Holly Altiero

ELP
Equity Audit

District Demographics

I work for the Portland Public School District (PPS) in Portland Oregon. PPS is the largest school

district in Oregon and encompasses close to 60,000 students. The demographics vary extremely based

on both location and income bracket. PPS is most easily divided up into quadrants (NE, SE, NW and SW)

for the sake of discussion and my school resides in the NW quadrant. The schools in NE and SE Portland

tend to have higher numbers of Historically Underserved (HU) students as well as higher numbers of

Free and Reduced Lunch (F&RL) students. Additionally, the school district allocates budgets based on

enrollment size and not based on need so schools with low enrollment but high needs are often denied

funding for counselors, mental health, EA’s or secretaries. My specific school of employment is Chapman

Elementary K-5 in NW Portland. Chapman serves some of the wealthiest families in Portland but has

since the 2018/2019 school year been re-boundaried to include 3 large transitional housing complexes

assisting historically homeless families. This has changed the demographics at the school dramatically as

many of the children transitioning from homelessness to Chapman are struggling immensely in classes

and the school is severely understaffed to help them. For the 2019-2020 school year, Chapman had

counselors cut from 2 to 1, all kindergarten EA’s cut and the school secretary cut to half time (AM

schedule). This has created an extreme equity issue for students transitioning in with significant

behavioral needs as well as a significant access issue for parents who need secretarial help in the

afternoon that cannot come to ask questions before school. This has also proven to be a significant

safety concern as is detailed below.

Professional Development:

PPS is not known for allocating many days for teachers to get Professional Development. In fact

they are one of the first things cut from the calendar when budgets fall short. So far this year at
Chapman, I have been responsible for assisting in each session of Professional Development. In August, I

led our staff through the Brave Classrooms forum from Brene` Brown and did a Personal Values activity

that led into the creation of the schools mission statement. More recently, I led a PD on Trauma

Informed care and Signs of Secondary Trauma. This was especially important as many of our teachers

are experiencing secondary trauma when students destroy whole classrooms, hit them, throw their

things, hit or hurt other students or running out of the classrooms and disappear. Additionally, this past

week at Chapman, a noose was found hanging in the maintenance room. The noose was found by an

African American staff member and the incident was termed as hate speech by the district and Portland

Police. This incident not only landed on the news but has been a forceful talking point on social media

groups created by parents. Our staff members of color as well as our families and students of color feel

unsafe and angry, rightfully so. They are voicing concerns about white privilege and unfair treatment at

Chapman. These conversations have led to administrators directing future PD to discussions and

trainings on race and equity. This incident also shaped the way I approached my equity audit in that I

chose to really look at the academic and behavior numbers for our students of color.

Current Initiative/Improvement Science

Since 2011, PPS has projected that they have a racial equity and social justice lens. More

recently, in 2018, policies were updated to include specific mission and vision language for these policies

and to write goals for closing achievement and opportunity gaps for students of color and historically

underserved students. The language for these policies can be found HERE as well as the outlined goals

and responses to Hate Speech processes. In reviewing these policies and the language in the mission

and vision statements, I have chosen to focus my Improvement Science Project on the racial and

economic disparities in math achievement specific to my school demographics. Additionally, the data I

am choosing to focus on is highlighted in my equity audit on the following pages.

Improvement Science Team

  .8 School Counselor: Chosen because she is in charge of the SIT team and has insight on

behavioral gaps between demographics as well as tools to assist in closing said gaps.

 Vice Principal- Is in charge of student responses and discipline as well as coordinating some of

the PD.

 Principal-Is the school leader and mentor, instrumental to creation of the my eventual

Improvement Science Project

 Trauma Informed Coach-Newly hired due to increase in behaviors that have accompanied the

influx of previously homeless students that transitioned to Chapman this year

 Union Advisor/Librarian-Has historically helped to lead efforts in the district around equity

 SPED Teacher-Knowledgeable about student interventions in general as well as specific to our

students of color identified as SPED

So far this team has not met specifically to discuss my project but rather I have met with each person or

groups of these folks in chunks as time has allowed to discuss my equity audit as well as plans for a

potential project. Additionally, I brought my project and this data up at several SIT team meetings. So far

this year at Chapman, 95% of my time on the job has consisted of emergency student response so I am

hoping more time will soon be available to focus on achievement gaps. I have a meeting scheduled on

10/30 with several members of the team to specifically discuss my equity audit and to look at MAPS test

data to see if it corroborates the SBAC data gaps I have identified.

Equity Audit

For my equity audit I chose to utilize several sections of the Frattura and Capper Equity Audit

because to me it seemed the most comprehensive. This template encompassed sections about

achievement data disaggregated by demographics including race and socioeconomic indicators. I

completed more than 3 sections of this specific audit just to get a good sense of where potential

disparities were. The data I uncovered while completing the Frattura and Capper audit indicated that
there is a pretty big achievement gap at Chapman among our black students and math achievement.

The audit asked for a focus on 4th grade but when I looked at the cumulative data from 3-5 th grade the

issues only because more apparent. This data standing out amidst the recent hate speech incident

detailed above really spoke to me. It seems very clear that this has been a historically white, high SES

dominated school and the students of color are not a focus in terms of academic achievement. When I

shared this information with my IS team, they agreed that we should look closer at this data and break it

down more specifically by accessing the school MAPS data. I am currently in the process of receiving

MAPS training so I can properly assess this data and create some ideas for interventions. MAPS

assessments occur 3 times each year and so those assessments would be ideal to utilize for the IS

project in terms of both implementing an intervention and then assessing the effectiveness. During our

next IS team meeting I plan to bring a copy of the fishbone diagram to the team to discuss possible

interventions and how/who will be in charge of looking at data and implementing change ideas moving

forward. Additionally, I plan to conduct equity audits individually with team members as there is some

tension between members on my team with regard to race related achievement and behavior tracking. I

think that individually conducting these interviews will allow for increased comfort and objectivity.

For a complete look at the data collected for this Equity Audit, please refer to the following pages.
General and Social Class Data and Analysis (Report Fraction and percentage for each as applicable)
1. Number of Students in your district:  59,069
2. Number of staff in your school (certified and 45
noncertified): 
3. Number of students in your school: 476
4. Number of students who transferred or moved Can’t find this information
into the school the last academic year
(disaggregate by race, disability, gender, ESL, and
free/reduced lunch): 
5. Students who transferred out of the school in 56 Total
the last academic year (disaggregate by race, 9: HU
disability, gender, ESL, and free/reduced lunch): 47: Non HU
Male: 11
Female: 45
SPED: 2
ELL: 10
TAG: 4
504: 1

6. Fraction and percentage of staff in your school 10/45, 22%

who are associated with student services (e.g.,
special education, special education assistances,
counselors, psychologists, nurses, bilingual
specialists, reading specialist, gifted and talented
specialist):
Status of Labeling at Your School (Report total
number [fraction] and percentage)
1. Students labeled “gifted” in your school: 51
2. Students labeled “at-risk” in your school: 32 (2018/2019) school data
3. Students labeled with a disability in your 47
school:
4. Students labeled ESL or bilingual in your 27
school:
5. Students who attend an alternative 0
school/setting:
6. Students with any other kind of label in your Free/Reduced: 170
school (include the label): AcP: 0
Immersion: 0
Historically Underserved: 113
Pre-K Experience: 216
7. Total students who are labeled in your school 157 for boxed 1-5. You cannot add the numbers
(adding together questions 1-6): in box 6 to this because there is no way to know
if students are identified with more than one
label so that wouldn’t be accurate data.
Discipline Data
1. Students who were suspended in the past year 21 (2018/2019)
(disaggregate these data by gender, race,
disability, free/reduced-price lunch, and English
language learners; divide into in-school and out
of-school suspensions):
9 (2019 so far)-
11-Historically Underserved (HU)
10-Not HU. Exclusion days are not broken down
any more than as historically underserved
populations or Asian/White

2. Students who were expelled in the past year 0

(disaggregate these data by gender, race,
disability, free/reduced-price lunch, and English
language learners; divide into in-school and out
of-school suspensions
3. Students who were placed in an Alternative 0
Interim Placement in the past year (disaggregate
by gender, race, disability, free/reduced-price
lunch, and English language learners):
4. Low attendance and/or truancy (disaggregate 66 Total
by gender, race, disability, free/reduced-price SPED: 16
lunch, English language learners): ELL: 3
TAG: 5
Female:32
Male:33
Gender Fluid/Non Binary: 1
Title X: 5
504: 3
General Achievement Data
1. Fourth-grade achievement (disaggregate by (2018/2019)
gender, race, disability, free/reduced-price lunch,
English language learners): Total for 4th grade Mathematics:
Level 1: 24%
Level 2: 12%
Level 3: 30%
Level 4 : 34%

Gender (F) Gender (M) Non Binary

Level 1: 26% Level 1: 25% Level 1: 22%
Level 2: 29% Level 2: 23% Level 2: 33%
Level 3: 28% Level 3: 27% Level 3: 22%
Level 4 : 17% Level 4: 24% Level 4: 22%

Ethnicity:
Multiple: White:
Level 1: 29% Level 1: 20%
Level 2: 14% Level 2: 8%
Level 3: 29% Level 3: 38%
 Level 4 : 29% Level 4: 35%

Latino: Black:
Level 1: 50% Level 1: 0%
Level 2: 17% Level 2: 50%
Level 3: 8% Level 3: 50%
Level 4 : 25% Level 4: 0%

Asian:
Level1 : 0%
Level 2: 0%
Level 3: 20%
Level 4: 80%

Special Population:
F&R Meals: Sped
Level 1: 42% Level 1: 50%
Level 2: 19% Level 2: 8%
Level 3: 26% Level 3: 25%
Level 4 : 13% Level 4: 17%

TAG ELL
Level 1: 0% Level 1: 23%
Level 2: 0% Level 2: 13%
Level 3: 9% Level 3: 30%
Level 4 : 91% Level 4: 35%

2. Either-grade achievement (disaggregate by See above for 4th

gender, race, disability, free/reduced-price lunch,
English language learners):
Social Class (Report fraction and percentage)
1. Students receiving free and reduced-price 164 out of 476 or 34%
lunches in your education setting:
2. Students receiving free/reduced-price lunches 7646 out of 23,668 Elementary Students in PPS or
in other schools in your district at the same level 32%
(elementary, middle, secondary):
3. Students identified for special education (all 64
categorical areas) in your educational setting:
4. Of the number of students identified for Not available information
special education, what fraction and what
percentage receive free/reduced-priced lunches?
5. How does the response to Item 4 compare to They are very similar
Item 1?
6. Students identified as “gifted” (e.g., TAG) in That information is not available
your setting who receive free/reduced-price
lunches.
7. Students identified as “at-risk” in your setting That information is not available
who receive free/reduced-price lunches.
8. Report two pieces of academic achievement
data in your setting (preferably reading and
math) as they relate to social class.
9. Collect social class comparison data on at least
two other areas in your school/setting (e.g.,
parent-teacher organization, student council,
safety patrol, and band).
Race and Ethnicity (Report fraction and Black: 51 or 10%
percentage for each) 1. Students of color in your Latino: 54 or 11%
school: How does this compare to other schools Native American: 17 or 3%
in the district? Pac Islander: 9 or 2%
Historically Underserved: 113 or 24%
Comparatively, we have a higher number of black
and Native American Students than some
elementary school in the NW pdx area

2. Students of color in the total district: Black: 7174 or 14%

Latino: 8228 or 18%
Native American: 2292 or 4%
Pac Islander: 1008 or 2%
Historically Underserved: 16,513 or 33%

3. Students labeled for special education: 47 total

ASD: 4
COM:20
Dev. Delay: 1
ED: 2
Hearing: 1
Orthopedic: 1
OHI: 9
SLD: 9
4. Of the number of students labeled for special 15/47 or 32%
education, what fraction and percentage are
students of color?
5. How does this number and percentage It’s similar
compare with those in Item 1?
6. Of the number and percentage of students 35/100 or 35%
labeled “at-risk,” what fraction and percentage
are students of color? Compare the response
with that for Item 1.
7. Of the number and percentage of students 22/73 or 30%
labeled “gifted,” what fraction and percentage
are students of color? Compare the response
with that for Item 1.
8. Total staff who are people of color in your 8
school: Compare the response with that for Item
1.
9. Certified staff who are people of color in your 4
school:
10. Uncertified staff who are people of color in 4
your school:
11. People of color serving on the school board: 1 out of 8