Portland Public Schools (PPS) is attempting to enact a “rightsizing” process to make its schools more sustainable. The intention is good; the plan is not.
Review and edit your message before sending it from your own email account.
Get oriented
Find your next step.
Where PPS “rightsizing” stands
Portland Public Schools has published “rightsizing” scenarios for community feedback. Its published timeline places the Superintendent’s recommendation and Board decision in November–December 2026, followed by implementation work in 2027.
Read or download the presentation, browse public meeting transcripts, and find materials to share.
Understand the proposal
The case for a different path
Eight arguments, supporting research, and questions that still need answers.
Our position · Save PDX Schools
The data is clear: “rightsizing” means fewer schools, larger classes and lower student performance.
If “rightsizing” is passed, it will have disastrous impacts on not only the affected schools but also the entire Portland community.
Now is the time to make your voice heard to help ensure we avoid a decision that will set all of Portland back for years to come.
The case for a different path
8 facts to know about “rightsizing” and PPS
According to the district, “rightsizing” is our only choice to address declining enrollment issues and ensure PPS’ sustainability in the long term. While the challenges they cite are very real, we firmly reject the premise that “rightsizing” is the “best” or “only” option.
In the spirit of grounding the “rightsizing” discussion in the facts, here are some key truths to understand:
01
“Rightsizing” means closing up to 20 (or more) schools across PPS, resulting in larger class sizes and fewer options for families.
In spite of the optimistic name, “rightsizing” is an emerging trend among education policymakers that seeks to consolidate schools and increase class sizes, in the name of sustainability. It flouts decades of conventional wisdom and academic research that clearly demonstrate the merits of smaller class sizes and greater choice among schools.
Related source: PPS “rightsizing” FAQ. The proposed closure count and class-size outcome need a specific scenario citation.
02
Closing schools has an outsized, negative impact on both impacted students and surrounding communities.
Once a school closure starts, students suffer a well-documented learning loss process that slows their rate of learning and can often have long-term ramifications for their academic development.
Source supplied: UChicago, When Schools Close (2009), executive summary. The study found an announcement-year learning loss and average recovery afterward. It does not establish inevitable lasting harm or Portland’s future outcomes.
03
Vacant school buildings accelerate neighborhood disinvestment.
Time and again, closing schools, which typically serve as an anchor of a given neighborhood, creates additional hardships for communities – especially if they’re already struggling.
In defending “rightsizing”, PPS has consistently misrepresented and/or misinterpreted the data.
Throughout the process, PPS has cited Oregon’s Quality Education Model (QEM) as a guiding principle for “rightsizing” schools. However, the QEM’s prototypes recommend average class sizes of 20 students for elementary schools and 17.7 students for middle schools—a stark contrast to the 30+ student average class sizes that even the most conservative “rightsizing” process will yield.
Model reference: Oregon QEM 2026, printed p. 92. The prototypes use average class sizes of 20 (elementary) and 17.7 (middle), as recommendations rather than mandates. The projected PPS 30+ class size still needs a specific scenario citation.
05
The SEGC process is a cautionary tale for citywide “rightsizing”.
In recent months, both PPS and the School Board have cited the Southeast Guiding Coalition (SEGC), a process which saw the district redraw boundaries and feeder patterns, and relocate schools in Southeast Portland in 2023. Since that time, the following is true:
SEGC schools experienced larger enrollment declines than non-SEGC schools;
SEGC schools experienced larger populations of ESL and special education learners than their initial support projections anticipated;
SEGC school staff were broadly demoralized and left PPS at rates well above their peers elsewhere in the district, with staff of color leaving at nearly double the rate of their counterparts (18% vs. 10%).
Source needed: the SEGC evaluation, comparison periods, and tables supporting these enrollment, student-support, and staff-retention figures.
06
Jefferson County, Colorado is another highly relevant cautionary tale for Portland.
In 2025, Jefferson County proposed almost the exact same playbook, framed around “fewer but more robustly-resourced schools.” In a similarly sized district to PPS that was also dealing with an almost $60 million annual budget deficit, this process has only exacerbated their issues: the district has seen its budget gap increase even after selling vacant buildings, and announced 139 position reductions in December 2025 for the following school year (with 50 employees notified). The district has already dipped into reserve funds; critically, enrollment kept falling, even after the “rightsizing” process was put in place.
Reporting: Colorado Public Radio, December 19, 2025. Supports the announced job reductions and budget gap; it does not establish that school closures caused the gap to grow.
07
Success metrics are murky at best, and PPS keeps moving the goal posts.
According to the School Board during its September 1, 2026 open meeting, even in a post-“rightsizing” world, PPS won’t be in a place to consider “well-resourced” schools until at least the 2031-32 academic year. The goal in the interim is to get to “stability” – a marked contrast from its previous assurances that the “rightsizing” process would mean students would have better access to arts, gym and other extracurricular activities.
Source needed: the September 1, 2026 recording timestamp and presentation page for the quoted commitments and 2031–32 date.
08
“Rightsizing” is NOT our only option for charting a more sustainable path forward.
The district’s central office has repeatedly referred to “rightsizing” as the “only option” for charting a more sustainable path forward for PPS, which couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s a playbook that numerous districts across the U.S. have tried in recent years, usually with disastrous results.
While there’s no obvious “silver bullet” solution, a litany of options exist that can address PPS’ sustainability problem in a far less damaging way, among them:
Redrawing boundary lines;
Returning the PPS district office to pre-2019 staffing levels to maximize teacher resources;
Selling the district office and integrating staff above principal level into existing spaces in under-enrolled schools;
Investing more heavily in recruiting some of the many, many unenrolled students in PPS’ district boundaries.
These are proposed alternatives. Their costs, capacity, and feasibility need separate assessment.
→ The bottom line: This “rightsizing” proposal is being framed as the best and only option for PPS, when neither is true.
This entire process has been rushed, opaque and has consistently cherry-picked facts while ignoring the clear-cut data that shows we’re setting ourselves up for disaster.
It’s time to call on not only the school board, but also the Governor’s office to step in and ensure we stop this process before it’s too late to explore other, more truly sustainable alternative solutions.
Follow the process
What happens next
The district’s decision timeline and opportunities to get involved.
The timeline
Where we are in the process
OCTOBER–NOVEMBER
The district plans community outreach and feedback on the two “rightsizing” proposals during October and November.
NOVEMBER 17 · PLANNED
PPS plans for the Superintendent to present a formal recommendation to the School Board on November 17.
DECEMBER 15 · PLANNED
A School Board vote is planned for December 15, with implementation beginning in the 2027–28 school year if approved.
PPS released two “rightsizing” proposals on October 5 for presentation to the School Board on October 6. Proposal A identifies 14 school closures; Proposal B identifies 11. The presentation does not request a Board decision.
Organizers invited parents, PPS school staff, and other community allies to gather in person for the October 6 meeting.
501 N Dixon Street Portland, Oregon
Organizers announced a 5 p.m. gathering in front of the district office and 6 p.m. doors. These are the announced logistics, not a report of attendance or meeting outcomes.
Read, share, organize
Resources for your community
Explore the research. Share the presentation. Hear the discussion.
Additional resources
Questions from Save PDX Schools
Our questions for PPS and the Board
Read our questions about proposal costs, student support, staffing, and the evidence needed before a Board vote.
Learn more about how “rightsizing” campaigns have negatively impacted other communities across the U.S. – as well as how communities have successfully rallied against similar proposals.
Source: “Rightsizing” Response for PTAs, provided by the campaign. PDF snapshot exported September 27, 2026; the presentation’s wording and source links are preserved.
Public meeting transcripts
Hear from the decision-makers, in their own words. Access transcripts from recent public PPS meetings here to monitor what the school board and PPS officials are saying about “rightsizing”, in their own words.
Automated transcripts may contain errors. Check the recording before quoting.
Download “Save PDX Schools” postcard templates. In addition to directly emailing your representatives, consider hosting a letter-writing party that involves your neighbors and other community members. Here, you can find several ready-to-download templates; all you need are stamps!