Board Pushes Family From Newberg

Since the school board election in 2021 and the beginning of Dave Brown’s tenure as board chair, more than 230 students have left the Newberg-Dundee School District. This translates to over 2 million dollars in lost funding. Incumbent board members will be quick to point out that families leave the district for all kinds of reasons, and the school board cannot be blamed for a mass exodus of students. (This was not something they argued, I might add, when the previous superintendent was in place.) They might argue that nearby districts have also lost students, though data does not support this claim. A few board supporters will insist that parents left the district because their kids were being brainwashed by liberal teachers, with assurances that re-electing a “conservative” board keeps schools from becoming  “indoctrination centers” (in the words of Board Chair Dave Brown).

We interviewed a parent to give some perspective that might help us understand why families are leaving the district. Spoiler alert: Many are definitely leaving the district because of the current board, taking their deep investment in Newberg and its schools with them. They leave because they value their children’s education. They leave because they value educators. 

They leave because they believe in public education, but worry that the dismantling of Newberg schools might negatively affect their children’s futures. 

Let’s call this parent Jamie. Why did you leave?

“We had to think about our kids’ futures. Things start to matter as kids get older. The ship is sinking, and we don’t have time to wait around for the ship to right itself,” they added, explaining why their family has moved to a nearby town so that their children can attend flourishing schools.

“If a college admissions board googled Newberg now, the results would not be good,” Jamie said, noting that a competitive college admissions process might mean Newberg students are at a disadvantage. 

During our interview, Jamie reiterated several times that they don’t blame educators. In fact, they were appalled that during the last superintendent search, the educators’ clear choice wasn’t hired by the board. Why would the board make the deliberate decision to turn away from a superintendent candidate who was well-liked by teachers, and who promised to bring unity and stability to the district?

Jamie knows Newberg’s educators. While their children attended Newberg schools, they worked closely with teachers, participated on the volunteer board, sent out monthly newsletters to a school’s parents, helped with fundraising, and was “super involved with teachers” to help foster a strong connection between parents, educators, and the community. 

Their kids were also very invested, participating in “all the activities possible,” including representing Newberg in state and regional competitions. “They were very engaged in school,” Jamie said. “We never imagined that this would happen” to the community. 

“We were very happy until the craziness started,” they said. 

The parent pointed out that the mass exodus of educators and students causes a “ripple effect” in a community like Newberg. “It’s so important to have stability in the district,” they said, noting the particular impact of nearly 200 educators leaving the district. “Losing institutional knowledge is devastating.”

When the board’s mantra is “focusing on the basics” in education to the exclusion of social and emotional learning, they will produce young people who cannot navigate college or career, whatever pathway students choose.

“When I hear them talk about getting back to the basics, I wonder whether people are even working in the world!” Jamie said. “Job interview questions are all about social and emotional learning: being team players, critical thinking, and working with the opposition. To participate in the world economy, students need to be competitive: they need to be articulate, and have good critical thinking skills, not just be able to memorize facts.”

Jamie’s whole family is sad to have moved on to another district, because of the community they’ve lost; though they’ve found a “stable district” that’s supportive of teachers and students. 

“This year has been refreshing,” they added. “No matter what side of the fence you’re on, it’s troubling that there’s always angst, that the teachers aren’t supported.”

The sobering reality is that a generation of children may find their futures compromised by a school board’s decisions–decisions that have gutted a once-flourishing district. 

At the April 11, 2023, board meeting, Director Trevor Dehart said “based on my discussions and what I know about the district, we’re in a very very healthy state.” Judging by this parent’s experience, the experience of teachers and staff, and that of countless others in the district, Dehart does not know what he’s talking about. Instead, the district is flailing, failing its teachers, its families, and most importantly, its children. 

On May 16, we have the chance to stem the bleeding of students and staff.  We have a chance to support the passion and dedication of educators. A vote for Jeremy Hayden, Deb Bridges, Nancy Woodward, James Wolfer, and Sol Allen will help rebuild Newberg’s public schools into a place students, their families, and educators want to be.

Transparency is one principle we’ve returned to often in writing about the current school board in Newberg, and the sense that board members are not being transparent with anyone but their ardent supporters. In the past two years, the board has not been transparent about a number of things, including the surprise no-cause firing of Superintendent Joe Morelock, the use of district funds to fight multiple lawsuits (and pay for attorney Ty Smith), the budgeting process, and the reasons why they’ve decided not to follow Oregon Department of Education policies. 

Recently, two major decisions—the start time for all schools, and the change to trimesters—happened without much community input, making some parents suspicious and edgy. What other decisions will be made by this board behind closed doors, decisions that could adversely impact Newberg families? Parents who love their children almost more than life itself have every reason to wonder what shoe will fall next, and how those decisions will impact their children’s educations, and thus their futures.

So forgive us for being somewhat distrustful of the recent announcement that the Newberg School District will have a community forum on May 3—a chance, the Facebook post says, for the district to dispel “misinformation pertaining to district programs and processes” about schools. A clear and transparent school board would have communicated with all parents throughout the year, not only in the weeks before an important election and six weeks before the school year ends. As it is, this forum feels more like a campaign opportunity for school board incumbents, rather than a sincere effort to create trust with constituents.

The district is requesting questions be submitted before the forum. On April 28, to be exact. Parents are warned that there can be no questions about district lawsuits or about “anything political.” We understand the need to refrain from talking about lawsuits, but how is the district leadership going to define “political”? 

Is asking a question about what services special education students aren’t getting political? Is it too political to wonder what professional development educators are getting, and whether Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion instruction is part of that development? Is it too political to wonder whether the board’s push for parents’ rights will mean that some parents’ rights matter more than the rights of other parents? 

If this was truly an open forum, one that prizes transparency, we would have a sense of what questions people were asking, and why some questions were considered political, while others were allowed to stand. As with other aspects of the current board, though, transparency only matters when the narrative being spun is not only positive, but also positively toxic. 

Some people might be wondering what’s going on in the Newberg Schools nutrition program. Wednesday afternoon, a number of parents received emails from the program suggesting that the students had a balance on their accounts, which was news to at least one parent whose kids haven’t been at Newberg schools this year. Others took to the district’s Facebook page to question why they received emails that seemed to be in error. 

Only days earlier, rumors circulated in Newberg that the school district would not be providing meals for children during the summer. For many parents, the summertime breakfast and lunch program means the difference between their children having food needs met and stretching an already margin-thin grocery budget even further. The program also has been one way for children and their parents to socialize during the summer months, a point of community contact that many people rely on.

So the news about a potential cancellation of the program was met with particular outrage, especially by parents who have seen their children lose out on so much already. The summer lunch program is federally-funded, although it’s administered by the school district, who pays for staff to make and distribute meals. Some wondered whether the district lacked the funds for the program because of the substantial increase in a legal budget needed to deal with costly lawsuits, and because the district has lost so much revenue from families leaving the schools.

By late in the day, the Newberg-Dundee Schools social media pages announced that lunches would be provided in the summer after all, no doubt convinced by a flurry of emails from upset parents. At the school board meeting on April 25, Superintendent Steve Phillips insisted that the summer lunch program was never in jeopardy, and that the rumors had been lies, though a few parents produced emails from the program suggesting that the program would not continue because Covid funds were no longer available. So lunches during the summer are on, though breakfasts are, for now, off the table. 

We might assume that this is just a bad week for the nutrition program, and that the disarray is recent. But, according to a former kitchen manager, the chaos actually started last summer, when the former Nutritional Services manager left the district because of the board’s toxicity. A new hire, someone the kitchen manager said was “AMAZING” (emphasis hers), lasted only two months before leaving for another district, too; according to our source, the supervisor was being “harrassed by the superintendent and HR director.” 

A third manager, Brian Quinn, was brought on board, and problems allegedly began almost immediately. “He doesn’t understand federal guidelines, and consistently broke ODE rules regarding serving,” they said. “He didn’t follow policies regarding student allergies . . . He wouldn’t post menus for students and parents to see. He wouldn’t provide recipes so the nutritional information was available.”

The Newberg Public Schools Facebook page publicized the “Tiger Bowls” on April 12 as a notable addition to its nutritional fare. But, according to the former employee, Quinn did not disclose the ingredients. Sauce for the Tiger Bowls used almonds, and a student allegedly suffered an allergic reaction as a result. 

The one-time kitchen manager left their post because of the stress caused by the nutrition department supervisor. “Most of the nutrition staff have gone to the union, gone to HR, reported him to ODE, reported him to Yamhill County Health (he has refused to show that he has a basic food handler’s card),” they wrote. “The administration (superintendent and HR director) REFUSE to do anything about the situation.” 

Of course, the problems in the nutrition department cannot be solely due to school board oversight (or lack thereof). But in a district already hemorrhaging students and employees; in a district beset by problems with transparency and accountability; in a district where thousands of dollars are being spent on legal fees while classrooms suffer, the mismanagement of the nutritional department is one more place where children ultimately lose. Some, like those with food allergies and those with food insecurities, will suffer most.

At the April 11, 2023, board meeting, Director Trevor DeHart used his comment time to provide appropriation for the board’s work in turning around what he saw as a failing district. According to DeHart, signs of the district being in a “great place” are everywhere: from the new construction, thanks to a bond (that passed when Joe Morelock was superintendent); to an improved system of communication and “healthier budget”; to enrollment numbers that are up, reflecting a flourishing district.

At least two times in his brief comments, DeHart said “if you’re honest with yourself,” suggesting that critics of the board need to look at the facts on the ground and see that the data proves the district’s positive trajectory. 

If you’re honest with yourself, though, you’ll see that DeHart is not telling the truth, not about the budget, not about the improved communications, and not about the data. In fact, according to the data, the district is losing students almost as quickly as employees.

Here’s the truth about enrollment numbers:

DeHart and others will note that the district exceeded its projection numbers by 200 students this past fall. But projecting student enrollment relies on prognostication, and doesn’t reflect the reality: that students are leaving the district at a rapid rate. Some props to Superintendent Phillips for correcting DeHart in the April 11 meeting, saying that those numbers only showed that the district exceeded projected numbers. 

What he didn’t say, and what DeHart didn’t seem to realize, is that between September 2022 and January 2023, at least 97 students left the district. (These numbers were uncovered in a FOIA request.) 

You can get a better sense of what this means by looking at the same time period for different years: 

9/17-1/18: -36

9/18-1/19: -29

9/19-1/20: +29

9/20-1/21: -26

9/21 – 1/22: -96

9/22-1/23: -97

Since the current board has taken charge, first semester leave numbers have almost tripled. (It’s interesting to note, too, that in the year before the pandemic, Newberg gained 29 students in its first semester.) 

It would be easy to excuse these numbers by insisting that things are bad everywhere; board supporters have been quick to say that the pandemic caused students to leave the schools, not only here, but elsewhere. And while the numbers don’t bear this out, it seems problematic–even hypocritical–to fire Morelock during Covid for what they argued was his failed leadership, but then assert that things were hard everywhere. If that truly was the case, what was the real reason for firing the superintendent? 

The first-semester enrollment numbers, and DeHart’s insistence that the data shows a healthy district, reflects a troubling pattern: information that might prove damning to the board is hidden, or misrepresented, or misused, forcing citizens to submit FOIA requests to find out answers. Or to become data analysts, to understand numbers that don’t really make sense. Or to feel as if they’re being gaslighted by a governing board to which they’ve entrusted the well-being of the people they value most: their children. 

If you’re honest with yourself, none of this makes sense.

A voters’ pamphlet for the May 2023 election has been posted online, and will be headed to Oregon mailboxes soon. As you read through the stated goals for current Newberg School Board directors up for re-election, you will note they claim to support “fiscal responsibility.”  

But what does fiscal responsibility actually look like?

These board members will tell you that they righted a sinking ship–that it was only when they took over the board and fired Dr. Joe Morelock that Newberg found stable financial footing. We suspect they will use this year’s audit to support claims that the previous board and Dr. Morelock impoverished the district. 

Be wary of this smoke-and-mirrors attempt to position the current board as fiscally responsible, because the truth is a lot more complicated. Indeed, far from being responsible, the current board has cost the district plenty, and its decisions will continue to crater Newberg’s schools, leading to fewer programs, fewer talented teachers in the classroom, and fewer opportunities for Newberg’s children.

Gregg Koskela, who recently won a state-wide award as communications director for the Cascade School District, knows well the costs of the school board’s decisions, and understands clearly how a disastrous audit can be recast to hide the district’s financial precarity. Koskela was a longtime communications director for Newberg, as well as serving as point person for the bond, until he resigned last summer. 

In a well-researched and thoughtful blog post this weekend, Koskela clearly outlines the audit process, and explains why the board directors’ claims of “fiscal responsibility” is not reflected in the district’s real financial state. Koskela’s post offers just one more reason that the May 16 election matters to the flourishing of our school district and our school children, and to the future of Newberg itself.

You can read Koskela’s excellent blog post here. 

In the 2021 Newberg school board elections, a consistent refrain was that new candidates needed to “Save Our Schools,” returning students to the basics of reading, writing, and mathematics. Newberg citizens were told that educators weren’t teaching kids, too focused on politics and indoctrination to care about educating. 

A new school board would “raise the academic bar for all students,” according to a candidate’s platform, articulated in the Yamhill County Voters’ Pamphlet. “Let’s expect more and lets deliver,” the candidate wrote, perhaps forgetting that a high academic bar would require that Newberg students write grammatically correct sentences. 

Sometimes, it seems, an apostrophe matters.

No doubt you’ve seen the signs currently around Newberg, promoting a block of candidates for this May’s school board election, but using an apostrophe incorrectly (unless, of course, there really is only one parent in Newberg intending to vote for Chairperson Dave Brown and the other four candidates). 

It might seem pedantic and petty to point out this error, a simple typographic mistake we are all in danger of making now and then. But when a block of school board candidates are arguing that our students need to achieve more academically, and when these candidates insist that they are first and foremost about reading, writing, and arithmetic, then a misplaced apostrophe on numerous signs spread throughout the region really does matter. 

According to the Oregon Standard for English Language Arts, students learn the appropriate use for apostrophes in the second grade (page 17 outlines this standard). Of course, any high school language arts teacher will tell you that writers continue to struggle with the conventional English standards until they graduate, usually because they have failed to internalize the rules, because they are careless, or because they don’t edit well, if at all.

It’s also not entirely clear whether the school’s current communications team has not yet internalized the rules of Standard English, if they are careless, or if they don’t edit well. Bridge and Bolster LLC, which essentially received a no-bid contract in August 2022 to run the district’s communications department, consistently makes errors in its documents, from misplaced apostrophes to misspelled words to wrongly-identified employees in social media posts. As one district parent recently asked, “at what point will parents be frustrated enough to expect 7k worth of work?”

The parent went on to say that she has spoken privately with Bridge and Bolster, suggesting they do a closer edit, and several others on the Facebook post also mentioned discussions with the marketing firm, asking them to be more accountable for the taxpayer money they receive each month by communicating more clearly with their constituents. An educational enterprise having so many errors in their communications is embarrassing, a number of people have noted, especially when some of the students served by the district could provide stronger writing and editing skills.

Bridge and Bolster became a company only seven days before starting with the Newberg School District; you can read about its controversial hiring here. Its owners had zero experience providing direction and expertise for a complex communications department, one that needs to produce clear information to numerous constituents and through multiple channels. A district already in disarray needed professionals who can write clearly and correctly, and who can do far more than post on social media and shoot promotional videos for the district office.  

As one former educator said, “I’m more upset that most posts are about the adults in the district, instead of focusing on students, volunteers, academic scores or plans to move our schools and students in a strong direction. We are paying $84,000 that does nothing to inform parents of how our schools are educating our students and preparing them for life after high school.” 

A strong school district has an experienced communications team, connecting with parents in the district and celebrating the academic accomplishments of its students. A strong school board doesn’t need its district communication team cheerleading its efforts, because its hard work will be manifest in the success of its students. A strong school board will be transparent about who it hires–and about why an inexperienced marketing firm received a lucrative contract. 

A strong school board will be accountable, transparent, and competent, aware that even an apostrophe can be the difference between a parent’s choice, and parents’ decisions to vote for candidates that can serve the district well.