0 The Quality Choice Plan Analysis & Questions Part 3

For parts 1 & 2 of this series, please go to October 2012.
Please note that I have sent the questions I am outlining in these articles to all six of the politicians who proposed the Quality Choice plan. To date (email sent on Monday, October 8, 2012; today is Thursday, October 11, 2012) I have received no response to these questions.

Is the Quality Choice Plan offered by Councilor John Connolly et al really the answer to Boston Public Schools assignment issues? This is part 3 of my in-depth analysis with questions about the proposal.

In section two, "Establishing a Quality Baseline for BPS", the QC plan states the following:

Given the large gap in quality across the district, skeptics are right to fear that BPS will not be able to elevate the quality of schools across the board.

Therefore, the External Advisory Committee must demand that the school department provide a detailed plan on how to make a quality baseline a reality by September 2014. 

Careful review of the statement above makes me wonder: if people are skeptical about BPS' ability to elevate the quality of the schools, how do the "demands" of the QC plan alleviate that skepticism? In my mind, it doesn't because it is relying on BPS to come up with a plan and implement it, which this statement just said people were skeptical of BPS's ability to do. Circular reasoning here, just as seen in BPS' proposals about improving quality in our schools.

True, we can request such a plan from BPS, as many of us are, but the EAC has no power to "demand" that BPS do anything. And asking for such a detailed plan does not actually make the schools quality schools by the deadline in the QC proposal. So, in reality, the Quality Choice Plan does not fulfill the promises it makes in this area either. 

When closely reviewing the QC proposal, the statement above shows that instead of truly establishing a quality baseline within the plan itself, the creators are instead putting the onus on BPS to put something together by listing a few items that should be included in such an improvement plan:

1. Mandatory principal evaluation*
2. Mandatory teacher evaluation*
3. A commitment to eight new fully inclusive schools
4. A commitment to nine new dual-language schools
5. Provide full academic enrichment for every student
6. Provide every student with a K-8 option

The first two items on this list are already in place in BPS pursuant to state law which was actually adopted in June 2011. BPS started implementing the new evaluation system in schools during the 2011-2012 school year. So neither of these items is actually the idea of the creators of this plan, which many may not be aware of. 

With regard to the third item on the list, a commitment to eight new "fully inclusive schools", the recommendation is sound, but the timeline is not as it states that: BPS must commit to make eight current BPS schools fully inclusive by September 2014.

But wait Karen, the first list item under that section states: BPS must provide the External Advisory Committee with a list of eight new fully inclusive 
schools as well as a projected timeline and budget for staffing and programming the fully inclusive models at each school. 

1. True enough, so which is it? 
2. And if, as I suspect, the second statement is the actual requirement by the QC plan, does that mean the deadline for providing this will be September, 2014? 
3. If this is the actual requirement, then what will you expect from them regarding timelines, detailed plans and deadlines for actually fulfilling these promises?
4. Who will oversee BPS regarding follow-through of these commitments and how will oversight be handled?

I have a unique perspective on this part of the plan as I am an advocate for and mother of three children with special needs as well as a trainer on special education law for the Federation for Children with Special Needs (FCSN) who also "certified" me almost 2 decades ago. I also had the honor of Chairing the original BPS Special Needs Parent Advisory Council (SNPAC) for 11 years, so worked closely with the creator, Dr. William Henderson, of the first full inclusion model school in the world, the O'Hearn, now named the Henderson after Dr. Henderson. 

The SNPAC had lobbied for more full-inclusion schools modeled after the (then O'Hearn) Henderson in Boston for over a decade before they created the Harbor Pilot Middle school which is now expanding with a 9th grade class. I am hopeful that we can add the 4 schools modeled after Henderson and 4 more after the Lyon K-8 school as these are truly inclusion schools. This is a great suggestion on the part of the QC plan creators. 

The only part of this section I see an issue with is the "inclusive" model schools based on the 24 BPS claims to have in the district. I know many of the teachers and staff at those schools and, as much as the idea of "inclusive" schools is great, several of these staff members tell me that there is no true support taking place, that the models utilizing RTI and positive behavioral modification is more of a stalling technique to keep children out of special education and off Individual Education Plans (IEPs) instead of truly giving all children an inclusive education and all the supports they need. 

Unfortunately, most people hear "inclusive" and think "inclusion" which can be totally different models. I believe we  need to clarify what an "inclusive school" would look like when we walk into it, not just ask that they commit to implementing the recommendations of the BPS Inclusive Schools Network (ISN) partners as outlined in the plan. The fact that the plan calls for BPS to implement the recommendations of the ISN means they have not been implemented yet in any school in Boston and the claim by BPS that there are 24 such schools in the district rings false, partially because I know some of the schools they call inclusive very well, and they do not meet the criteria.

And that brings me to the fourth item on the list, a commitment by BPS to "make nine current BPS schools dual language", again, the recommendation is sound, but the time-line is not as it states that: BPS must commit to make nine current BPS schools dual-language by September 2014. 

With this section, as with the inclusive schools, we have the same issue as the first list item in this section states: BPS must provide the External Advisory Committee with a list of nine new dual-language schools, as recommended by the ELL Task Force in March 2011, as well as a projected timeline and budget for staffing and programming at each school.

1. Again, so which is it? 
2. If, as I suspect, the second statement is the actual requirement by the QC plan, does that mean the deadline for providing this will be September, 2014? 
3. If this is the actual requirement, then what what will you expect from them regarding timelines, detailed plans and deadlines for actually fulfilling these promises?
4. Who will oversee BPS regarding follow-through of these commitments and how will oversight be handled?

Again, as with the "inclusive" schools I think this is a great suggestion on the part of the QC plan creators. We should note that of the schools the plan lists as possible dual-language models, all except one are Level 3 & 4 (Turnaround) schools, which is concerning because it will take time for those schools to come up to "acceptable" Level 2 and then Level 1. 

• Do we want to put some of our most vulnerable students into those schools? 
• Don't they deserve better?

The fifth section states: BPS must commit to a comprehensive academic experience for every student by September 2014.

My first reaction to this is that if BPS could do that by September 2014 we would not have the issues we currently have within the district. So let's get into this a bit more.

BPS must provide the External Advisory Committee with a list of courses offered at every school, including the amount of instruction time in each course that demonstrates that every child at every school will have access to full academic enrichment.

This is a confusing statement as it asks for a list of what the schools currently offer to prove that every child at every school has access to full academic enrichment, which leads back to my first reaction. So let me assume they mean to ask BPS for a list of current offerings as well as a projected timeline and budget for staffing and programming at each school as that makes more sense. So then we should ask the same questions asked above in relation to "inclusive" and dual-language schools. 

Now let's address the second list item in this section: BPS must provide the External Advisory Committee with a plan to give every school the option to have an “Advanced Work” or “Honors Program” by September 2018 (the first year kindergarten students under the new assignment plan would be eligible for advanced work classes).

The reasoning behind this proposal is sound and I agree with it in theory. As an overall idea though it may sound great, actually in my opinion, it is not really. Personally, I believe we should do away with AWC altogether, put AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) in every class of every school throughout the district and instead use those AWC funds to ensure a more rigorous academic experience throughout the entire curriculum of the district. Why? With AWC and Honors classes we set up a system that ensures unequal access to true quality education as well as a fierce battle over who gets seats where. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that the AWC strands set up an elitist model among our students. I say this as the parent of two children who went through AWC by the way. And I will say this again, all three of my children have special needs. But enough about my personal feelings about AWC.

For those who would want such an option in every school, yes, it is a great proposal. Yet, it is unrealistic because most of our schools do not have any "excess" space available for expansion, so the promise can not be fulfilled. Again, this sets up yet another "have" and "have-not" issue, which is one of the issues driving the current push for school assignment reform and families issues with the BPS proposals. 

As you can see, I keep adding more questions in addition to those I asked in the first two articles, which I will send on to the proponents of the Quality Choice Plan and hope that someday I get a response.

If you have questions or know of further clarification that is available in writing on any of the above, please share it with me so I may also analyze that information as well as providing it to everyone else. :)

Part 4 of this series.