0 Boston "School Quality Working Group" Members Announced

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013, the Boston Public Schools' (BPS) School Quality Working Group (SQWG) held their first meeting. This meeting was primarily to announce and introduce the members of the group. The SQWG was created out of the recommendations approved by the Boston School Committee (BSC) as part of the new student assignment plan (Home-Based A) in March 2013. The entire list of recommendations are available here.

According to the BPS bostonschoolquality.org website: 

Boston School Committee member Meg Campbell and Boston University School of Education Dean Dr. Hardin Coleman will co-chair the new School Quality Working Group, which is modeled on the External Advisory Committee on School Choice, which Dr. Coleman also co-chaired. The Working Group includes BPS parents, academic experts, and business and community leaders. It will continue to engage the community in the conversation on school quality that took place during our process to improve school choice. Their tasks include:

• Helping to develop a better way to measure school quality for the Home-Based school choice model, which takes effect for the fall of 2014. Currently the Home-Based model uses MCAS Tiers, which are based on a combination of overall performance and growth as measured by MCAS.

• Analyzing the implementation of the Home-Based school choice model, including measures of equity and school quality improvements

The members of the committee are:

Ron Ancrum- Executive Director, The Learning Center at Bromley Heath

Meg Campbell (co-chair) - BSC member, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Codman Academy *Charter Public School

Kathleen Colby -  BPS Ambassador, former BPS parent & EAC member

Hardin Coleman (co-chair) - see above

Michael Curry - President, NAACP Boston Chapter

Rahn Dorsey - Evaluation Director, the Barr Foundation & EAC member

Betty Francisco - EVP and General Counsel of Millenium Sports Club Management, wife of Paul Francisco (EAC member)

Denise Gonsalves - Director of Youth Leadership Development at Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) 

Dr. William (Bill) Henderson - Former BPS teacher, principal of O'Hearn (now the Henderson) inclusion school, author of The Blind Advantage

Carolyn Kain - Current Chair, BPS SpedPAC & EAC member

Craig Lankhorst - former BPS principal & EAC member

Daniel Linsky - no confirmable information found

Meredith Liu - Chief Financial Officer of Match Charter School

Elaine Ng - Executive Director, Boston Chinatown Neighborhood Center & BPS Parent

Myriam Ortiz - Executive Director, Boston Parent Organizing Network (BPON) & BPS parent

Marchelle Raynor - former Boston School Committee member and Program Director, Gertrude E. Townsend Learning Program

Marinell Rousmaniere -  Vice President of Strategic Initiatives at EdVestors & BPS Parent

Mariah Smith - no confirmable information found

Anh Vu - no confirmable information found

Rev. David Wright - Executive Director of the Black Ministerial Alliance of greater Boston

Josh Weiss - BPS parent who submitted a school assignment proposal to the EAC, took part in many of the EAC meetings as a community member, as well as blogging throughout the school assignment process at bpsworkshop.com

The above information regarding the members are not the official "bios" which BPS has requested from each of the members, but information obtained via prior BPS, EAC, BSC bios, through personal knowledge and relationships and with the help of others who know some of the members and was verified prior to writing this article. Once the official bios are available I will add a link to this post! 

In addition to the above tasks outlined on the new website, the group will most likely have some say in how to address quality issues in our Boston schools. The SQWG group, along with the BSC, holds the future of our students, the individual schools and the district as a whole, in their hands as they are charged with monitoring and assessing the new plan and the recommendations which may become district policies. 

As the families and advocates for our students and schools, we have an even more important role in this process: to monitor and assess the work of both the BSC and SQWG to ensure that all of our schools become quality schools and that access to those schools is equitable. I urge everyone, whether a current or potential BPS family, to follow this group and the work they do. When possible, attend the meetings (still TBA), ask questions, make suggestions and if concerned, let them know that too. 

"Learning is not attained by chance. It must be sought for with ardor and attended to with diligence." —Abigail Adams

I can be contacted at bpsnightmare@gmail.com and please consider following me on Twitter: @bpsnightmare.

0 Boston Strong

A day so bright, sun high, skies clear

Love, laughter, family, friends gathering

Running for charity - the focus of the day

Celebrating the birthplace of America

And honoring those who believe in freedom

Heartbreak Hill meant halfway through

Panic abounds when explosions rock downtown

Marring the perfection of the day

Acts of cowardice and chaos take over

Bringing true heartbreak to the finish line

News spreads quickly, rumors faster

Numbers pour in of injured and dead, fear taking hold

The nation and world feel the shock of this disaster

Disbelief, rage and anger take over

Horror echoes across the social-media stratosphere

As the smoke starts to clear, acts of bravery come to light

A man cradles a victim, people run to help the injured

Donations, offers of shelter, food and assistance to strangers

Outpourings of kindness amidst confusion and pain

As tears continue to flow

No matter who or why, they failed in their mission

Picking the wrong place to attack

Continuing to extend our hands, hearts and hearths

We will rise proudly and punish those who harmed us

The heart and soul we will always stand Boston strong

Copyright Karen Kast 4-15-13

0 Boston Public Schools New Assignment Plan

The problem with our education system is not that parents do not have a choice. The problem is that inequities continue to exist. -Patsy Mink

We live in the city where public education was created, a city which is considered to be one of the most advanced cities with some of the greatest minds available, and yet, inequities still exist in our public K-12 schools. These inequities harm not only our most vulnerable populations of children, those who are socio-economically challenged and students who may be English Language Learners (ELL) or have a disability (SWD), but all of our students because they all pay the price for these inequities. As the K-12 grades are the foundation for our students future success, it is important that we address the educational issues as quickly as possible. So how do we fix these disparities? 

According to Mayor Menino, Dr. Carol Johnson, and others, the first step to addressing the issues our schools face is by putting in place a new assignment policy which will allow students to go to school closer to home. This push for schools closer to home is what led to the Home-Based model as the proposed assignment model for Boston Public Schools (BPS). On Wednesday night, March 13, the Boston School Committee (BSC) held the last community hearing regarding the proposed assignment model followed by a regular BSC meeting which included a vote on the Home-Based model. 

While the hearing and school committee meeting were going on, a loud protest was taking place outside the building by members of several groups and unions. I only spent a few minutes outside listening to the speakers, but most of us in the Winter Chambers could hear the chants of "Say no to racism in education" and see the signs they pressed against the windows while circling the building!

As there were well over 20 people signed up to speak during the hearing, the BSC meeting rules dictated that the original 3 minutes per person be cut to 2 minutes per person. As you can imagine, the BSC Hearing went over the one-hour time allotted for it and into the regular BSC meeting, with a brief break from testimony to officially start the BSC meeting. BSC Chairman Michael O'Neill allowed the hearing testimony to be directly followed by the "public comment" period of the BSC meeting. 

There were 2 1/2 hours of intense testimony by parents, advocates, community members, and politicians. Many community members testified that the focus should be on the quality of our schools; walk-zone priority being kept or removed; capacity concerns under the new plan; the clear inequity of the new plan for our most at risk students; concerns about our SWD children; concerns about segregation; and, the validity and interpretation of the data used.

Dr. Muriel Leonard, former BPS speech pathologist, principal, deputy superintendent and chair of the task force to identify school quality indicators, testified that as in 2004, once again quality was the issue raised most during the school assignment process and that the recommendations then are primarily the same as those made by the task force in 2004 which were never fulfilled. Dr. Leonard went on to state that the BSC should ensure that all the recommendations of both the 2004 task force and the EAC should now be fulfilled and that she, like others, will not accept "quality later".

Councilor John Connolly was the only politician who testified that the walk-zone priority should be kept, whereas Councilors Tito Jackson and Charles Yancey testified that the walk-zone priority would enhance the inequality of the Home-Based plan and should be removed. All of the Councilors testified that the focus should be quality schools. 

Barbara Fields, former teacher and then Senior Equity Officer for BPS, as well as serving on the executive board of the Black Educators Alliance of Massachusetts (BEAM), testified regarding the work that must be done to address issues of resources and planning, that even with removal of the walk-zone priority the home-based plan still disadvantages students of color and socio-economically challenged students as many of those children live in areas of the city where the schools are designated as the lowest performing schools. Ms. Fields urged the BSC members to ensure that quality remain a focus even after a vote that she was sure would lead to the home-based plan being adopted.

As I had outlined the issues of the "BPS Tiers" vs. actual Massachusetts DESE MCAS level designations during previous testimony, I instead focused my own testimony on highlighting the following:

• "Access" does not equal actual assignment, it only gives families the choice of certain schools - there is no guarantee your student will get a seat at one of your top choices;
• Questions still remain regarding:
• the validity of the data used;
• the interpretation of said data;
• policy recommendations and clarifications still needed;
• issues pertaining to students with disabilities (many);
• what happened to the requirement to have "academic improvement strategies" for each school being created and publicized prior to implementation of the plan.
• That further capacity analysis needs to be done:
• the data used did not factor in students who registered for Kindergarten in Rounds 2, 3, etc or students in grades 1-8, which leaves out a lot of students and though Kindergarten may be where the majority of students enter BPS, it is not the only grade level entry point for new students for many reasons.
• What about grandfathering of students with disabilities in their current school if they are in a specialized programs that due to the new BPS SWD Overlay map causes their program to be moved to a different school (again)? Will BPS honor the grandfathering of those students at their current school and run concurrent programs in separate schools until the grandfathered students at a school are all out of 8th grade? (this could possibly apply to ELL students also!).
• The "Quality improvement" promises are based partially on Mayor Menino's legislative proposals. There is no guarantee those proposals will pass at the state level or a guarantee by our city and state politicians or BPS of alternative funds/resources if the proposed legislation fails. This could lead to serious ramifications for the promised "quality improvements". I personally will not accept "well, we didn't get the money, so we will need to delay those improvements" as our political leadership and the district A) should have thought of this anyway, and B) I have been bringing this issue up since October through testimony at BSC, EAC and through articles and conversations - and still there is no alternate plan in place that has been publicized, so none of us should let this go.

When the last community member finished testifying, there was a presentation by the External Advisory Committee on School Assignment (EAC), represented by members Dean Hardin Coleman, EAC Co-Chair, and John Nucci. In addition to the EAC presentation, John McDonough, BPS CFO, acting as Interim Superintendent during Dr. Johnson's bereavement leave, read Dr. Johnson's memo which outlined her recommendation of the Home-Based model without the walk-zone priority. Dr. Johnson's recommendation leaves walk-zone access in place because that access is built-in to the Home-Based model. 

During and after the EAC presentation, the BSC members were able to ask questions about the Home-Based model, and the recommendations by the EAC and Dr. Johnson. I credit the BSC members for asking some great questions. 

John Barros asked that the district come up with a way to create the choice baskets for each family based on actual capacity of open seats at a school, factoring in the number of seats that are already guaranteed to siblings, instead of just based on proximity of the school and Tier designation. Mr. Barros example was of a school which he is given as a choice, but in reality, due to sibling grandfathering, there are actually only 5 open seats available, which ties in directly to scenarios and questions I laid out during my examination of the Quality Choice Plan (QCP) in October and which can now be asked regarding the home-based model. Mr. Barros suggested using the available seat information to then potentially add additional schools to families baskets to allow families a greater chance of obtaining a seat they want for their child.

Caludio Martinez, adding on to a recommendation of amendment to the "recommendation memo" made by Mr. Barros, illustrated the issue of the difference between the BPS "Tier" system and the MADESE "Level" designations. Mr. Martinez stated that while registering his child for school he was given the choice of the JFK school, according to BPS it is a Tier 2 (top 50% of schools), whereas MADESE Level has it listed as a Level 4 (turnaround status) school, which shows that clearly he was not given a true "high quality" school as part of his list.

While responding to Mr. Martinez's observation about BPS Tier vs. MADESE Levels, Dr. Kamalkant Chavda, Asst. Supt for Data & Accountability, stated that because the MADESE way of comparing schools statewide "were not appropriate and significantly different" which significantly penalizes BPS, that BPS decided to come up with a BPS specific metric for assessing the schools. One of the "nuts and bolts" ways of assessing the BPS schools (more favorably obviously) was "that our students with very high needs, students with disabilities and ELL students, Level 1, 2 and 3 were removed from that analysis, because again, by default, we are ranking schools, tier-ing schools and we want to make sure when we do that we remove some students with very high needs who are served in very specialized strands."* For the entire statement by Dr. Chavda on this, please see the video of the meeting and go to the fourth hour (04:26m). * MUCH more on this later as you can imagine! 

However, due to a correction by Alissa Ocasio, BPS Legal Advisor, the "friendly amendment" could not go forward attached to the EAC recommendations or without the Superintendent making her own recommendations first according to state law. Chairman O'Neill did note that Mr. Barros could bring the suggestions up under new businesses which would allow the BSC to ask for the Superintendent and BPS' input and recommendations on same, which is what ultimately ended up happening.

After all the testimony, questions and answers on Wednesday night, March 13, the Boston School Committee (BSC), by a vote of 6-1, approved the Home-Based school assignment plan without the walk-zone priority for Boston Public School (BPS) students. They also approved all of the recommended overlays and recommendations, inclusive of grandfathering of current students and their siblings. 

I fully support a new, less convoluted system for assigning our students to school. I also like close to home for children, especially younger students, and in fact have been lucky that except for my son in high school, my girls have been able to attend schools close to us. 

That said, I am extremely concerned that with this vote done, we will not see the same level of community pressure to ensure that good policies are put in place regarding this new plan and our schools quality levels. We need the community that came out, spoke up and pushed for the focus to be on quality first, even when they get busy with other things, to continue the fight for all of our students and their right to quality schools no matter where they live. Otherwise, I fear we will be back to just a few of us, like Peggy Weisenberg, Barbara Fields, John Mudd, Kim Janey, myself (who I am sure the BSC gets tired of hearing from) and a few new faces like Kenny Jervis, Meghan Doran of Boston Busing and Desegregation Project (BBDP) and a few Quest members continuing the pressure. 

What remains to be seen is whether we move Boston schools in a better direction, or will we now, as in 2004 when some of these same recommendations regarding quality were originally made, fail to follow-through?

I will keep updating you regarding the process and other BPS related issues, so I hope you will keep reading!

You can contact me at bpsnightmare@gmail.com and follow me on twitter @bpsnightmare.

0 More Answers Needed Regarding Boston School Assignment Proposal

As a frequent attendee at Boston School Committee (BSC) meetings, I am pretty good at figuring out what issues or topics are likely to cause reams of questions and discussion from the BSC members. A new assignment proposal for Boston seemed guaranteed to lead to quite a few questions and discussion, after all, it is a huge shift for the district and has the potential to either become one part of the solution or, potentially create more issues within our school system and a massive flight from the city by families able to do so. Somehow though, despite a deadline dictated primarily by politics instead of the educational welfare of all of our Boston children, there was a lack of questions by the BSC members that was amazing to me. 

Case in point, the February 2010 proposal to create the Roslindale K-8 Pathway, the model for the proposed Middle School Feeder overlay map, which was simply an admissions policy change to the student assignment plan only affecting six elementary schools (roughly 1700 students), garnered many more questions, requests for data and clarification of same, and much more discussion by the school committee members than has been seen so far regarding the current proposal before the BSC, which will impact all of our schools and 57,000+ students. 

This is extremely disheartening, especially since there were no questions by BSC members regarding the validity of the data used throughout the process! The data utilized to create and assess the proposals is in question by many advocates and groups because the data used to assess all of the models is based only on the 2012 Round 1 K2 registration data for new students (no siblings in the system yet) which is 1,659 out of the 4,030 students who applied for a K2 seat and the choice popularity data for 2012-2013. 

Throughout the model and neighborhood analysis report presented to the External Advisory Committee on School Assignment (EAC) on February 20, 2013 are consistent statements regarding the limitations of the data:

Limitations 

• Sample used for analysis does not fully reflect current makeup of BPS student population. 

• When broken down, data does not necessarily reflect an entire neighborhood’s access to quality.

Additional Limitations

• The study population is not necessarily representative of all BPS elementary school students.  Specifically, it under-represents Black students and students eligible for free and reduced lunch compared to the overall BPS enrollment.

• Because of the low representation of students from specific neighborhoods in the study population, the data may not be reliable in analyzing access to quality.

The above is only a sampling of the "disclaimers" regarding the data utilized throughout this process. Similar disclaimers have been made throughout this process in reports and verbally at EAC and community meetings. By pointing out the limitations of the data used, there is an implied admission that the conclusions made during this process do not account for the majority of our BPS students. 

Maybe I am the only one disturbed by this, but I doubt it and suspect that the majority of people, like myself, are probably shocked that when proposing such a drastic assignment change so few of our students were factored into the discussions, many of whom will clearly be impacted, both by assignment as well as programmatic shifts (for ELL and SWD students especially), even if not new incoming K2 students. 

This will probably lead to questioning why anyone would agree to put a plan in place without further data, analysis and impact projections for our current students and the schools. The fact that the BSC members did not ask questions regarding the above is beyond concerning, because any new plan will impact all of our current elementary/K-8 students who the BSC is currently accountable for and yet it seems the focus has only been on future potential students. There is no doubt we need to make projections for future students new to the system, but why are we dismissing the impact of this new plan on current students and their siblings?

While writing this article, I have come up with several more questions, as follows:

• Why didn't the EAC ask that an analysis of the proposal be prepared which details the projected impact on the schools and our students currently in grades K2-8, inclusive of those potentially entering during those grades?

• Though I understand why BPS picked the sub-set of K2 students for choice projections, as current students and their siblings are promised grandfathering, doesn't that lead to many of the same questions I outlined in my series regarding the Quality Choice Plan (QCP), especially regarding the actual ability to fulfill the projected capacity demand (and the promised capacity expansion ideas) for those new students along with the siblings who are grandfathered? (I still foresee many upset parents who are promised close to home seats only to find that a K2 seat is still not available at the school closest to them until grandfathering of current students' siblings is done in a few years.) 

• With regard to the ELL and SWD overlays, one of my questions at an EAC meeting that was never answered specific to SWD strands which were just shifted two years ago is concerning too:  though we have a map breaking the city into clusters (again), BPS has not provided any clear data or even a draft proposed site list for the cluster-based programs specifically for students with "high incidence" disabilities. This could lead to BPS breaking its promise made to families two years ago that the sub-separate strand shifts would be the last time parents would have to go through such a huge change for their students. At that time, BPS claimed that it wanted to ensure predictability for parents of SWD, especially those for whom change can be even more traumatic than other students. My clients have children in those strands, and though the goal of special education is to have the student who needs a highly specialized program enter a more inclusive program when they have met the goals necessary to do so, because progress for many of those students is minimal compared to the student in regular education (think instead of 1 years progress in 1 years time, some of our most at-risk students are only making 3-6 months of progress instead), some of those same students will potentially be moved out of the school many of them just settled into yet again!

The questions that were asked by the BSC members seemed to primarily focus on the Middle School Feeders (capacity/choice), expansion of K-8 schools, timeline of the reports recommended by EAC, cost savings, clarifying that the ELL/SWD maps are cluster-based, and parent compacting. 

The questions/requests made by BSC members that were more in line with my expectations came from Claudio Martinez who asked for specifics regarding the algorithm that will be used to assign students, John Barros who asked that the information regarding the racial equity analysis be presented as part of one of the upcoming hearings, and Michael O'Neill who asked about the EAC's recommendation to keep a walk-zone priority as part of the plan as well as the cost impact specifically around transportation of grandfathered siblings along with a few other specific recommendations. 

Of note is that the day after the BSC meeting there was a City Council Hearing regarding Councilor Frank Baker's proposal of a hybrid school committee, which could lead to three seats on the BSC becoming elected positions instead of Mayoral appointment.

Dr. Johnson, regarding the EAC recommendations stated:

"There is a sense of an accomplishment with this recommendation, and rightly so – but within the recommendation is a serious warning: That simply implementing its elements and claiming victory will not be enough. As the EAC has told us, we must immediately craft a set of interventions and direct our resources to significantly improve quality in schools across our great city..."

Full statement available: http://bostonschoolchoice.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/2-27-13-superintendent-eac-statement.pdf

Many of the "watch-dogs", both individuals and groups, will continue to pay close attention to whether the recommendations are followed as promised by Dr. Johnson statement:

"Whether the School Committee votes to accept the EAC recommendation around school choice or not, we believe that many of the quality improvements we have discussed over the last several months must move forward. We are taking the necessary steps now to begin planning for and implementing changes in schools that are not performing well for our students."

Interestingly enough, it was community members who asked the hard questions or urged the BSC to make changes to the plan prior to voting on it. 

Almost every community member who testified urged the BSC to take their time as two community meetings, one of which will be held immediately prior to the March 13th 6:00 p.m. BSC meeting, with the vote scheduled for that same meeting, is not enough time. 

Quite a bit of the community testimony focused on quality and the walk-zone priority issues. Slide 12 of the presentation by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) clearly illustrates the inequity of access to Tier 1 & 2 schools across the city if the walk-zone priority is retained in the Home-Based A model as recommended by the EAC. 

Peggy Weisenberg, a civil rights lawyer and long time BSC attendee, testified that the BSC should eliminate the walk-zone as it only further guarantees that geographically advantaged families will retain higher access to quality schools over families who have no Tier 1 & 2 schools in their walk-zone (as evidenced in my last article's example of 132 Seaver St). In her testimony, "Recommendations for Fairness and Equity", Ms. Weisenberg states that the BSC should "Eliminate structural inequities in the lottery-based assignment system which include:

•     a place-bias that uses a BPS-constructed walk zone unfairly (i) to add tier 1 school choices to BPS-constructed market baskets for geographically advantaged families; (ii) to advertise through BPS-web-based tool the place-bias, giving the old realtor’s/employer’s wink to non-walk zone families -“DO NOT APPLY HERE”; and then (iii) to assign seats using place-bias to control competition for seats at a given tier 1 school, triply disadvantaging those at a less preferably home base; 

•  .  a time-bias that unduly advantages families entering the lottery early and disadvantages other families, including later registrants and newcomers to our City"

If you would like the full copy of Ms. Weisenberg's testimony, please contact me at bpsnightmare@gmail.com.

Patricia Kinsella and Megan Wolf, of the citywide parent group Quest (Quality for Every Student), also brought up the inequality that will continue if the walk-zone priority is kept in place. Quest has prepared a position paper which may help you further understand the concerns and some of the issues Quest foresees.

Additional testimony was given by advocate Fran Smith requesting that prior to adopting the proposal, the BSC ask that a Racial Impact Assessment be performed. 

Josh Weiss, BPS parent and someone I count on to help me understand the BPS raw data, testified that more data and analysis is needed regarding the Middle School Feeders as there was none presented throughout the process and that the proposal to convert 6 additional elementary schools into K-8 models, which would eliminate seats at the lower grade levels, is concerning as BPS is currently scrambling to find seats for incoming Kindergarten students for 2013. 

I testified in an attempt to urge the BSC that until a concrete quality metric is finally adopted in December 2014, a clear statement that the BPS Tier system is NOT the same as the DESE Level designations needs to be in place, as I am sure there will be much confusion otherwise. I also pointed out, as in my prior article, that BPS' "Tier" levels seem to almost always be one level above the DESE Level designation and contain Student Growth Percentil (SGP), which BPS has consistently been told should never be used to assess schools or staff. In addition, I asked that when planning for the MSF they please put in place clear assignment procedures as I have spent the past month answering questions pertaining to the Roslindale Pathway assignment into the Irving via phone and emails from countless parents!

John Mudd and Kim Janey, of Mass Advocates for Children (MAC), testified regarding concerns about equity access, clear data analysis regarding the impact on all the students, focusing on quality improvements and a clear concrete list of promises by BPS.

If you would like to see the BSC meeting please check out the video.

Absent from this very important meeting were the faces of our elected Boston officials or their representatives, with the exception of Martha Pierce and Rebecca Frisch for Mayor Menino, which is extremely interesting given it is campaign season and school assignment is a hot topic in Boston. 

If you take nothing else from this article, please remember these things:

1. The data utilized is not representative of the entire BPS population and may under-represent minority and socio-economically challenged populations;
2. According to the BPS disclaimers throughout the process, the data may not be reliable in analyzing access to quality; and,
3. Our BSC members are not asking enough questions about the assignment plan and process.

Once again, I urge you, if you have anything to say about the assignment proposal: 

Attend the public hearing this Thursday, March 7th at 6:00 p.m. which will be held at English High School. If possible, also attend and testify at the March 13th hearing and school committee meeting! 

Call and email the Boston School Committee (BSC) members, Mayor Menino and our elected officials with your feedback prior to the Boston School Committee voting to pass this proposal. A complete list of email addresses for the people listed above is available here.

You can contact me at bpsnightmare@gmail.com and follow me on twitter @bpsnightmare.

0 EAC Recommends New Boston School Assignment Plan, But Is It Good Enough?

Though somewhat old news by now, after a year of numerous community meetings, several assignment proposals and an extension to the timeline, the External Advisory Committee on School Assignment (EAC) voted Monday night to recommend the "Home Based A" school assignment plan for Boston Public Schools. In addition to the assignment model, the proposed overlay maps for English Language Learners (ELL), Students with Disabilities (SWD), and the Middle School Feeder(MSF) were also approved as part of the EAC's recommendation. Be sure to click the link "For additional information on (ELL or SWD or MSF), click here." included on each of the overlay pages as that information will tell you about the proposed K-8 conversions and possible program sites for ELL and SWD!

According to the explanation of how the Home-Based A assignment plan works, BPS states:

This model creates choices for each address using schools that are nearby, taking school quality into account. 

Using MCAS test scores, Home-Based A designates schools as Tier 1 (highest quality), Tier 2, Tier 3 or Tier 4 (lowest quality.)*   Based on a home address, families receive a list of at least six prospective schools. Everyone’s list includes a range of options in Tiers 1, 2 & 3. 

Students could choose from:

• Six schools that are close to home that are in the top three tiers of all schools for academic growth and performance.  Of those six, at least four will be in the top two tiers of all schools.  And, of those four at least two will be in the top tier.

In addition, they can also choose from:

• Any other school within 1 mile of their house not already on the list above.

• All three citywide elementary schools; and,

• Any additional schools, close to home, that usually have available capacity.

All of a family’s walk-zone schools are included in the list. Sometimes, the walk zone schools meet all the Tier 1, 2, and 3 criteria. Other times, more schools that are outside the walk zone are added to ensure a mix of quality schools.

All elementary schools that stop at Grade 5 feed into a designated middle school. Students can automatically transition into that new school for Grade 6.

* For help understanding the BPS "Tiers", please see my earlier article "With 40 Low Performing Schools, Is There Really Quality Choice for Boston Families?"

PLEASE do not confuse the MADESE school "LEVEL" designation, which is based on MCAS data, as being the same as the BPS' "TIER" system as the BPS Tier system uses BPS choice popularity data and MCAS Student Growth Percentile (SGP) data. BPS has been told repeatedly by several reputable sources that SGP should NOT be used to assess schools or teachers as there is no way to know how much of the student's "growth" is based on school education and how much is actually attributable to outside influences (parents, tutoring, after-school programs, etc).

To find out what your school choices will be under the Home-Based A plan, please use this interactive mapping tool created by BPS. Simply type in your address and select "Home-Based A Model" on the left and hit enter, this will produce a list of the schools you will be allowed to choose from along with which BPS "Tier" the school is designated as, whether it is walk-zone or citywide and the grade span. 

Unfortunately, at this time the mapping tool does not list the middle schools which each K-5 elementary school will feed into, so you will need to check out the Middle School Feeder overlay map for that information (link provided at bottom of plan explanation). Hopefully, in the future, they will tweak the interactive tool to include the middle schools on one map if the model is approved by the Boston School Committee (BSC). And of course, if the child is in need of substantial special education or ELL services your choices may be dictated by those specific needs, so then you will need to check out the overlay map for ELL or SWD (or both) also. 

The EAC's choice of the Home-Based A plan over the other plans is because Home-Based A narrows the competitive field for seats at the schools in your "choice-set" which, in theory, means a higher chance of getting an assignment to a seat at one of the top tier schools listed in your choice set. However, as I pointed out in my previous article regarding whether there is really quality choice for Boston families, "equity access" or having a school in your "choice-set", does NOT equal assignment to a specific school. Many families may be surprised to learn that "Home-Based" does not mean you will get a seat at that great school right across (or down) the street, but could still end up with your child bused to a school over a mile away!

Under the new plan, the amount of schools available to your family will actually decrease for most families, with no guarantee that your child will receive placement at one of the top tier schools. For families where their "home-based schools" are almost all Tier 3 & 4, this is extremely concerning to advocates like myself. 

Assignment choice examples: 

If you live at 132 Seaver Street, Boston, 02121,(which is a multi-unit apartment building) under the Home-Based A proposal, you will have a total of eighteen schools in your choice-set: fifteen "home-based" and the three "citywide" elementary schools.  Of the fifteen home-based schools, eight are within the one-mile walk-zone and the other seven are listed as "Zone/Other" as they are anywhere from 1.05 - 1.53 miles away (which will surely mean busing of some sort). Under the current BPS assignment policies, city-wide and charter* schools do NOT have a walk-zone priority. 

• Of the eight walk-zone schools, seven of the schools are designated as BPS Tier 4 (lowest 25% of schools) (according to MADESE designations two are "insufficient data"; three are Level 3; and, two are Level 4), with the single un-tiered school, which is an Early Education Center (EEC), listed as "Insufficient Data" according to the MADESE Accountability Data because EEC/ELCs grade span is usually K-0 through 1st grade, which means there is no MCAS data to use for assessment.

• Of the seven Zone/Other schools, two of the schools are designated as BPS Tier 1 (according to MADESE they are both Level 2); four are BPS Tier 2 (according to MADESE one is Level 2, two are Level 3, and one is Level 4); and, the last one is BPS Tier 3 (according to MADESE this is Level 3). 

• Of the three city-wide schools, all of which are un-tiered under the BPS Tier model, I reviewed the MADESE Accountability Data which lists the schools as follows: one is designated as a Level 2 and that school is "Not meeting gap narrowing goals", so it's MCAS Level may change within the next year to a Level 3; one of the schools is a charter school which only opened in September 2012, so there is no MCAS data or even "insufficient data" designation yet; and, the last school is a current MADESE Level 3 school which was on the brink of becoming Level 4 according to the 8 years of NCLB AYP data available, so it is being "transformed" into a charter school in an attempt to improve the school.

*Charter schools are city-wide based upon current Massachusetts Charter School Laws and transportation to all charter schools located within Boston must be paid for by BPS.

Choices for 132 Seaver Street, under the current three-zone BPS assignment model, include twenty-eight schools and at least thirty-one seats (as the integrated classroom choice is listed separately from the regular ed choice this gives you two opportunities to choose the same school). After a quick review, I can tell you that there are four Level 1 schools (none in walk-zone) and seven Level 2 schools (again, please do not confuse the BPS "Tier" designation with the MADESE "Level" designation). 

Of course, under the current model, your competitive field is also much large, which is part of the issue we currently face, but at least you tend to have more quality choices under the current plan than the proposed plan, which I would think would give you a statistically higher chance of getting a seat at a higher level school. Also, as the current interactive mapping tool for the proposed new assignment plan does not give the same choices regarding the types of seats available, there is no way to compare how many seats are available under the new proposal without more information to do an in-depth comparison between the lists, though it will definitely be less than are available under the current three-zone model.

Another example: 

I live in Roslindale and based on my address I will have a total of 10 schools in my choice-set: seven "home-based" and three "city-wide". Of the seven "home-based" schools, six are within the one-mile walk-zone and the last one is "Zone/Other" as it is 1.00 mile away. 

• Of the six walk-zone schools: three are designated as BPS Tier 1 (according to MADESE they are all Level 1), two are BPS Tier 2 (according to MADESE one has insufficient data and the other is Level 2), and one is a BPS Tier 3 (according to MADESE this is a Level 3).
• The "Zone/Other" school is designated as a BPS Tier 4 (according to MADESE this is a Level 4). 
• My three city-wide schools are the same three as those for 132 Seaver Street, which I already listed the MADESE data for.

Another factor for me personally is that the school *I* selected as the best for my daughters (which was chosen prior to NCLB and they both graduated from) is no longer in my choice-set at all, though it is in my current walk-zone, so if I were to have another child (not happening lol), I would be unable to send that child to the school I spent ten years helping to improve and which I feel has the best elementary teachers for any type of child. For me, this would be an issue and though I love all of our Roslindale schools I would rank four of the schools in my choice-set as lower choices the same as I did for us under the current assignment plan as I don't think their school climate would work as well for my child. So, if I based my decision solely on whether a school was ranked as a Tier 1 or 2 school, we would only have a single school choice left for my child and who knows how many others will be competing for the same seat? 

My fear is that the proposed plan will create the exact issues above that are of concern to me for a lot of families. I also worry that the new plan may lead to further inequalities across the system because this assignment plan by itself, will not increase the quality of our schools. If the BSC votes to pass this plan, I urge them to also incorporate concrete recommendations for quality improvement at all of our schools by the EAC as well as those offered by community members, because without those caveats in place, I am not sure we will see the improvements needed! 

Along with the proposed plan and overlay maps, several recommendations are being made by the EAC regarding the new assignment process. I received a copy of the "Working DRAFT" Recommendation Memo from Rebecca Frisch, Sr. Policy Advisor to Mayor Menino, so please keep in mind that some of this information is still in the process of being updated (i.e.: *Walk-Zone info is from my notes from the EAC meeting on Saturday, February 20, 2013, so I am sure it will be more detailed in the memo!). 

Some of the recommendations being made by the EAC are as follows:

1. *Walk-Zone: Keeping the walk-zone priority and process as it is now: 50% of seats at each school currently are assigned to students within the "walk-zone". For elementary students this is a 1 mile radius, for middle school it is a 1.5 mile radius (more to come on this);


2. Grandfathering: We recommend that all current students assigned to BPS schools as of September 2013 retain their school assignments (i.e., be “grand-fathered” into existing school) with transportation provided as needed.  Their families will have the option of choosing to enter the new student assignment lottery and request a new assignment, but they will retain their current assignment unless they accept a new one.  This “grandfathering” with transportation will continue through the 2019-2020 school year.
   
   In response to feedback from families, we also recommend that “grand-fathering” extend to younger siblings of BPS students and that the year 2019-2020 will be the final year in which younger brothers and sisters who have not yet entered the system will receive sibling priority to an out-of-zone school. Sibling priority will still apply for in-zone students.  Others in the system can remain, but may lose transportation after that time.; 


3. Transparency and Data-driven Approach:  The district should continue to assemble, analyze and make public the large quantity of data requested by the EAC through the student assignment redesign process.  This availability of data will provide ongoing accountability and progress related to the recommendations in this memo.  More importantly, this data will provide accountability and transparency to the families, partners and many stakeholders concerned with ongoing improvements in our schools.;


4. Comprehensive Quality Measure:  The district should speed the development of capacity to track and analyze a more comprehensive set of quality measures and that BPS school improvement and strategic plans more explicitly focus on improving overall school quality and not just performance.  We recommend that the district, by December 2014, develop and publish additional valid data-driven measures corresponding to additional indicators of quality articulated by the EAC (listed earlier in this document).  The EAC recognizes that all eight elements of its quality definition may not be perfectly measurable, but some additional number of them should be included in a more comprehensive quality measure.  This more robust quality metric should be inclusive of but not limited to academic performance.  Finally, the new metric once developed should be incorporated into the tiered ranking system used to organize and analyze the student assignment system.; and,


5. Accountability and Oversight:  The district should prepare an annual report to the School Committee, City Council, and the community.  The report should be available to the public on or before October 1 each year.  The report should include data and analysis outlining the impact of the new student assignment system on all student populations (including students eligible for free/reduced meals, students with disabilities, and English Language Learners, and also by race/ethnicity and geography).  The report should measure changes in equitable access to quality seats for all students, as well as changes to school academic performance and overall quality. The School Committee will be responsible for reviewing and endorsing the plan in writing.  We further recommend that the School Committee consider appointing a Task Force (similar to the English Language Learners Task Force) to assist with monitoring and evaluating the district’s efforts to increase equitable access to a quality education for all students in Boston.

There are many more pieces to the proposal being made, which I will delve into in detail as soon as possible as there is a lot to understand. 

The next steps in this school assignment odyssey start Wednesday, February 27th, when the EAC Recommendations will be presented by the Superintendent to the BSC at the 6:00 p.m. School Committee meeting (26 Court Street, Boston). 

The BSC members will most likely ask many questions and we should expect some in-depth discussions regarding the proposal and recommendations. The BSC can decide to make changes to the proposal in whole or part, and if they decide to do so, some of those changes will come about due to feedback from the community. 

The BSC will most likely schedule meetings for public feedback on the proposal and recommendations very quickly as they will also need to establish a deadline for voting on the proposal and recommendations. In fact, there is already a rumor that BSC Chairman Michael O'Neill is going to propose an aggressive two-week timeline for the BSC to hold meetings and even schedule the vote on this assignment proposal at their March 13th BSC meeting, inclusive of suggesting changing the previously scheduled "Budget Hearing" dates to hearings on the school assignment proposal instead! We will find out at the February 27th meeting for sure, which I will be tweeting from!

The time is NOW folks, if you care at all about this issue, even if you think there are other issues that should actually take higher priority than changing the school assignment model, you need to speak up quickly! I urge all families and community members to get involved, because whether for or against the proposal, the BSC meetings (both regular meetings and community forums) will be your last chance to weigh-in on the BPS school assignment proposals and recommendations prior to anything becoming a "done deal". 

You can follow me on Twitter @bpsnightmare for important updates and information!