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 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 The Quality Choice Plan Analysis & Questions Part 4

For parts 1, 2 & 3 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 4 of my in-depth analysis with questions about the proposal.

In section three of this plan, "Providing Quality Supports for Schools Serving Large Numbers of Students in Need", the Quality Choice plan states: 

BPS also needs a cohesive and clear strategy to support schools whose students overwhelmingly face the greatest challenges to success.  Social factors, such as poverty and trauma, have an alarming impact on students’ academic outcomes and need to be addressed as part of any comprehensive school quality plan.

I don't know of anyone who would disagree with either of the statements above! So how do we do that?

Well, the QC plan states that it:requires BPS to provide comprehensive quality supports for schools whose student bodies are above the district average poverty rate (78%).  Currently, 59 schools would qualify for these supports, based on poverty level. (BPS FY2013 Average Per Pupil Funding by School, 03.28.12)

Sounds good, of course me being me, my mind went to the budgetary considerations implicated in trying to fulfill this requirement, but I will get into budget issues later.

The first suggestion for providing quality supports is to grant Innovation, 
Pilot, and In-District status to these schools as these types of schools are given increased flexibility to meet the needs of students facing great challenges. Innovation, Pilot, or In-District Charter status gives a school community autonomy in terms of extended learning time, staffing, site-based budgetary decision-making, and curricular flexibility to best meet the needs of the students. 

I think this is a valid suggestion, but one that would be met with some push-back from the Boston Teachers Union (BTU) due to the autonomy in staffing piece, pay-for-excellence and stipend for extended day hours, especially when recommending it for 59 schools in the district. How do the proponents of this plan suggest dealing with this issue? 

Also, again me with the budget issues, we received funding for the Turnaround schools which currently funds Orchard Gardens Pilot school through federal Race to the Top (RTTT) funding, so will that funding still exist for Orchard Gardens and other schools or is it totally gone within the next couple of years (I think that is the case, but will look into it as a quick search did not fully answer this question)? Once the RTTT funding is gone, how will we continue to fund the current schools and another (possible) 59 of them on top of that?

Providing fully staffed student support services, the second suggestion in this section, is an excellent idea in my opinion, though I believe this should be true in EVERY school to ensure access across the district. I urge the creators of this plan and BPS leaders to look at the Alliance for Inclusion and Prevention (AIP) program at the Irving as a way to possibly bring some of these supports into other BPS schools regardless of which plan is chosen. The only issue with this piece is: how do we fund it as the support services are extremely pricey? 

The third suggestion, providing academic coaches for literacy and math support, is definitely something that should be done in all our schools. Teachers having access to additional professional development, common planning time, data analysis, and individualized coaching to strengthen their teaching practice and meet the specific needs of their students is something I believe we can all get behind! I hope we can see this recommendation incorporated into any plan that BPS finally approves, though I am also sure it would mean extending the day at all schools to make happen time-wise, which is also something I believe we should incorporate into all of our schools. Of course, that will become a teacher contract issue, along with budgetary considerations.

As far as guaranteeing after-school programming, I believe this is one of the easiest parts of this plan to put in place. At the Irving we have three program partners: AIP, Citizen Schools. Tenacity, as well as City Year partnering with our teachers and working within our school, now throughout the entire school day thanks to extended learning time (ELT), and these partnerships are helping all of our students to succeed. As 75% of BPS schools already have some form of after-school program partnerships, hopefully we can add the other 25% of the schools to see better results throughout the district. These programs do cost though, so there are budget issues to deal with for this piece of the plan also.

Okay, so now we get into the funding piece of this plan, "Funding Quality" states: The Boston Public Schools have an annual budget that exceeds $1 billion for approximately 56,000 students.  While we believe that better budgeting could accomplish substantial savings for reinvestment at the school site level, we also believe there are three concrete steps to provide funding for quality upgrades across the BPS.

I think we all agree that better budgeting and drastic re-prioritization of what we really need (central admin vs. teachers/school based staff/supplies) for our students to succeed is essential at this point regardless of the assignment plan that is chosen.

The Quality Choice Plan believes the following three steps will contribute substantially to funding quality upgrades: 

• Direct All Savings From Reduced Transportation Costs To High-Need Schools – Direct all savings from reduced transportation costs to the schools falling under the quality baseline in Section II and the schools receiving the quality supports covered in Section III. 


• BPS projects transportation savings for its five proposals to range between 7%-27% of the total transportation budget (approximately $83 million).
• This plan falls somewhere in between that range, projecting savings between $6 and $20 million annually.

The QC plan, which is more like the 23 zone model proposed by BPS as it promises a guaranteed seat at one of the four schools closest to a child's address, this in effect creates at least 20 zones (6 EEC + 48 elementary+25 K-8=79 schools affected by assignment proposals), cuts all busing of regular ed students. We will still need to bus students with special needs and the charter school students per law. 

Though the statement above claims that the QC plan savings is: projecting savings between $6 and $20 million annually, no numbers have been released regarding this proposal. When I asked Representative Russell Holmes directly about the numbers for this plan on Thursday, October 11, 2012 at the Mildred Ave School Assignment community meeting, Rep. Holmes told me that it was up to BPS to run the numbers. 

This begs the question: where did the above statement of projected savings come from? I did send a request in to BPS CFO John McDonough to find out if they had run the numbers for the QC plan, so am hopeful we will have an answer to that piece soon. Until we have the exact numbers, which the proponents of this plan should run for themselves if they have not already in my opinion and then release for review, there is no way to gauge what the savings will really be from transportation under this plan. 

• Adjust Funding Formula To Provide Additional Funding To Students In Need – Institute a reallocation of the money available to provide an additional lump sum to the schools receiving the quality supports covered in Section III.

This is a suggestion that should be implemented no matter which proposal is ultimately chosen.

• Increase Enrollment To Increase State Funding For BPS – The State funds BPS based on the number of students enrolled on an annual basis.


• BPS should be able to increase enrollment, and therefore funding, by reforming student assignment to give families guaranteed seats with options close to home.

This part of the plan, I believe, is a long-term goal which is dependent on fulfilling all of the other pieces of the plan. As someone who is constantly telling folks "send your child to a BPS school", I would love to see this realized. My fear though is that there is now too much competition from charter schools to realistically see this happen, but I will remain hopeful that if we truly ensure quality and equity in BPS it will happen.

And FINALLY, we get to the final section of the Quality Choice Plan: "Quality Facilities" which states that: BPS needs to have a facilities strategy premised on growing enrollment through The Quality Choice Plan.

In October 2011, The Council on Great City Schools reported that Boston had $500 million in deferred maintenance costs, along with $640 million in modernization and repairs, and $1.8 billion in new construction needs. BPS MUST develop a long-term strategic capital plan to address these 
needs while managing enrollment demands in the short-term in a cost-effective way. (http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/4/Facilities_Report.pdf) 

Okay, the above statement tells us what the BPS needs are according to CGCS, but not where funding is to be found for any of it. How about we insist that BPS have such a strategy for current students and Mayor Menino and the City Council commit to funding it no matter which plan is passed? Then, if enrollment increases, we can utilize the other suggestions. Just saying.

The Quality Choice Plan believes the following three steps will contribute substantially to improving facilities: 

• Build or Acquire a Facility for a Downtown School in the Back Bay, Beacon Hill or West End - The Quality Choice Plan aims to increase BPS enrollment.
• BPS needs to locate and build a school that serves the hundreds of families in downtown neighborhoods who have no close-to-home option currently.

No matter which plan is chosen, if we are truly going with the "neighborhood school" option, this is true whether enrollment increases or not.

My question: How do we fund this?

• Realign Kindergarten Seats - The Quality Choice Plan aims to increase BPS enrollment.
• BPS should explore converting current K1 seats in highly-chosen schools to K2 seats to meet capacity demands in those communities.
• BPS should explore a strategy to expand K0 and K1 seats at high-need schools to provide more seats to the children who can benefit most from early-childhood access. (“Improving educational outcomes for poor children,” Brian A. Jacob and Jens Ludwig, http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc262j.pdf)

It is interesting that, at a time when most people believe that the earlier we start educating students the more success we see throughout school and even as adults, the proponents of this plan would essentially suggest cutting K-1 seats at many schools. They also do not seem to understand that the majority of K-0 seats are primarily for children on IEPs, which of course means a number of the K-1 and K-2 seats are held for those students leaving few for regular ed and ELL students as it is. 

Plus, I can already hear the families of hopeful K-1ers at those highly chosen schools saying "You can NOT cut OUR K-1 seats NOW"!

**Drumroll please***

And the LAST item in the plan, but third part of the final section: 

• Address Supply/Demand Issues - The Quality Choice Plan aims to increase BPS enrollment.
• If demand exceeds supply, seats must still be guaranteed under the close-to-home option.
• BPS must provide the guaranteed seats via temporary modular classrooms in the short term and use enrollment projection data to develop a facilities plan to build or acquire new schools as necessary in the long term.

Again, I would love to see enrollment numbers go up. My biggest fear with this part is that if temporary modular classrooms are necessary under such an increase, the students who will end up in the modular classrooms will be our students with special needs and English Language Learners, which in effect means those students are segregated from the rest of the school population. 

This happens quite often, even now, despite the special education laws pertaining to Least Restrictive Environment, though BPS is less likely to do it after all the grief they went through thanks to the BPS SNPAC in the 1980-90s. IF this becomes a necessity for a school, I urge the Boston SpedPAC to do what the original BPS SNPAC did and become true watchdogs for all the students by touring schools often. 

And again, I ask many questions and am awaiting answers. I will do a final wrap up of my thoughts and findings from this review in the FINAL article in this series. 

Part 5 in this series, finally with some answers (and more questions).

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.

0 Testimony to Boston School Committee Regarding Boston School Choice

Please excuse the messiness of this post, but I am just getting home at 10:00 p.m. and want to make it available to those who are interested! I will post my coverage of tonight HOPEFULLY tomorrow if there is time between work and my daughter's high school Open House & the Ohrenberger Community Meeting re: School Choice! 

 

This is the written testimony I gave to the Boston School Committee members, my verbal testimony was a bit more rushed.

Karen Kast       Boston School Choice Proposals Testimony     10/3/12

 

Stop rushing the process!!!!!!!  We have not been given everything needed to realistically evaluate the proposed models.  There is confusion, panic and misinformation despite BPS’ best attempts. Families , whether current or potential, partners and the entire Boston community need to be able to evaluate the proposals intelligently and right now that is NOT happening because key data and information is missing.

Regarding information still needed to comprehensively evaluate the proposed models:

On page 4 of BPS' Phase 3: Framework for School Choice Options, Update to the External Advisory Committee presentation on August 20, 2012 BPS stated that the following issues would already be addressed as part of the September 24, 2012 roll-out of proposed models:

"What will be presented on September 24?:

• 3 – 5 school choice options
• An explanation of each option 
• Describing the pros and cons of each
• Maps of the proposed models  (were provided)
• Policy considerations (for example grandfathering of current students, priorities, how administrative assignments might occur)
• Cost and transportation implications
• All plans will be paired with academic improvement strategies to continue the transformation of lower performing schools
• The community will then begin its evaluation of options and the underlying components of the models"

PLEASE provide all the promised materials as outlined in the Phase 3 presentation! Under policy considerations, you also need to include a clearly stated explanation of what walk zone policies will be as that is one of the most concerning issues for families.

Regarding Transportation cost savings, please provide the following to myself and the public:

A) What are the projected savings under each plan?

IF students are “grandfathered”, how will that affect the projected savings?

B) How soon does BPS project that these savings will be realized?

C) What will the funds saved by eliminating the majority of bussing be used for?

Some questions that need to be answered by BPS:

• Why is the City of Boston paying for transportation of parochial students?
• Many buses are not full, in fact some are practically empty, has BPS looked at expanding routes to include more students on each bus and therefore cut down the amount of buses used? 
• Can BPS provide a detailed break-down of the exact costs for all categories of students transported by BPS? 
1. District regular education students
2. District special education students
3. "In District Charter Schools" transportation costs
4. Non-BPS Charter School students with sub-categories for special and regular education students
5. Parochial school students
6. Other students
• Detailed breakdown of the number of students per route/trip, per bus should also be examined.

It is understood by many who have been around as long as I have that BPS has an SOP when attempting to pass anything that is sure to be controversial:

• Present the proposal to public & announce comment period (usually starts within a week which gives people very little time to fully evaluate complex proposals);
• Limited amount of time the public can comment on proposals (two week period in this case);
• Review feedback briefly and generate a “compromise” proposal to send to Superintendent and BSC;
• Schedule the presentation by Superintendent to BSC between Thanksgiving and the December school break when there is less likelihood of families et al attending meetings;
• Vote on proposal by BSC at last meeting in December.

Let’s make a change to this SOP, especially now that there is yet another counter-proposal offered by elected officials on this matter – I urge the BSC, despite the Mayor wanting a new assignment policy in place prior to January, to enable more public comment time through additional community meetings AFTER we all have the other data we need to assess the proposals. 

 

After all, if we truly want every BPS school to become a “quality school”  shouldn’t WE make sure that we put quality time and consideration into what is being proposed?

 

Thought for the day: 

Prior to the desegregation of BPS schools, we had 87,000 students in our schools. When I first became Chair of the Boston Special Needs Parent Advisory Council (SNPAC) in 1997, we had 64,000 students in BPS. Now, according to the Department of Education district profile we currently have 55,027 students in our district. 
 

How many students will be left after this school choice process is done? I fear only those who do not have a choice whether due to income level or services needed that Boston Public Schools, unlike other districts, can and does provide fairly well for students with disabilities OR have parents who are die-hard Bostonians like myself. 

4 Defining Quality Schools in Boston

Until we have a definition of "quality schools" that is accepted by the majority, how can we accurately evaluate the proposals made by Boston Public Schools? The consensus is that not all BPS schools are considered "quality schools", so who are the winners and who is going to end up getting the short-end of the stick once a model is accepted and passed by the school committee? 

After further perusal of the models proposed by the Boston Public Schools' to the External Advisory Committee (EAC), there are many unanswered questions that need clarification. Many of them have been raised on Facebook, email lists and through conversations, hopefully we will get answers to them soon.

A few issues many of us are encountering while trying to evaluate the proposed models are:

• "walk zone" in the proposed models is not clearly explained and many of us have heard that there will be changes to what constitutes the walk zones once a new model is put in place
• "grandfathering" of students in current schools is still up for discussion, so in effect, all of our students could be changing schools once a model is accepted! 

Both of the above concerns need to be addressed immediately to help families and community members understand exactly what they are evaluating and make decisions regarding how they would like to respond to the proposals.

In the meantime, the biggest problem remains: there is no way BPS can say that all children will receive a seat at a "quality school, close to home."  In fact, if "grandfathering" of current students is not approved, families who have children currently in what they consider a quality school could find their child moved to a school that is not as fortunate.

My list of major obstacles to achieving the goals set out by BPS:

1. We need to define quality first.
2. We need a commitment, in writing, that BPS and the City of Boston will commit to working with families to ensure that every school becomes a quality school. That means committing money, resources, possibly more personnel and working with groups who have already achieved some success with a project like this (like the RPAG with the Roslindale Pathway). 
3. WE, as parents and partners, need to commit time and energy, to ensure that every school becomes a quality school. We also need to commit to seeing the process through to the end.

In order to define quality, we must first survey everyone - not just the 2300 who responded during the first round of the School Choice process, but EVERYONE who is currently a Boston Public School family, those who live in Boston and could potentially send a child to one of the schools as well as partners and organizations who have already invested in BPS. I give BPS credit, they did ask for input from anyone and everyone by making the surveys available online and having community meetings. Unfortunately, for something this important, there should have been a lot more marketing of both the survey and the meetings. Even now, there needs to be a greater push by BPS for this feedback part of the process:

• Radio, TV, Newspapers, Web announcements, billboards, etc;
• Fliers sent to every school in Boston; if possible, even the charter and parochial schools as well as hospitals/health centers, community centers and groups and other organizations that serve children in Boston;
• ConnectEDs every week to all Boston residents (with several language translations) about taking part in either a meeting or the online survey;
• Utilize the SPC/SSC groups of each of our schools to get the word out; have Team BPS Ambassadors get the word out; and
• schedule more meetings if necessary!

I understand that this means spending money to do properly, but I am sure Mayor Menino and our City Council can find a way to fund this as it is so important to our city.

Now, BPS will say that they DID define quality, through the initial community meetings and online survey this past spring. I agree that we have a rough idea of what needs to go into the definition of "quality school" thanks to the participation of those who did respond to the first part of this process. I also believe that we can utilize the themes that came up with to further narrow down the definition:

• Participants spoke in terms of “equality” and “democracy”:  A quality education “builds character” and helps children become “productive and good citizens”;
• Participants see a quality education as: “preparing students” to “reach their full potential” and “succeed as an adult” in the world after his or her K-12 education. “serving the needs of all learners”;
• Participants see a quality education as:“more than academics”, as “holistic, creative and hands-on”, promoting “critical thinking”;  “child/student-centered” focused on the “whole child”;
• Participants believe that a quality education is: when “caring and excellent teachers” (who have “high expectations” for all learners) work with “strong school leaders” to form “relationships” with “involved parents” to foster a strong sense of “community” both “within and outside” of the school. Source: School Choice Report Spring 2012 updated August 2012

To see all of the data used by the EAC, please check out the External Advisory Committee Page which I am still wading through myself.

You will need to decide for yourself whether the above constitutes a "definition" of what a "quality school" is and I would love to hear your thoughts on this, so please comment or email me.

I for one believe the above is a good start, but still needs more work as it does not address how test scores, school report cards and facility environmental reports play into a families decision to send their child to a particular school. Physical issues are also important to what a "quality school" needs like safe and healthy environments and physical space, but also technology and materials (books for every student!). I could go on with this list, but I think you get the general idea.

I missed the meeting I wanted to attend on Thursday as the Irving's Back-to-School night took longer than expected, but plan on bringing up the above issues and suggestions as well as those I raised in my previous blogs at the next meeting I can attend. I hope to see you there!

ADDED 10/2/12:
The EAC DRAFT Quality Definition, per meeting materials on August 20, 2012

Revised Definition of Quality
Acknowledging that quality varies for each individual, the EAC Defining Quality and Equitable Access Subcommittee - with its members’ expertise, community feedback, and BPS research on quality - has drafted the following preliminary definition of a quality school to include:

• Academic excellence and student academic growth in all grades, across all subgroups of race, ethnicity, English Language Learners and students with disabilities
• Principal effectiveness and teacher excellence with caring teachers and school staff
• Parent engagement and a sense of community within and outside of the school
• Effective community partnerships
• Focus on the development of the whole child and the needs of all learners, through arts, music, athletics, and program and course offerings
• Safe and positive school climate including social and emotional support
• Adequate and appropriate facilities
• As close to home as possible

Special thanks to Megan for pointing this out to me, my brain must have been numb when I first went through that document, so am glad you saw it!  

I am still trying to get clarification on whether this definition of quality has been voted on and passed yet. So far, from other documents I have found to date it is still being referred to as a "draft" definition, but If I hear differently I will update this post.