By Natalie Hval

Recently I attended a local meeting for the new educational initiative "Oregon Rising." Portland Public Schools Superintendent Carole Smith invited us to "dream big" as we filled out questionnaires meant to "collect the dreams" of Oregonians statewide. We were treated to an inspirational video and instructed to disregard practicalities such as funding because "as soon as the conversation turns to money, aspirations are tempered."

Little did I know that "think big" actually meant "think basic." Nowhere on the survey were there questions pointing to items such as retrofitting lead piping or radon gas mitigation. As a consequence, my responses to questions such as "If money were no object, how would you use it to improve the education of students in your community?" tended toward the philosophical. (Proven models of leadership, for example.)

In light of recent developments my answers would be very different.

The good news is that since the Oregon Rising questionnaire was the first of a planned series, it may still be changed. And while the literature and website suggest that months will be required to process and analyze data for presentation during the fall of 2016, it should be worth it because the report will be "groundbreaking" and result in "Great Schools. Great State."

The PPS community has had many such "conversations" with Superintendent Smith, albeit none quite so cheerful. Parents, teachers and students consistently voice their concerns at school board meetings. Often, Smith personally hands them tissues as they cry and beg for services and funding. But basic services are described as cost-prohibitive and complicated. (The logistics of which now require a third-party investigator to study a 15-year "communication breakdown.")

In this light, the farcical nature of the Oregon Rising campaign shines bright.

The question begs to be asked: How and why are funds dedicated to develop media heavy campaigns designed to capture information already well communicated and known?

"Somehow" the money now exists to hire experts whose unstated purpose is to restore trust and contain damage in an effort to salvage the reputation of PPS as a whole. This debacle will be costly in more ways than one. Our once-renowned eco-friendly city is now nationally associated with problems as rudimentary as environmental poisoning.

Hence the question for Superintendent Smith and Portlanders in general: Which is it -- "dream big" or "dream basic"? I for one think that minimum standards of safety (the prevention of brain damage, no less) take precedence over public relations campaigns designed to distract from problems, obfuscate issues and placate the public.

"Healthy Water Task Force," anyone?

It is not sufficient that a select few individuals are put on paid leave as a result of the systemic poisoning of our children. Nor is it acceptable that the budgetary process be diverted to PR campaigns when basic services such as safety and equity concerns are routinely underfunded or cut.

These are the "conversations" that Smith needs to have with the public.

*

Natalie Hval lives in Portland.