re being 
failed.” 
 
A recurring theme was the gap between district rhetoric about comprehensive middle schools 
and Mt. Tabor’s post-SEGC reality. Participants recalled that district leaders had described 500 
students as the threshold needed to support robust middle school programming. Participants 
believed Mt. Tabor had previously functioned as that kind of comprehensive middle school, with 
strong electives, supports, and staff capacity. After SEGC, however, the school remained below 
that threshold without sufficient compensatory FTE. A participant indicated that:  
 
“They [the district] talked about…middle schools need to have at least this number of students 
enrolled in order to be able to offer the robust programming that we need, and that threshold was 
500 students. Clearly, we haven’t been at 500 students in several years…and there’s no support 
to make sure that we’re still able to offer that robust programming.” 
 
Another participant stated the concern more directly: 
 
 

## Page 116

116 
“What we had with more students, the comprehensive Middle School, is what the goal was for all 
middle schools, and in creating it for other middle schools, they took it away from us.” 
 
This became one of the core interpretive frames participants used to understand SEGC: in trying 
to create more comprehensive middle school experiences elsewhere, they believed the district 
made Mt. Tabor less comprehensive. 
 
How SEGC Played Out at Mt. Tabor 
Participants described SEGC’s impact at Mt. Tabor as a sequence of interconnected changes. 
Before SEGC, Mt. Tabor served a neighborhood program, a Japanese dual-language immersion 
pathway, and a Spanish DLI pathway. The school’s combined enrollment placed it above 
capacity and allowed it to sustain a broad range of programming and supports. 
 
SEGC changed this structure by removing a major feeder, relocating the Spanish DLI middle 
grades program to Kellogg, shifting portions of another boundary area, and leaving the Japanese 
DLI at Mt. Tabor. Over time, these decisions contributed to a steep enrollment decline, which 
then triggered staffing reductions and program contraction. Participants described losing 
specialized roles, intervention supports, restorative justice capacity, climate positions, and 
elective sections. 
 
Participants also emphasized unrealized balancing moves. They believed SEGC was not 
supposed to stand alone, but was expected to be followed by future boundary work in other parts 
of the district that would bring new enrollment to Mt. Tabor. When that did not happen, 
participants experienced the school as being left under-enrolled and under-supported. As noted 
by a participant:  
 
“[SEGC] was not supposed to live on its own…we figured within that three-year time span… 
another movement in North and Northeast… would happen, and we would see an influx… That 
did not materialize at all.” 
 
Another participant summarized the outcome: 
 
“The biggest change is a lot fewer students, which has resulted in less staff, less diversity… Our 
school is under-enrolled and has suffered great losses while we’re waiting for the changes to 
come.” 
 
Administrative data confirm that 2023–24 was an especially intense year of change. The Spanish 
DLI program departed, enrollment dropped sharply, Latino/a/x and multilingual learner shares 
fell, the multiracial share rose, exclusionary discipline incidents per student increased, and total 
FTE continued its decline. These patterns should not be interpreted as proof that SEGC caused 
 

## Page 117

117 
each outcome. Other factors, including districtwide enrollment decline, pandemic recovery, and 
budget constraints, were also operating. However, the clustering of these changes helps explain 
why participants experienced SEGC as a major turning point in the school’s trajectory. 
 
Several conditions shaped how Mt. Tabor absorbed these changes. Leadership continuity and 
communication helped buffer some of the disruption. Staff collaboration and strong internal 
norms also helped the school adapt to new schedules, enrollment realities, and student needs. 
Meanwhile, participants described district politics, inequitable community voice, and delayed 
follow-up planning as intensifying the harm. They perceived that certain “pockets of privilege” 
had greater influence during SEGC, while less advantaged communities struggled to have 
concerns heard. Participants also described the long duration of the process and virtual 
engagement during the pandemic as barriers to authentic participation. 
 
Facility and accessibility constraints also shaped the experience, especially for students and staff 
with disabilities. Participants described an older building where physical access issues made 
inclusion more difficult and where district commitments to inclusion were not always matched 
by accessible infrastructure. 
 
Overall Interpretation 
The Mt. Tabor case illustrates how a school can remain strong internally while being weakened 
structurally. Participants described Mt. Tabor as a caring, collaborative, and academically strong 
middle school. Survey responses support this view, particularly around school climate, 
collaboration, and high-quality learning environments. Yet the same participants and survey 
respondents also described low system-level trust, unmanageable workload, insufficient 
resources, large class sizes, and deep frustration with SEGC’s implementation and 
follow-through. 
 
The strongest throughline across the Mt. Tabor data is cumulative loss. Participants experienced 
SEGC as reducing the school’s enrollment, staffing, diversity, language programming, family 
engagement structures, and comprehensive middle school capacity. Administrative records 
support much of this account, especially the enrollment decline, Spanish DLI departure, staffing 
contraction, and loss of Latino/a/x and multilingual learner enrollment. At the same time, the 
records complicate some perceptions, including the idea that the school became proportionally 
whiter overall. This distinction matters: participants were describing real losses in specific 
students, communities, programs, and relationships, even when some schoolwide percentages 
moved in more complex directions. 
 
In short, SEGC at Mt. Tabor was experienced less as a single boundary adjustment and more as a 
redistribution of students, programs, and resources that left the school smaller and less 
comprehensive than it had been. Mt. Tabor’s internal culture helped the school continue serving 
 

## Page 118

118 
students well, but it also masked how much the school was absorbing. For PPS, the key lesson is 
that strong school culture cannot substitute for adequate enrollment, staffing, accessibility, 
program support, and district follow-through. Future districtwide changes should not assume that 
a high-functioning school can absorb repeated losses without weakening the very conditions that 
made it strong. 
 
 

## Page 119

119 
Kelly Elementary School  
 
Anticipated SEGC Changes  
According to district SEGC documents, Kelly K–5 was included in the SEGC review scope but 
had no proposed structural changes. Kelly remained a K–5 school with both a neighborhood 
program and a Russian DLI program, assigned to Lane Middle School and Franklin High School. 
 
District documents noted that Kelly’s neighborhood program had one of the highest 
concentrations of racially and culturally diverse students in the region. They also noted that 
Kelly’s Russian DLI program served mostly students who lived outside PPS and had been 
shrinking from two strands to one strand per grade level. One option considered changing the 
Russian DLI middle school feeder pattern from Lane to Harrison Park. 
 
In short, Kelly was expected to remain structurally unchanged under SEGC, with its existing 
neighborhood and Russian DLI configuration intact and no boundary, feeder, program, or grade 
reconfiguration changes proposed. At the same time, Kelly remained connected to the broader 
SEGC ecosystem because its middle school pathway, Lane, was part of the regional balancing 
work. 
 
Figure 9.1. Kelly estimated, annual, and October 1 enrollment, 2020–21 through 2024–25.  
 
 

[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 120

120 
Note: Enrollment is measured by enrollment in the building, not by program. Annual enrollment is based on assignment of 
students to the school they attended for the most days during the school year. October 1 enrollment counts students enrolled in the 
school on that single date.  
 
Participants  
Across the Kelly conversations, we heard from five school-based participants who brought a 
range of perspectives on the school’s SEGC-era experience during interviews and focus groups 
along with 16 staff and 15 family members or caregivers who responded to surveys. Collectively, 
participants spoke about changes in enrollment, staffing, student support, family communication, 
school culture, language programming, and the broader uncertainty facing the school community. 
 
The participant group included both long-standing members of the Kelly community and 
participants who became connected to the school during or after SEGC implementation. Three of 
the five participants were at Kelly before, during, and after SEGC-related changes, which 
allowed them to describe how the school shifted over time. One participant joined during the 
SEGC implementation period and remained afterward, offering insight into how the changes 
were experienced while they were unfolding. One participant joined after SEGC-related changes 
had already been implemented, providing a current perspective on how enrollment shifts, staffing 
pressures, program concerns, and broader district uncertainty continue to shape the school. 
 
Together, these perspectives provide both historical and current insight into Kelly’s SEGC-era 
experience and help illuminate how participants understood the school’s changing conditions 
before, during, and after implementation. 
 
Overview  
This chapter examines how SEGC-related and SEGC-adjacent changes were experienced at 
Kelly Elementary School. Participants described Kelly as a culturally and linguistically diverse 
school with strong relationships, a calm and structured learning environment, and an important 
role serving immigrant, refugee, multilingual, and low-income families. At the same time, they 
described the SEGC era as part of a broader period of uncertainty shaped by staffing reductions, 
enrollment and boundary shifts, proposed grade-level blends, the contraction of the Russian DLI 
program, transportation barriers, and concerns about future consolidation and/or school closures.  
 
Findings  
 
A School Community Navigating Uncertainty 
Across the Kelly conversations, participants described the school as having a strong internal core 
and a “bright future,” even as it operated within a district context marked by financial 
uncertainty, staffing reductions, and concerns about future consolidation. Most participants did 
not describe SEGC as a process they understood in detail. Instead, they experienced 
SEGC-related and SEGC-adjacent changes through concrete effects and risks, including 
proposed grade-level blends, enrollment and boundary shifts, program contraction, transportation 
 

## Page 121

121 
barriers, and ongoing questions about whether Kelly would be protected or destabilized in future 
district decisions. 
Administrative records support participants’ sense that Kelly remained relatively stable internally 
during SEGC implementation while the broader district context was shifting. Enrollment was 
essentially consistent from 2021–22 through 2024–25, ranging from 410 to 427 students. Kelly 
also experienced within-year enrollment growth after the October 1 count in each school year 
from 2022–23 to 2024–25. Since the study does not include records of students who transferred 
into PPS after October 1, these midyear increases are likely underestimated. Participants’ report 
of a substantial midyear increase is therefore supported within the available data. 
Kelly’s student composition also shifted somewhat during this period. White enrollment declined 
from approximately 55% to 45%, Latino/a/x enrollment increased from approximately 17% to 
23%, and multilingual learner enrollment remained high, ranging from roughly 43% to 51%. 
According to participants, these changes appear to reflect broader neighborhood and enrollment 
patterns rather than a direct SEGC effect, but they provide important context for understanding 
the school community participants described. 
Participants consistently portrayed Kelly as calm, relationally strong, and deeply connected to 
students and families. They described staff as “banding together” through repeated stressors and 
credited long-standing relationships, school-based leadership, and student support systems with 
helping the school remain stable for families. The overall picture is of a school whose internal 
culture helped buffer some of the most visible impacts of district-level uncertainty, even while 
participants remained concerned about future cuts, program changes, and consolidation. 
Morale and Retention 
Participants described staff morale at Kelly as resilient but pressured. On one hand, they 
described deep attachment to the school and strong relationships among staff. One participant 
explained: 
“I work with a lot of the same people that were here when I was hired, and it feels like family… 
It’s kind of a tough school… and that consistency for the families that we work with… I feel 
really proud of.” 
Another participant described staff relationships as a kind of “trauma bonding,”20 emphasizing 
that repeated stressors had pushed staff to rely on one another: 
“I feel like we're very bonded. It's almost like trauma bonding, like we have to band together, 
because every year… people are getting unassigned. There’s staff reductions, there’s fewer 
budgets…” 
20 Interestingly, a participant from another school used the same framing of trauma bonding.  
 

## Page 122

122 
The staff survey reflects this same mix of attachment and strain. All 16 responding (100%) staff 
agreed that the school climate was supportive, and most respondents reported feeling 
emotionally supported at work. At the same time, agreement that morale was high was more 
moderate, with 7 of 12 respondents (58%) agreeing. This suggests that staff viewed Kelly as a 
supportive place to work, while also feeling the cumulative pressure of budget uncertainty, 
staffing reductions, and program vulnerability. 
Figure 9.2. Kelly staff survey respondents’ perceptions about support and morale 
 
Participants were especially concerned about how future district decisions could affect staffing 
and retention. The Russian immersion program was described as central to Kelly’s enrollment, 
staffing, identity, and family community. One participant explained the risk this way: 
“Something that could happen to us would be that they removed the Russian immersion 
program, and there goes 30% of our student population, and there goes 30% of our teachers, 
and it happens overnight.” 
Staff also described the loss of enrichment and support roles over time, including music and 
after-school programming, and connected those reductions to fewer opportunities for students 
and more strain on adults. However, available personnel data do not suggest a major 
SEGC-driven wave of staff departures at Kelly. Instead, the data suggest gradual pressure, with 
one more difficult year followed by recovery. Staff retention dipped in 2022–23 but then 
improved for two consecutive years, reaching 89% in the most recent observable year. This 
aligns with participants’ descriptions of staff trying to “hold the line” rather than leave the 
school. 
Capacity and Communication During SEGC-Related Changes 
Participants generally felt capable of supporting students and families in day-to-day school life. 
They described relying on strong relationships, trauma-informed routines, counseling and social 
work supports, and deep knowledge of families’ needs. However, when asked specifically about 
 

[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 123

123 
SEGC-related changes, participants often expressed uncertainty about what had happened, what 
was being proposed, or how decisions affected Kelly. 
Survey responses reflect the same distinction between general confidence in day-to-day practice 
and uncertainty about SEGC-specific communication. Most staff respondents agreed that they 
were generally given clear guidance when questions came up about changes affecting their work 
and that they could carry out their responsibilities effectively. SEGC-specific communication 
was much weaker. Among those who answered the SEGC-specific items, no respondents agreed 
that communication made the timeline and expectations clear, and none agreed that they had a 
reliable point of contact who could provide accurate answers when questions came up. 
Participants therefore described a gap between local capacity and district communication. They 
felt equipped to care for students and families because of the school’s internal systems and 
relationships, not because SEGC-related decisions were communicated clearly or supported 
through a coherent implementation plan. For Kelly, this meant that school staff could maintain 
day-to-day stability while still feeling uncertain about the larger district decisions shaping the 
school’s future. 
Emotional Well-Being and Professional Support 
Participants located SEGC within a broader period of exhaustion that included COVID-19 
recovery, budget crises, contract disputes, layoffs, furlough discussions, and anxiety about future 
consolidation. One participant described the district context as “really grim times financially.” 
Another described the emotional dissonance of being asked to focus on compliance metrics 
immediately after major staffing reductions. One person noted that:  
“The district just got done un-assigning nearly 250 people… then they called all the principals 
together… They want to talk to them about how many times they need to go into every classroom 
and check the box that the teachers have their learning targets up… It's detached, it's 
dehumanizing, it's transactional.  
Participants also connected emotional well-being to class size and student need. Some described 
recent years with smaller class sizes as far more sustainable and emotionally healthy. One 
participant explained: 
“This year has been, like, amazing… I had 18 kids [previously] and this year I had 19… Those 
are very small classes, and that has highly affected my emotional well-being.” 
At the same time, survey responses show that workload remained a serious concern. Only 3 of 12 
staff respondents agreed that their current workload was manageable. Family survey comments 
also reflected concern about class size, with one family writing that “30 kids is too many” and 
another identifying “large class size and difficult behavior issues” as negative factors affecting 
learning. 
 

## Page 124

124 
Taken together, these findings suggest that staff well-being at Kelly was shaped less by any 
single SEGC decision and more by the cumulative uncertainty surrounding the school. 
SEGC-related proposals, such as grade-level blends, became one additional source of stress 
layered onto budget cuts, program reductions, workload pressures, and the ongoing demands of 
post-pandemic recovery. 
Experiences of Historically Underserved Students and Families 
Participants repeatedly emphasized Kelly’s importance for immigrant, refugee, multilingual, and 
low-income families. They described the school as a form of critical infrastructure for families 
who rely on school-based relationships, language access, counseling, social work, food and 
housing support, and trusted adults.  
One participant explained: 
“We have a lot of students that see our school as critical infrastructure to their lives… access 
our local social worker or Morrison counseling services for licensed therapy sessions or access 
to English language skills.” 
Another participant described the school’s linguistic and cultural diversity: 
“There’s 29 home languages spoken in our school… We are among the most diverse elementary 
schools in the whole city… when kids and families come here, they see themselves, and they're 
loved and cared for…” 
Family survey responses, while based on a small sample, align with this positive view of Kelly. 
Nearly all responding families reported that their student felt safe at school and was learning a 
lot. Most also reported that their child felt a sense of belonging, that their child’s culture or 
language was valued, and that they felt welcome communicating with the school. Open-ended 
family responses emphasized caring teachers and administration, with one family simply naming 
“his teachers” as what helped their child learn. 
Participants were especially concerned about how transportation, program contraction, and 
boundary policies affected families already navigating vulnerability. One participant described 
the frustration of families living in a nearby shelter being denied transportation because they 
were just inside the one-mile radius. They said:  
“We think we have like a path shelter home within a mile of our school… I've had to tell many 
families that we don't provide transportation… It's pretty much an automatic no from the 
Transportation Department.” 
Participants also connected the contraction of the Russian immersion program to newly arriving 
Ukrainian refugee families. One participant explained that the program had previously had two 
strands per grade, but had been reduced to one, even as demand increased: 
 

## Page 125

125 
“We used to have two strands [in Russian immersion]… it has been cut to one… there has been a 
huge surge of the Ukrainian refugees that come in, and they're not able to get enrolled, because 
we have a limited space as well…” 
Administrative records show that Russian DLI enrollment has remained stable at approximately 
150 students each year since 2021–22, and available staffing records show continuity among 
Russian DLI educators. However, participants and family survey comments indicate that families 
continued to value the program and, in some cases, wanted it expanded. One Russian-speaking 
family described Russian-language instruction as important because Russian is their native 
language. Another asked the district to open an additional Russian dual-language immersion 
class. 
These accounts suggest that SEGC-era decisions and future consolidation concerns carry 
heightened risk for Kelly because many families rely on the school not only for academics, but 
also for language, culture, services, safety, and belonging. 
Quality of Learning Environments 
Participants described Kelly’s learning environment as calm, structured, and supportive, 
especially given the level of student need. They emphasized consistent routines, 
trauma-informed practices, respectful relationships, and classrooms where students are generally 
engaged in learning. One participant described the school this way: 
“When you walk the halls here it is quiet. Kids are in their classrooms… When you go into 
classrooms, kids are learning. I think that for the most part, we have calm, engaged learning 
environments…” 
Another participant connected this calm to structure and mutual respect: 
“I think it's pretty structured… which students get used to and at the same time, it's friendly to 
both students and teachers… respecting each other.” 
A third participant emphasized the importance of trauma-informed routines: 
“Our routines are very trauma-informed… kids know that school is going to be the same in a 
good way every time that they come, and that the adults are here to keep them safe.” 
Staff survey findings strongly support participants’ descriptions of a positive learning 
environment. All responding staff agreed that staff collaboration supported teaching and learning 
and that the school climate was supportive. Nearly all agreed that students experienced 
high-quality learning environments and that the learning environment was equitable. These 
ratings were notably stronger than the districtwide pattern among survey respondents. 
 

## Page 126

126 
At the same time, participants stressed that the quality of Kelly’s learning environment is not 
automatic. It depends on class size, staffing, support services, and the school’s ability to avoid 
disruptive structures such as grade-level blends that staff believed would be harmful for 
particular cohorts. Survey responses also point to this vulnerability that staff responses about 
whether class sizes were manageable were split, with the average response near neutral. 
Participants therefore described Kelly’s learning environment as strong but precarious. The 
school’s calm and supportive climate is produced through ongoing adult effort, predictable 
routines, and stable relationships. If staffing is reduced, class sizes increase, or grade-level blends 
are imposed without regard to student need, participants believed the conditions that make Kelly 
work could weaken quickly. 
How SEGC-Related Changes Played Out at Kelly 
Participants did not describe Kelly as experiencing a major program relocation or grade 
reconfiguration directly through SEGC. Instead, again, as mentioned prior, they described 
SEGC-related and SEGC-adjacent dynamics as part of a broader pattern of district 
decision-making that affected the school’s sense of security. These included boundary and 
enrollment shifts, proposed 4/5 grade blends, the contraction of the Russian DLI program, 
transportation barriers, and concerns that Kelly could become part of a future consolidation 
process. 
The proposed 4/5 blend was one of the clearest examples participants raised. Participants 
described the cohort as having significant needs, including refugee students and students with 
serious trauma histories, and said school staff worked hard to prevent a blend they believed 
would undermine students’ ability to have their needs met. One participant explained: 
“There was a lot of concern about blending the fourth and fifth grade… that particular cohort 
had four or five students that had to be separated… several different administrators have had 
different values, [but] every single one identified this as a serious area of concern and has done 
as much as they could to prevent that from impacting our school or our students’ ability to have 
their needs met.” 
Participants also linked SEGC to future consolidation conversations. One participant described 
the school’s strategy as trying to secure a “seat at the table” rather than waiting for decisions to 
be made elsewhere: 
“It’s either going to happen without us or it’s going to happen with us. And if we don’t have a 
seat at the table, things will happen to us.” 
Participants described both risk and possibility in this future-facing conversation. The feared 
scenario was that the Russian DLI program could be removed, leading to a sudden loss of 
students, staff, and community identity. The more hopeful scenario was that Kelly could become 
 

## Page 127

127 
a consolidation site, grow enrollment, reoccupy its annex space, and strengthen its role as a 
stable hub for students and families. 
Several factors shaped how Kelly responded to these uncertainties. Participants described a local 
approach that involved shared problem-solving, staff input, and efforts to define school needs 
clearly. Staff cohesion and tenure also mattered; participants repeatedly described Kelly as a 
“family” whose long-standing relationships supported collective problem-solving. The school’s 
facility and enrollment profile also shaped its position: participants viewed Kelly’s capacity, 
annex space, and relatively low retrofit costs as making it both viable and exposed in future 
consolidation decisions. 
Overall, Kelly’s SEGC-era experience was less about one discrete change and more about 
ongoing uncertainty. Participants described a school trying to protect what works, serve a highly 
diverse and high-need community, and position itself proactively in district conversations that 
could reshape its future. 
Overall Interpretation 
The Kelly case shows how SEGC-related change can be experienced indirectly, through 
uncertainty, program vulnerability, staffing concerns, and future consolidation risk rather than 
through one major immediate reconfiguration. Participants did not portray Kelly as a school that 
had been dramatically disrupted by SEGC in the same way as some other schools. Instead, they 
described Kelly as a strong and stable school community operating in a fragile district 
environment. 
The central tension is that Kelly appears to be working well for students and families, especially 
immigrant, refugee, multilingual, and low-income families, but participants worried that the 
conditions making the school work could be weakened by staffing cuts, transportation barriers, 
program contraction, grade-level blends, or future consolidation decisions. Administrative and 
survey data generally support this picture that enrollment remained stable, midyear enrollment 
growth was plausible, school climate and learning environment ratings were strong, and staff 
retention recovered after a difficult year. At the same time, workload, class size, and district 
communication remained areas of concern. 
 
 

## Page 128

128 
Conclusion: Lessons Learned from School-by School 
Analysis  
The school-by-school findings show that SEGC was experienced less as a single enrollment 
balancing initiative and more as a series of locally lived changes that landed differently across 
school communities. SEGC as a district-level change strengthened some program pathways, 
reduced crowding in some places, and created more developmentally appropriate grade 
configurations. However, at the same time, it also produced enrollment loss, staffing reductions, 
disrupted relationships, transportation burdens, diminished trust, and new equity concerns in 
other places. For this reason, SEGC should not be evaluated only by whether it balanced 
enrollment, improved school utilization rates, or relocated programs according to the district’s 
original plan. It should also be evaluated by how those changes were experienced inside schools 
by the students, families, educators, staff, and school leaders who carried the consequences over 
time. 
The central lesson from this school-by-school analysis is that racial equity and social justice are 
not achieved through intent or rhetoric alone. They become real, or can be often undermined, in 
implementation. Racial equity and social justice are experienced in whether families understand 
what is happening and why, whether students remain connected to peers, trusted adults, and 
accessible programs, whether receiving schools have the staffing and support to absorb change, 
whether historically underserved and racially minoritized communities carry disproportionate 
burdens, and whether the district follows through on what it promised. Across the schools, 
participants often recognized the stated equity goals behind SEGC, but they also described gaps 
between those goals and the lived realities of implementation.  
As such, these school-by-school findings offer several lessons for PPS.  
One major lesson is that strong schools can still be weakened by repeated losses. Several schools 
in our analysis were described as caring, collaborative, relationship-rich communities with strong 
internal cultures. These strengths helped schools absorb SEGC-related changes, but they did not 
eliminate the consequences of enrollment decline, staffing reductions, program movement, or 
reduced support. In some cases, the very schools that were able to “make it work” did so because 
staff and leaders stretched themselves to compensate for gaps in district planning and resources. 
Given this, PPS should be careful not to mistake school-level resilience for evidence that SEGC 
change was adequately supported or accomplished. A school’s culture, relationships, and trust 
are real assets, but they are not unlimited resources. 
A second lesson is that program coherence can come with displacement costs. Some SEGC 
decisions appear to have strengthened important programmatic goals, especially around dual 
language immersion and middle school configuration. For example, consolidating language 
 

## Page 129

129 
pathways or creating fuller middle school structures may provide real benefits for students who 
remain in or enter those programs. However, those benefits must be weighed alongside the 
experiences of students and families who were moved, who lost neighborhood access, who faced 
longer transportation routes, or who entered receiving schools under strained conditions. Future 
program decisions should therefore ask not only whether a program is stronger after 
reconfiguration, but also who was displaced to make that strength possible and whether those 
students and families were equitably supported. 
A third lesson is that receiving schools need more than enrollment. They need organizational 
capacity to equitably and properly support students. Several schools were asked to receive 
students, staff, programs, or new grade configurations while also managing existing student 
needs, budget pressures, staffing instability, and COVID-19 post-pandemic recovery. Receiving 
students is not simply a matter of assigning them to a new building. It requires transition staffing, 
transportation planning, multilingual communication, student support services, family 
engagement, special education and multilingual learner capacity, and time for school 
communities to build trust. Future districtwide enrollment changes should include a 
receiving-school readiness plan before implementation begins. 
A fourth lesson is that families and staff judge equity by follow-through, not just words. Across 
school communities, participants often distinguished between being invited to speak about SEGC 
changes and believing their input mattered. Many described SEGC engagement processes where 
they shared concerns, attended meetings, testified, reviewed maps, or supported families, but did 
not see clear evidence that community input shaped final decisions or implementation supports. 
This distinction matters for trust. Future family and community engagement processes related to 
enrollment should make clear what is open for influence, what has already been decided, what 
criteria will guide decisions, and how community feedback changes the final plan. Without 
visible follow-through, engagement can be experienced as procedural rather than meaningful. 
A fifth lesson is that PPS should evaluate the cumulative burden before adding new changes to 
any school community (we offered this lesson in our phase 1 report that included our 
cross-school findings). Many SEGC-related changes were not experienced one at a time. They 
overlapped with leadership transitions, construction, budget reductions, labor disruptions, 
COVID-19 recovery, staffing cuts, program changes, and broader demographic shifts. We 
learned that a boundary change that looks manageable on paper may feel very different in a 
school that has already lost staff, absorbed displaced students, changed grade configurations, or 
endured repeated uncertainty. Future enrollment planning should include a cumulative impact 
review that asks what a school has already absorbed, what supports remain in place, and what 
additional burden a proposed change would create. 
Finally, PPS should build stronger mechanisms for post-implementation learning and course 
correction measures. School change does not end when boundaries are redrawn, programs are 
 

## Page 130

130 
relocated, or students move buildings. For students, families, and staff, the real work begins after 
implementation. Future districtwide enrollment changes should include public checkpoints, clear 
indicators of success and harm, family and staff feedback loops, and the authority to adjust 
course when unintended consequences emerge. These mechanisms should track not only 
enrollment and utilization, but also staffing stability, class size, student belonging, transportation 
burdens, program access, discipline, attendance, family trust, and whether receiving schools are 
able to provide the support students need. 
In sum, the school-by-school findings suggest that future enrollment balancing, program 
relocation, consolidation, closure, or rightsizing efforts should be designed as multi-year equity 
implementation processes, not one-time technical and policy decisions. PPS should be able to 
show not only what will change, but why it is necessary, who will benefit, who may be burdened, 
what supports will be provided, how promises will be tracked, and how the district will respond 
if the lived experience of students, families, and staff does not match the intended goals. The 
most important lesson from SEGC is that districtwide change must be judged not only by the 
logic of the plan, but by the justice of the experience.