The issue of people without housing in Newberg has become another point of division in our community, turning neighbors against each other and stoking fear, with some citizens asserting that those who are homeless will make Newberg into “another Portland,” and that people without housing pose a particular threat to school children. 

Now, the head of Newberg schools seems to be jumping into the fray, reinforcing the notion that people without housing are drug addicts. For some people, the latest superintendent update brings to mind the efforts made last summer to ban homeless camps near schools–an effort spearheaded by (now) Mayor William Rusacker and City Councilwoman Robin Wheatley. Under the guise of protecting children, the initiative proposed by Rusaker et al. characterized those experiencing homelessness as dangerous predators, drug addicts and sexual offenders.  

In the Newberg school district’s latest video update, Superintendent Steven Phillips visits the Newberg Emergency Shelter and talks with one of its employees, Matt Bunn, who advocates well for the shelter’s work. In the interview, it is clear Matt understands the complex nature of homelessness, and he resists any attempt to flatten or demonize the lives of the people he serves.

And yet, despite what might be a positive intent, the video continues to dehumanize those who are houseless, tying those experiencing homelessness directly to fentanyl use, contributing to the fear-mongering rhetoric. This language is used to rally people to support a proposed ballot measure limiting the spaces where those who are homeless can exist in Newberg.

The video opens with statistics about fentanyl use, including the claim that “In Oregon, drug use is the primary cause of homelessness.” Even a quick search of Google shows this claim is not necessarily true: one survey says mental illness is the highest cause of homelessness in Oregon; the Portland Rescue Mission asserts that homelessness is too complex to indicate only one cause. Many studies show that over 50 percent of women and children needing shelter are escaping domestic violence, and one important 2021 study points out that “Homelessness is a Housing Problem.” This and other studies have concluded that a community’s cost of housing and inadequate housing supply is the number one indicator of whether someone experiences homelessness. 

By directly tying fentanyl use to homelessness in Newberg, the superintendent’s update fails to address the complexities of homelessness, and instead becomes one more way the school administration–in the name of “taking politics out of schools”–is making a political stand, one that will harm students in Newberg facing housing instability and the stigma of houselessness.

It’s also puzzling why the superintendent update would need to wade into this clearly political debate at all. Parents in the school district have yet to be informed about: 

• Graduation rates
• Enrollment numbers
• The district’s financial picture
• New curriculum adoptions
• Educators’ professional development
• Strategic planning
• Plans for academic outcomes

One response on the school district’s Facebook page captures the frustration with the superintendent updates. A constituyente writes, ”Con todos los problemas que hay en las escuelas y el superintendente prefiere hacer videos. Ya pasó hoy por la High School o Mountain View? Ya fue a ver si hay alguna necesidad en alguna de las oficinas del distrito escolar?”  (“With all the problems going on in the schools and the superintendent prefers to make videos. Have you been to the High School or Mountain View today? Have you already gone to see if there is a need in any of the school district offices?”)

A fully transparent and fully functioning school board and its district administrators would do well to inform the community about what is happening in its schools and programs. It might consider the impact of houselessness on its students, and it might address potential solutions the school district can provide to help students find stability in the classroom, especially when life outside of school hours is unstable. 

A school board and administration that stigmatizes those who are houseless by insisting the “primary cause” of homelessness is drug addiction (specifically fentanyl use), and who ostensibly support an anti-homeless agenda in Newberg, is being political, no matter what they say about wanting to save schools.

On Friday, the Newberg School Board announced on their social media platforms that they are forming a “parents’ rights advisory committee.” An email was also sent out to parents from Brett Royer on Friday with the same announcement. In both the social media posts and the email, parents were asked to email this address and answer several questions about why they would want to be on a parents’ rights advisory committee. 

In a later post, we will be doing a deeper dive into what’s potentially wrong with “parents’ rights” statements, and how parents’ rights have become another salvo in the cultural wars fought on the battlefield of schools nationwide. For a school board ostensibly intent on taking politics out of schools, discussions about parents’ rights are politically charged, suggesting that those hoping to save our schools from politics really had something else in mind. 

But another post, another time.

For now, given the confusing messaging around this parents’ rights advisory committee, its ambiguous intent, and the lack of clarity about who will be invited to this meeting, we have more questions than answers. Some of these questions were raised in comments on the school district’s social media page, which is a step in the direction of transparency; rather than turning comments off, someone was answering the questions raised. 

However, a number of questions about this committee remain, including 

• Who was answering the questions on the social media pages, and does the person answering the questions have the authority to clarify confusing parts of the invitation to join the committee?

• That person said all parents are welcome to be on the committee. Is it true that all parents are welcome? If so, why do parents have to send vetting questions to a specific email?

• Speaking of email, why is Brett Royer, the director of transportation for the district, sending a non-transportation related email out to parents? Is Brett Royer working for the communications department? Is he convening the committee?

• And if not Royer, who has convened this committee? The superintendent? The school board? Teachers? 

• Who will provide oversight in the creation of a parents’ rights policy? Why is such a policy needed, when parents already have significant rights granted them by existing policies, and by the Oregon Department of Education? 

• If the school board is about helping facilitate learning for children, why is the committee’s focus seemingly on being “positive voices for parents in the district” rather than a positive voice for children? (What does it mean to be a “positive voice” for parents?)

• Will this advisory committee push for the rights of all parents in the district? Wouldn’t creating a “positive voice” for parents mean assuring that the children of all parents have a safe environment in which to learn? Would that include those parents whose children have lacked IEP support this year? Those parents whose children are LGBTQIA, and are seeking a safe place for their kids to learn? Those parents who would like their children’s curriculum to include a robust understanding of history, one that acknowledges systemic racism? Those parents who would like to send their sons and daughters to high school knowing that the board’s recent policy discussions about hazing and teen dating violence have been renounced by the district’s leadership? 

If this invitation really is for all parents, then we hope the school board–or, really, whoever is putting this committee together–has space for a very big table, because there are many parents who have already been working tirelessly to make sure their children’s rights are protected.

In our last post, we explained the rigorous process undertaken by the Newberg School Board and Dr. Joe Morelock, ahead of the 2018-2021 strategic plan. Following a tiered process described by the Oregon Department of Education, the school board held multiple listening sessions that were well publicized and open to the public.

Those listening sessions also removed barriers that might have prevented stakeholders from attending, providing childcare, translators, and accessible documents to assure the participation of almost anyone. The resulting strategic plan was publicized, and has helped direct decisions about how to improve student outcomes, and how to use the district’s resources.

At the February 14, 2023, Newberg School District meeting, Dr. Stephen Phillips said he plans to expand empathy in the next few months. According to an article from the district, Phillips said “The first step for us will be to establish industry-standard, two-way communication systems for schools.” 

Phillips met with “over 30” parents, students, staff, and faculty for these interviews, and felt like the “data we received was more valuable than any mean tweet in helping guide our strategy for the future.” Qualitative data like that gathered by empathy interviews is important; it’s good that the school board is not letting social media drive its decision making. 

And still, empathy interviews offer great anecdotal evidence, but they are not meant to be used as data for creating a strategic plan. More robust and more inclusive data-gathering, using qualitative and quantitative methodology, is necessary for a strategic plan to appropriately guide decisions in the district.

This resource from Learning Forward helps explain the benefits and the challenges of empathy interviews. Such interviews should 

• be completed with full awareness of power differentials between the interviewer and subject; 
• should be inclusive, drawing in people who might normally be “marginalized and excluded from traditional data research methods”; and
• should include an awareness of the interviews’ biases, and how those biases might influence what is shared.

It could well be that Dr. Phillips is aware of the complexities associated with doing empathy interviews. However, there is a lack of transparency about who was invited to participate, how they were selected, and what specifically was asked.

Significantly, too, there is scant information about how this qualitative data will be used, and what additional measures will be taken to produce data that can shape the district and inform its goals.

The school year is over halfway completed and, in a few months, school will be out for the summer. Kids and their teachers will get a much-needed break, schools will be closed for cleaning and updating, and–at this rate–the Newberg school board will still not have a strategic plan in place to guide its decisions for the 2022-23 school year..

That’s right, Newberg schools have no publicly stated goals for the 2022-23 year. The superintendent has no publicly stated goals. The district has yet to agree on any publicly stated goals. The 2023-24 budget is about to be set without any goals or community feedback, nor without a strategic plan to guide decision-making.

This is not how a functioning board should act.

The Oregon Department of Education provides tools for districts to implement a Continuous Improvement Process. According to their website, school districts need to strategically plan to “improve outcomes for students.”  They suggest that such a plan will help 

• Determine what is working and what needs to change;
• Establish a process to engage stakeholders to effect change;
• Leverage effective practices to implement a plan;
• Use data to monitor and make timely adjustments to improve outcomes.

This improvement process was used by boards in the years immediately before the 2021 election. With Dr. Joe Morelock at the helm, according to easily-accessible minutes, the Newberg Board of Directors “invited input from staff, students, parents, and community members to develop a new strategic plan. A strategic plan helps to guide the direction and focus the priorities of the district. The Board approved the new strategic plan on January 14, 2019.”

You can see how involved the strategic planning sessions were by looking at the district’s own webpage. Because the district wanted to hear from as many people as possible, there was childcare, interpreters (including Spanish and American Sign Language translators), and accessible documents for those with disabilities.

Four listening sessions were opened to the public, during which people shared their vision for the district; sorted and refined those goals, strategies, and ideas; created action steps; and helped to build the 2018-2021 Strategic Plan.

The plan, created with genuine input from a wide cross-section of the community, helped inform the school board’s decision-making, budgeting, and policies for subsequent years, providing a purpose and direction that was transparent, and which considered all stakeholders in the public school district: students, parents, teachers, community members, and taxpayers. 

Not only has the current school board failed to create a strategic plan to guide their activities, they have not been transparent in the plans they have made, and they have not shown interest in hearing from a wide range of stakeholders. 

Dr. Steven Phillips announced at the February 14, 2023, board meeting that he is organizing empathy interviews, but it’s not clear who he is interviewing, nor how this will help develop a strategic plan for the school district’s future. In an upcoming post, we will talk about why empathy interviews, while a positive gesture of goodwill, are  insufficient for guiding a district this large, and this diverse. 

Our concern is not about the lack of progressives on the board.

It’s the lack of transparency. 

It’s the lack of accountability. 

It’s the lack of a strategic plan.