Unfortunately, the authors of this editorial do not understand the data they quote. In fact the 20 and 25% numbers reflect the chances of the child with the least chance to get into a school with decent MCAS scores under the current and proposed plans. In fact, none of these plans would change the average student's chance of getting into a quality school because at the end of the day we will still have the same students and the same schools.

While there would be many advantages to having neighborhood schools, there would also be many drawbacks. Parents would not be able to choose a school based on their children's needs. Over time, both schools and neighborhoods would become more segregated as parents with means would move to neighborhoods with access to good schools, raising property values and making access to those schools impossible for low-income families.

We need a plan that reduces unnecessary busing while encouraging integration in both schools and neighborhoods. BPS has only released a small fraction of the analysis done by MIT and others on this plan. They have promised to release a full report to the public and the EAC, but have not said when. Only when that data is available will we have a better idea of how much difference these plans will make.

Josh Weiss
BPSWorkshop.com

Thanks, Boston Globe, for clearing all this up for me. I didn't realize my concerns were so "understandable but increasingly outmoded."  Now I know it's so twentieth century to think that all kids in Boston deserve equitable access to public education.   I think it's interesting that you think families near poor quality schools have so many choices, and I guess it's just too bad that most of those choices are not in their neighborhood, or even within BPS.  METCO and charters involve a lot more busing, at BPS expense.  There are only two citywide schools, and I'm sorry to inform you that the mythical right to change schools that don't make Adequate Yearly Progress doesn't actually exist. But, after all, why should families with resources be inconveneinced by other families' problems?  

To the Boston Globe Oped team: you shoud be deeply ashamed of this editorial. You are failing to take a serious look at this policy issue, failing to understand a complex subject, failing your civic obligations, and ignoring your paper's past reports on the massive inequities in the Boston public school system. You are failing your readers and failing Boston.

Having children attend school near their home does not necessarily a community make.  The school my children attended further from my home provided a greater sense of community than the school my son now attends, just a short distance away.  The Globe Editorial board also makes *no* mention of Special Education students, nor of middle schools and how these new proposals will affect them.  These reassignment proposals have not been fully fleshed out and the issues of capital planning and capacity of current schools to accommodate children in their geographic area have not been fully vetted.  Parents continue to demand quality and will go wherever they need to go in the city to get it.  Why can't the Globe understand that?

Congratulations to the leaders and  residents of Boston. The City has changed  beyond recognition in the past three decades.  Now, instead of having an incredibly divisive, nasty argument on school assignment that focuses on how to keep some of our children from accessing a good, solid education,  we are focused on quality, fairness and equal access to opportunity.  And we are using data driven, proven research to get us there.    This is a cause for celebration.    

The dialogue and analysis has been rich, substantial, diverse and respectful.  EAC members have donated their time freely and come to the table with open minds.  BPS staff have openly provided access to information so that everyone who wishes to can follow and comment on  the process.  Concerned parents and residents have come out to many, many meetings to make sure that their thoughts and experiences are heard. Experts have been brought on board to work on plans that address many of the major concerns.  The mayor deserves credit for facilitating this.   Now he has to have faith that our city is ready to make solid fair decisions.  We are all struggling with very complicated, difficult issues.  There are many competing needs  and it is crucial that we balance those needs in a way that creates the best outcome for all our children.  

it is a good thing that we are not willing to make substantial, disruptive changes in  the system  just for the sake of change.  Rational evaluation of what works, what doesn't work and what has been tried before is an extremely important part of sustainable change.  A cost benefit analysis has to be included in how this decision is made and it needs to be very thorough.  I respect EAC members for clearly understanding this.   There are things that work well in Boston even when children are bused out of their walk to zones.  The number of families that want to continue busing their children is proof of this.  We do not want to lose hard won educational gains as unintended consequences of this.

At the same time it is clear that Boston has changed for the better, I am concerned that the Globe has not.  It seems as if this editorial pushing BOLD change is motivated by the need for attention grabbing headlines and has little to do with what is best for Boston.  In fact much of the overall coverage on this issue  has seemed skewed, as if all Globe staff had decided well before the process began what the outcome should be.  I know an editorial is not investigative reporting, but shouldn't it involve some fact checking?  Instead of basing the opinion on solid evidence with some respect for the process, it seems as if this is just mud slinging intent on bashing everyone involved from the Mayor down.  As someone who witnessed much of the work that went into this, I resent that.  The people involved in this genuinely want what is best for Boston.  They have spent a huge amount of time trying to figure this out.  I may not always agree with all of them, but I am sure about this.  

Bold change... will take place when editorial writers at the Globe do their homework on school-related issues.  The writers of this editorial neither read the data correctly nor understand some of the underlying problems.  How can a system based primarily on neighborhood schools, for instance, be remotely possible when the schools in certain areas of the city don't have enough seats to take care of all the children who live in those neighborhoods?  I agree with carolmama: it seems as though the Globe staked out a position on this one before the process of analysis even began.  Kudos to the EAC for taking their time and doing due diligence.  Let's hope that the EAC and the School Committee take the high road and insist upon a fair chance for all families to get their kids into the best schools.  Now that would be bold change to write home about.

The Boston Globe said, “Today’s high-performing schools may be merely average in just a year or two”

Or failing in a year or two, if BPS returned to neighborhood schools the way Mayor Menino wants.  That is why BPS has not given the EAC the data on MCAS scores by neighborhood, or the MCAS scores of students attending charter schools by neighborhood.  We can only imagine what the East Zone traditional public schools would look like; and the justifiable anger this information would generate! Not everything is "transparent."  Any reduction of the system’s $80 million annual transportation bill would just be reallocated to charter school citywide busing.  This money would never make it back to traditional public schools.

Thank you Josh Weissbpsworkshop.Com, Bythecemetery, Allston_Bob, Kathode, Carolmama, Momsmt, for stepping-up and letting your voices be heard.  Your comments were thoughtfully written and appreciated.   All of you said it best!