0 Final Thoughts on the Quality Choice Plan

For parts 1 - 5 of this series regarding the Quality Choice Plan, please go to October 2012.

Is the Quality Choice Plan offered by Councilor John Connolly et al really the answer to Boston Public Schools' assignment and quality issues? 

I began this series not only to answer the above question for myself, but also to review the Quality Choice plan in a comprehensive way in the hope of answering the questions I and others were asking regarding the proposal. Please read the earlier articles to see the complete list of questions and concerns I raised, plus some answers from John Connolly's office.

Let me state again: at this point, I am not for or against any of the proposals, whether by Boston Public Schools or community members. Apparently, my asking questions translates to mean that I am against this plan to some folks. I am not. Yes, I ask hard questions, but after 20 years of studying education law and school districts, especially BPS, I have knowledge, insight and experience about how things generally get done, and it does not always benefit our students. Our students are the ones I care about. 

The fact that no one was prepared for the level of questions that myself and others are asking about this plan, as well as others, is concerning given BPS' history. Without answers to the questions and concerns raised, how can I or others possibly support any of the proposals? This is true of ALL of the proposals. 

Being fortunate enough to have worked with Councilor Connolly on several education related matters over the years, I do know that he wants quality education throughout our city and I believe his co-creators do also. I think the Quality Choice plan has some great suggestions and ideas for how to improve our Boston schools and move us forward.

According to the email sent out on October 3, 2012, John Connolly states: 

However, we are convinced that our plan, the Quality Choice Plan, presents a creative alternative that focuses on improving school quality and bridging the divide between those who want schools close to home and those who want broad choices.

Reading that line, I am sure many, like myself, expected a detailed step-by-step plan outlining how Boston could accomplish the task of improving every school and revamping our assignment process. Unfortunately, this plan did not live up to my expectation above, but instead led to questions about the demands it makes for BPS to create and implement a plan.

• How do the creators think the above will happen?  
• What time line for creating and actually enacting such a plan would BPS have, if they chose to pass this plan?
• What would the deadline be for all schools to become quality schools? 
• Again, who would oversee this process?

Still, comparatively, the Quality Choice Plan is well-written and easier to conceptualize, to some extent, for me given my knowledge and experience with BPS. However, a well written plan does not always mean it is a plan which can be implemented and become reality. Though the QC plan is well written with links to where data/ideas came from, as far as I know, per my conversation with John Connolly's staff a couple of days ago, we have yet to receive any of the nitty-gritty details laying out the steps and resources necessary or the time-lines and no one has run the actual numbers for this plan, or told us, besides "transportation savings" and "increased enrollment", where the funding will come from. The proponents of any proposal should have had all the detailed plans, data and budgets run prior to release of a proposal, not expect BPS to do it for them. I urge the QC creators to provide the above on their website as soon as possible.

As it stands, any transportation savings will not be realized immediately (more like 5 -8 years from now) and even then it is questionable whether those savings would ever be enough to make a true impact on our schools. Increasing enrollment is a long-term goal, so again, no immediate impact for our students. Putting a plan in place without a guaranteed funding source from the beginning, especially given possible government tax cuts ahead of us, would be irresponsible and potentially disastrous for our students. This means we must have other funding sources that are guaranteed and immediately accessible. I know BPS would be appreciate more funding to help improve the schools!

If we do not have a plan which clearly lays out all the relevant details, time-lines, and especially funding, there is the potential for failure and our students are the ones who will pay the price. Despite not being an accountant or even liking math, I can read and use a calculator, so did some rough math utilizing BPS' 2013 budget numbers which showed me that this would be an extremely expensive proposal to put in place even when only "converting/transforming" current schools. As this is something I know the creators are well aware of, I urge them to let the public know how and where this funding will come from, whether the funding is guaranteed and how it is guaranteed.

Additionally, the plan's proponents seem to either be unaware of or have forgotten that, in order to transform schools into Pilot and in-district Charter schools, that must be approved by 2/3 of the voting members of the BTU at that school. That alone can take years to make happen, despite the teachers wanting the same thing families do: quality education for every student. There is no way anyone, whether BPS central admin or Boston politician, can guarantee that this can be done. 

At the October 9th community meeting at Mildred Avenue, I did speak with Representative Russell Holmes, one of the supporters of the QC plan, and asked him if they had run the numbers for this plan. Rep. Holmes told me that the creators/supporters have not run the numbers and that they felt it was up to BPS to do that. I also asked Rep. Holmes what his thoughts were regarding the segregation issues that have been raised and he informed me that it did not bother him whether schools were segregated as long as they were quality schools, to which I honestly did not have a quick response as it concerned me to hear him say that. No matter which plan is put in place, segregation is a real possibility for some of our students and will occur as soon as the plan is implemented, whereas a school becoming a mid-high level quality school may take several years, so how do the creators feel about that? Segregation is about more than ethnicity, it is also about ability levels, language barriers and economic status to name the three constants which BPS struggles to help students overcome every year.

Thursday night, October 18th, at the Condon school community meeting, John Connolly presented again, but this time with a power-point and about 30 minutes of floor time.  I urge John to put that power-point on the QC website for the public to review. I have extended an invitation to John Connolly et al to a community meeting which would be open citywide where he could present this plan and have a real question and answer session, something which has not been possible at BPS meetings. I am told his schedule would not allow for this through the first week in November, so asked about anytime after that, but the short answer seems to be no at this point, which is disappointing. 

We know that the EAC will most likely propose a hybrid plan made up of the best of all the different proposals to Dr. Johnson. I do believe that the Quality Choice Plan has some great ideas for how to improve our district and I urge the EAC and BPS to incorporate some of them into any plan BPS finally decides on. 

That said, myself and others are still awaiting responses to other questions raised both through these articles and those brought up by Anne Walsh's email. 

Maybe once I receive those answers, which will be shared with everyone, I can be more supportive of the QCP, but until that time I stand where I started: concerned about some portions, especially funding, segregation of certain populations and the possible impact on our most at-risk students.   

Update, October 23, 2013: To date, none of the questions beyond the email from Ann Walsh in my prior article have been answered though many have asked them!

0 The Quality Choice Plan: Some Answers to Questions Asked

For parts 1, 2, 3 & 4 of this series regarding the Quality Choice Plan, please go to October 2012.

Yesterday, during the Roslindale Day Parade, John Connolly asked if I had received the answers about the Quality Choice plan yet. At that time I was unaware that his assistant, Ann Walsh, had just emailed them to me. I finally saw the email this morning and am including it here, with permission, for everyone to review. First, I would like to thank John, Matt, et al, and of course Ann, for responding.

My thoughts regarding certain responses will be indicated by KKM: as just in reviewing it I had further thoughts and questions.

Hi Karen,

Thanks for your questions regarding the Quality Choice Plan.  I have provided responses below.  Feel free to contact me directly with any additional quesitons or concerns.

Best,

Ann

Responses:

AW:   The financial solutions definitely won't be easy, but can happen.  Transportation cost savings will be limited at the outset, since grandfathering will continue and the plan would be implemented gradually, beginning with kindergarten students in September of 2014.  Over time, the savings will increase as more students attend schools closer to home. 

KKM: 1) When do you project busing of "grandfathered" siblings to end absolutely? We need this date to estimate when any savings, if any, from transportation might be allocated for other pieces of the plan.

          2) You are saying the plan will be implemented "gradually" starting with the children who enter Kindergarten in 2014:

              a)  Specifically, which pieces will be implemented first?

              b)  Can you give me a list of dates of implementation for all the suggestions in the priority you plan to implement them and your deadline for full-implementation of your plan?

              c)  Does this mean that the majority of children currently in BPS will see little to no benefit from this plan? If you do think current students will reap the benefit of this plan despite not being part of the Kindergarten class of 2014, please explain with specifics and details.

AW:   By converting more schools to Pilots, Innovation, or In-District Charters, we are encouraging more site-based management of funds at schools.  Current pilot schools and charters have this autonomy and most are demonstrating academic outcomes ahead of the district average while managing their own per pupil budgets.  Site-based management of funds is a critical element of implementing a truly effective Weighted Student Funding formula, and we hope the district will do more of it and allow schools to efficiently spend their funds.  We are continuing to do financial analysis, but with a $1 billion annual budget currently, we strongly believe that this is feasible with some creative re-allocation and strategic partnerships with universities, hospitals, libraries, health centers, and community-based organizations.

KKM: Site-based management of funds does not answer the question of where funding would come from for the conversions, additional supports, etc. No matter what type of school it is, more funds than are currently allocated for the majority of our schools (who have consistently had budget cuts each year), will be necessary under this plan. Creative re-allocation may help with some portion of the funding for your plan, but what assurances do you have that the rest of the funding necessary will be approved by the city council, state, feds, etc?  

Have you sought the input of the BTU on the proposal to convert so many schools to pilot, charter, innovation? As the newest BTU contract, if accepted by SC, is through 2016: what is your expectation that a proposal like this might keep another contract from being ratified? Are you aware that according to BTU rules, 2/3 of the BTU voting members at a school would have to vote to approve the conversion to one of the models you are suggesting? 

At a time when universities, hospitals, etc are cutting their partnerships, pro-bono work etc are you sure this can be accomplished? Do you have written assurances of such from our biggest and best of the types of organizations listed?

Something to think about: if you are planning on utilizing hospitals to provide some of the support services you suggest, this generally means utilizing residents/post-docs. etc with little experience. How will you ensure that our students needing these services will get the quality services they deserve? IEP objectives and goals are constantly rolled-over year-to-year with little to no improvement for the students as families are not always able to sufficiently measure progress or advocate effectively for what their child needs. 

AW:    Please note that all of the "new" schools listed (with the exception of the downtown school) would be the result of transforming existing schools, so cost increases would be minimal.  Those schools are serving students already and  in 2014, we would propose that the new magnet programs begin with the entering kindergarten children.  If school leaders and staff are ambitious and want to extend programming to upper grades, that would be fantastic, but this plan is intended to be phased in over time.  Our ELLs and students with disabilities are currently in schools across the city, so the creation of these magnet schools will require reallocation of funds, but not an enormous investment of new dollars.  The same is true for AWC or Honors, which can be done in place with strong differentiated instruction or some level of separate classrooms, at the discretion of each school community.  In the case of providing a quality baseline at all schools and additional resources and supports at high-need schools, a reallocation of funds through adjustments to the Weighted Student Funding formula would be required to get those resources to the schools with the highest needs as soon as possible.

KKM:  Even transformation of current schools = more funds necessary (usually):   What is your projected cost/savings and "reallocation" of funds for each of the schools you propose "transforming"? Would you please share the exact numbers/budgets you are projecting?

Are you proposing moving special ed strands again after BPS just did so? Same question re: BPS' ELL changes over the past year. Also, how do you propose ensuring Least Restrictive Enviroment (LRE) pursuant to special ed laws are not violated under your plan? How will you ensure that our SWD & ELL students are not segregated?

Please see Part 3 of my QC analysis for earlier thoughts pertaining to AWC proposal., but additionally, some of our older schools have no space availabile for modular classrooms (or will you take playgrounds away?) or building higher i.e. - Mozart (as the neighbors would lobby against it - ask Carleton Jones re: roposed Bates-Mozart merger issues that squashed that plan), which means those schools would not have the ability to have AWC or Honors classes. How do we ensure those students have the same quality education? (Personally I wouldn't trade our 5th grade tchr for AWC anyway - she is even better than AWC)

AW:    Please realize that cost cutting is not why we created this plan.  Our goal was to draft a plan that would finally give all parents and students access to quality schools.  If giving every child access to a quality school ends up costing a little more money, then we can’t think of a better thing for the City to be spending its money on.  This isn’t about cost; this is about values.  If we truly value giving every parent and every student access to quality schools, then we need to fund it appropriately.

KKM:  Personally, I don't care if we have to increase the budget 100% as long as the $$ is actually impacting our students DIRECTLY instead of non-school personnel, consultants, research, etc, that is not the issue I have. The issue I have is that no one can guarantee that you can fund this plan or any of the others proposed right now.  Yet, families are stressing out over the thought of their children possibly going through upheaval and losing schools THEY feel ARE quality schools while also being asked to "vote" for a plan (QC, BPS or other) without any guaranteed funding which could lead to disaster if the economy tanks due to all the turmoil at fed level with tax cuts up in the air. How can anyone get behind a proposal without a funding plan clearly laid out? 

Does anyone remember that they appropriated funding from special education to fund NCLB years later because it was passed with no funding plan and was failing? This cut special ed funding which means families have an even harder time getting their children the help they need now. And then there is the issue of expecting BPS to run the numbers for this proposal instead of working on actual school business (as it currently stands), which the proponents should have done prior to releasing it.

Questions I have:

          1)  Realistically, by what year do you expect all BPS families will be able to access quality schools district-wide? 

           2) With the possibility of Education cuts at the Federal level of about 8.2%, which will trickle down to state/city level, how will you fund everything that is needed?  

           3)  Do you have the commitment of entire BCC & Mayor to add additional funds to the BPS budget, no matter which plan is passed?

AW:   Regarding grandfathering, ALL current students and their siblings would be grandfathered using the same sibling priority in place at BPS right now.  Currently, a child receives sibling preference at a school if a sibling will be attending the school at the same time.  If the first child has graduated from the school before the second (or third, etc.) would arrive, sibling preference does not apply.  That is current practice and would remain.  The goal of sibling preference is to keep children together, so when that can be done, it should be done.

AW:   Since we are calling for the guarantee of a K-8 school or pathway (in which schools are paired to cover grades K-8, similar to the Beethoven-Ohrenberger or Roosevelt Schools,  NOT multiple schools feeding a middle school without capacity alignment), and an AWC or honors program at every school, cases of older siblings leaving a school "early" are less likely.  The premise of a sibling "bumping" a new student from having a seat at one of his or her four closest schools is unrealistic because the plan guarantees a seat, even if that means using modular classrooms, much in the same way suburban communities manage short-term enrollment increases.  If families in other communities can count on that level of predictability for their children, the families of Boston deserve no less.

KKM: Please see Part 4 of my QC Analysis regarding the question of who might end up in modular classrooms.

I respectfully disagree regarding the likelihood of "bumping" seats - saying that it has to happen because the plan guarantees a seat does not make facilities appear (pleas see above re: Mozart example of not having space for mod classrooms or adding floors to the current school building) and if this premise were true, wouldn't every child who has special needs get everything they are supposed to instead of only what a school will give them? Talk to myself, Carolyn Kain and other special ed attorneys and advocates about this premise, because if this truly did happen at any level, then we would all need other jobs. 

I do agree that families in Boston deserve no less than other communities, the problem is most of those communities have higher income brackets and also more space for their schools.

AW:   The suggested schools for citywide magnet status were selected using a variety of criteria, including proximity to a language-specific community, capacity, and potential for academic and programmatic "renewal" through citywide status.  Providing school leaders and teachers the opportunity to work towards an innovative curriculum with an infusion of energy can provide a "fresh start" for many schools and may increase enrollment at those that are currently underselected.

 KKM: Please see questions above re: converting schools.

AW:   Parent compacting DOES happen already and can happen more often with the guarantee of this plan.  Families want their children to attend school with friends from their neighborhood, house of worship, childcare center or nursery school, etc.  They often don't pursue parent compacting because the risk in the current model is too high that some children will not be assigned together.  By compacting, they apply together and only get assigned to the underselected school if there are enough seats for all of their children.  Otherwise, they will be assigned to one of their four closest schools or a citywide school, via their preferences.  Schools including the Trotter, Hurley, and Murphy have all seen some type of compacting in the past and this plan allows more families to make this choice without the current risks.

KKM: Can you show me concretely that parent compacting has happened through the normal BPS lottery process? I would like to see how BPS handled it as that means BPS gave special priority to certain families, which we all thought was impossible.

AW:    Most importantly, The Quality Choice Plan is based on an entirely different premise than the existing models.  We do not accept the premise that equitable access is enough, but instead are working towards equitable quality for all.  Sections II and III very deliberately outline what we think must be done to ensure that every school is providing quality, especially those who serve high numbers of children living in poverty.  If we only ensure equitable access to a limited number of quality schools, there will always be children going to low-quality schools and that is unacceptable.

KKM: I agree with the premise of your plan absolutely, John knows it aligns with my decades long battle. I just think it is important to not only have a premise and propose a plan, but also outline in detail how it will become a reality. So, show myself and everyone else how this will become a reality, with facts, figures and detailed specifics and I am sure we could all get behind this plan.

I have sent the above back to Ann Walsh, as soon as I have answers I will make them available for everyone.

My final thoughts regarding the Quality Choice Plan.

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 An Analysis of The Quality Choice Proposal & Questions Part 1

Many families and community groups have been lobbying for Boston Public Schools (BPS) to drop their five proposals regarding school assignment and instead adopt one of the alternate plans, The Quality Choice Plan (QC), presented by Boston City Councillors John Connolly and Matt O'Malley, and State Representatives Linda Dorcena Forry, Nick Collins, Ed Coppinger and Russell Holmes. This lobbying began within minutes of the QC plan being announced on October 3rd as an alternative to BPS proposals. 

One reason the lobbying began so quickly in my opinion is that unlike the BPS proposals, which are really just a set of maps with no explanations given of how they would work, the Quality Choice Plan is well-written and seems to give parents what they are asking for in an assignment plan. 

All those who helped draft the QC proposal should be commended for the work put into it as it has some great suggestions. I am sending my questions and requests for information and data to Councillors Connolly and O'Malley as well as Rep. Ed Coppinger et al and hope to have some of these answers soon to share with everyone.

It is interesting to note that the QC plan was presented the day after school officials announced that they would be discussing their proposals for "grandfathering" of current students at the next night's School Committee meeting and just hours before said School Committee meeting was due to start. 

Let me start off by saying the following:

• My children are not affected by the proposals as they are in middle and high school now, so my interest is as an advocate for quality education for all children;
• With plans like these I like to fully analyze the ramifications;
• I want to know all the details and cost/savings analysis of any plans;
• I am not currently supporting any of the plans as none of the proposals have the nitty-gritty details and numbers outlined clearly for full evaluation and analysis that needs to be done;
• I do believe that we will absolutely have a new assignment policy in Boston and it will most likely be a "compromise" plan made up of pieces of the BPS proposals and pieces of some of the community plans offered along with the feedback BPS is hearing from families now via school committee, community meetings, emails and the online survey.

In the interest of full disclosure, because that is how I am, the following is what I posted to a group I am involved with on FB after seeing the general responses coming in so quickly (I have also given a copy of these to John Connolly's assistant who attended the BSC meeting on October 3rd):

Karen Kast Okay - don't shoot me, I have only read the breakdown and can't read this in-depth until much later, but as nice as it looks on paper and in theory, there are some of the same issues with this plan as with the current proposals by BPS, and the suggestions (through the FAQ sheet) for how to address those are nice ideas, but may not be do-able. I appreciate John & Matt et al putting this together, but I think we all need to take some time and read this closely and be realistic about what can and can not actually happen - both for John's proposal and for BPS.... just my two cents on it SO FAR (I COULD totally change my mind with time to read and study it in-depth) 

In response to a request for what issues I saw initially: 

Karen Kast  I agree with X's post above because at the heart of all of this is the fact that money needs to be invested and ALL the plans will need more than what the transportation savings would actually allow for. Additionally, realistically, there is no way anyone can guarantee a K-8 seat unless we do put in place the feeder model proposed by BPS at the same time as instituting this plan. With the addition of citywide options that will also mean still providing busing for more than just SWD; then there is the issue of looking at the 4 elementary schools closest to my chosen address in Roslindale, and luckily all being great schools, even with 100% walk-zone model (which also is not legally possible due to laws pertaining to SWD) the four schools do not have the capacity for all the children I know live in that area; modular classrooms? Guess who will be put in those? SWD & ELL students.....

I admit, the same concerns I initially had regarding the Quality Choice Plan in the above posts still stand and I will further outline my questions, concerns and observations through this series of articles. I hope this helps others think about ALL of the current proposals: the 5 offered by BPS, the Quality Choice plan and the other four plans submitted by community members to date.

I decided to look at the "grandfathering" and sibling preference promises within the Quality Choice Plan first as those are the most common issues for families with all the BPS proposals.

The Quality Choice plan states that "grandfathering" will apply to every current student in BPS which is the same proposal BPS offered at the October 3, 2012 school committee meeting. Boston Public Schools also stated that transportation of the grandfathered students would be provided through 2019, whereas the QC plan cuts transportation of those students. Unlike BPS' grandfathering proposal, the QC plan additionally states that grandfathering should apply to siblings also.  

Looking at the “grandfather” option under the QC plan, these are the questions I have:

• Will sibling preference only apply to the CURRENT student (Child A) who is attending the school when the plan is put in place?
• When Child B joins his/her sibling, does Child B then trigger the "grandfathered" sibling preference for subsequent siblings even if not in a home-zone or citywide school?
• Are ALL subsequent siblings of the current student “grandfathered” for sibling preference into the school even after Child A leaves that school (could leave for AWC, Exam school, possible Special Ed placement or graduation)?
• Or, does sibling preference “grandfathering” only apply while Child A is still attending the school?

Potential problems for families under QC:  

Many families have current students in a school they love, but that school is not close to home. Under current assignment policies they have sibling preference anyway and as their siblings enter that school, each of the new siblings (Child B, then Child C, etc) triggers new sibling preference for any younger siblings. 

Under the QC plan, many students could stay at their current school and sibling preference based on the original student (Child A) is triggered under the grandfathering plan, but (the way I read it) sibling preference would not apply to subsequent siblings if Child A has left the school even if Child B is now a student there if it is not a home-zone or citywide school, which is similar to the issue many have with the BPS proposals.

IF the QC plan instead means that sibling preference at the current student's school is grandfathered for ALL subsequent siblings:

1. The youngest sibling of Child A, let's say Child C, because s/he is "grandfathered" sibling preference based on Child A having a seat when plan was put into effect despite Child A no longer attending the school, Child C gets a seat at said school;
2. Potentially this means that a seat is not available for a child whose family is actually in the "home zone" of that school;
3. In turn this means that a new student without a sibling attending that school who lives in the school's "home zone" would then need to be placed at one of the three other schools in their "home zone" or a citywide option;
4. Unfortunately, all four of the new student's home-zone schools have hundreds of potential students for the same seats and this particular student does not get a seat in any of the four schools;
5. Parents of new student find out their child was denied placement at a home-zone school due to a child granted sibling preference whose older sibling was "grandfathered" when the plan was put into place even though the grandfathered student, Child A, is no longer at the school; 
6. Parents of new student are upset and potentially pull their child from BPS entirely as they do not want the other options offered (same issue as with current policies and BPS proposals).

Other grandfathering of sibling preference issues to consider:

If the QC guarantees sibling preference for all current students through grandfathering, estimating that at least half of current students have at least one sibling 2-3 years younger, this means when those children are eligible to enter K-2, potentially over half the seats in K-2 will be allocated for siblings of "grandfathered" students and leave minimal seating available for new students who do not have sibling preference. 

Additionally, the QC plan guarantees sibling preference for all students entering a home-zone school after enactment of the plan:

• New student enters a "home zone" school under new plan the year after enacted and also have siblings 2-3 years younger; 
• New students' families are promised sibling preference at home zone schools under new plan;
• When new students siblings are eligible for their guaranteed K-2 seat in that home-zone school there are not enough seats in that school for all children with sibling preference so some siblings do not get their guaranteed seat;
• This leads to the same issues families have with current policies and the new BPS proposals.

As you can see, there are several questions which need clarification in order to fully evaluate the Quality Choice Plan and the implications for all of our students. Forgive me for not going over the entire Quality Choice Plan in one post, but as these two issues took up quite a bit of time in an attempt to make my thoughts clear to all who read it, I determined that I will need to do a series so as not to overwhelm anyone. I will get into the other parts of the plan in my next couple of articles I promise!

Hopefully all of you who read this followed the path of my thoughts! (Painful, I know, but this is how my mind works lol!) 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. :)

For the second part of this series, please see my article here.

0 BPS Proposals: Thoughts on Grandfathering and Answers about the Roslindale Pathway

The process that we are going through with Boston Public Schools regarding school choice options has led to many questions and quite a bit of discussion both online and at community meetings. We have received concrete answers to a couple of questions:

1) Regarding what would happen to the Roslindale Pathway under the new proposals, I now have it in writing from Superintendent Carol Johnson that the Roslindale K-8 Pathway will remain in effect under any proposed student assignment system. This only makes sense since our Roslindale Pathway is the model for the middle school feeder proposal and was the "test" of whether BPS could get something like this passed. 

2) Regarding the question of whether current students would be "grandfathered" in to their current assignments, unfortunately so far it is not looking good. Many of us have heard from many sources, City Councilors, email and facebook groups, that there is no current plan to "grandfather" current student placements once a new proposal is accepted and passed. 

The concerning thing about the grandfathering issue (aside from the obvious one), is that 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 this issue and others 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"

***I will have a separate post looking at the rest of the above list in the next few days.

As of today, we are told that a plan is not in place to "grandfather" students into their current assignments. Obviously, this is extremely concerning for everyone involved and has led to a lot of concern, angst and even anger by families who feel their child(ren) have a seat at a school they approve of. 

I know the issue of "grandfathering" the students has come up at every community meeting held so far and am sure it will continue to be brought up until we are given a concrete answer by the Superintendent or School Committee.

My prediction right now (could change as I get more info) is that BPS will grandfather students who currently attend a certain school as to do otherwise would create turmoil on the level of 1974 proportions as parents react. However, even if your current student attends the "old zone" school, your younger child(ren) may be unable to attend the same school even with sibling preference as that school may not be in your new "zone" and ONLY the child with a current seat as of whatever date BPS sets as the deadline will be "grandfathered". This could also lead to extreme turmoil for BPS. 

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.