Thread by @TracyNovick

Train reading

Okay, so please note that I am not dismissing any of this impact on kids and teachers.

But we’re having a discussion about the state taking over the largest district in the state, and the first two complaints are:

1. “There are buses that never show up and you don’t count those as “late” and you didn’t change it even after we complained!”
2. “Of the 29 bathroom projects you said were done, 2 weren’t, really!”

(This is under “challenges with accurate data collection” which also includes the graduation data thing that I keep thinking maybe DESE, if there were “previous federal audits” noting, should have flagged before?)

These, BTW, are cited as “a pattern of inaccurate or misleading data,” which, again, I don’t want to dismiss impact, but these don’t exactly seem to be a pattern?

I skipped the opening letter, BTW, which has the stunning sentence:
“Underpinning all of this was the lack of a stable, supportive, and trusting dynamic between schools and district staff, due in part to frequent turnover of superintendents and central office staff.”

Guess what doesn’t help there?

I assume we’ll get back to that in the governance section.

There’s a choice made visually in emphasis here in the executive summary, where a number of strengths—the district strategic plan, high quality instructional materials, focus on early literacy,

alignment of district graduation policy, strong teacher diversification pipeline, initial improvement to EL services, enhanced PD, more consistent use of growth assessments, use of ESSER funds, headway in facilities upgrades—are all listed in three paragraphs of text.

The prior data pieces were bulleted.

Again, it’s a summary, but strengths are harder to find quickly, but sure as heck you’re going to hear about school buses.

Also, bet your bottom dollar that you won’t see in headlines how often @BCassellius is praised here (you have to read the text, not the bullets). From page 3:

“The superintendent effectively led these initiatives, despite challenges in managing a central office with entrenched dysfunction. They represent real progress over a short period of time and in some cases may lay the groundwork for transformational change within BPS.”

(Can you feel the “however” coming?)

“However, ongoing work in these areas is in early stages of implementation and remains highly vulnerable to disruption.”

GOSH I WONDER WHAT WOULD DO THAT.

Page 3 is when we get to what seemed the core concerns—service for EL students, students with disabilities—from the prior report.
You might remember the prior report came out right before the pandemic.
The complaint is that not enough progress has been made DURING the pandemic.

In fact, the executive summary makes no mention of the pandemic at all, despite the entirety of the report stemming from that time.

We do, though, manage to hit transportation twice more before the end of the executive summary.

Not kidding.

The next section is “failure to meet acceptable minimum standards for essential district functions” in four areas which are—

YOU GUESSED IT!—transportation, facilities (which we got a thing on last week), “safety protocols” which is bullying but also a slightly passing mention of police? and data tracking.

Ok, section I personally would think should rank higher but “leadership continuity” is the final section of the executive summary: “The district remains without stable leadership or strong institutional knowledge to tackle the critical and persistent challenges facing BPS.”

…notes that the incoming (yet to be found superintendent who theoretically is going to start in five weeks!) will be the fifth one since 2013.
…it will be interesting to see if they talk about why that might be in the governance section…

Also notes “governance uncertainty” given possible change in how the school committee attains office.
(It wasn’t the School Committee that seems to have made the last several leadership changes, per only what I read in the Globe.)

Then we get the “bold student centered decision making” bit there.

Right, methodology: 28 staff, 5 day review, 3 day visit, 97 interviews, 25 focus groups

—break for org chart and enrollment tables—

Usual DESE needle about BPS spending “well above” required NSS. DESE failing to note that required NSS is neither fair nor adequate by the state’s own concession—it’s why they rewrote the formula!—makes this frankly misleading.

They gave an international pandemic which killed millions a whole third of a page.

That’s literally four sentences.

Summary of findings: strengths.
This is the list from above, but how each gets a little paragraph.
(That isn’t snark; each is one or two sentences.)

District strategic plan; racial earth planning tool; enhanced accessibility for families and community; equitable literacy and high-quality curriculum; MassCore; EL stakeholder engagement, school-level communication, investments in PD, personnel, infrastructure;

Strong pipeline, recruitment, retention for educator diversity; “robust menu” of PD; office of data supports staff; consistent use of growth data; leverage of funding for school and student needs.

Challenges:
DESE said transportation and sped were “two BPS functions in crisis” and “these functions have stagnated and, in some cases, further deteriorated since 2020.”

Just out of curiosity: anyone out there think their district transportation system is running *better* now than in, say, February 2020?

Exactly how many “student transportation under strain” headlines would DESE need here?

Lack of central office capacity and systems “to drive improvement in the 31 lowest performing BPS schools”
Next sentence: “While these schools have received additional staff and were prioritized for district-wide instructional initiatives,

they still lack high-quality targeted school improvement plans, sufficient central offuce support, and accountability for results.”
…since March of 2020…

“Leadership instability…is endemic”
🤯

There is no “robust, district-wide system for tracking implementation progress or measuring outcomes across the six commitments and 40+ priorities outlined in the district’s strategic plan.”
And some initiatives are off-track or not yet fully launched.

Goodness knows, everyone else’s is right on track during the pandemic…

DESPITE “initial progress in establishing an instructional focus for the district, there is variation in school-level implementation of its instructional priorities”

DESPITE “progress made in planning for the rollout of a district-wide instructional focus” high school instructional quality and equity in access “remains a challenge”

I am sorry; I genuinely do not mean to dismiss these as real concerns. But they specified the focus on May of 2021, came back in April of 2022, and the question really is “why haven’t you fixed these things yet?”

classroom instruction “primarily rated in the middle range”
(“evident but not exhibited consistently”)

“lack of urgency in improving special education services…systemic disarray, lack consistent policies and procedures, and do not consistently provide appropriate learning opportunities in the least restrictive environment”

Not all EL learners receive appropriate ESL instruction

“The district’s school choice and assignment system does not provide equal access to high-quality schools for all students.”

C’mon, Boston…it’s been a year.
(It is a struggle not to be ongoingly sarcastic with how out of touch some of this is.)

Also, this part makes me angry: “Although the district has made changes to the exam school admissions policy, the impact of these changes remains unclear.”

I believe we have student yield data regarding the make up of the student body?

Not to mention:
THEY CHANGED THE ADMISSION SYSTEM FOR BOSTON LATIN SCHOOL!!

That was widely regarded as a thing that couldn’t be done, and you RELEGATE IT TO THIS SENTENCE?!?!?

“The district’s system for managing, responding to, and resolving complaints is not responsive to parent and guardian concerns”

Again, this is a thing that matters, but since exactly when is it a thing on which the state evaluates districts?

The district’s use of the educator evaluation system “does not accomplish the essential goals of providing high-quality feedback to educators and identifying ineffective teachers”

(That would be the same system we all use…)
It also “is not fully aligned to state regulatory requirements”

DESPITE the development of quality PD, “equitable educator access to” PD “is a challenge”

“lacks necessary systems and internal controls at the central office and school levels to ensure accurate data reporting on key indicators”

…you guessed it: time to mention buses again! “On-time bus arrivals remain unacceptably low and uncovered routes can affect thousands of students each month”

And then lack of “a comprehensive long-term master facilities plan” which I think is what @MayorWu announced last week.

Now we delve into the six areas of review:
•Leadership and Governance
•Curriculum and Instruction
•Student Supports
•Human Resources and Professional Development
•Assessment
•Financial and Asset Management

So, Leadership and Governance is *usually* School Committee, superintendent, high level governance work stuff.

Ok, one last thing before I turn in (probably more in the am; this is just the high level stuff) that I find mesmerizing:

So they’ve got this whole governance thing (and legit, this has been a theme on these reports elsewhere) with a *big* emphasis on governance turnover.

But they never talk about why.

Now, look, I am way not an insider, plus 50 miles west, but it isn’t exactly a secret that the mayors have been the muscle on the school committee and superintendent turnover, right?
I mean, that isn’t a controversial statement, I think?

So how is that not mentioned? If stability is part of what is lacking—and FWIW, I agree—and we know why it is lacking—and it seems we do?—then…where is it in the report?

And if that’s somehow something DESE can’t say, then what’s the good of being an oversight agency?

Oh forgot: they gave us a little chart->

Governance strengths: The district responded to the state's review with a new strategic plan "through a comprehensive and inclusive process" and the plan has cityside support.

The district is "taking steps to assure research-based instructional practices across all schools and content areas"

They adopted MassCore (note that this isn't just an "adoption" as you have to ensure that you have the classes for the students to take to complete it)

district is "using the BPS Racial Equity Planning Tool" a "clear six step process to ensure decision-making processes are aimed at closing opportunity gaps and advancing racial equity"

And it wasn't just talk: focus groups "confirmed the district has incorporated regular and inclusive equity discusses at its schools" and has made "a deliberate effort...to recruit and retain staff of color"

School Committee meetings and parent groups are simultaneously interpreted into nine languages.

Challenges (this is governance, remember)

They...lump special education and transportation as the 'two BPS functions in crisis'
WHAT?

Look, I'm among the most school bus people who doesn't actually *do* school buses I know, and I think y'all need to get some help with your transportation focus here...

Agendas matter:
special ed appeared only once (since April 2020)
transportation appeared five times, including when the district recommended extension of the TransDev contract

"these departments need systemic reform and there remain no clear pathways to secure this"

They...want special ed to have its own strategic plan? That's...their solution?

"In the area of transportation, labor contract barriers are enormous. These contracts, three of which are managed by TransDev and are currently expired, include provisions that have significant, negative effects on student arrival time."
One could write a book on this one.

I will bet any of you a hamburger that DESE saying that BPS central admin is understaffed doesn't get mentioned anywhere.

That's page 23.

"lacks the central office capacity and systems necessary to drive improvement in the 31 lowest performing schools"

They note about central office levels continuing to decline since 2020 is B1

"There is no clearly established system in place to align efforts across central office"
I suspect this harkens back to earlier mentions of an "entrenched" admin

we've got Transformation Schools with Quality School Plans and gosh, can we stop coming up with new names for things?

DESE says the Transformation Schools "house a disproportionate number of substantially separate special education classrooms"

hmm...cause? effect"

they "need more staff and supports due to greater student need"

THEN mysteriously, @BostonSchools has a high degree of superintendent and school committee turnover

and we're all trying to find the guy who did this!

(no, they're really not)

and with superintendent changes comes central admin changes and that's ALSO unstable!
(gosh, who would have known!)

"Stakeholders noted the challenge that has come with changes in priorities and initiatives when there are changes in leadership. They expressed concern that work on the new strategic plan will not be fully realized with a new superintendent."

There isn't yet a system for tracking the strategic plan's implementation.

"Interviewees in many focus groups noted that "Cultivate Trust"...needed particular attention"

They...somehow seem to think that implementing that district tracking of a strategic plan will help stakeholder trust level despite leadership changes...

Curriculum and Instruction!
The district has a citywide set of approved curricula, vetted for racial equity and "rigor and demands"

The district is on the three year implementation of equitable literacy

"The district has made significant investments in initiatives intended to strengthen core instruction...and the work is showing some evidence of impact at the school level, particularly in grades K-8"

They've aligned PD.
There's clear evidence of school-level "getting it" on equitable literacy.
The district has "vetted and secured high-quality instructional materials" across curricular areas.

(There's pages and pages on this. That matters a lot in a big system like Boston, particularly if there is student mobility. And it isn't easy!)

As it says on page 38: "Simply put: Instructional materials and aligned professional development matter."

The Boston School Committee not only adopted MassCore: the district did the work to actually implement, and then they PUT IT IN THE BUDGET.

(Don't fund it? Doesn't happen!)

also, BPS ensured "certain support services positions were provided to all schools"

I don't want to put words in others' mouths, but of the things I hear BPS-associated folks worry about, this one is HIGH on the list. This is a big change.
(It's also page 40, b2)

A Spanish dual language high school, an ASL dual language school, a Haitian Creole dual language pgroam, a Vietnamese dual language program, and four Spanish dual language K-8s

"there is variation in school-level implementation of its instructional priorities"

(since last year)

also "lacks a clearly scoped role-clarity or accountability mechanisms for school superintendents to work" with other aspects of the central admin

They basically want clearer descriptions of the role and relationships of that position.

"adoption of high quality instructional materials at the high school level is not consistent"

access to advanced coursework is inequitable (including in APs)

Classroom ratings, again, "were primarily rated in the middle range"

You want to read scathing...I've read some scathing sections on this one. This one is supportive.

Honestly, the whole instructional section is supportive.

Ok, Student Support

Here's the "special education services are in systemic disarray" from March 2020 (which I thought DESE was supposed to be supporting...reading on)

it was a priority area...BPS drafted the "Office of Special Education Strategic Plan Development Tool" with seven priority areas...weren't they just complaining that the special ed office didn't have a strategic plan?

access to high quality schools: Page 55, we get a few paragraphs on the revolution that was changing exam school admissions

And this isn't, from my seat, just that it changed, which impacts a few kids. It's that it showed it was POSSIBLE to do something like this.

(I am still feeling dissatisfied by that special ed section)

"The district has also taken steps to improve the quality of all schools in the district through policy and funding decisions."

p. 56

That's core district governance work right there.

English learners: "In the 2020 MOU, improving services to English learners was identified as a 'long-term initiative' for the district."

There was a process, a draft overview presented in March.

Regarding DOJ compliance for English learners (table p.57)

That would be improvement in every category there, in some cases, markedly.

And likewise p.58

FIndings:
Special education:
"The district has demonstrated a lack of urgency in improving special education services, failing to make discernable progress in this area despite repeated DESE findings and a commitment by BPS in the MOU to address special education."
Um, what?

So...they have a draft plan, but it doesn't have short term objectives or a "clear plan for finalizing" or a "district-wide policy on inclusion" outlining specific models

That wouldn't be a policy.

we get to "policy and procedure manual" on p. 62, but that's what they're discussing (gosh, DESE, get it right! there are lines here)

Effectively, they're looking for consistency in access.

what they don't seem to sort out is how all this interacts with the racial equity tool, which would seem to be linked

they also say it isn't clear who is in charge.

Ok, English learners:
Strengths: Groundwork laid! Effective stakeholder engagement! Enhanced school-level communication! Investments in PD, personnel, infrastructure!
$10M in ESSER to multilingual infrastructure (wow)

Challenges:
Not yet ensuring all EL receive appropriate instruction
Lack system for monitoring instruction
Lacks curriculum
Lacks personnel
Role of ESL teacher not clearly definied

Other supports:
"The district's school choice and assignment system does not provide equal access to high quality schools for all students."

I saw a few of you say something like this report doesn't say anything we don't already know and THIS in spades.

what's also darkly funny is they note the racial disparities in the current assignment model, and folks, if you think transportation is complicated now...whew

"No one interviewed for this report, most notably school committee members and district leaders, described any plans for addressing inequities in the school choice and assignment system, beyond the change to the exam school admissions policy."

I'll bet you another hamburger this gets no mention.

Open enrollment schools have a higher concentration of special education strands.

yuuuup

The school assignment process "remains a core, systemic barrier"

parent complaints

I have not read all of the CDR reports, but I will say that I've never seen one that includes this.

um, wait, what? This section is based around DESE's Problem Resolution System getting complaints and how that was responded to?

...this whole section is them being bothered about responses to their own system, rather than anything systemic about family concerns.

SUPER WEIRD.

Recommendation:
Urgently develop a district-wide inclusion strategic plan

(which they're doing? Be more URGENT, I guess)

...district wide "policy on inclusion"
(don't adopt a policy on this, Boston. Create a procedure)

..."policy and procedure manual on special education"

Policy and procedure are two different things; the latter flows from the former, and they are under two different purviews.
Ugh, I hate this messiness in the report.

ESL instruction at school level
Students in self-contained classrooms no longer than necessary

Engage Quality School Task Force on school assignment system

"build capacity" to respond to (their?) complaints

"expand anti-bullying professional development" (because they got 12 phone calls on that and no I am not making that up)

OK! HR and PD!
SUPER GOOD STUFF on BPS recruitment and pipeline development! Page 79!
"develop and implement robust teacher pipeline programs"
"implemented comprehensive recruitment strategies"

PD on equitable literacy!

and then "some collective bargaining agreement provisions remain barriers to achieving district goals and priorities"

well, we made it to page 80 without pulling in the BTU...

p. 81 "strong pipeline, recruitment, and retention programs to increase the diversity of the educator and school leader workforce and has set expectations for hiring goals in this area across the district"

This is followed by PAGES OF EXAMPLES

"robust menu of professional development offerings"

Likewise, pages of backup

challenge: educator evaluation providing high quality feedback to educators and identifying ineffective teachers

...which appears to be based on percentage of teachers ID'd at each level, compared to other districts? Check p. 87 on that one

there's a critque in here of the panel review system (paging @BTU66 check this)

several notes on "limited sources of evidence" in evaluation

oh, and they don't like seniority being used in layoffs

equitable access to PD is a concern

and the cap on PD is, the report comments, too restrictive

(remember, no one is voting today. I'll run this thread til I have to switch to meeting coverage and then come back to it)

ASSESSMENT!
"The use of interim assessments as a district-wide practice is not fully developed"

They're fans of the Office of Data and Accountability and districtwide consistent assessment "a notable improvement from the 2020 District Review Report"

improved data literacy!
challenges: systems and internal controls

and then we're back to their graduation audit thing, which...didn't we have a report on this?

"it is clear that some information is being improperly coded"

there's something that isn't in the headlines.

WHEN WE LAST WERE TWEETING on the DESE report on Boston, we were in the "Assessment" section, which is sort of more the "data management" section, as was mentioned yesterday.

You may remember that back in January, there was a kerfuffle over BPS graduation rates

bostonglobe.com/2022/01/31/met…

pull quote: "In five of the last seven years, the audits found school officials wrongfully removed dozens of students from would-be graduating classes by claiming, without documentation, that they transferred to another school, moved to another country, or died.

" In each of those instances, auditors could not find the paperwork to support the reasons for their departure, even though federal rules require such documentation to ensure accurate graduation rates."

This is part of the section (p. 100 and following) reporting out on challenges: "The district lacks the necessary systems and internal controls at the central office and school levels to ensure accurate data reporting on key indicators."

Two of the four recommendations are about data reporting and accuracy (the Commissioner mentioned the recommendation of an auditor yesterday).

The other two are:

1. ensuring all schools participate in district assessments.

2. developing a professional learning plan to incorporate all or parts of the Data Inquiry Facilitation process in all schools.

(everyone's favorite)
FINANCIAL AND ASSET MANANGEMENT

So as you would expect, this starts with the @bostonschool budget. We hit "historic, one-time infusion of federal ESSER funds" right in the first line; we get to exceeding NSS by paragraph two.

In FY20, Boston was 28% over NNS.

Boston (famously? Perhaps I take too much for granted) is a high needs school district in a fairly wealthy municipality. That's why Boston isn't in the company of, say, my own hometown of barely scraping over NSS.

In FY20, the statewide AVERAGE spending over NSS was 29.2%.

That's from here:
doe.mass.edu/finance/chapte…

In other words, Boston was spending under the statewide average.

Now this is going to bring me back to my point earlier this week, about how the CDRs are done without a larger policy context:

I have argued for years that the reason why most of Massachusetts keeps voting themselves tax increases to fund schools over foundation is that people get that foundation isn't adequate.

(I say "vote themselves" because a whole heck of a lot of Massachusetts does budget via town meeting)

and this point has now been conceded by the state.
Both chambers unanimously voting for, and Governor Baker then signing, the Student Opportunity Act was a state acknowledgement that the funding system was inadequate.

And note the year here cited: FY20.
FY20 was when the bill was signed (November of 2019).
That's the very calculation that the state conceded was inadequate.

We could also get here into the state's actual role in *funding* Boston over foundation, as Boston is the largest recipient of hold harmless aid in the state,

and thus it's bit much to have DESE doing the "we're so shocked at how much money you have" when it's the state legislature and governor that's part of why, but we're going to cut DESE a little slack on this one.

And of course, NSS doesn't include transportation spending, and, of course, Boston has both state and federal mandates of various kinds it has to follow on transportation, which, last I checked, was costing $100M a year.

Right, so, I see we get average teacher salary in here, and, as anyone who does contract negotiations (on either side of a district table) can tell you: "average" is a function of who is in the pool, their length of service, their education level, and so forth.

PLUS the state itself (again) includes a regional salary bump in the calculation of the foundation budget, as a recognition that in some parts of the state, higher salaries might be necessary, due to the cost of living.
Boston (this year) has an 8.8% wage adjustment factor.

You did not need me to tell you that Boston and metro Boston ain't cheap to live in.

Boston's getting $435M in ESSER funds.
Boston has declining student enrollment.
Boston has had the BuildBPS plan (remember, the report is pre Mayor Wu's announcement of the New Green Deal).

and now TRANSPORTATION

We get the total on the bottom of page 107: "over" $137M for FY22 (current year)
TransDev makes up most of that but also:
$6.5M in bus leases and debt payments
$17.5M for out of district transportation
$6.6M in public transit (for gr. 7-12 ...#FreeTheT)

It is noted that this total includes charter, private, and parochial students, but the amount this state mandate costs Boston is not broken out.

"For high-quality transportation services to be delivered to BPS students, key performance indicators must be effectively addressed, including the performance issues exacerbated by the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, which has expired at the time of the review."

See today's Globe bostonglobe.com/2022/05/25/met…

I am among the very last people you need to persuade that school transportation matters.
Yes, it matters academically, but it also matters for things like not leaving kids standing on freezing cold street corners on Massachusetts winter mornings.

(as has happened in my own family; see also every single tweet I've probably ever had on here about WPS transportation)

But DESE's sudden (and it is sudden, by DESE standards) fixation on Boston school buses is BIZZARE.

Somehow this mysteriously never notes that Boston basically only buses kids preK-6 (exceptions obviously for kids who have it included with IEPs and such).

So since the focus is on "kids who are supposed to take yellow buses to get to schools," this is a fairly targeted group.

And this is mentioned literally more than any other topic in this report.

So strengths:
Hey, Boston has money! Boston has been working on some urgent facilities stuff! The Quality Guarantee means we might not have parents having to choose if the school has a nurse or a counselor!

(that last is very much my words)

The report is also very bathroom-focused, which I assume is also because the Globe ran an article on it, and that sort of thing smarts.

They've submitted seven accelerated repair projects...

As the quote goes: "I tell you what, let's forget the fact that you're coming a little late to the party and embrace the fact that you showed up at all."

I'm a little dubious on the $100M over three years that the Quality Guarantee runs on, but again, if it means parents aren't somehow being left to figure out which hand to cut off, this is a good thing.

Praise from DESE for BPS's stakeholder engagement process on ESSER (which has not necessarily been a strong point across all districts, believe me)

further, schools with a greater number of students disproportionately impacted by the pandemic got more ESSER funding; applications specifically had to note how ESSER funding would support equity by group at the school level.

that...all sounds good? Even an example to follow?

Challenges:

"Transportation services, driven by substantial challenges with the district's transportation contract, are significantly and inequitably affecting student learning.On-time bus arrival rates remain unacceptably low and uncovered routes can affect thousands of students each month.

"Many students whose morning bus routes are uncovered simply do not attend school that day, and students with disabilities are disportionately affected."

In subsection A (we're on page 113), we discover that the fourth amendment to the BPS-DESE MOU included a commitment that "the district will achieve a district-wide school bus on-time rate of 92-95 percent each month, and for the school year overall."
Great.
How?

I am not being facetious here.
The report points to the contract as an issue, and perhaps it was, as it was changed in recent negotiations.
But is that alone why buses have been late or not existing? I kinda doubt it.

Has Boston and BPS done absolutely everything they can to fill what I assume--on good authority, as it is true ALL OVER--to fill a significant large bus driver gap?
I don't know that. I do know very very well that those who CDL are in short supply.

And this is of course your reminder that Boston was quite clear that it was those drivers, and not the 7D drivers for which the National Guard stood in, that they were short.

(so does this, as someone floated, come back to the Governor still being irked about that 'no'?)

So yes, uncovered bus routes are impacting attendance (I'm sure!) and it makes more kids late if they even get there (that's those second runs) and yes, this is going to disproportionately impact kids with disabilities, as a higher proportion of those kids get school buses.

Do they mention these larger issues?
Yes, with it framed so as to get back to the contract in subsection 3: "District and TransDev leaders attributed uncovered routes to the national driver shortage.

While the driver shortage may have contributed to the district's challenge with uncovered routes, the driver status reports...indicated collective bargaining challenges were also a major cause of the uncovered routes."

(that skips the section where families talk about not having reliable transportation being an issue, in part because I have talked about that at length under other cover. Agreed! It is! And there isn't a magic wand on it!)

So while I find the transportation section bizarre, I find the facilities section infuriating.
Remember, this report EXPLICITLY is a check in of the March 2020 report, particularly based on the MOU signed in May 2021.

...and they want to know where the comprehensive facilities plan is.

So does EVERYONE, but they aren't wondering where it is as of since May of last year!

The report says "The district has laid the groundwork for future facilities improvement by preparing to launch a facilities condition assessment"
They also got a new work order system in January, plus new "staffing investments."

"The facilities assessment is slated to begin in April 2022 and will require 12-18 months to complete the process by an external vendor. This process began in 2021 through identifying funding and a public procurement process."
Yes, it takes this long.

Again, should this have happened...decades ago? Heck yeah.
(In my district, too)

But--personal opinion--Boston cityside leadership (which is where the capital funding is, remember) has been so all over the place on not paying attention to this that...here we are.

I mean, even just look at Boston's list of MSBA projects: info.massschoolbuildings.org/Project_List/S…

22 looks like a lot until you realize how many buildings BPS has:
massschoolbuildings.org/node/40035

(And maybe compare it to Worcester, half its size, with more projects at 24)

So (p. 118) "The district does not have a long-term facilities' master plan guiding the district's overall facilities planning process.

The district did not provide adequate documentation to explain the rationale behind ongoing facilities decisions, including new buildings, renovations, and closures."

I'm thinking of @CllrKendraLara saying that she read the report, and sat back, and thought of all the years that led to this report

@CllrKendraLara and then wondering why now.

I am struggling a lot with the sudden urgency here. It's really odd.

"The district lacks plans to appropriately address the impact of persistently declining student enrollment in the district."

Is there a district with persistently declining enrollment that has a what DESE might deem an appropriate plan?

Again, when we isolate Boston, we're being misleading about which of these are actual district issues.
The link here is to Build BPS not adequately taking into account the footprint of schools given declining enrollment.

and we're not going, because these reports never do, to note the political third rail that has been.

(And just when BPS had a superintendent who was willing to try them...)

There's also a concern flagged on timeline on parents being notified of final determination

...particularly when schools close.
Note that (p. 119; 3d) notes this has improved "over time

with examples including stakeholder engagement meetings and equity roundtables but noted this could be further improved by including stakeholders earlier in the conversations about facilities changes that affect their school community."

they note the shift on the Horace Mann project (though that was partly due to MSBA not taking the project, but I continue to think that Boston doesn't entirely get MSBA as yet)

and the district "still does not have a coherent preventative/deferred maintenance plan for school buildings"
...and they are still grumpy about those two bathrooms.

There's an interesting point in here about to what degree the district's racial equity planning tool is used for facilities, which is a good thought; there's a reflection that the opportunity index is.

There follow (p.122ff) recommendations for this section, some of which go in directions not otherwise covered (hm)

So we get a call for an updated RFP for an new transportation that "includes performance indicators which address on time performance"--

--voice of experience here: that just means you get charge backs--

collaborating on a new contract on drivers, "consider providing alternative options for uncovered routes," implementing buildBPS (not any more), monitoring the work order system, "directly communicate" about the facilities assessment

"develop a long term strategic plan that addresses operational sustainability"

But then we get:

"Build an internal controls group to continuously improve central office processes and ensure compliance,

especially with respect to the timely and proper expenditure of grant funds [hmmm], so that the district does not resort to returning unexpended or expiring funds to DESE and/or the federal government."

Thereby hangs a tale, one assumes.

Continue implementing new budgeting software "to improve fiscal transparency" and ensure each school "has a spending plan in place" that then can be monitored and supported.

Hire an outside contractor to evaluate the weighted pupil funding formula.

YES PLEASE.

They specifically want a focus here on special education and its "service delivery structure."
And also how it interacts with supplemental central office investments

AND--heads up, all--they recommend an ANNUAL review of the municipal agreement.

And THAT is the whole report, HOWEVER, it does have extensive appendices, including a full report on the teaching evaluation piece they did, plus tables.
Again, the whole kit and kaboodle is over here: doe.mass.edu/accountability…

/fin