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 Without Quality, Is there Really Choice for Boston Families?

At the most recent community meetings regarding the school assignment proposals Boston Public Schools (BPS) presented to the External Advisory Committee on School Assignment (EAC), the most common question or comment from the public is still regarding the lack of quality schools in Boston. Though long, it is informative to watch the video from the February 4, 2013 Community Forum.

From the beginning of this process on March 10, 2012, the consistent feedback from the public has revolved around the lack of quality schools in BPS, not whether a school is close to home, which was the original focus of the new assignment proposals by BPS. Of course, schools close to home are also popular, but since many families do not have a high-performing school, or in some cases any schools at all, close to home the public has continued to focus on the lack of "quality" schools in Boston. Because of the push-back by individuals and groups, BPS and the EAC turned their focus to "equity access to quality seats." 

Equity access does not mean equity assignment which is a distinction that needs to be made. Just because a new model may bump your chances up by 2.9 - 6.0% does not mean your child will actually get assigned a seat at that quality school, only that you have a statistically better chance of it happening, in theory. Unfortunately, equity access to seats in quality schools will not fix the underlying issue which is that there are few quality schools overall, therefor the number of seats available stay the same whether we re-draw or eliminate the lines on our maps. 

In addition to the lack of seats available, is the issue that we also lack the ability to add seats at many of our schools, high-performing or not. This became more evident to me at the community forum held at the Trotter school when one woman said that no matter which proposal the EAC picked, students in Dorchester and Roxbury would continue to be bused out of their "home district" due to the lack of capacity to add seats at any of the schools. 

BPS is proposing to expand capacity at schools, but having gone through the exploration process at the Mozart without success I am well aware of how much red-tape is involved along with what could potentially be lost to accommodate such additions: children placed into "modular classrooms" (trailers) and playgrounds eliminated just as an example. And after a year of exploring the options to merge the Mozart and Bates or add seats at either of them we found out it could not be done primarily due to push-back from neighbors, so I tend to be skeptical that BPS would have better success in the more highly-populated areas of the city.

In a district which has 79 elementary, K-8 and middle schools, according to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) Accountability data our BPS elementary and K-8 schools fall into the following designations:

13 schools have "insufficient data"*
9 schools are "Level 1"
17 schools are "Level 2"
32 schools are "Level 3"
8 schools are "Level 4"

Boston Public Schools District overall is designated as "Level 4" and determined as "Needs Intervention" for special education technical assistance or intervention. 

Understanding DESE designations is important to understanding how BPS is now classifying schools into a "Tier" system under their new proposals. Below is the explanation of what each level represents:

Accountability and Assistance Level: Massachusetts' Framework for District Accountability and Assistance classifies schools and districts on a five-level scale, classifying the highest performing in Level 1 and lowest performing in Level 5. Eighty percent of schools are classified into Level 1 or 2 based on the cumulative PPI for the "all students" and high needs groups. 

For a school to be classified into Level 1, the cumulative PPI for both the "all students" group and high needs students must be 75 or higher. If not, the school is classified into Level 2. A school may also be classified into Level 2 if it has low MCAS participation rates for any group (between 90 and 94%).

Schools are classified into Level 3 if they are among the lowest 20 percent relative to other schools in their grade span statewide, if one or more subgroups in the school are among the lowest performing 20% of subgroups relative to all subgroups statewide, if they have persistently low graduation rates (less than 60% for any subgroup over a four-year period), or if they have very low MCAS participation rates for any group (less than 90%). 

The lowest achieving, least improving Level 3 schools are candidates for classification into Levels 4 and 5, the most serious designations in Massachusetts' accountability system. 

*A small number of schools each year will not be classified into a level: small schools, schools ending in grades 1 or 2, new schools, or schools that were substantially reconfigured.

In general, a district is classified into the level of its lowest performing school, unless the district was independently classified into Level 4 or 5 as a result of action by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

For more information regarding the data used by the DESE to classify schools and districts, please read the DESE Accountability Report.

According to the DESE data above and explanation of the levels, this means that of the 79 elementary, K-8 and middle schools over 50% (50.632911% or 40 schools) are in "the lowest 20 percent relative to other schools in their grade span statewide" or are "the lowest achieving, least improving Level 3 schools". BPS has 57,000 students, of which there are 6,366 students in Level 4 schools (11.2%) and 23,763 students in Level 3 schools (41.8%) for a total of 30,129 BPS students in the lowest performing schools (53%). 

For the purpose of the new BPS assignment proposals, a colorful rating system  (green being best and red being worst) has been added on the maps which indicates three "quality indicators":

MCAS Tier Level
DESE MCAS Level (Spring 2012 data)
Popularity (Choice data)

According to this new BPS Tier system, the following is a list of the schools and which Tier they fall into. This table does NOT include the middle schools, even those designated as part of a "feeder" pattern already (i.e. Irving or McCormack).


Please keep in mind that all of the BPS data used to predict school choice patterns and the quality levels of schools for their proposals is based only on school years' 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 MCAS results and information regarding new students (no siblings) during Round 1 Kindergarten registration data. This means there is no current analysis which takes into account how the information would change when impacted by choices made for children over the age of 5, new students who have sibling preference, families who do not take part during round 1, transfers, students who are English Language Learners (ELL) or students with disabilities (SWD) whose school choice is designated primarily via their Individual Education Plan (IEP) pursuant to special education laws or other pertinent data I have not outlined here. 

I am providing all of the above in an attempt to help create a better understanding of how BPS currently designates schools as "quality" schools and is predicting choice patterns for incoming students. 

Myself included, many families do not choose a school based on the MCAS designation or because other people choose a school; we pick a school based on what our individual child needs and how the schools in our choice set match up with what we quantify as being important for our family and child. One of my daughters' is in a Level 3 school because despite it's designation as such, I know from 3.5 years experience that the school is actually a quality school which is only now starting to show the progress that can be made with a dynamic principal and dedicated staff. Of course, since each family chooses schools based on individual need and assessment, this means there is no concrete manner to evaluate exactly how families will choose a school, but I give credit to BPS and the MIT partners who have used what they  have available to make generalized predictions for this process.

Many people made similar observations as I do above at the community meetings held March - June, 2012 so the EAC came up with a definition of a quality school:

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; and,

•As close to home as possible.

BPS acknowledged that not all of the components listed above can be measured by current data and that they will work toward creating a way to measure quality using the above definition. As all of the above are in line with my recent article regarding school climate and I have submitted my proposal for increasing the number of quality schools in Boston to Dr. Johnson, my hope is they incorporate some of my suggestions.

Unfortunately, whether the EAC picks one of the Home-based models or the modified 10 zone aka the new "11 zone" assignment model, we still have a serious problem in BPS regarding the lack of quality schools within the district. As it is unlikely that any of the 40 schools that fall into the lowest performing levels is miraculously going to become a level 1 or 2 in time for the registration process to begin in January 2014, the choices families may have under the new proposals could be even more limited and lead to further inequities across the city. 

I understand and agree that we need a new assignment model for a number of reasons, but as an advocate for students and public education I want to be sure that we are not only simplifying the process for families, but are also ensuring that every child receives a superior educational experience no matter which school in Boston they may attend. I truly believe that Boston can provide every student with an exceptional education in all our schools if they are given the funding and resources necessary to improve, not measured by MCAS testing alone.

Before a school assignment proposal is chosen, I urge you as current and potential families and community members, to get involved now. Attend an EAC meeting (listed on right side of bostonschoolchoice.org site) if possible. We should all be calling and writing/emailing the EAC members, BPS Superintendent Dr. Carol Johnson, the Boston School Committee (BSC) members, Mayor Menino and our elected officials to insist that detailed, concrete plans to increase the quality at each of our schools be produced by BPS prior to the Boston School Committee voting to pass any proposal recommended by the EAC and Dr. Johnson. A complete list of email addresses for the people listed above is available here.

The only way to provide true equity for all students is to ensure that all of our schools are high-performing, quality schools. Unless we have detailed plans to improve quality for every school and the guarantee of funding (in writing by BPS and Boston city officials) to put those plans in motion as well as benchmarks to assess their effectiveness for each school, our students are at risk of simply being guinea pigs for a new assignment model. 

If you would like to contact me with questions/comments or send me a copy of your emails to any of those I listed above, please email me at bpsnightmare@gmail.com.

0 Speak Now Or Accept What Boston Public Schools & the External Advisory Committee Give You: Community Forums Monday & Tuesday!

The attached flier was sent out by Boston Public Schools along with the following invitation on January 31st:

The External Advisory Committee on School Choice (EAC) invites you to a community meeting Monday, February 4 at 6pm at Orchard Gardens K-8 School, 906 Albany St., Roxbury, or Tuesday, February 5 at 6pm at Suffolk University, 73 Tremont St., 9th Floor. BPS will present the latest options and the EAC will invite public comment.
Please help us spread the word about these meetings with flyers in Cape Verdean Creole, Chinese, English, Haitian Creole, Portuguese, Somali, Spanish and Vietnamese. To learn more and to get involved, please visit bostonschoolchoice.org.

• We have posted a neighborhood-by-neighborhood analysis of the three proposals now under consideration, which you can read here. To read the full report from the MIT School Effectiveness and Inequality Initiative, click here.

• The BPS graduation rate has increased to the highest level ever! You can read the full report and view school-by-school data here.

For more information on the proposals, please check out this presentation from the January 23rd EAC meeting.

If you have not seen it yet, BPS now has an interactive mapping tool to predict your school options under each of the three proposals, the 10-zone, Home-Based A and B along with the Students with Disabilities (SWD) and English Language Learners (ELL) overlay maps:

http://maps.cityofboston.gov/models/

Please take a moment, type in your address and find out which schools will be available to you under each option, what "Tier" they are and where they are located! Also, please check out the middle school feeder overlay map to see which middle school your predicted elementary schools will feed into if they are not traditional K-8 models! Even if you do not have a Student With Disabilities (SWD) or an English Language Learner student, please check out those overlay options also via the interactive tool above.

As there will most likely be time-limits imposed for feedback by each person who speaks, here are some tips to prepare for the community meetings:

• Read the materials produced by BPS and other partners;

• Check out what non-BPS/EAC parties who have followed this process closely have shared regarding their thoughts, questions, analysis and important info to help you think about each of the proposals and their impact:

"Big changes ahead in the student-assignment process? Here is a list of parent-recommended sources to illuminate the issues of, and context for, the conversation. Please "Like", join, or follow them all!

http://www.facebook.com/questbps
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Boston-BusingDesegregation-Project/333952403288360
https://www.facebook.com/BPSWorkshop
http://roslindale.patch.com/users/karen-kast/blog_posts
https://www.facebook.com/groups/321764637867003/"

Thanks to the Advocates for Mission Hill School for compiling the list! AMHS can be found on Twitter @AdvocatesForMHS and Facebook https://www.facebook.com/AdvocatesForMHS?fref=ts. Please follow them! 

• Write down all of your thoughts, questions, concerns, suggestions and what you want to share about the proposals and bring it with you (if possible, multiple copies to share with EAC, BPS and other groups who may request a copy);

• Bring along a small notebook to jot down more thoughts, concerns, questions, and suggestions as you listen to what is presented; 

• If you believe that the EAC and BPS should hold more community forums prior to the EAC voting to recommend one of the proposals to BPS, make sure to say that too;

• Share all of the info above with everyone you know and ask that they also attend one of the community meetings!

QUEST (Quality for Every Student), a group of BPS parents who have come together to fight for quality and equity in the Boston Public School system, has also produced a flier, see attached, for the Monday, February 4, 2013 EAC community meeting (created prior to the Tuesday meeting being scheduled) which includes some suggested questions - but even if you do not ASK these questions, please keep them in mind while hearing the proposals and other info you will be presented with!
The above community forums are extremely important for anyone who is or may in the future send their child to a BPS school as whatever new assignment plan is finally adopted will most likely be with us for at least a couple of decades.

It is disappointing that only two community forums are scheduled and that they will be on a Monday and Tuesday night, as historically it is difficult for many families to attend meetings at the beginning of the week. During the public comment period of the January 23rd EAC meeting, I encouraged the EAC to schedule more community forums and requested that one be held on a Saturday so more of the community could attend. After all, if we can have a huge "kick-off" to this process as we did on March 10, 2012 on a Saturday for several hours, why not do the same now, when it is even more vitally important to gather feedback from the public? I appreciate that the EAC heard my plea as the Tuesday community forum was added after the meeting ended. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that any further community forums are likely to occur unless more community members also request more meetings.

Please, find a way to attend one of these community meetings because this may be your last opportunity to be heard prior to the EAC voting! At the EAC meeting on Thursday, January 31st the EAC discussed various topics, including future meeting dates which led to two additional full EAC meetings being scheduled on Tuesday, February 5th (following the community forum) and Thursday, February 7th at Suffolk University, with a tentative plan for the EAC to vote on which of the proposals to recommend to BPS, if any*, on Saturday, February 9th (time & place still TBA). *There is a chance that after all of the hard work by the EAC, BPS, community members,city officials and community partners the EAC could end up without the needed votes to recommend any of the proposals to BPS!  

At the same meeting, myself and other advocates were pleased that several of the EAC members  stated that the suggested time-line above does not allow enough time for the public to understand the proposals and give feedback (especially since even after the presentations by BPS that evening, many of the EAC members still do not fully comprehend the proposals either).

Two of the EAC members asked about the possibility of broadcasting Monday's community forum live on Boston City Television through the Mayor's Office of Cable Communications. Rebecca Frisch, the Mayor's liaison to the EAC, stated that she would look into the possibility. If they are able to arrange for this broadcast, you should be able to view the meetings live on Comcast Channel 24 and RCN Channel 13. Hopefully they will also arrange for the community to watch via a livestream of the meeting by clicking here. Though I hope Ron Gittens' and Carolyn Kain's suggestion is put in place, broadcasting via both of the above methods does not allow for transparent community feedback from the viewing audience. 

A suggestion for those who are unable to attend the meetings, please consider sharing your questions, comments, and suggestions not only through emails to choice@bostonpublicschools.org (feel free to copy me on those emails at bpsnightmare@gmail.com if you are willing), but also through:

BPS' Facebook page, and

BPS' Twitter accounts:

@Bostonschools

@CarolJohnsonBPS 

Use hashtags: #bostonchoice #BPS #EAC

I hope to see many of you at one of the community forums Monday and Tuesday! 

0 Increasing the Number of Quality Schools in Boston: School Climate

Whether we realize it or not, when selecting a school to send our child to, we all assess the climate of each school we examine prior to making our choices regarding the school we would like our child to attend. We have all gone into schools which feel friendly, inviting, and supportive, and others which feel exclusionary, unwelcoming, and even unsafe. These feelings, attitudes, and the reputations which evolve from a school’s environment are referred to as school climate. This is true whether we live in Boston or a suburb.

School climate has been recognized by educators and researchers as one of the key ingredients to whether a school succeeds or fails. Boston Public Schools recognizes the importance of school climate and in fact attempts to measure it through their annual "School Climate Survey" which is sent to every BPS family as well as teachers and students who each receive their own version of the survey. Unfortunately, the rate of response is extremely low as you can see in BPS' school climate reports from 2010 (seems to be the most recent one online):

• Out of 56,486 surveys sent to families, only 7,598 were returned which equals 13.5%. 
• Out of 4,401 surveys sent to teachers, 2,258 were returned which equals 53.3% which is better, but still makes me wonder why didn't all the teachers return these? 
• Out of 41,491 (survey is only given to grades 3-12) surveys given to students, only 23,840 were returned which equals 57.5%. My problem with this one is: this was given in school, via pencil and paper, so how come all of them were not returned? Check out pages 3 and 4 for individual school numbers, quite interesting!

As we are now in the midst of trying to create a new assignment system for Boston schools, there has been quite a bit of conversation regarding "quality" schools. For the purpose of producing the required models requested by the External Advisory Committee on School Assignment (EAC), the measurement regarding which "tier" a school falls into regarding their level of "quality" are being based solely on two years of MCAS scores: achievement (2/3) and the Student Growth Percentile (SGP) (1/3). According to Patricia Kinsella, a QUEST member who attended the January 23, 2013 EAC meeting, the people who came up with SGP as a measure said that it should never be used to evaluate schools because there is no way to know what part of growth came from school and what came from non-school factors. Many of us who attended the EAC meetings have additional concerns about the chosen measurement tools as there are issues regarding whether they should be used, how often review of a school's "tier" should occur and more.  

Right now parents can review each school's "Report Card" (BPS Report on Teaching and Learning) on the BPS website, which gives a profile of the school inclusive of racial and socio-economic status, types of students (regular ed - ELL), MCAS and NAEP scores and a brief written description submitted by school personnel. 

The issue with the use of the above tools for measuring a school is that though we arm ourselves with the information, many parents, myself included, have chosen schools for our children despite what the BPS information tells us about a school. I toured schools, asked questions, spoke with teachers and parents and then ranked my choices with the highest weight given to my own feelings about each school and honestly, the test scores really were not as relevant to me. Of course, we should also recognize that what feels perfect to one parent may feel horrible to another parent because we are each individuals. Because of the low response rate regarding school climate, even with the BPS surveys which I do believe ask the right questions, we can not really utilize the climate reports when assessing a school's climate which seems to be one of the top factors parents consider when choosing a school, according to years of conversation on choosing schools with others.

In November I submitted my application to the Citizen Nominating Panel (CNP) for the open Boston School Committee (BSC) seat. The application was made up of twelve questions regarding everything from experience to specific school district priorities. One of the questions specifically asked how I would address school climate. Considering the importance of the ongoing discussions district-wide on how to assess schools and what factors contribute to parents' choice of schools, I am sharing my answer to the climate question with all of you below as I feel it is an important piece that has been left out of how we rank each school for their quality standing. I will also share my suggestions with Dr. Johnson and the BSC at their next meeting. 

Question: Given the diversity of the students in the Boston Public Schools, how would you address the school climate?

My answer:

School climate is influenced by several factors inclusive of:

• Norms, values and expectations that support people feeling socially, emotionally and physically safe.
• All members of each school community being engaged and respected.
• Students, families and staff working together to develop, live and contribute to a shared school vision.
• All staff’s modeling and nurturing attitudes that emphasize the benefits and satisfaction gained from learning.
• Each person’s contribution to the operations of the school and the care of the physical environment.

Each School’s climate is also influenced by unique factors:

• The physical environment of the school,
• The characteristics and mix of students, teachers and parents who are members of the school community, 
• Connections between the school and its surrounding neighborhood, 
• Social interactions within the school, 
• The leadership role played by the school principal, 
• The morale of the teaching staff, 
• Teaching practices in classrooms, and 
• The formal school policies.

I believe that addressing school climate begins with ensuring collaboration among the principal, personnel, students and their families. The key to creating effective team-work leading to school success is the principal as she or he generally sets the tone for the entire school. An effective principal is a strong leader who is able to motivate the school staff regarding the importance of performance and focuses on results as well as fostering a safe, supportive, and rigorous climate for everyone. The most successful principals will create an environment where teachers, staff, students and families feel that they are respected and share in the fundamental operations of the school thus providing multiple opportunities for each to develop new ideas and methods, assume leadership roles and contribute to the success of not only these individual groups, but also the school as a whole. In addition, these principals are able to galvanize everyone to work toward higher expectations and achievement for every student by utilizing effective instructional practices that nurture and challenge, take into account the diversity of the school population and are culturally relevant. A sustainable, positive school climate fosters youth development and the learning necessary for a productive, contributing and satisfying life in society. This positive climate will generally lead to higher success rates for all of the students within the school. 

To address the climate of the schools in Boston, I suggest that we assess all of our schools to find out if they already have a principal like the one described above as well as assessing whether we have highly qualified staff at the school, whether there are facility or safety issues which need to be addressed, the level of family and community engagement taking place, and students', parents' and school personnel's experience of school life. I realize we have school climate surveys annually which may help in any assessment, but historically the response rates to those surveys is extremely low, so we should seek other ways to accurately assess each of our schools going forward. 

One way we should consider evaluating our schools’ climates is by creating deliberate sets of focus groups for each school as I have found that staff and families become much more open and solution-focused when in a group discussing the issues that need to be addressed rather than just taking an individual survey. These focus groups, in addition to the SPC and SSC, could then become another tool to increase the engagement of students, staff and families toward the goal of whole school improvement and fostering a more inclusive school climate. 

At both the Mozart, under Al Taylor, and at the Irving with Arthur Unobskey, I have seen exactly the type of principal I described above and I have worked closely with both of them to help turn what were once under-selected schools into schools which are now highly-selected, or on the way to becoming such a school as I truly believe the Irving will become the best middle school in Boston within the next few years. I have also had the honor of working closely with the staff of both schools by forming partnerships that have led to greater family and community involvement and pride in each school as well as allowing us to work as a cohesive team to move the schools forward by improving content-area and elective curricula, methods and practices, obtaining the funding necessary for each school to improve the academic, arts, physical education and extra-curricular offerings and to purchase much needed supplies, computers and other items necessary for the schools to provide every student with a rigorous and relevant educational experience. I also continue to advocate for my children and all of the students of each school by encouraging, and sometimes pushing, the principals and staff toward higher goals for themselves and each student as well as thinking “outside the box” to improve each school. 

If a school does not have a principal like the one described above, we should encourage the Superintendent to either create professional development which can assist the current principal to develop these traits and abilities, or hire principals with these traits and abilities. We should start with the schools which are under-performing first and then move on to the other schools as necessary. As we increase the number of schools within the district which have a positive school climate, the climate of the district as a whole should become more positive which is a goal I believe all of us would like to achieve.

In addition to the answer I gave on my application above, please consider the following when thinking about how school climate affects each school and families' choice:

I picked the Mozart prior to most of the data we now have available being created and despite being told "Oh no! You do not want to send your daughter there, it is a horrible school!" (by a BPS central office administrator fyi!) because of the reputation that person had heard (which was a few years out of date). Unfortunately, poor reputations of our schools persist even years after positive change has occurred which I see all the time with the Irving despite the phenomenal progress we have made! 


I chose the Mozart as my first choice for kindergarten for my daughter because I toured the school, asked questions, spoke with teachers and parents and, lol, because the Principal, then Al Taylor, was the ONLY BPS principal who, upon learning that I was Chair of the BPS SpedPAC at that time, was thrilled by that information (instead of the usual gritted teeth and "polite" smile I usually encountered). The school felt wonderful and everything I learned during my tour and by speaking with families and staff made me sure it was the school I wanted my precious daughter in, so I was thankful when she got her assignment to the Mozart that March. 

Three years later I again chose the Mozart as my first choice for her sister, my other precious daughter, because my feelings about the school had proved correct as my older daughter was receiving a fabulous education and thriving there. My younger daughter also obtained a K1 seat at the Mozart and we were a proud Mozart family for the past ten years! 



As for the Irving school, when choosing it for my oldest daughter, if you read my piece regarding Advanced Work Class under the new proposals, you already know I took a leap of faith during the registration process. What I did not mention in the AWC article is that when looking at middle schools for my son in 1998-99, due to the unwelcoming attitude of the AWC teacher for a child with ADHD as well as my experience as an advocate who attended several meetings at the Irving over the years, I swore that my children would never attend the Irving. Seriously, the climate of the school was so horrendous that it gave off a depressing vibe due to the actions of the prior admistrators.

Thankfully, in June 2009 (prior to my daughter starting sixth grade in September), due to community pressure, Dr. Johnson removed the former principal and appointed Arthur Unobskey as the new Irving Principal. 

Because of the partnerships formed between Mr. Unobskey and members of the Roslindale Pathway Advisory Group (RPAG) as well as the larger community, we started to see improvements at the Irving within the first year as reported by the Roslindale Transcript in January 2010. The formation of the Roslindale K-8 Pathway in March 2010 added yet another sense of urgency to the staff of the Irving to improve outcomes for every student at the school and the whole school, and as a bonus I observed a complete turn-around to the climate within the Irving. The team-work and shared leadership which developed as a result of the improved climate at the school, as well as expanding our school day, have all contributed to the amazing progress we have seen our Irving students make in  a short amount of time, inclusive of our 6th grade students making a 29% increase in growth on the 2012 Math MCAS!

I would strongly urge Dr. Johnson, BPS, the BSC and EAC members to all consider the lessons we can learn from the Irving and the Roslindale Pathway when attempting to designate which schools are truly "quality schools". In addition to the recommendations I make in my answer, I suggest utilizing what we learned at the Irving and incorporating key elements, such as putting in place an advisory group of parents from each of the schools in the new pathways, as "best practices" for helping the schools which are still struggling. 

And for those of you wondering, I did get get asked to interview with the CNP for the open BSC seat and I am proud that, after the interview with the twelve-member panel, the CNP recommended me as one of the candidates for the Mayor to consider for the open seat, which I see as a great accomplishment. As expected though, Michael O'Neill was re-appointed to the BSC for another four year term and I congratulate him on his re-appointment.