In many of the suggested plans released earlier in the year, neighborhood schools led to some zones with less than 20% low income kids whereas other zones had greater than 80% low income students.  As school performance generally correlates with income level, you will see schools in those wealthier neighborhoods continue to "improve" while others will "decline" if we move in that direction. 

I use quotes because I think the metrics being used to measure schools are imperfect at best.  It seems to me that upper income students do well regardless of where they attend school in BPS.  To determine real quality, we should be looking for schools where low-income and other educationally marginalized students are outperforming their demographic peers at other schools.  In my book, these are likely the schools where teaching is above average.  Unfortunately, we currently label schools with more upper income kids as higher performing because they have higher test scores, even though all models would predict that this is always going to be the case. 

With a return to neighborhood schools, I think we will see a number of unintended consequences.  First, whites in majority white neighborhoods will return to BPS and you will see a return to resegregation.  Second, these neighborhoods will see a rise in property value, as the schools will appear to be better to many people, whereas other neighborhoods will see a decline in their values. And the sad thing is that some of the schools that will be highly selected are not adding that much to their students.

Interesting. You can't desegregate the Boson Public Schools. Local schools, good schools - what a concept. 

It is disappointing that Adrian Walker seems to take John Nucci's comments almost verbatim without really looking into why minority members of the EAC might be reluctant to move to 100% neighborhood schools instead of the 50% walk to set asides that exist now. There are lots of code words in this conversation. Busing is one of them but to many neighborhood schools is another. It means influential, higher income neighborhoods using their political clout to take more than their fair share of resources for their schools. To suggest that this could not happen today and that Boston schools could not be segregated even if we tried, denies reality. Walker even acknowledges this in a backwards way with his reference to the segregation of our exam schools. The deliberate exclusiveness of Boston Latin is a perfect example of segregation when we try. Our high school system is segregated on the basis of race, class and disability. if you look at the statistics this is starkly clear. There is a real possibility that changes in the school assignment process at the elementary school level will end up mirroring our high school system even more than it already does. In that system brilliant children who come from immense adversity to be successful are regulated to second, third and fourth class schools while the first rate (at least in terms of resources, connections and reputation) college prep school is out if their grasp. I hope EAC members are concerned about completely solidifying this trend. They should be.

It’s a shame that Adrian Walker and John Nucci are only able to view school assignment through such a narrow lens. Their implication that access to quality should not be a part of the discussion is quite disturbing. The assignment process does not need to take place in an either/or vacuum but should be examined with a both/and framework. Creating a better assignment plan and algorithm for all students, their families, and their neighborhoods should be a priority for the EAC.

Interestingly, Nucci and Walker prefer to discuss assignment using racial language but never mention the racial makeup and socioeconomic backgrounds of students in the turn around schools or in the four dozen schools that the mayor wants to have classified as turn around as well.

The fact that EAC members have agreed not to speak publically but the Mayor’s office deploys Nucci to represent the EAC sends the message that this is a political process. I would suggest that Mr. Nucci think about the students, all Boston students and not about his political alliances during this process. Mr. Walker, as a columnist, unfortunately has no obligation to do research or act as a journalist, which allows the mayor to frame the issue for him.

I don't get it; Adrian Walker says that EAC members agreed not to talk about their work publicly, and then he gives John Nucci a bully pulpit to do exactly that? Shame on Nucci for breaking trust with his fellow EAC members. I disagree with his major point, anyway: neighborhood schools don't necessarily equal better schools - it all depends. I've had my kids in neighborhood schools, and I've put my them on school buses to travel across the city. Did I love having my five year old spend a long time on buses every morning and afternoon? No, but the school she attended was the best one for her and my family at that time. And we were part of a wonderful school community there, despite our living far from the school's neighborhood. The EAC has an amazing opportunity in its hands - it can affirm for the city that our first commitment is to excellence and equity. Not increased privilege and access for the more fortunate.

It is odd to read that parent engagement = quality = close to home. If Boston Public Schools believed that, why did they go all over the city closing neighborhood schools attended by close-to-home kids? That's what happened at the Farragut, Agassiz, Emerson, and many more. We are taking about schools where the populations were predominantly walk-zone. Further, consider schools like Hernandez and Mission Hill School that historically derive their populations from all over the city. These schools tends to have an active, engaged parent community even though they are generally not close to home for many families. The data does not bear out the "proximity = quality" formula and BPS has shown through its closer and conversion decisions that it does not even BELIEVE this formula.

Further, consider a school such as the Marshall, which is being coverted to a citywide charter run by UP Academy. BPS seems to say that in those cases when close-to-home does NOT lead to quality, it will convert those "underperforming" schools to non-neighborhood non-public schools: they will instead become privately-run citywide charters. Chaters are also not a proven solution to the achievement gap. Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes looked at more than 70 percent of that nation's charter school students and found that only 17 percent of charter students outperformed traditional schools, while 37 percent underperformed traditional schools and 46 percent showed no significant difference.

I found an interesting quote of Nucci's from 2006 here: http://www2.suffolk.edu/files/Archives/oh-059_transcript.pdf "I went to school at a time when we had complete choice as to where we went to school. My parents did not choose to send me to the close school. I could have gone to the neighborhood school, which was East Boston High School. My parents chose to send me ten, twelve miles away at Boston Latin School, because it was the best available school. So I don’t believe parents choose the white school or the black school. I don’t even believe they have as the only priority the close school. I think they choose the best school, and that’s what I think they’re doing now."

Luckily, the substance of what has been happening during the EAC process is far better than the Boston Globe has reported. The conversations have been productive and respectful, if necessarily careful. The members of the EAC as a whole do understand what the City needs, and the most recent proposals represent tremendous progress in trying to accomplish all we can with what we have. On the specific issue of transportation (no one hoping to advance the discussion would use "busing") there's a consensus that is clear, but (obviously) not widely understood: Transportation is money well spent when it helps to equalize the access to quality schools of families who have no neighborhood quality schools. There aren't enough good schools, so we have to share them fairly - it's not hard to understand or to agree on. Given the shortage of quality schools in BPS, transportation will certainly be necessary for some time to come - several years at least, despite the steady progress within the BPS toward quality. Otherwise, where possible, all of us would prefer to use the money (and student time) to improve quality. Something else that hasn't been reported: Yes, the EAC did pore over maps and plans. And after weeks of that, they realized that they didn't like any of the plans. None accomplished what the City of Boston needs to accomplish. That's why they're exploring more flexible, zone-less options that group schools. It's a way to provide fair access to quality, reduce transportation, and build community. I hope throwing out the original plans and choosing a much more powerful, if more complex, approach is the "something bold" Mr. Nucci is referring to. Finally, I have to say, this is one of the most irresponsible and uninformed comments I've ever seen: "For in Boston, 'school assignment' is really a polite term for busing." It is a profound disservice to the constructive and difficult process the members of the EAC has taken so far. It also shows how poorly anyone at the Boston Globe understands the work that has been done. So Mr. Walker, come to the meetings, listen to the discussions, understand the proposal, and then come back and right the grievous wrong you have done today.