(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Report no. 5 to the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts on Boston school desegregation"

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 



BOARD OF EDUCATION 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

GOVERNMENT OOCUMtNTS DEPARTMENT 
RECEIVED 

AUG 8 1985 



REPORT NO. 5 



TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 

ON 

BOSTON SCHOOL DESEGREGATION 

VOLUME 2 

JULY 15, 1985 



MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF EDUCATION 

Ms. Mary Ellen Smith, Boston, Chairperson 

Mrs. Mary C. Wright, Falmouth, Vice Chairperson 

Mr. Christopher H. Collins, Millis 
Mr. Robert A. Farmer, Brookline 
Mrs. Anne C. Fox, Needham 
Rev. Paul V. Garrity, Maiden 
Ms. Milca R. Gonzalez, Worcester 
Mr. James R. Grande, Hanover 
Mr. Howard A. Greis, Hoiden 
Mrs. Loretta L. Roach, Boston 
Mr. Joseph C. Savery, Lee 
Mrs. Dorothea A. Zanetti, Wilbraham 



Dr. John H. Lawson, Commissioner of Education, Secretary 
Mr. John B. Duff, Chancellor, Board of Regents, Ex Officio 



Report Coordinated by- 
Franklin Banks, Special Assistant to the Commissioner on 
Boston Desegregation 



Joel Lidz, Editing, Proofreading 



Produced by the Bureau of Operational Support 

Cecilia DiBella, Director 

Susan Gardner, Publications/Communications Coordinator 

Susan M. Ridge, Tvpographist 



The Massachusetts Department of Education insures equal employment/educational opportunities/affirmative action regardless of race color creed national 
origin or sex, in compliance with Title IX, or handicap, in compliance with section 504. national 



PUBUCATION OF THIS DOCUMENT APPROVED BY DANIEL D. CARTER, STATE PURCHASING AGENT. 
300-6-85-804091 



Est. Cost Per Copy $9.98 



COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
BOARD OF EDUCATION 



REPORT NO . 5 

TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 

ON 

BOSTON SCHOOL DESEGREGATION 

VOLUME II 




BOSTOTSl 

PUBLIC 

LIBRARY 







TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page No. 
Introduction ^ 

I Monitoring Reports 

Student Assignments and Special 

Desegregation Measures 5 

A. Assignments 8 

B. Special Desegregation Measures 9 

C. Modifications to the Student 

Assignment Plan 10 

D. District 3 and 4 Assignment 
Modifications 12 

E. Bilingual Assignments 12 

F. Citywide Vocational Program 
Assignments 13 

G. Support Services for Minority 

Students in Examination Schools 13 

Conclusions/Recommendations 15 

Attachments 17 

Vocational and Occupational Education 199 

Compliance with state law, court 

orders, etc 199c 

Core Programs 200 

Magnet Programs 202 

In-School Bilingual 204 

Out-of-School Youth 207 

Special Needs Students 207 

Program Changes and Deletions 208 

Program Support Components 209 

Conclusions/Recommendations 216 



Attachments 220 

School Facilities 235 

Report 236 

Conclusions • 240 

Attachments 241 

Staff 393 

Report 393c 

Conclusions/Recominendat ions 395 

Attachments 398 

Transportation 421 

Report 421c 

Conclusions/Recommendations 422 

School Bus Safety 422 

Conclusions/Recommendations 423 

Attachments 424 

Parent and Student Organizations 457 

Parent Organizations 458 

Conclusions/Recommendations 464 

Student Organizations 467 

Conclusions/Recommendations 469 

Attachments 471 

II Dispute Resolutions 479 

III Modifications 483 



3. 



INTRODUCTION 



This is the fifth report to the Federal District Court on the 
progress of desegregation in the Boston Public Schools, as 
mandated by Memorandum and Orders of Disenga gement, December 23, 
1982 . ~~ 

Volume I is a summary of the major findings, recommendations, 
disputes and modifications, while Volume II contains the full 
reports and supportive documentation in each area. 

Whereas Report No. 4 contained ten monitoring areas, this 
document contains only seven. In Memorandum and Order on Further 
Partial Termination of Jurisdiction-May 17, 1985 the Federal 
Court relieved the Board of Education of monitoring 
responsibilities in Bilingual Education, School Safety and 
Security (except for school bus safety which is now contained in 
the Transportation report) and Student Discipline. In addition, 
monitors have combined the reports on Student Assignments and 
Special Desegregation Measures into one report. 

Each of the seven reports in Volume II contains the following 
major divisions: 

I. Monitoring Report 

A. Orders 

B. Summary 
C. Findings 

D. Conclusions/Recommendations 



II 



Support Documentation (letters, statistics, memoranda in 
support of specific findings) 



The following Massachusetts Department of Education personnel 
were responsible for the reports submitted: 



Monitoring Area 



Key Monitor 



Monitors 



Student Assignments Charles Glenn 

and Special 

Desegregation 

Measures Exam School Only 



Judith Taylor 



Maureen Wark 
Paula Willis 
Dan French 
Nan Stein 
Roselyn Frank 
Franklin Banks 



2. Vocational and 
Occupational 
Education 



David Cronin 



Elaine Cadigan 
Naisuon Chu 
Maurice Jones 
Therese Alston 
Edward Glasser 



School Facilities 



David Jones 



John Calabro 
Sam Pike 



Transportation 



Parent and Student 
Organization 



Charles Glenn 
(School Bus 
Safety Only) 



Judy Taylor 
Franklin Banks 



James Case (Parents) Doreen Wilkinson 
Marion Gillom 
(Student) Dan French 



Special thanks to Marlene Godfrey, the Director of the Greater 
Boston Regional Center and her staff for coordinating several 
components of this report. 



STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS AND SPECIAL 
DESEGREGATION MEASURES 



STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS AND SPECIAL 
DESEGREGATION MEASURES 



ORDER 


(A) May 10, 1975 




(B) May 3, 1976; May 6, 




April 20, 1982. 




(C) February 20, 1985 




(D) February 20, 1985 




(E) May 10, 1975 




(F) September 8, 1975 




(G) May 10, 1975; May 3, 


SUMMARY 





1977; March 21, 1978; 



1976; March 21, 1978. 



(A) Carry out the student assignment and 
transfer process, on all levels, in 
such a manner that (a) the procedural 
requirements established by the Court 
are met, and (b) the greatest 
possible compliance is achieved in 
each school with the permitted 
enrollment ranges for each 
racial/ethnic group. 

(B) Special desegregation measures at 
specific schools shall be implemented 
according to the orders of May 3, 
1976, pages 20 to 25; May 6, 1977, 
pages 25 and 43-44; March 21, 1978, 
page 6; and the Bench Order of April 
20, 1982 regarding the Hispanic 
Bilingual Program, Charlestown High 
School. 

(C) Implement modifications to the 
student assignment plan approved by 
the Court in 1985, including (1) an 
administrative consolidation of 
districts, (2) permission for 
kindergarten students to attend the 



school to which they are geocoded for 
first grade, (3) a guarantee that 
students requesting their district 
high school will be assigned to that 
school, (4) the designation of 
Madison Park High School as the 
academic home for most students 
enrolled in programs at the 
Occupational Resource Center, (5) a 
Recruitment Incentive Plan under 
which twenty-six schools may recruit 
specified numbers of students of 
specified racial/ethnic groups 
without regard to place of residence, 
(6) a recruitment opportunity for 
certain schools located in ethnically 
diverse areas of the city, under 
which they may recruit students from 
contiguous areas, and (7) an 
expansion of the "two-way" bilingual 
model of the Hernandez School to a 
larger facility (at the Holland) and 
to the middle school level (at the 
Mackey) . 

(D) Test a new assignment process in 
districts 3 and 4; implement this 
process if approved by the Court. 

(E) Make assignments to and from 
bilingual programs which are 
consistent with desegregation, 
equity, and the educational interests 
of linguistic minority students. 

(F) Achieve compliance with the 
assignment provisions of the Unified 
Plan for Vocational/Occupational 
Education of September 1975, 
particularly in the citywide programs 
to the Humphrey Occupational Resource 
Center and certain district high 
schools. 

(G) Provide support services for minority 
students attending the examination 
schools to increase their retention 
and graduation rate. 



A. ASSIGNMENTS 



FINDINGS Compliance with respect to Assignment Process 



The assignment process took place in accordance 
with Court-approved procedures, and the various 
steps (including examination school invitations 
and assignments to schools) were reviewed and 
approved. Report No. 3 (Volume II, pages 80- 
103) contains a description and documentation 
of this process as it was carried out in 1984. 

Review of proposed assignments suggests that 
there may be some improvement in the number of 
schools in compliance with the racial/ethnic 
guidelines (taking into account assignments to 
bilingual programs). Because of the history of 
"shrinkage" of white numbers between the 
assignments and the actual enrollments (see 
Report No. 3, Volume I, pages 38-39; Report No 
2, Volume II, pages 94-98), no attempt will be 
made to determine overall compliance with 
Court-established racial/ethnic guidelines 
until Fall enrollments are available. High 
school enrollments have been the subject of 
particular attention, however, and the 
projections for Fall 1985 will be discussed: 

Projected High School Enrollm.ents 

English and Madison Park High Schools have come 
into compliance, though at the lower limit, in 
projected white enrollment (each is projected 
to be 20% white, with a permitted range of 20%- 
30%). To some extent this reflects bilingual 
program assignments; the white projected 
enrollment of the two schools would be 24% and 
23% white, respectively, without bilingual 
enrollment . 

Report No. 4 noted improvement in compliance 
with desegregation requirements at English, but 
some deterioration at Madison Park (Volume I, 
page 9). Comparison of the first-choice 
assignment requests made by students entering 
the ninth grade in 1983 and 1985 shows that 
requests for English are u£ in all three 
racial/ethnic categories, while requests for 



Madison Park are down in all three 
categories. This suggests that English High 
School is "turning around" educationally, and 
that the merger of the Occupational Resource 
Center with Madison Park will be confronting 
formidable barriers in converting two 
relatively unpopular facilities into a single 
school . 

Burke High School — a special desegregation 
school — is projected to come into compliance 
with the permitted racial/ethnic ranges, after 
several years of impressive effort to create a 
safe and educationally-sound program, and 
Dorchester High is projected to remain in 
compliance after achieving it in 1983-84. 
Several district high schools — Jamaica Plain, 
South Boston, Brighton — which were having 
compliance problems in 1983-84 are projected to 
be in compliance in 1985-86. Dorchester and 
South Boston are projected to be high in Other 
Minority enrollment, but justifiably so as a 
result of large bilingual programs. 



B. SPECIAL DESEGREGATION MEASURES 



FINDINGS Partial Compliance (Improving) 



The four elementary and two middle schools for 
which special desegregation measures have been 
ordered by the Court are all included among the 
Recruitment Incentive Plan schools, and will be 
discussed below; no new monitoring of these 
schools, or of the Tobin K-8 school, took place 
in this period. 

Report No. 4 found that full compliance had 
been achieved with the voluntary special 
desegregation plan for Dorchester High, and no 
further monitoring took place in this period. 
Requirements for improved enrollment and 
staffing of the Spanish bilingual program at 
Charlestown High had been met, and continue to 
be met. Two special desegregation schools 
require further discussion here: 



Burke High School 

Facility improvements have largely been 
completed. Efforts to develop distinctive and 
high-quality educational programs in order to 
attract students and thus to meet racial/ethnic 
guidelines have continued, though uncertainty 
over the School Committee's proposal to make 
the Burke a city-wide magnet school has 
reportedly led to an interruption of 
collaboration from the central administration. 



East Boston Business Magnet 

The last monitoring report found that the 
administration of East Boston High School had 
undertaken promising steps to redress the non- 
compliance issues identified in earlier 
reports. These concerned lack of support 
services for students, and general neglect of 
the business magnet, which had resulted in an 
undistinguished program. However, the report 
also found that the school administration's 
efforts were not receiving support from 
Boston's central administration. 

The picture is brighter this spring. Federal 
vocational education funds have been allocated 
to the business magnet for the first time and 
there is a promise of funds from Boston's block 
grant . 

C. MODIFICATIONS TO THE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN 

It must be noted, of each of the measures discussed below, 
that they were requested by the School Committee and 
permitted by the Court; to the extent that they have not 
been implemented, and Boston continues to abide by 
previous orders of the Court, there is no "non-compliance" 
issue. 

( 1) Administrative Consolidation of Districts 

Has not yet taken place. 



10 



( 2) Permission for Kindergarten Students to anticipate 
Grade 1 assignment 

The impact of this new assignment provision was 
negligible. 

(3) Guarantee of district high schoolr on request 

All first-choice requests for the district high 
school were honored. In most instances fewer 
students of each racial/ethnic group requested 
their district high school than were actually 
assigned to it. 

The impact of this new assignment provision was 
slight. 

(4) Madison Park linked to Humphrey Occupational 
Resource Center 

While this will not be implemented until 1986-87, 
Boston is taking steps to assure that students will 
have the necessary information to make sound 
decisions about whether to apply for a ninth grade 
assignment to Madison Park/ORC next Spring. All 
eighth grade students in the system will 
participate in a one-week exploratory program at 
the Humphrey Center in 1985-86. 

(5) Recruitment Incentive Plan (RIP) 

Initial preparations to implement this "affirmative 
action to desegregate" are discussed below. In 
brief, notice of the opportunity to recruit 
students went out to community district 
superintendents and affected principals so late 
that few efforts took place, except in one 
district, and specific guidelines on how the RIP 
will be implemented were not available as of the 
closing of this Report. This failure to move 
vigorously to implement a program which the School 
Committee urged the Court to accept in December, 
1984 may be attributed to (a) the habit of 
administrators in Boston, at all levels, of leaving 
"affirmative action to desegregate" entirely in the 
hands of the Department of Implementation, and (b) 
the preoccupation of the DI with testing the 
assignment modification proposed for districts 3 
and 4. 



11 



(6) Mather and Elihu Greenwood Recruitment 

No efforts were made to implement the new 
provisions for the Greenwood, which will be 
affected by the district 3 and 4 modifications, if 
approved. Notices were sent to all parents 
eligible for new Mather School assignments; 52 
Black, 20 White and 12 Other Minority students 
requested and were assigned from outside of the 
attendance area for the Mather. 



(7) Expansion of the Hernandez Model 

Although the move to the Holland School and the 
expansion of this model to the Mackey Middle School 
will not be implemented until 1986-87, preliminary 
discussions have begun and will continue over the 
next months. 



DISTRICT 3 AND 4 ASSIGNMENT MODIFICATIONS 

The implementation of the process of expanded options in 
Districts 3 and 4 is discussed below. In brief, the 
application process offered parents a number of 
"guaranteed" options, each of which would contribute to 
desegregation, and the assignment process gave priority to 
honoring these guarantees in such a way that as many 
choices were honored as possible, consistent with 
desegregation. 

This process was discussed on a number of occasions among 
the parties, creating a possible precedent for future 
negotiations about modifications in student assignments 
which would be equitable and positive in their 
desegregation impact. 



E. BILINGUAL ASSIGNMENTS 

FINDINGS Non-Compliance 

The academic history, Lau (language 
proficiency) category, and "step" (degree of 
mainstreaming) of 7,800 students in bilingual 
programs was reviewed. This review raised 
major questions about the large number of 
students who remain for six or more years in a 



12 



program intended to teach English-language 
skills so as to be transitional after three 
years. It appears that hundreds of Hispanic 
students are remaining in the program without 
achieving mastery of English-language skills, 
and that many Italian (and, to a lesser extent, 
Greek) students are remaining in the program 
after acquiring such skills. The resultant 
equity and desegregation problems will be 
monitored in depth over the next months. 



CITYWIDE VOCATIONAL PROGRAM ASSIGNMENTS 



FINDINGS Non-Compliance 



Proposed 1985-86 assignments were not available 
for review during this monitoring period. The 
1984-85 enrollments and retention rates and 
assignments for 1985-86 are reviewed below. 

There is a worsening problem with enrollments 
at the Humphrey Center, due to a high attrition 
rate of all racial/ethnic groups. Programs 
vary in their rates of attrition. 
Desegregation compliance remains poor and is 
not improving. The Headmaster is making 
significant efforts to improve program quality 
and school climate, but only a greatly 
heightened commitment on Boston's part will 
lead to the intended enrollment levels and 
desegregation compliance. 



SUPPORT SERVICES FOR MINORITY STUDENTS IN EXAMINATION 
SCHOOLS 

Progress in providing the support services recommended in 
previous reports is reviewed below. 

Monitors concentrated on four major efforts in following 
the progress of the examination schools to improve 
recruitment and support services for Black and Hispanic 
students : 

1. Monitors re-interviewed 64 of the 135 students 
interviewed for Report No. 3 to determine the extent 
of improvements in counseling and other supports over 



13 



a year. Analysis of results indicates that while all 
three schools continue to make progress in improving 
support services, more improvements are needed. In 
particular the availability of tutors for all students 
who need them was cited as a continuing problem. 

2. Monitors surveyed 88 faculty members at all three 
examination schools for their views on causes and 
remedies for high Black and Hispanic attrition. In 
the opinion of some faculty members, poor academic 
preparation, poor student attitudes and motivation, 
and a lack of effective home and community supports 
were the major reasons for high attrition; at Boston 
Technical High poor attendance and tardiness were also 
listed as important causes. In addition, faculty also 
cited inappropriate admission standards. Among Black 
and a few White staff, insensitivity shown by some 
staff toward the problems of Black and Hispanic 
students was also cited as a cause for attrition. 
Major recommendations for improvements in reducing the 
attrition rate fell into these categories: (a) 
improvements in counseling, school organization and 
curriculum {33.9% of total responses); (b) increased 
outreach to parents (18.4% of total responses); (c) 
staff training, changes, redeployment (17.5% of total 
responses); and (d) improve academic preparation 
(15.9% of total responses). 

It should also be noted that twenty-one respondents 
provided either no recommendations for improving 
retention or chose not to respond at all. Although 
most faculty members were able to cite between one and 
five specific support services offered at their school 
(76%), many were not aware of other vital support 
efforts available at their school. This raises the 
question of how referrals to various support options 
can be made if faculty are not fully apprised of those 
options. 

3. The Director of the AWC/ATS program continues to 
report progress in improving the quality of that 
preparatory program, as well as progress toward 
modifying the identification and selection criteria. 

4. The results of individual written questionnaires 
concerning problems in support services and related 
issues administered to the Headmasters of all three 
examination schools indicate steady progress in making 
improvements. While the central office has provided 
some additional financial assistance (mostly "soft"). 



14 



most efforts remain school-based. Efforts to retain 
needed minority staff have been frustrated at Boston 
Latin Academy, and efforts to reorganize counseling 
services at Boston Latin School have been similarly 
frustrated by provisions of the union contract. 



CONCLUSIONS 



1. Desegregation will be enhanced substantially if the 
Recruitment Incentive Plan is implemented 
appropriately in each of the designated schools, with 
policy direction and resources from the central and 
district offices. 



2. The new approach to student assignments tested in 

districts 3 and 4 shows substantial promise to 

increase parent choices and enhance desegregation, if 
seconded with recruitment efforts. 



Preliminary review of bilingual assignments suggests 
that one-third of the students in middle and high 
school programs (nearly half of the Spanish-speaking 
students) have been enrolled for six or more years 
without mainstreaming. Next steps will include: 
verifying the data on-site, determining whether 
students are being helped to acquire English-language 
skills, determining whether appropriate language and 
other support is provided to students after 
mainstreaming, and reviewing the process for 
assignment into and out of bilingual programs. 



Continuing review of citywide vocational enrollments 
reveals a worsening situation as a result of high 
attrition and low application rates for many 
programs. Neither desegregation compliance nor 
efficient utilization of the educational capacity has 
been achieved. Planning for merger of the Humphrey 
Center and Madison Park High School (itself plagued by 
declining applications) must be a high priority, to 
assure that the result is improved education and 
attractiveness to students, as well as desegregation. 



15 



5. Continuing monitoring of support services at the 
examination schools reveals progress but also the need 
to carry through on efforts to identify and provide 
support to those students most in need, as well as to 
prepare academically-gifted Boston public school 
students adequately in the lower grades. 

6. Progress — and the need to make more — was also observed 
at Burke High and the East Boston Business Magnet. 



16 



Supportive Analyses and Documentation 

Page 

SPECIAL DESEGREGATION MEASURES 

Burke High School 19 

East Boston Business Magnet 20 
MODIFICATIONS TO THE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN 

Recruitment Incentive Plan 2 7 

DISTRICT 3 AND 4 ASSIGNMENT MODIFICATIONS 43 

BILINGUAL ASSIGNMENTS 5 7 

HUMPHREY OCCUPATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 80 

EXAMINATION SCHOOL SUPPORT SERVICES 131 



17 



18 



JEREMIAH E. BURKE HIGH SCHOOL 

FINDINGS 

In Reoort No. 4 rnoriitors cornmerided Boston for the significant 
improvements in climate and programs at the Burke, but noted 
(1) that facilities imorovements were not yet complete and 
(£) that a distinctive (magnet) program offering had not yet 
been comoletely developed. 

fls of May 1985, most of the facilities improvements have been 
completed: new windows have been installed, interior painting 
is 90"/. finished, the gymnasium and the auditorium have been 
partially renovated and the exterior appearance of the school 
has been vastly improved. The school is still waiting for 
new lockers and auditorium seats. The headmaster has been 
assured that the improvements will be completed by July and 
that the school will be ready to open in September. The 
school's business partner, New England Life, has contributed 
significantly to the school's imorovement. For example, it 
recently sponsored a renovation and updating of the library 
that included new furnishings and carpeting. The headmaster 
plans a ribbon-cutting ceremony to celebrate the Burke's 
return. 

The situation regarding the new magnet program is more 
clouded. The school's preparations for a Computer Magnet are 
on schedule. For example. New England Life has donated a new 
"electronic office" for use in one component of the magnet. 
Communication and planning at the central administrative 
level have, however, ceased as a result of the proposal to 
make Burke a citywide magnet schogjj.. The headmaster and 
staff of the Burke are proceeding with the school-based 
elements of the magnet proatlMl development, and hope it will 
be operating next fall, if only with Burke (i.e.. District V) 
students. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Planning to make Burke ari educationally-sound school 
attractive to students should be resumed. 



19 



EAST BOSTON BUSINESS MAGNET 

FINDINGS 

Report No. 4 found that the administration of East Boston 
High School had undertaken coordinated and promising steps to 
redress the non-compliance issues identified in earlier 
reports. These concerned lack of support services for 
students, and general neglect of the business magnet, which 
had resulted in ari undistinguished program. The report also 
found that the school administration's efforts were not 
receiving support from Boston's central administration. 

The picture is much brighter this spring. The headmaster and 
his staff have supplied evidence that their planning has 
become focused and specific, and that they are aggressively 
seeking support from central administration. Central 
administration has allocated federal vocational education 
funds to the business magnet for the first time and there is 
a promise of funds from Boston's block grant. In addition a 
collaborative relationship is developing between East Boston 
administrators and the State's 636 staff, which should result 
in significantly improved services to students. 

RECOMMENDATION 

It must be emphasized that most of these developments are 
still in the planning stage. The concerted attention of 
Boston and Department of Education staff will be necessary to 
ensure that they are brought to fruition. 

Attachments: 

Letters from the Headmaster of East Boston High School 
Memorandum from Department of Education's 636 Staff 
Letter from Director of East Boston Business Magnet 



20 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 




JOHN A. POTO 
Headmaster 



BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
EAST BOSTON HIGH SCHOOL 



May 7, 1985 



Ms. Judith Taylor 
State Deoartment of Education 
1385 Hancock Street 
Quincy Ma, 02169 

Dear Ms. Taylor, 

As the 1984-85 school year draws to a close, we would like to 
share with you a review of our activities this year relative to the 
Business Magnet Program. 

Since early last Fall, we have been pursuing ways and means of 
reviewing and updating the program offerings in an effort to bring it in 
line with present-day office demands for students seeking jobs in this area. 

The availability of funds from two sources will enable us to do the 
following: 

Chap. 6 36 Furids 

Approximately $30,000 will enable us to provide some supportive 
assistance for our Grade 9 students. In addition, we will be able to 
get some consultation services which will be concentrated on ways to review 
and further update the program as well as ways to provide some assistance 
to the program's director, the Business Department Head. It is our plan 
to get this all in motion during the summer months before the beginning 
of the next school year. 

Carl Perkins Act Funds 

Vocational education funds will enable us to initiate a project in 
Office Simulation which we have been considering for a number of years as 
you know. The course will be offered to Business Magnet seniors and will 
concentrate on training and work experience in the financial service areas. 
While this program will initially deal with financial services in the 
banking and insurance industries, we envisage arowth and expansion into 
other financial services areas. Our Career Specialist, through Private 
Industry Council, will be instrumental in acquiring the job slots for 
students which will be directly related to their training. 

It is our hope that tapping the various community resources will give 
us further insight into the needs of the business community in order that 
our educational plans may include the activities which will prevail in the 
"office of the future". To this end, we are planning soon to convene a 

86 WHITE STREET, EAST BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02128 • 567-2140 AREA 617 

21 



"brainstorming" session with various factions of the community (e.g., 
business, education, etc.). A copy of an invitation to participate 
in this meeting is enclosed. 

Please be assured that we shall continue to explore every possible 
avenue in order to give the Business Magnet Program more drawing power 
and to have it live up to our earliest hopes and expectations. 



Sincerely yours, 

Jjzrtin A. Poto 
leadmaster 



JAP/js 
cc. 



p. Ingeneri 
J. Caradonio 
Parents Council 



22 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 



Mf^' 



yo^' 



\-^^" 



^^^^jv^<\i I c'>^ 




BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

EAST BOSTON HIGH SCHOOL 



Headmaster 



TO: All Interested Parties 

FROM: John A, Poto, Headmaster, East Boston High School 

RE: "Brainstorming" Session on Business Education Curriculum Update 

DATT^: Thursday, May 9, 1985 



For the past two years , East Boston High School has been engaged in the review 
of its Business Education Department course offerings in order to determine the 
best way(s) to improve the courses and bring them more in line with present-day 
office needs and the needs of the office of the future. Particular emphasis 
has been on the Business Magnet courses within the department as they represent 
the racially-integrated aspect of the program. 

Currently \inder consideration is a new course in Office Simulation which it is 
planned to initiate in September I985. The course content would reflect the 
financial services rendered in such places as banks and insurance companies. 
In this regard, the Occupational Outlook Handbook (198U-85 edition) states that 
"while administrative support jobs are located in virtually all industries, they 
are concentrated in the fast-growing service and finance sectors. Because of 
this concentration, these Jobs are expected to grow more rapidly than the average 
for all occupations through the mid 1990 's." 

It is hoped that this new course can serve as a beginning to innovative business 
courses which will help prepare our students for entry-level jobs or higher educa- 
tion in the areas of financial service as well as other fast-growing areas . 

Review of current courses and planning future offerings is a time-consuming process 
which in order to be successful, requires the expertise and time of a number of 
factions within the community which we hope to serve. It is with this thought in 
mind that we invite you to attend a "brainstorming" session on Thursday, May 23, 
1985 at 10 o'clock a.m. at East Boston High School. The meeting will be held in 
the school library on the second floor. Please telephone your response to my 
secretary, Ms. Speranza, at 567-21^+0 by Tuesday, May 21st. 

We invite all friends of East Boston High School to share their expertise with us 
and we look forward to meeting with you. 



23 

WHITE STREET, EAST BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02128 • 567-2KO AREA 617 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 




BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
EAST BOSTON HIGH SCHOOL 



JOHNA. POTO April 1, ly85 

Headmaster 



Dr. Marvin E. Robinson, Director 
Business and Management Center 
Dallas Inaependent School District 
2214 Bryan Street 
Dallas, TX 75201 

Dear Dr. Robinson: 

East Boston High School is considering the initiation of an office simula- 
tion course which would encompass financial management as it applies to the 
insurance and/or banking industries. 

The primary objective of such a course would be to prepare students upon 
graduation to step into entry-level positions which would involve financial 
management in banks or insurance companies or to continue in post high-school 
education in these areas. 

While we have access to the conventional type office simulation (e.g. , students 
work for a make-believe company as they learn to perform the various office jobs 
involved), we do not know of a school' which might have a simulation setup or which 
otherwise is dealing with the financial management aspects of Insurance and/or 
banking. 

Several years ago when East Boston High School was initiating a business magnet 
program as a part of its desegregation program, we had the privilege of observing 
the Dallas public schools and the excellent relationship which had been established 
between industry and education there. 

If you know of a project similar to the one we propose to undertake (whether in 
a public school, private school or elsewhere) , we would appreciate learning about 
it. 

Since we are in the proposal-writing stage of this project, your earliest 
response will be greatly appreciated. 



Sincerely yours^ 

/foh/i A. Poto, Headmaster 



Copy to: /James Caradonlo, H.H.O.R.C. 

V Judith Taylor, Mass. State Dept. of Ed. 

Barbara Hazelwood, Program Facilltator(Dallas Public Schools) 

86 VA^hlTE STREET, EAST BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02128 • 567-2140 AREA 617 

24 



The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
^ I Department of Education - ^^^^^^ °^ ^^^^^^^ programs 

1385 Hancock Street, Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 

MEMORANDUM' 

TO: Peter Ingeneri 

FROM: Patricia Malloy 

DATE: May 7, 1985 

RE: District VIII Proposal Abstract 

Priority #1 : Desegregation Compliance and Support 

Overall comment: The proposal developer should follow the directions 
in the Instructions and Sample Forms, pages 2,3 and 9 and 
Requirements and Guidelines, pages 11,12 and 13. 

(1) Support Services for Ninth Graders : When writing the 
proposal activity chart, describe the major activities 
of the program/ the tasks of the instructional aide, and 

include subject areas of remediation, include the 
number of hours, days and weeks the aide will work. 
Include the number and kind of people receiving services, 
the selection criteria, integration related activities, 
relation to regular school curriculum and parent 
involvement. 

Describe the evaluation plan for the program. Under 
expected cognitive outcomes, state specifically what 
changes are anticipated for students and school personnel 
as a result of the program Under Expected Integration 
Outcomes, describe what gains in integration will result 
due to the activities of the program. 

Under Method/Instrument, describe briefly how changes will 
be measured. 

(2) Planning for Support For the Program Director : 

When writing the proposal activity chart, describe the 
major activities of the Education/Business Consultants 
following the same instructions as written for program 
#(1). Omit the word feasibility from the program 
description. 



25 



(3) Planning for Support By Institutional Pairing (s) : 

When writing the proposal activity chart, describe the 
major activities of the educational consultants following 
the same instructions as written for program #(1). Omit 
the word feasibility from the program description. 

Mai Ling Tong, at Tri-Lateral Council for Quality 

Education, can be contacted regarding support by 

institutional pairings. Reviewers have apprised 

Mai Ling of the Chapter 636 Proposal Abstract for the 

Business Magnet Improvement Program at East Boston High 

School. 



c Catherine Blount, Senior Coordinator 
Doreen Wilkinson, Assistant Director 



26 



RECRUITMENT INCENTIVE PLAN: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 



Proposal of the Recruitment Incentive Plan 



On Deceinber 20, 1934 the School Committee Eubmitted to the Court a motion 
proposing ten separate modifications of the student assignment plan. One of 
these modifications would have allowed certain schools to "recruit" students fro 
outside of their ordinary assignment areas, subject to specific limitations designed 
to support desegregation. 

A memorandum prepared by John Coakley and dated January 2S, 1SS5 was 
Eubmitted to the Court in order to specify the schools which would be affected by 
this "Recruitment Incentive Plan" for the first year, and the number of students 
which each would be allowed to recruit. This memorandum spoke of 

"assignments/transfers," and stated that they would be approved by the leadership 
of the Department of Implementation and that a monthly report would be provided 
to the Massachusetts Department of Education. 

Twenty-si>; schools were included on this list, including eight schools 
previously designated by the Court for "special desegregation measures". In 
addition, all schools in District VIII, an additional six elementary, one middle, and 
one high school, were to be included as capacity permitted. The relevant portion 
of the memorandum follows. 

Thirty-one additional RIP schools were suggested by Mr. Coakley in a 
memorandum of February 5, 1985. 

In a filing of February 8, the School Committee cited a recently-completed 

survey by the firm of Martilla ?i Kiley in support of its contention that a 

significant number of parents of all racial/ethnic groups were willing to enroll 

their children in schools located at some distance from their residences. 

The survey demonstrates that the prospects for achieving desegregation 

goals by voluntary means to a greater extent than is currently the case 

are higher than most observers would have predicted. 

In addition, 

27 



The recruitment -incentive proposal is designed to enhance education as 
well as desegregation. . . . for the teachers, administrators and 
parents involved in "selling" their school to the target population, they 
must ensure that they have a product" people will want to "buy." The 
School Defendants hope that these proposals, along with other 
initiatives which allow schools to look beyond their assigned geocodes, 
will provide incentives for school-based efforts to improve thequality of 
education and educational life at the school. 

A further memorandum by John Coakley (February 11) examined the number of 
students requesting to remain in their current schools during the application 
process in 1933. Of elementary school students (not counting "graduating" fifth 
graders"), 36% expressed preferences for other schools than those they were 
currently attending, and the comparable proportion among middle school students 
was 39%. Mr. Coakley did not attempt an explanation of these figures, and it must 
be noted that the desire of students to leave desegregated schools could be as 
much an ominous sign of a desire to return to "neighborhood schools" as a positive 
sign of an interest in educational alternatives. 

This memorandum correctly noted that "Massachusetts Board of Education 
staff" had been encouraging toward the recruitment incentive approach. 



Approval of the Recruitment Incentive Plan 

The Court approved "recruitment for reserved seats" for the initial but not 
te subsequent list of schools in its February 20, 1985 Memorandum and Orderi 
noting that it was essentially consistent with the student transfer provisions of 
the Court's own May 10, 1975 student assignment plan. In a footnote, the Court 
pointed out that the School Defendants were obligated to "take affirmative action 
to desegregate, i.e., steps beyond mere compliance with court orders," and that 
several of the provisions of the December 20, 19S4 proposed modifications 
represented encouraging evidence of a new readiness to undertake such efforts. 

Approval of the Recruitment Incentive Plan was made conditional upon: (a) 
retaining the same list of schools and of reserved seats as in the January 25th 

28 



filing for at least two years from implementation, and (b) monitoring and evaluation 

by the State Board of 

(i) the actual and perceived fairness of assignment procedures whereby 
some students are assigned voluntarily and some rffandatorily to the same 
school, (ii) the impact of the program on the school defendants' efforts 
to desegregate other community district and citywide schools, and (iii) 
the value of the program compared to the time and resources it may 
divert from other tasks of the Department of Implementation. 

Although the Memorandum and Orders refers to twenty-seven schools, there 
are in fact twenty-six on the approved list, plus the eight schools in District VIII 
(subject to space availability). In addition, there appears to be an error on the 
list: the recruitment of Black students to the Pauline Agassii Shaw School. This 
has been a "special desegregation school" because of its need to attract additional 
white students, and presumably that is what was intended by Mr. Coakley. The 
monitor has suggested that the Department of Implementation prepare a letter 
requesting correction of this apparent error. 



Implementation of the Recruitment Incentive Plan 

A memorandum from Superintendent Spillane dated March 20, 1 9S5 appears to 
be the first notification received by district and local administrators about this 
and other measures approved by the Court on February 20. This memorandum 
includes the comment. 

Given the date of the Court's approval and our desire to move on the 

annual Student Assignment Process as soon as possible, this proposal 

will be implemented in May and June of this school year as well as 

September of 1985. Specific directions will be provided by the 

Department of Implementation to affected schools in the upcoming weeks. 

As a result of Mr. Coakley's illness and of the pressures of developing the 

experimental assignment approach for districts 3 and 4, instructions have not yet 

been issued to schools and district offices, and little has been done to implement 

the Recruitment Incentive Plan. 



29 



The exception is in District Hi which merits a brief discussion. In the spring 
of 1934 the Bureau of Equal Educational Opportunity issued a request for proposals 
for small grants for (1) development of two-way bilingual schools, (2) drop-out 
prevention, and (3) recruitment for schools which were incompletely desegregated. 
A number of projects were funded around the state, but the only proposal received 
from Boston was from District II, In December 1984 the Board made a grant of 
$1,600 for a pilot recruitment project, and the District office began a vigorous 
effort to develop planning teams in three elementary schools. Advice was sought 
from Worcester and Cambridge, and schools with successful recruitment efforts 
were visited. As a result, by the time the Court approved the Recruitment 
Incentive Plan there existed a capability in District II to take advantage of it, and 
there was an almost immediate request for additional funding to carry out outreach 
activities on behalf of the three elementary schools in the district included in the 
RIP. 

Since the Department of Implementation did not feel ready to implement the 
Recruitment Incentive Plan as part of the assignment process for 1935-86, the 
District II recruitment team marked each application from a parent indicating a 
desire to take advantage of the RIP to show that it should be handled separately. 
The Department of Implementation agreed to send a letter to each parent, 
explaining that the RIP requests could not be honored in the initial assignments, 
but promising to treat them as transfers and to approve them, if consistent with 
the Order, as quickly as possible. In other words, parents will receive an 

assignment to another school, but will be told that they may be given a transfer to 
the school requested within a few weeks. 

The District II recruitment effort resulted in applications on behalf of two 
white students seeking to go to the Ellis, of four white and fourteen Black students 
seeking to go to the Kennedy, and of six other minority students seeking to go to 
the Manning. 

Permitted Requested 

Ellis 20 white 2 white 

Kennedy 5 Black 14 Black 

15 white 4 white 

Manning 10 other minority 6 other minority 

' 30 



An applications which fit within the Court-approved limitE will be reviewed for 
their impact upon the sending school, if the student is already enrolled in another 
Boston public school, before transfers are made. 



Monitoring the Recruitment Incentive Plan 

Information was requested from the Department of Implementation and, by its 
offices, from the principals and community district superintendents, on recruitment 
activities related to the Recruitment Incentive Plan. This information will not be 
available in time for the present monitoring report, but the questions are included 
in order to give an indication of the issues which appear relevant to the monitor. 

The other aspect of monitoring will be the review of actual assignments (or 
transfers, as they will be the first year) under the Recruitment Incentive Plan. 
The attached memorandum to John CoakTey, dated" April 10th, is an indication of the 
approach which will be used in this review. 

Technical Assistance 

Commissioner Lawson has offered the Departrnent's assistance in developing 
a successful recruitment program, and in brokering such assistance from other 
desegegating school systems. The Bureau of Equal Educational Opportunity held a 
workshop on successful recruitment techniques for representatives from schools 
and districts in Boston on April 11th. Each district is including recruitment 
activities in its proposal for Chapter 636 funding for 19S5-S6, in addition to 
$300,000 being held by the Department of Implementation for support to 
new desegregation efforts anywhere in the system. 

The attachment dated May 3rd, guidelines for successful desegregation 
recruitment, was discussed with community district superintendents and their staff 
at a meeting convened by James Walsh and Joseph McDonough on that date. The 
monitor is particularly encouraged by this indication of a commitment to mal-ing 
"affirmative action to desegregate" work on the part of line administrators in the 
system. Previous monitoring reports have pointed out that the Department of 
Implementation has already accomplished almost all that it can hope to accomplish 

. 31 



by the assignment processi and that the next steps must come from administrators 
at all levels. 



CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

(1) More could have been accomplished to make the Recruitment Incentive Plan 
work effectively this spring had principals received a clear message about what 
was expected of them soon after the development, in late January) of the proposed 
list of schoolsi and certainly soon after the Court's approval of that list, in late 
February. As of mid-May, such instructions have still not been provided. 

(2) The response in District II suggests that there are energies available which 
have never yet been tapped to make the desegregation plan a success. In 1 9S5-86, 
each district will have state funding available to undertake such efforts, and it 
will be appropriate to hold school and district leadership accountable for 
"affirmative action to desegregate." 

(3.1 Of the "twelve elements of successful desegregation recruitment" outlined in 
the May 3rd document (attached), only #2 and #4 are currently in place, even in 
part. All twelve should be fully implemented as a matter of priority before the 
next round of assignment applications, in March or April 198S. 



32 



RECRUITMENT INCENTIVE PLAN 
Attachments 

* memo from John Coakely, dated January 28, 1985 

* memo from Charles Glenn, dated April 8, 1985 

* memo from Charles Glenn, dated April 10, 1985 

* "Twelve elements of successful desegregation recruitment' 



33 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 




BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

DEPARTMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION 

RECORD MANAGEMENT UNIT 



January 28 > 1985 



TO: Robert Spillane 
FROM: John Coakle 



lane a . 



C^CEMB 



RE: FILINGS Of IJSCEMBER 20, 1984 ~ Items 9 and 10 of 
PROPOSAL for REVISED STUDENT ASSIGNMENT STANDARDS 



Item 9 - Recruitment Incentive Plan ;^ : ' v ' '-■ .^: : . ■. . 

The proposal as described earlier seeks to provide each 
school with a small number of reserved seats to be filled 
by recruited students whose enrollment will enhance the 
desegregation of a school without harming the status of 
the so-called geocoded school. The. plan will not be in- 
hibit ed_ by students' home districts. 

In view of doubts expressed in filings and elsewhere, I 
recommend that this proposal be limited in its first year 
to the following schools previously referenced as requiring 
special desegregation measures; or schools which in my 
opinion require attention. 

District School" Reserved Seats 

II Ellis 20 White ' 

III Lee 20 White, 20 Other Minority 

R G Shaw 20 White, 20 Other Minority 

IV Thompson 30 White, 10 Other Minority 

PA Shaw 10 Black, TO Other Minority 

V Burke 30 White, 10 Other Minority 

Dorchester 25 Black, 15 White 

VI Emerson 20 White 

I Baldwin 10 Black, 10 White 

Garfield 20 Other Minority 

Hamilton 10 Black, lOWhite • 

2n COURT STREET BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS OJlC-i 

34 



District School 



Reserved Seats 



II Jamaica Plain 40 I\Tiite 

Mary Curley 10 Black, 30 White 

J F Kennedy 5 Black, 15 White 

Manning 10 Other Minority 

IV Chittick 15 White, 5 Other Minority 

Taylor 30 White, 10 Other Minority 

V Kenny 20 Black. 

Marshall .. 10 Black, 30 White 

VI Dearborn . 30 Wliite, 10 Other Minority 

McCormack ...... 30 Black, 10 White 

Perkins 15 Black, 5 Other Minority 

. Russell 10 Black, 10 White 

VII Edwards- 25 Black, 15 White 

Tirnilty ...... 30 White, 10 Other Minority 

Blackstone ,,.... 15 Black, 23 White 

"VIII All Schoolo ..,»... Per Capacity; Black ancl 
._ - ether Minority Only 

In suiniaary, during this first year there would ba -the - 
following reserved seats? 



Dist I to VII 



Dist VIII 



Total 



Black 195 

VJhite ^ 44 

Other Minority 140 



Total 



775 



110' 
110 
220 



305 
440 
250 

995 



All assignments/transfers inade under the Recruitment In- 
centive Plan would be subject. to the approval of the 
'Executive Director of the Department of Implementation 
and the Senior Officer for Desegregation. Further, a 
monthly report of activity would be furnished to the ap- 
propriate person or department designated by the Commission- 
er of Education for the Conunonwealth of Massvachussttsl If 
the plan appears to be effective, tho Boston Public Schools 
shall seek the approval of the Commissioner for expansion 
and/or modification prior to 1986-87. 



35 




Bureau of Equal Educational Opportunity 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 



1385 Hancock Street, Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 

April 8, 1985 



TO: Principals, "Recruitment Incentive" Schools 
Community District Superintendents, I - VIII 

FROM: Charles Glenn ^^* 



Judge Garrity's February 20th Memorandum and Orders allows certain schools 
to recruit students "without regard to their district or geocode" "whose 
presence would enhance the desegregation of the receiving school without 
impeding the desegregation of the sending school." The State Board is 
charged with monitoring and evaluating these efforts from the perspectives 
of (i) fairness, (ii) impact on other schools, and (iii) value of the 
program. 

As you may know, we work with ten other Massachusetts cities which are 
implementing such recruitment measures as an essential part of their 
desegregation plans. We have found that efforts at the school level are 
the key to success, with appropriate support and guidance from central 
administration. In order to monitor and evaluate the "recruitment 
incentive" program in Boston, we will need you to provide us with infor- 
mation about your efforts and their results. 

We are particularly anxious not to confine our review to enrollment 
and transfer statistics, since the results of your efforts this Spring 
will be reflected in numbers only over time. The information which you 
give us should take into account your long-range goals. 

Since my draft report is due May 6th, I will need any replies by May 1st 
to be sureof including them. Replies which I receive after that date 
will be included in any report which we might make next Fall. 

These are my questions: 

(1) What are the distinctive "selling points" of your school which 

you stress in your efforts to encourage parents to enroll their 
children? By what process were these identified, and who was 
involved? 

(2) How have parents who might be interested received information 

about the philosophy/climate and programs of your school? Please 
be specific about your outreach efforts: who took part in them, 
when, by what means, with what audience(s) in mind? Have 
community agencies, day care centers, churches, organizations 
helped? Has language been a barrier? 



36 



(3) How have parents received information about the options available 

to them under the assignment guidelines? Do all staff of your 
school understand these options? 

(4) Who is coordinating your recruitment efforts? What support have 

you received from the district and central offices? Have you 
been able to build on past efforts along the same lines? 

(5) What have been the main impediments to recruitment? For example, 

late information, confusion about the requirements, difficulty 
reaching parents, lack of a distinctive program to offer, etc. 
What help will you need to recruit more effectively next year? 

I would yery much welcome supplemental information from Community District 
Superintendents, and copies of materials which have been used in the 
recruitment process. 



37 




Bureau of Equal Educational Opportunity 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 

1385 Hancock Street. Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 



April 10th 1985 
TO: John Coakley 
FROM: Charles Glenn *^ 
RE: Monitoring of Recruitment Incentive Program 

I would like to invite you to suggest what data would be most 
appropriate for me to use in assessing the success and impact of this 
assignment modification. As with other aspects of assignment monitoring, 
my preference would be to use data which you will be preparing for your 
own responsibilities, supplementing it only if necessary. 

I will try to state below some of the considerations which will inform 
my monitoring. 

(1) The recruitment is intended to avoid "harming the status of the ' 
so-called geocoded school," and our monitoring must take into account 
"the impact of the program on the school defendants' efforts to desegre- 
gate other community district and citywide schools." 

I will be flexible in interpreting this requirement. The list of 
schools approved and of students who they may recruit (with the exception 
of the P.A.Shaw) is such that the overall impact of assigning students 
under these provisions will be helpful to desegregation. It would 
not promote stable, long-term desegregation to refuse to admit a white 
student recruited to the Emerson, for example, just because the Russell 
also needs white students. 

I will take into account the historically high proportion of white 
students assigned to many of these schools who have not actually enrolled. 
The test of the effectiveness of the RIP, and of its overall desegregation 
impact, will be in the actual enrollments next Fall, not the assignments 
this Spring. A student whose parents have volunteered for the Emerson 
or the Lee or the Ellis is very likely to attend, and likely not to 
attend the geocoded school if the RIP request is turned down. 

My advice, therefore, would be to go all-out to achieve the numbers 
of "transfers" approved by the Court for each school, while encouraging 
the schools which were not so designated to increase their own efforts to 
be attractive to the students within their assigned geocodes. The numbers 
are low enough that any negative impact will be minor. 

In the Fall it would be appropriate to assess the initial experience 
and, if monitoring reveals that there was a significant negative impact 
on certain schools, to devise corrective limitations on future transfers. 

38 



John Coakley page 2 



In assessing this impact on other schools, I will not assume 
that every student resident in the geocodes assigned to a school 
would have attended the school if not admitted elsewhere. I will 
take historical enrollment patterns into account, especially at the 
kindergarten and grades 1, 6 and 9 levels. 

(2) Our monitoring must consider "the actual and perceived fairness 
of assignment procedures." Here the Court's concern appears to be 
based upon the mixed assignment process, with some students assigned 
voluntarily while others have no choice. 

Since most of the "magnet schools" in Massachusetts have such a 
mixed enrollment, with some students attending because of where they 
live and others by choice, we have had considerable experience with 
assuring that the net effect is equitable. Generally this has not 
been a problem, particularly when options are available for students 
of all racial groups. 

For example, a Black student cannot volunteer for the Emerson, 
but may volunteer for the Russell or Perkins. 

In Chicago, part of the desegregation is accomplished by operating 
"magnet programs" within certain schools. These programs attract 
racially-mixed enrollments, but function largely independently of 
the remainder of the school. We have similar programs, for the talented 
and gifted, in Brockton and New Bedford, and Boston's own AWCs are of 
this type. In all cases, legitimate questions can be raised about 
equity and real desegregation (though I believe the pluses outweigh 
the minuses). This is not--I assume— what is proposed under the RIP. 

If time permits, we will do some interviewing of parents who took 
advantage of the RIP and of others whose children were assigned on the 
basis of residence, to test the "perceived fairness" about which the 
Court has expressed concern. 

(3) The monitoring must also consider "the value of the program". 
The questions which I have asked you to send along to the principals 
and community district superintendents will help to reveal to what 
extent they have been energized and encouraged by this opportunity. 

The Court expresses concern about the "time and resources" of the 
DI which may be diverted. Please let me know how the $20,000 granted 
for recruitment by my office some months ago have been used, and in 
what ways they have permitted you to prepare for and implement the 
RIP and other assignment modifications. 



39 



John Coakley page 3 
Information Needed . ' 



Although, as noted above, I am open to your suggestions about tfte 
most appropriate and least troublesome form of data to use in assessing 
the results of the RIP and other assignment measures, I believe that 
the most useful approach from my perspective would be one which 
organized the information geocode-by-geocode. 



, factors that 
ng transfers. 



School -by-school information is subject to so many 
it is extremely misleading to use in assessing transf 

My preference would be to have, for each geocode, the number of 
students attending the geocoded school, each magnet school, and each 
other school, by race and grade, as of 1984-85, as a baseline, to 
be compared with similar information as of this coming Fall. You 
may recall that I worked out an approximation of this information 
for one of our monitoring reports, with respect to the Ellis, Lee, 
Shaw and Emerson schools. 

That information would be very useful for an assessment of the 
RIP as of next Fall. The most useful information for a "quick and 
dirty" assessment this Spring would be the number of transfers which 
you allow under the RIP to each school, and the school which each 
student would otherwise have attended. It would be important to 
know whether students were already attending the geocoded school in 
grades 1-5, and where they attended kindergarten. 

Let me know if you can suggest a better approach to the analysis. 

Summary 

In implementing the RIP, I suggest that you should err— if at all~ 
on the side of boldness in putting students in schools which their 
parents want, subject to the numbers and racial categories approved 
by the Court. I can assure you that my monitoring will be concerned 
with the net improvement to desegregation, and the long-term prospects, 
rather than with individual judgment calls about a particular transfer. 

As you know, we are holding a workshop on recruitment tomorrow, 
led by staff of the parent information centers in Cambridge and Worcester. 
I hope this will be a useful occasion for many Boston staff and parents. 
I have carefully explained to the community district superintendents 
and others that we will not offer interpretations or clarifications of 
the assignment and transfer requirements, since those must come 
exclusively from your office! 

c. Franklin Banks 



40 



BUREAU OF EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY 
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Twelve elements of successful desegregation recruitment 

Scores of Massachusetts public schools in a dozen cities have carried out 
successful "recruitment" efforts to achieve race desegregation with a minimum of 
mandatory assignments. Certain elements have been important in these efforts. 
These steps have not always been carried out in the same orderi and tvyo or more 
are often carried out at the same time. Distinction is made between the steps 
which the school system should take and those which should be planned and 
initiated at the school level with system support. 



SCHOOL SYSTEM ACTIONS 

1. Develop a clear and simple policy controlling applicationsi assignments) and 
transfers. Make sure that all staff in contact with parents (teachers, principals! 
office staff) understand it thoroughly and can explain it clearly. Distribute it 
widely (in simple) 1)2)3 form) through the press and special handouts. 

2. Designate a single office to handle all assignment and transfer requests) and 
staff this office adequately to help schools in outreach to parents. 

3. Make clear to all employees) and particularly to staff of schools designated 
for desegregation recruitment) what is expected of them. Make sure that staff of 
other schools understand that they must not hinder recruitment. 

4. Conduct city-wide surveys of parent interests and choices among educational 
possibilities. Preferably) present options rather than open-ended items. (see 
Clinchy article in Equity and Choice 1,2). 

5. Support (with resources) flexibility in requirements and procedures) the 
efforts of each school to develop a distinctive character or theme, within the 
broad policies and objectives of the system. If such efforts cannot, in some 
caseS) be permitted, it should be for sound policy reasons and not on 
technicalities or because of vested interests. 

6. Orchestrate the individual school themes in response to overall parent and 
student demand. It would defeat the purpose of the effort if every school selected 
the same emphasis! 



LOCAL SCHOOL ACTIONS (note that these need not start after 1-6) 

7. Understand clearly who it is the school is trying to recruit; if this means 

Hispanic students) for example) both the program development and the outreach 
must keep this in the forefront. 



41 



8. Involve all staff and active parents of the school in defining the 
distinctiveness of the schooli and how that can be built upon to provide an even 
better education. Note "effective school" research on the importance of a shared 
sense of educational mission and philosophy. If availablei draw upon survey 
results (see #4) to identify a "marketable" theme. This must be a choice among 
possibilities, not an assertion that the school is "all things to all men" (and 
women!). It's not enough to say, "We're a wonderful school"; choice should not 
operate on the basis of some schools being better and some worse. 

9. Recognize that some parents whose children are presently in the school may 
be attracted away by another option, and accept that this is OK; the school should 
have enough confidence in the particular direction which it has selected to accept 
that it will not be best for every child. Some teachers might also find another 
option closer to their own ideas about the ideal situation. The goal, after all, is 
that every child, teacher and parent be in an optimal situation for that person. 

10. Reorganize or enrich instruction in appropriate ways to enhance the 
distinctiveness of the school. Preferably this should not be an "add-on" program 
which only a few children will take part in, but a "flavor" of instructional strategy 
which makes the school distinctive for all students. The goal is not to become a 
"super school" (except to the extent that we want that for every school) but to be a 
school which satisfies enough racially-diverse parents very much because it 
reflects their goals and concerns for their children. 

11. Tell your story by every means possible, especially by parent-to-parent 
contacts. Provide plenty of opportunities for prospective parents to talk with 
teachers. Don't "hype" the school: simply present honestly what you are and what 
you are working to become. 

12. Follow through on every parent who expresses an interest, and contact 
parents who are disappointed in their applications to other schools. One 
individual contact is worth a hundred fliers. Continue contacts over the summer to 
assure that parents don't get "cold feet". Check with new parents after a couple 
of weeks of school to find out whether they have been disappointed. If they are 
happy with the school, they will do half the work of recruitment the second year! 



Charles Glenn, Director 
May 3rd 1985 



42 



ASSIGNMENT MODIFICATIONS IN DISTRICTS 3 AND 4 

The Proposal for a Rev/ised Student Assignment Procedure in Districts 3 and 4 

The School Committee submitted a proposal to the Court on December 2Cu 
1984 for a revised approach to making student assignments, to be tried out on 
a pilot basis in a consolidated district made up of the present districts 3 and 4. 
In its filing the Committee noted that 

The success of this proposal in maintaining an acceptable degree 

of desegregation in the District depends on the efforts of 

principals? faculties and parent councils — with the aggressive 

support of the Superintendent and the Central Staff — to encourage 

a racially mixed group of students to attend their schools. 

This acknowledges the validity of a point made repeatedly in previous monitoring 

reportsj that assignment measures alone cannot bear the whole burden of 

making desegregation work. 

The Committee also noted that it had not given unqualified support to this 
new approachi but had directed staff to prepare computer simulations and to 
arrange for surveys to determine whether it stood a good chance of working, as 
defined by "avoiding substantial resegregation." The Committee reserved the 
right to "propose modifications designed to guard against substantial 
resegregation or to withdraw the proposal altogether." 

This proposal had not been negotiated with the parties, as required by the 
Memorandum and Orders of Disengagement of December 1982. The meetings 
which had taken place earlier in the Fall of 1984 had essentially broken down 
through the withdrawal of the Plaintiffs from participation, and discussion with 
representatives of the State Board had been limited. 

The Comrnittee described their goal in proposing the revised assignment 
process as follows: 

The purpose of these assignment procedures is to achieve a stable, 
desegregated assignment of students to non-magnet schools within 
the Consolidated District which, to the greatest extent consistent 



43 



District 3 and 4 Modifications 
with the desegregation goals set forth herein, permits parents to 
choose the school which their children will attend. 

Various provisions of the December 20, 1984 filing which have to do with 
proposed compliance requirements will not be detailed here, since they were not 
subsequently dealt with by the Court, In particular, a proposal that bilingual 
enrollments not be included in assessing compliance in the consolidated district 
was rejected by the Court when the same proposal was made in general terms. 

In its initial form, the proposal emphasized the creation of contiguous 
attendance areas for each elementary school, in contrast to the attendance 
areas ordered by the Court, many of which are non-contiguous for the sake of 
desegregation: 

Every effort will be made to create enrollment areas which are 
racially and ethnically mixed, and compactness will be sacrificed to 
achieve this end. Schools with enrollment areas which are not 
racially mixed will be given sufficiently small enrollment areas to 
permit reservation of seats for the underrepresented race(5) . . 
. . Elementary schools which have not yet achieved compliance with 
applicable desegregation standards shall reserve seats for 
students of the underrepresented race(s). 

Initial state review of this proposal suggested that the reassignment of 
students to their "enrollment area schools" would result in massive 
resegregation, and that the prospects of reversing this through voluntary 
recruitment to reserved seats were limited. This was particularly the case in 
view of Boston's poor track record on attracting students to the 
Court-designated "special desegregation schools". 

Survey of Parents 

A survey of 544 Boston residents was carried out in January 1985 by the 
firm of Martilla & Kiley, under commission from the CityWide Educational 
Coalition. 



44 



District 3 and 4 Modifications 
The primary purpose of the survey was to ascertain to what e>;tent 
paentsj particularly those who children are already enrolled in 
public elementary schools, would consider voluntarily sending their 
children to schools outside their own neighborhoods, in order to 
obtain enhanced educational values. 

Parent surveys have been a major component of desegregation planning 
and magnet school development in other Massachusetts cities, and there is a 
considerable amount of practical experience available on how to make such 
surveys useful for direct application to the implementation of successful 
desegregation. Unfortunately, no advantage was taken of this experience in 
designing the Martilla & Kiley study, and its usefulness is therefore quite 
limited compared with those conducted in Worcester and elsewhere, which 
characterstically reached much larger samples as well. 

Despite this reservation, several of the findings are useful and 
suggestive. Of the parents of students currently in the Boston Public Schools, 
for example, the following options received strong support: 

Absolutely Very Somewhat Total 

Essential Important Important 

"Small class sizes" 24% 49% 17% 90% 

"Day care services" 9% 35% 16% 60% 

"Two-way bilingual" 10% 42% 23% 75% 

"Strong discipline standards" 25% 51% 16% 92% 

"Back-to-basics approach" 21% 47% 19% 87% 

These are all characteristics which are subject to change in the interest of 
voluntary desegregation; that is, an extended school day or a "two-way 
bilingual" program can be provided at some locations, as in magnet schools 
elsewhere in the Commonwealth, or certain schools can give a special emphasis 
to teaching the basics or to an emphasis upon discipline and self-discipline, as 
in others. 



45 



District 3 and 4 Modifications 
It is notable that only 3% of public school parents gave as "absolutely 
essential" and 11% as "very important" that a school be attended exclusively by 
children from the neighborhood? while S3% said that was "not all that important". 
This could be interpreted as an acceptance of desegregation. 

When asked under what circumstances they would definitely send their 
children "by bus to a public school a few miles away" in preference to a public 
school in their neighborhood, 65% said that an excellent reputation and 62% said 
that a "magnet program for something you feel would be especially important for 
your children" would be the deciding consideration. 

Predictably* the School Committee cited the results of this survey in 
support of the proposed assignment modifications for districts 3 and 4, though 
there is no evidence to date of the direct application of these results to 
planning and developing strategies to make particular schools attractive to 
parents. 



Approval of a Test of the Proposed Assignment Modifications 

In a memorandum of February 20, 1985 the Court noted a shift in the 
strategy proposed to make the assignment procedures proposed for districts 3 
and 4 successful. 

As originally presented, the plan placed heavy emphasis on 

guaranteeing students a seat in their home assignment area. 

Apparently because of the resegregative impact of such an 

emphasis, attention has shifted to the open-enrollent aspect of the 

proposed plan which, it is hoped, will lead to voluntary 

desegregation. 

This observation was prescient, since the actual implementation of the new 

assignment process gave only minimal significance to the new "enrollment areas" 

developed on a contiguous basis, at the very end of the process of assigning 

students to each school. In subsequent years, when an ever-declining 

proportion of students would be assigned on the basis of the Court-odered 

assignment areas, it should be noted, these revised attendance areas could 



46 



District 3 and 4 Modifications 
have a mischievous effect, and their minor role in the present process should 
not be allowed to create a precedent for a larger role in the future. There 
should not be a guarantee of a school assignment based upon the new 
"enrollment areas". 

The Court dismissed the significance of the Martilla & Kiley survey, but 
ruled that the School Committee could test the new approach to assignments in 
districts 3 and 4, in conformity with an explanatory letter of February 15 from 
Attorney Henry Dinger, who stated that 

The DI will make an initial determination whether the preferences 
expressed by parents in the consolidated district will permit a set 
of assignments consistent with those preferences which does not 
substantially diminish the degree of desegregation which currently 
exists in districts 3 and 4. 
If this turned out not to be possible, the experiment would be abandoned and the 
assignments made by the usual method, 



The Application and Assignment Process 

In a letter dated March 28, 1985 to "School Persons and Parent-Residents 
of Districts III and IV," Department of Implementation Senior Officer John 
Coakley provided information on how the new application and assignment process 
would work (see attached). The purpose of the new process, he explained, was 
"to achieve as much desegregation as presently exists, but m a more voluntary 
way." 

The letter explained that certain schools would be starred on each 
application form, and these starred schools would be guaranteed assignments 't 
selected. In each case these were schools for which a particular student would 
help desegregation. 

Two examples of such computer-generated application forms, with the 
names removed, are attached. Both students currently attend the Lee 

Elementary School, located in a predominantly-Black area. One of the students 



47 



District 3 and A Modifications 
IS Black, and is guaranteed the present school where he is attending Kl, the 
"community district school" (that is, the school to which the student is 
"geocoded" under the Court-ordered assignment areas), and nine schools (the 
Bates through the Sumner) located in predominantly-White areas. The student 
opted to remain at the Lee. Note that the option of the "community district 
school" IS the result of the Court's recent approval of the option of students 
attending, for kindergarten, the schools to which they are "geocoded" for first 
grade; this student will not be guaranteed to remain at the Lee for first grade. 

The other student is White, and is guaranteed the present school (which 
also is the "community district school" for this student), as well as four schools 
(the Chittick through the Taylor) located in predominantly-Black areas. The 
student opted for the advanced work class at the Lee, which is not a guaranteed 
assignment, since such assignments are governed by separate requirements 
based on an assessment of academic ability as well as on racial/ethnic goals. 
Presumably the parents know whether or not their child was nominated for this 
program. 

The new application process was tested only at the elementary level. 

The School Committee's May 7, 1985 filing with the Court reported that 
In districts 3 and 4, 3,101 elementary students out of 3,793 (32%) 
who made a choice received their first choice and 3,459 (91%) 
received one of their first three choices. , . . Only 2S9 students 
in grades 1-5 who made a choice received none of their first three 
preferences. This number may be reduced even further in 

connection with the recruitment incentive program and the 
integrated neighborhood enhancement program. The DI hopes to 
work with these students and their parents individually to reduce 
even further the number of "forced" assignments. 

It was the process used for mal-nng the assignments, more even than the 
projcted results, which was of concern to the monitor; this process was 
reviewed with the Department of Implementation on April 2bth and frequently 



District 3 and 4 Modifications 
thereafter. It involved a number of steps calculated to assure that maximum 
benefit was taken of any parent choices which supported desegregation. 

(a.i The initial steps involved honoring all guaranteed first choicest 
including those wishing to remain in the present school (exceptj in some cases, 
for the K2-grade 1 transition), those wishing their geocoded school, those in the 
kidergarten of a magnet school wishing to remain there, White students 
requesting one of the five schools in predominantly Black areas, and Black and 
other minority students requesting one of the eleven schools in predominantly 
White areas. In addition, students whose parents did not file an application wh 
assigned automatically to their present schools (that is, none of them were 
reassigned elsewhere because of the lack of an application), except for those 
whose geocoded school is different for grades 1-5 than for kindergarten. 

Students newly eligible for and desiring an assignment to an Advanced 
Work Class were assigned to the appropriate one. 

(b) First choices for magnet schools were granted to the extent possible 
under the racial/ethnic guidelines, on the basis of "computerized random 
selection by seat availability," as in the past. Three or four White students 
were thereby permitted to leave one of the five schools in predominantly Black 
areas; the monitor reviewed each of these cases with the Department of 
Implementation. 

CBy this point in the process, the great majority of the students had been given 
assignments, with either their first choice or the school to which they would 
have been assigned under the present assignment rules in any case, in default 
of an application for a different assignment, D 

(c) Students who could not, for whatever reason, be granted their first 
choices were then given their second choices, so far as possible; to present 
schools, geocoded schools, other "guaranteed" schools, magnet schools, etc. 
Then as many as possible of the remaining students were given their third 
choices. 



49 



District 3 and 4 Modifications 

(d) At this point in the process? with less than a hundred students 
remaining to be assigned) attempts were made to honor those requests based 
upon the new assignment areas which would enhance or not change "the racial 
quotas of both the sending and receiving schools." 

(e) After that step, attempts were made to honor requests for 
"non-geocoded schools" which were not related to the assignment areas, under 
the same restriction as above. 

To the extent that some of these students (at steps d and e) were White 
students already enrolled in and attending schools in predominantly Black areas 
an Black and other minority students already enrolled in and attending schools 
in predominantly White areas, these assignments could cause resegregation 
problems and indeed present cause for a new liability action. For that reason, 
they were subjected to special scrutiny by the monitor, and discussed with the 
Department of Implementation. 

The monitor concluded that the number involved was so small in the 
present process (for e>;ample, four White students leaving the Lee and other 
schools in predominantly Black areas) as not to warrant rerunning the 
assignments, particularly in view of the fact that at least some of them could 
move under the Court-approved provisions for transfers. It would be his 
suggestion in any further consideration of this pilot approach to assignments, 
that such movement not be permitted under the assignment process but instead 
be handled as an individual transfer immediately subsequent to assignments. 
This would be desirable in order to close what is presently a very small loophole 
but could become a signficantly larger one depending upon how the Department 
of Implementation interpreted the provision about enhancing or not changing the 
racial quotas. Thus, for example, the initial assignments for the Lee School 
project desegregation compliance, but that could well change when actual 
enrollments are available, at which time the transfer of White students out of 
the school would appear to have been unwise. The transfer process is more 
suited than is the assignment process to assure the necessary control in the 
interest of desegregation. 



50 



District 3 and 4 Modifications 
Conclusions and Recomrimendations 

The process of applications and assignments for the consolidated 
districts was planned and implemented very well. 

Not only do initial assignments appear at least as positive for 
desegregation as those made last year, but there is reason to believe that the 
actual results (m terms of the number of students who take their assigned 
seats) will show improvement. 

The new assignment areas developed at an early stage m the evolution of 
this modified approach to assignments played a very minor role (represented by 
the sequence of steps d and e, and effecting only a handful of students). These 
designated areas do not contribute to desegregation, and could readily lead to 
false expectations in the future. They should be abandoned. 

The movement of students whose presence desegregates the schools which 
they are attending out of those schools should be handled through the transfer 
process rather than through the assignment process. 

Efforts enhance the distinctiveness and attractiveness of every school 
should be one of the primary expectations for the principal of that school. 
Detailed suggestions are included as one of the attachments to the discussion 
of the Recruitment Incentive Program. 

The approach to applications and assignments which was tested in 
districts 3 and 4 merits replication elsewhere in the system. It passes the test 
of protecting and even enhancing desegregation while also increasing the number 
of choices available to parents and the likelihood that they will receive their 
choices. 



51 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 



;/ 



BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

DEPARTMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION 
Jonn R. Coaklev, Senior Officer 

March 28, 
MEMORANDUM 



1985 



TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 



School Persons and Parent-Residents of Districts III and IV 

John R. CoakleyNiy^./jTXj^^i^^ 

Consolidated DKtrict AssTgnmei^ Plan for Elementary Schools 
in Districts 1 1 1 and IV 



njtii.5___ 1^ the new plan works student assignments wi 11 be issued on or 
nay Isty If it fails, we will use the Student Assignment Process of 



="> 



On February 20, I985 the Federal Court gave us conditional approval to 
try a new elementary school assignment plan in Districts III and IV. 

The Application Forms for elementary school residents of Districts III 
and IV will be Issued on or about April 1, I985 and collected no later than 
April I 
about 
the last ten" years and try to issue an assignment on or about May 15th. 

PURPOSE OF THE NEW ASSIGNMENT PLAN 

To provide each parent with more school possibilities and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, 
to achieve as much desegregation in each elementary school. In other words, 
to achieve as much desegregation as presently exists, but in a more voluntary 
way. 

OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO YOU 

- Your present school, if printed on your application 

- Your Community District school (i.e., your so-called 



Your designated area school which is a comparatively 
nearby school. Assignment is _not qjiaiiaxitee d . but you 
have a priority over students of the same race. 



Guaranteed schools which are starred on the application 
form. Your enrollment in one such school obviously 
helps desegregation. 

All other schools in the two districts which are not 
starred. 

The ten citywide magnet schools (from the Curley to the 
Trotter) which are at the bottom of the form. 



CAUTION: If al 1 parents 


choose the desi^^nated 


area schools 


OR other nearby schools, 


the new plan pr^babVy 


wi 1 1 not be 


allowed, and on or about 


May 15th we wi 1 1 have 


to issue 


assignments according to 


geocodes 





bm J26 COURT STREET, BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS O; 



52 



'26-«'OC^ EXT 5500, 726-6555, EXT 5500 AREA 617 



Some Questions and Answers 

1. How many choices do I have? 

Our pre-printed Application Form states you have three choices, 
BUT we will a! low you i^VE choices. 

2. What will be different about the listed schools? 

You really can't judge difference unless you speak to principals 
and teachers of a school--or, better still, arrange to visit a school. 

3. Will these schools have extra staff or new programs? 

The Massachusetts Board of Education is allowing us to spend 
$300,000 i-n Chapter 636 funds In the elementary schools of the two 
districts in I985-86. Shortly, we will be asking the principals to 
submit proposals for using that money in their schools. 

4. Why are some schools starred? 

A school is starred, if It is guaranteed. In some cases your 
present school or community district school is guaranteed. Then either 
one set of schools or the other set is guaranteed. White students are 
guaranteed the following starred schools: Chittick, Lee, Mattahunt, 
P. Shaw, Taylor. Black and Other Minority students are guaranteed 
the other eleven schools of the two districts. 



5. Will transportation be provided? 

Transportation is guaranteed to any elementary school student 
living a mile or more from the school to which he is assigned. 

6. Will overcrowding result? 

We will assign children in accordance with each school's 
court-approved capacity. That is why it is best to express several 
school choices. 



7. is the assignment just for one year? 

If your child is assigned to a local kindergarten, that assignment 
might not be guaranteed for grade one, except in a magnet school. 
However, if your child Is assigned to grade one to four of the consoli- 
dated district he or she will be allowed to remain there through grade 
five unless, of course, you move out of the consolidated district or 
choose another school option in another year. 



• 2 
53 



8. Do you have any literature which might help me? 

The CItywide Education Coalition has printed an excellent FACT 
SHEET. The CItywide Parents' Council assisted in this effort. 

Call CWEC at 5A2-2835 
Call CPC at itae-ZASO 

9. Who in the School Department can help me? 

The School Information Center of the Department of Implementation at 726-6555 

The Student Services Unit of the Department of Implementation at 726-6200, 

#5533 to 5539 

The External Liaison Unit of the Department of Implementation at 726-6200, 

#5559 to 5565 

The Record Management Unit of the Department of Implementation at 726-6200, 

#5513 S 5514 

My Office at 726-6200, #5500 to 5502 

Or. Ellison's Office at 726-6200, #5503 & 5504 

The District III Office at 323-6020 

The District IV Office at 36A-3033 

Individual Schools: See page 6 of Blue Pages of Phone Directory 



54 



I. PERSONAL INFORMATION; 



BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

APPLICATION FOR STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 
SCHOOL YEAR 1985-86 



08/21/79 



UST NAME OF STUOINT 

Kl iZi 



FIRST 

LEE ELEMENTARY 



D.O.8. 
I 



PRESENT GRADE hOM«- «0£,'^ ''ftsENT SCHOOl 

ST BOSTON 02124 



C33 



4290 8 19674 



If printed address Is incorrect, please 
attach copies of two pre-prlnted 
proofs of your correct address (e.g. 
utility bills, driver's license). 



Sa. 



n 



B. 



CHECK EITHER Hi)x "A" qh BOX 'B". DO NOT CHECK BOTH BOXES 



WANT TO 8£ ASSIGNED FOR THE SCHOOL YEARi Sa5-86 TO MY 



5fW>h 



DO nOT ^'V^N^•■TQ ;v\AKE ANY OTHER CHOICE. I UNDERSTAND I SHALL 8E 
ASSIGNtO AUTOMATICALLY TO THIS SCHOOL. 



PRESENT SCHOOL 

LEE ELEMENTARY 



i?^^Ol 



YOl/ CHECK h()x "A " MAKE NO CHOICES BELOW AND SIGN THIS APPLICATION AT THE BOTTOM 



I WANT TO MAKE One or more choices FOR THE SCHOOl YEAR 1985-86 | UNDERSTAND THAT 
IF I DO NOT RECSlVl ONE OF MY CHOICES. I SHALL BE ASSIGNED TO MY PRESENT SCHOOL 

LEE ELEMENTARY 



• MARK NUMBER JEirNEXT TO THE NAME OF THE SCHOOL OF YOUR FIRST CHOICE 

• MARK NUMBER \t ,nEXT TO THE NAME OF THE SCHOOL OF YOUR SECOND CHOICE 

• MARK NUMBER JL^nEXT TO THE NAME OF THE SCHOOL OF YOUR THIRD CHOICE 

• SIGN THIS APPLM5^XI0N AT BOTTOM 

''^Z J^ Sa eS^^pRES£i*T'sCH60L.r.T;n::-r*«'***"r.r*.LE^ ELEMENTAItY:S£."^S:3 

^ ^^21 ti:-) EXTENDED DAY PRGGRAN AT LEE ELEMENTARY^ ,.^„„_ 

^:- ^C26 t ^ , -COM«UWLIY.DISmiCLT SCHOOL-***** PHILBRICK ELEMENT ARIfeKS 

\'Ai{.^ BATES ELEMENTARY ***** _ ^^ .^r^^r^^ 

r':^-:^^' A2. C% t:&EETt»VEM, ELEMENT ARr"Ji:_ ***** ^ . M:rf.^ 

/3 i ,) CHANNING ELEMENTARY ****' 

'T-'XT=^£^*'^ fe«^»'f"CHlTTlCK ELEMENT ARY;;W^w. ^^ I'^-'i'J 

_^ A5 I ) CONLEY ELEMENTARY ***** 

Z'^'J.C: A6. l I E« GREENWCOO^LE«ENtMC^.Z***** 11 

A7 i ' ) GREW ELEMENTARY ***** 

' AB ( , ICILME^ ELEMENTARY ' ^ ^ ;X:" f***'^JL.l^ ' 
Bl t } MATTAHUNT ELEMENTARY 
^ 84 I . J f^. ROOSEVELT ELEMENTARY^ ' ***;** ^'"" 
B5 ( )'p.A, SHAW ELEMENTARY* 
-'^T^^ 86 t , J-SUHNER^ELEMENTARIC: ~^'^i;^Z^**^ ^ ^ ' ' 

B7 t , j'tAYLOR" ELEMENTARY 
,„J^. 09 A _ J 'EXTENDED DAY PROGRAM AT 'ADAMS'^* ^--^s^^^^^. 
P t^. ) extended" DAY PRCGRAM'aT HERNANDEZ (ENGLI^^H) 

17 *Tv') HALEY ELEMENTARY 
-^ ' 30" r i ) VjACKSat-MANH ELEHENTARY^'^ r^^^^.-.^ ■ '"'"g 

32 C )' GhRENSEFGER ELEMENTARY 
. 33 C ) 'TROTTER Et EME NTARY' . ^'Jt^ 7 '1 '^"' , ^ " ^ . J^ 

3-* H ) EXTENDED DAY PROGRAM GUILD 
- -IP-*. 35- t rcXTENDEff- DAY PROGRAM HALE-^'- - -^ 

36 ( ) EXTENDED DAY PRCGRAM HENNIGAN 

'" 3T ( r EXTENDED DAY" PRCGRAM MCKAY' ■ ♦ " ' \.\l''^m^^^^^S!^^ 

NOTE I A STARRED SCHOOL (*****) IS A GUARANTEED SCHOOL. 

NOTE 2 A DESIGNATED AREAjSCHOOL. IS NOT GUARANTEED. lil"! 

■.^^.-,„. .... . - r. -: •^#f■I^''^■v«J^•»s• --^s*«•^f-■"^,^u?»r->» - ,. • -«^iisK'i;&TR'.ja'! 

SIGNATURE OF PARENT C* 0'-'*'"^'*'^ DATE 55 SIGNATURE OF STUDENT (IF 18 YEARS OF ACE OR CIDER) 

■ " — ■- ! jr:^ i-'^ "" 4290 819674 — - 

RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO The HOMEROOM TEACHER «v _ 04/11/85 Kgcp BOTTOM COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS 

USE Aun 8MI THC ENVFinPF PRnVIDED FnR THE RETURN OF THIS APPLICATION 



I. PERSONAL INFORMATION: 



BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

APPLICATION FOR STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 
SCHOOL YEAR 1985-86 
08/13/76 



LAST NAME Of STUDENT 

03 C1.3 



Piljf 

LEg ELEMENTARY 



D.O.8. 

2 



--9A0F HOME. ROOM PRESEN' S'-'^°9i_ 

ST BOSTON 02132 



STREET NAME 



D 



HECK EITHER BOX A" OR BOX -q... qq NOT CHECK BOTH BOXES 



I WANT TO BE ASSIGN«0 P*^" ^"^ SCHOOL YEAR 19 85- 86 TO MY 

I DO NOT WANT TO mAK6 ANY OTHgR CHOICE. I UNDERSTAND I SHALL BE 
ASSIGNED AUTOMATICALLY TO THIJ SCHOOL. 



4290 788319 



If printed address is incorrect, please 
attach copies of two pre-printed 
proofs of your correct address (e.g. 
utility bills, driver's license). 



63/y 



PRESENT SCHOOL 

LEE ELEMENTARY 



IF YOU CHECK BOX A." MAKE Uq CHOICES BELOW AND SIGN THIS APPLICATION AT THE BOTTOM 



^B 



1 WANT TO MAKE ONfi 0" '^^"^ CHOICES FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR 1985~86 , UNDERSTAND THAT 
IF I DO NOT RECEIVE 0^6 ^^ '^'^ CHOICES, 1 SHALL BE ASSIGNED TO MY PRESENT SCHOOL 



LEE ELEMENTARY 



• MARK NUMBER J_{N6XT TO TH| NAME OF THE SCHOOL OF YOUR FIRST CHOICE 

• MARK NUMBER J_>N6XT TO THJ mamE OF THE SCHOOL OF YOUR SECOND CHOICE 

• MARK NUMBER -S- NEXT TO TH| n^mE OF THE SCHOOL OF YOUR THIRD CHOICE 

• SIGN THIS APPLICATION AT BOTTOM 

50 ( j-pREsiKt'scH0GLr7i.rrn--r;***^^-^^^^ 

23 t><y^ADVANCED UORK CLASS AT.-.. LEE ELEMENTARY 



St^^^^. 



NOTE 1 
NOTE 2 



h«OESIQ><itxED AREA. SCHOOL 
,) BATES ELEMENTARY 
J BEETHCfVEN ELEMENTARY '/I ^ 
) CHANNiNG ELEMENTARY 
rCHITTiCK^ ELEMENTARY Z.'l 
) CONLEY ELEMENTARY 
i E. GRtENWOOO ELEMENTARY. 
) GREW 6LEMENTARY 
) MATTAHuNT ELEMENTARY 
) MOZART ELEMENTARY 
) PHILQUicK ELEMENTARY 
) f' RQOSEVELT ELEMENTARY 

y **•*• Shaw elementary 

) SUMNEl^ elementary 
)TAYLQH elementary 

) cuRLSy elementary 

J GUILD ELEMENTARY 

) HALE Elementary 

) HALEY elementary 

) HENNI(jAfg ELEMENTARY 

J HERNANDEZ elementary 

) JACkson-mann elementary 

) mckay elementary cprogram ends at grade 6j 

) OHRcNBERGER ELEMENTARY 

) TRQTTia ELEMENTARY 
A STARRSO SCHOOL (**^**) IS A GUARANTEED SCHOOL. 
A DESIGNATED ARea SCHOOL IS NOT GUARANTEED. 



27 1 

Al ( 
A2 t 
A3 t 
A4 I 
A5 ( 
A^ { 
A7 ( 
Bl { 

82 { 

83 ( 

84 { 
B5.( 

86 ( 

87 ( 
14 ( 
L5 I 

16 ( 

17 < 

18 ( 

19 { 

30 ( 

31 { 

32 ( 

33 I 



KILMER ELEMENTARY^f^^ 



»**»*7r 



.;^ 



OATS 



^ 



k290 7 



56 
58319 



SIGNATURE Of STUDENT (IF 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER) 



RETURN THIS APPLICATION TO THE HOMEROOM TEACHER BY 04/11/85 (^ggp BOTTOM COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS 

USE AND SEAL THg ENVELOPE PROVIDED FOR THE RETURN OF THIS APPLICATION 



BILINGUAL ASSIGNMENTS IN BOSTON 
Overview 

Data on some 7,800 students enrolled in bilingual education 
programs in Boston was analyzed to determine how many had been 
enrolled for at least twice as long as the three years suggested 
by the Massachusetts Transitional Bilingual Education Law, what 
degree of mastery of English-language skills had been achieved by 
these long-term students, and to what extent their educational 
programs included significant "mainstreaming" in monolingual 
English-speaking classes. 

One-third of the students in middle and high school 
bilingual programs have spent six or more years in such 
programs. In the absence of satisfactory data (which the Board 
will now seek) on actual student achievement, this length of 
enrollment may mean, in individual cases, either that a student 
has not been helped effectively to become "bilingual" and thus 
able to function in a mainstream class, ^£ that he or she has 
acquired such skills and has been retained in the program 
inappropriately. 

Two distinct patterns were identified: (1) a substantial 
number of Hispanic students remain in the program for six or more 
years without — according to the data available — achieving the 
working knowledge of English which would permit them to take 
advantage of the educational and career opportunities available 
in the Boston area, and (2) a substantial number of Italian- 



57 



speaking (and, to a lesser extent, of Greek-speaking students) 
remain in the program for six or more years despite having 
achieved full fluency in English. 

The first problem is essentially an equity issue, the second 
essentially a desegregation issue. While a final judgment must 
await confirmation of the accuracy of language assessments made 
by Boston bilingual staff, the information already available 
suggests that these problems are of serious dimensions. 

EQUITY AND DESEGREGATION 

If the Boston Public Schools are meeting their equity 
responsibility to limited English-proficient students, by 
teaching them English effectively and as rapidly as each 
student's abilities permit and then "mainstreaming" them, there 
can be no serious desegregation problem about the assignment of 
these students to transitional bilingual programs for the time 
necessary to acquire these skills. If, on the other hand, 
students are taught English ineffectively or, having mastered 
English, are not "mainstreamed" , then the system has created an 
"educational deadend or permanent track." In either of these 
cases student rights would be violated, desegregation would be 
frustrated, and the requirements of Massachusetts law would be 
evaded. 

This analysis does not inquire into the effectiveness of the 
instruction in English-language skills in Boston's bilingual 
programs, or whether the procedures prescribed by Boston's 



Voluntary Lau Plan (an agreement between the School Committee and 
the Bilingual Master Parent Advisory Council, April 30th 1985) to 
determine when students are ready for "mainstreaming" are being 
implemented appropriately. These issues shall be addressed by 
the State Board in further monitoring of Boston and other 
Massachusetts school districts, under its authority to enforce 
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 71A, the Transitional 
Bilingual Education statute. What this analysis can do is to 
determine to what extent students, for whatever reason, remain 
well beyond the statutorily prescribed three-year period in at 
least some of Boston's bilingual programs. If it is demonstrated 
that this is the case, then we have a desegregation problem whose 
precise solution will depend upon educational as well as 
assignment measures. 

The Department of Implementation, Boston Public Schools 
provided two print-outs upon which this analysis has largely 
depended. Each lists, for each school with one or more bilingual 
program, each student in such program by name, identification 
number, and language code. One (dated 11/6/84) shows "step" and 
"Lau category" and the school in which the student was enrolled 
in a bilingual program for each year starting with 1977-8 and 
continuing to the present. Thus, for example, one student on the 
print-out was in the bilingual program at the Hurley School in 
1977-8 and 1978-9, in the bilingual program at the Taft Middle 
School in 1979-80 and 1980-1, and has been in the bilingual 
program at Brighton High School each year since 1981-2. 



59 



The second print-out (dated 12/13/84) shows, for the same 
students, the address, sex, race, grade, homeroom, and whether 
the student is in one of the "special needs" prototypes. This 
analysis takes note of special needs, though without conceding 
that such students are not entitled to be taught English as 
promptly as possible. 

Difficulties of Interpretation of the Data 

(1) The 11/6/84 print-out does not indicate whether the 
student was in the bilingual program before 1977-8, though that 
is entirely possible. In the discussion which follows, 
therefore, we will sometimes refer to students who have been "at 
least eight years" in the program. 

(2) The data available do not show the successes of the 
bilingual program, the students who within a reasonable number of 
years are able to perform ordinary class work in English and go 
on to take advantage of the many educational opportunities which 
require such skills. There is need of a longitudinal study of 
the entire population of students who, in a given year in the 
past, were in bilingual programs, showing how they progressed in 
all areas of the curriculum both before and after they were 
"mainstreamed" . 

(3) There are conflicting views about the current accuracy 
of the " Lau categories" which are provided for most students, and 
which are an indication of relative proficiency in English and in 
the language spoken in each student's home. 



60 



A Speaks only a language other than English 
B Speaks predominantly a language other than English 
C Speaks both English and another language equally 
D Speaks predominantly English 
E Speaks English only 
It appears that in some cases the Lau categories shown reflect 
initial assessments when a student entered the program which have 
not been up-dated in a number of years, while in other cases they 
reflect current assessments. The uncertainty presumably works 
only one way, however: students may know more English than the 
Lau category indicates (if it has not been updated) but they 
presumably do not know less . 

(4) Another item of information about most students is a 
"step," indicating the proportion of each student's time which 
should be spent in a "mainstream" class. These indicate: (as 
described by the Voluntary Lau Plan) 

Step 2 a student receives all academic and some non- 
academic instruction in bilingual education 
classes 
Step 3 a student receives most academic and some non- 
academic instruction in bilingual education 
classes 
Step 4 a student is mainstreamed for most or all 

academic and non-academic subjects with the 
option to take elective bilingual subjects as 
space is available 



61 



step 5 a student is totally mainstreamed; the student's 
progress is reviewed periodically and bilingual 
support services such as counselling are 
provided as needed 
For as long as a student remains at Step 5, according to the Lau 
Plan, he or she is to be assigned as a bilingual program student; 
no time limit is provided. 

A difficulty with interpreting the steps is that it is hard 
to determine to what extent the prescription which they represent 
is actually carried out. The fact that certain students are 
designated to spend part of each day in "mainstream" classes does 
not necessarily mean that they do so, especially since pupil 
numbers have risen in such classes. Monolingual teachers may be 
unwilling to take on additional students from bilingual classes 
which already have a lower enrollment. This problem has been 
noted in the Board's monitoring reports. 

Information on both the Lau categories and the steps is 
subject to correction based upon a review of student records to 
determine to what extent these indicators reflect student 
progress and readiness for educational integration. Such a 
review has been undertaken by a special monitoring team and shall 
continue into the Fall. 

It must be noted clearly what is not in question in this 
review of student records: the number of years that students 
have been in the program is sufficiently documented by the data 
provided by the Department of Implementation, and there 
presumably is no question about the students identified as being 



62 



predominantly fluent in English. What _i£ in question is whether 
as many students are severely deficient in English as the Lau 
categories would indicate, if those categories reflect current 
assessments. If they are not, the question will remain, why they 
have remained for so long in the program, and whether the current 
assessments required by state law and by the voluntary Lau Plan 
are being carried out and given appropriate weight in the student 
assignment process. 

The Analysis 

For purposes of this report, the student listings for all 
bilingual programs were reviewed. Comparative data on all 
programs serving students in grades 6-8 (including elementary and 
high schools with those grades), and on selected high school 
programs, are presented in a number of tables. Data on 
elementary programs includes only the number and proportion of 
the students at each school who are at steps 4 and 5, or 
integrated for a significant portion of their studies. 

Particular attention was given to programs for students who 
speak Spanish, Greek, and Italian; several other programs have 
grown so rapidly in recent years that it would be confusing to 
compare the length of time students have remained in them with 
that in longer-established programs. 



63 



ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OVERVIEW 

There were 4437 students enrolled in bilingual programs at 
the elementary level (K-5) in December 1984. Most students in 
bilingual programs at the elementary level have not been in the 
schools long enough to exceed the three years which, under 
Massachusetts law, is the recommended length for a transitional 
program except under exceptional circumstances. 

It is of some significance, however, to determine how many 
of the elementary bilingual program students are at steps 4 and 
5, indicating that they are ready for and participating in 
educational "mainstreaming" . Table 1 presents this information. 

Of thirty-two elementary-level bilingual programs, only 
seven have one or more students at step 5, indicating full 
mainstreaming with continued support, and seventeen (or slightly 
over half) have one or more students at step 4, indicating 
mainstreaming for most work. In fourteen elementary-level 
programs there are jio students who are being mainstreamed, 
according to Boston's data. 

There may be students who have been completely mainstreamed 
while in elementary school, and thus are no longer reported as 
bilingual program students. The follow-up study on students who 
were in the program in the past will provide information about 
this mainstreaming, and whether students had developed adequate 
English-language skills and were receiving adequate follow-up 
support to make the transition successfully. 



64 



m^^ STEP 4 ^ 5 Ef IROLLMENT OF ELEMENT^-r BILINGUAL FROGf 
(c-oes not include Echoo- wi:h bningual only at kince: 



SCHOOL 


Language 


Total 


Step 4 


Baldwin 


Chinese 


115 


1 


Gardner 


Span i sh 


117 





Hami 1 ton 


Khnisr 


159 


C3 


Too in k-5 


Spanish 


140 





Winship 


Spanish 


117 





Agassi r 


Spanish 


197 





Ellis 


Spanish 


lie 





Kennedy 


Spanish 


187 


1 


Matt a hunt 


Greek 


115 


4 




Spanish 


7S 


1 


Greenwood 


Spanish 


125 


. 


Holland 


Spanish 


134 


1 


Marshall 


Spanish 


155 





Murphy 


'French 


205 


.15 


Condon C 


:. Verdsan 


116 


6 




Spanish 


9C5 


1 


Dever 


Spanish 


14CD 


1 


Russell 


Spanish 


77 


2 


Tynan C 


. Verdean 


132 





Blackstone 


Spanish 


323 


6 


Hurley 


Spanish 


84 


4 


Kent 


Chinese 


137 


4 


Qu i n cy 


Chinese 


279 


2 


Otis 


Spanish 


61 







Italian 


75 


2 


P 


ortuguese 


ei 





Hennigan 


Spanish 


192 


17 




Other 


24 ■• 





Hernandez 


Spanish 


91 


7 


J. -Mann V 


ietnarriese 


205 





McKay 


Italian 


42 





Ohrenberger 


Lao 


59 






Step 5 7. 4 + 5 






E.Ci 





e.50 


G 


B.es 


Q 


B.S3 





0.00 


^0 


e.s5 


e 


B.SG 


1 


0.01 





0.03 





0.01 


e 


0.00 


• 


0.01 


■0 .. 


0.00 


1 


B.es 


e 


B.05 





B.Oi 


2 


0.02 





e.co 


1 


0.01 


3 


0.03 





0.05 





0.03 





0.01 





0.00 





0.03 





0.00 


5 


0.11 





0.0S 


1 


0.09 





0.00 





0.03 





0.00 



4162 75 14 0.02 



65 



Several schools have a higher than average proportion of 
their bilingual program students at steps 4 and 5: the Hennigan 
(Spanish: 11%), the Hernandez (Spanish: 9%), the Murphy 
(French/Haitian: 8%), the Condon (Cape Verdean: 5%), the Hurley 
(Spanish: 5%). It will be important to determine what factors 
contribute to the apparently greater degree of partial 
mainstreaming at these schools. Overall, only 2% of students in 
elementary bilingual programs are at steps 4 and 5, and the 
proportion drops to less than 1% if these five schools are 
excepted. 

MIDDLE SCHOOL OVERVIEW 

Middle schools lend themselves best to this analysis. In a 
high school program there may be many students who entered the 
country and the public schools after a number of years of study 
in another language; such students will find it more necessary to 
continue subject-matter work in the native language, and may also 
find it more difficult to master English. Students in a middle 
school who have been enrolled in a bilingual program for six, 
seven, eight or more years — for their entire period of 
schooling — suggest a problem either with the way they have been 
taught English or with the way in which their readiness for the 
educational mainstream has been assessed. In either case there 
is both an equity and a desegregation problem, for the reasons 
noted above. 



66 



In late 1984 there were approximately 1500 students in 
bilingual programs in grades 6-8, most of them in middle 
schools. One-third of these students (485 students), and 46% of 
the Spanish- speaking students, had been in a bilingual program in 
Boston since kindergarten or first grade. 

Table 2 provides information about bilingual program 
students in grades 6-8, showing the total enrollment of each 
program, the number and proportion of the students who have been 
in a bilingual program for six or more years, and, of these, the 
number who have been in a bilingual program for eight or more, 
seven and six years. 

Table 3 shows the number of students in each grades 6-8 
program who have been in bilingual education for six or more 
years, broken out by Lau category, and the proportion of all of 
these long-term students who are reported as being in each of the 
four categories. There are 180 students in category A (speaking 
a language other than English exclusively) or 37% of all grade 6 
- 8 students who have been in a bilingual program for at least 
six years. Another 29% are in category B, speaking "some 
English. " 

The proportion of the long-term students who are in category 
A ranges from 88% in the Cape Verdean program at the Dearborn and 
60% in the Portuguese program at the Barnes to an average of 38% 
in the eleven Spanish programs to 16% in the Italian program at 
the Barnes and 15% in the Greek program at the Irving. 

A few (thirty-nine) of the long-term middle school bilingual 
program students are in Lau category D, indicating that they 



67 



T?Me 2: GRADE S-S BILIMGUAL PROGP*;MS BV YEARS ID PPOGRmH 



TOTAL 6+ years '/. of- Total B+ years 7th year 6th year 

73 55 0.75 39 5 " 11 

70 2 0.03 D 2 

70 2S 0.40 10 5 13 

11 1 1 1 . 03 6 -5 

17S 62 .0.35 30 11 ' 6 

2'9 13 0.45 5 - 2 6 

es . e.os e ' e . e= 

101 1 0.01 . 1 B o 

97 32^ 0.33 10 4 IS 

117 16 0.14 .3 2 11 

103 33 0.35 15 13 .10 

IAS 3 0.02 1 B 2 

91 45 0.49 27 11 7 

57 55 0.96 29 13 13 

23 . 10 0.36 4 1 -• 5 

16 1 0.06 1 

21 2 0.10 2 

13 10 0.56 9 1 C 

63 39 0.62 20 7 12 

92 55 0.60 24 12 IS 
9 7 0.73 1 -6 

1435 435 0.33 233 S9 143 



68 



GRADE b-S BILIt-lGUAL PF0GRAH3 £ 

(studentz- anrolled si>; or nior" 

NOTE: percents roay not total IDCv 

Eovne students. 



■>J CATEGORY 

5rs) 

5use no Lau catEgory is giver, for 



Lau A v. of- 6+ Lau B X of- 6+ Lau C 7. of 6+ Lau D '/. of 6-^ 



Edison 

Spanish 

Vieir 
Taft 

Spani sh 
Tobin 

Spani sh 
Cur ley 

Span i sh 
Irving 

Greet:; 

Khmr/La 
Leuienber 

French 
CI eve Ian 

Spani sh 
Dearborn 

CVerdea 
McCbrrr.ac 

Spanish 

Ch inese 

Timilty 
Span i sh 

Barnes 
I tal ian 
Portug 
Span i sh 

UfTiana 
Chines- 
Spanish 

King 
Span i sh 

Mactiey 
Span ish 

McKa-j 
Italian 

TOTAL 



16 . 29 

2 i.eg 

11 0.39 

3 . 0.27 
22 0.35 

2 . 0.15 


'O.OS 
10 0.3i 

14 0.83 
19 0.50 

3 1.00 

15 0.40 

9 0.16 

6 0. 60 

1 1 . CO 

1 0.50 

2 0.20 

17 0.44 

22 0.40 

2 . 29 

ISO 0.37 



14 0.25 

0.B3 

5 0.1S 

3 0.27 
18 0.29 

4 0.31 



. 00 
"14 0.44 

1 . 06 

12 Q.32 
0.00 

14 0.31 

13 . 24 
3 0.30 

. 00 

1 0.50 
3 0.30 

12 0.31 

20 0.36 

3 0.43 

140 0.29 



22 


0.40 





0.00 


9 


0.32 


5 


0. 45 


11 


O.-IS 


4 


0.31 







1 


1.00 


7 


0-22 


1 


0.06 


6 


0. 16 





0.00 


9 


0.20 


20 


0.36 


• . 


0.00 





0.00 





0.00 


4 


0.40 


7 


O.IS 


IQ 


0. IS 





0.00 


116 


0.2'V 



3 


0.05 





e.oo 


2 


0.07 





0.03 


4 


■ 0.06 


3 


0.23 










0.00 


1 


0.03 





0.00 





0.00 





o.es 


4 


0.09 


13 


0.24 


1 


0. 10 





0.03 





0.00 


1 


0.10 


2 


0.05 


3 


0.05 


2 


0.29 


39 


CCS 



69 



Edis-on 

Spanish 

Viet 
Taft 

Spanish 
Tobin 

Spanish 
Cur 1 ey 

Span ish 
Irving 

Greek 

Kh(Tir/La 
Lemenber 

French 
CI eve Ian 

Span ish 
Dearborn 

CVerdsa 
McCormac 

Spanish 
Ed'xiards 

Chinese 
Timi 1 ty 

Sp^inish 
Barnes 

Italian 

For tug 

Spani sh 
UfTiana 

Chinese 

Spanish 
King 

Spanish 
Macl::ey 

Spanish 
McKay 

Italian 



GRAuE 0-3 BILirJGUAL PROGSAi-;; E' •' STEP 
istudentE enrolled si-; or -.zon yes^Bj 
NOTE: percents may not total 100% because no step is gi..-i.T fo; 
Eome students. 



Step 2 y. of 6+ Step 3 X of 6-f- Step 4 % of 6+ Ste? 5 '/. pf 6+ 



26 


0.47 


1 


D.5EI 


17 


(3.61 


5 


e.45 


39 


0.63 


2 


0. 15 







e 


0.00 


13 


0.41 


11 


0.69 


9 


0.24 


1 


0.33 


29 


0.64 


14 


0.25 


6 


0.60 


1 


1.00 


1 


0.50 


2 


0.20 


17 


0.44 


21 


0.3G) 


A 


0.57 


!19 


0.45 



IS 


0.33 


1 


B.5G 


7 


0.25 


2 


O.IS 


15 


0.24 


4 


0.31 







-0 


e.o? 


13 


0.41 


3 


0.19 


9 


0.24 


2 


0.67 


13 


0.29 


21 


0.33 


3 


D.33 





0.03 





o.eo 


1 


0. IC 


IS 


0.46 


27 


0.49 


4 


0.57 


i,l 


0.33 



10 


0. 18 




e.OQ 


4 


0.14 


5 


0.45 


6 


0.10 


4 


0.31 










0.00 


5 


0.16 


1 


0.06 


10 


0.26 





0.03 


3 


0.07 


20 


0.36 


1 


0.10 





0.00 


1 


0.50 


4 


0.40 


4 


0. 10 


6 


0. 11 





0.00 


04 


0. 17 






0.00 




0.00 





0.00 





.0.00 


3 


0.05 


1 


O,0S 







1 


1.03 


1 


0.03 


1 


0.06 


e 


0.21 





0.00 


B 


0.00 





0.00 


B 


e.eo 





0.00 





0.00 


3 


0.30 





0.00 


1 


0.02 





0.00 


19 


0.04 



70 



mostly speak English with some use of the other language. One- 
third of these English-dominant students (thirteen) are in the 
small Italian program at the Barnes; no other program has more 
than four. 

Less than 30% of the Spanish- speaking middle school students 
who have been in a bilingual program since kindergarten or first 
grade are reported to be in Lau categories C (equal ability in 
native language and English) or D (fluency in English). 

Table 4 shows the "step" or stage in mainstreaming of the 
grade 6-8 student who have been in a bilingual program for six 
or more years, and the proportion of all long-term students who 
are at each of the four steps. There are 219 students at Step 2 
(in bilingual program exclusively), or 45% of all grade 6-8 
students who have been in a bilingual program for at least six 
years. This rate, it should be noted, is much lower than at the 
elementary level. 

HIGH SCHOOL OVERVIEW 

There were 1826 students enrolled in bilingual programs at 
the grade 9-12 level in December 1984. Five of the programs 
are profiled in Table 5; for each one, the table shows total 
enrollment, the number and proportion of students who have been 
in a bilingual program for six or more years, and the number and 
proportion of these long-term students who are in each of the Lau 
categories and in each of the steps. 



71 



At East Boston High School 84% of the students in the 
Italian bilingual program have been in such programs for six 
years or more (and 71% of them for eight years or more). Of the 
students who have been in the program for at least six years, 
four (4%) are in Lau category D, indicating they speak some 
Italian but mostly English. Thirty-six of them (40%) are equally 
fluent in English and Italian, leaving only twenty-three (26%) in 
Lau categories indicating that they are more fluent in Italian 
than in English. 

Fifty-one (57%) of these long-term students are at steps 4 
or 5, indicating that they are in monolingual English classes for 
most of the time, with some language maintenance in Italian from 
the bilingual program, if space permits. 

At Jamaica Plain High School, by contrast, 26% of the 
students in the Spanish bilingual program have been in such 
programs for six years or more. Of these long-term students, 
none are in Lau category E and three (13%) are in category D, 
while eighteen (75%) are in categories A or B, indicating they 
are more fluent in Spanish than in English. 

If, as has been said, the Lau category represents only the 
language assessment at the time a student was first assigned to 
the bilingual program, the progress of Spanish-speaking students 
may be greater than these figures indicate. On the other hand, 
this would make even more inexplicable the long-term retention of 
so many students in the Italian bilingual program who were fluent 
in English when first assigned to the program. 



72 



Tsbl^v 5: SELECTED GRADE 9-12 BILINGUAL PF.OGRAMS 

(students enrolled si.c or )t>.:'= years by Lsu caiegc"-'/ and ster! 





p. 


rig 


hton J. 


. PI 


ain W.- Ro; 


:bury Dorchester E. 


Boston 




s 


pan 


isN Spani 


sh Gree;; 


Spanii 


sh It 


al ian 




Total 




74 




93 


34 


89 


106 


6+ 


years 




24 




24 


14 


25 


89 


>: of 


Total 




0.32 




0.26 


0.41 


0.23 


0.S4 




Lau A 




5 




7 


. 1 


14 


8 


% 


of 6+ 




0-21 




0.29 


0.07 


0.56 


0.09 




Lau B 




9 




11 


4 


5 


15 


•/ 


of 6+ 




0.38 




0.46 


0.29 


0.20 


0.17 




Lau C 




6 




3 


8 


5 


36 


7. 


of 6+ 




0.25 




0. 13 


0.57 


0.23 


0.40 




Lau D 




4 




3 


1 





26 


'A 


of 6+ 




0. 17 




0. 13 


0.07 


0.03 


0.29 




Lau E 




e 










■ 1 


4 


7. 


of 6+ 




0.OG 




0.00 


0.00 


0.04 


0.04 


Step 2 




8 




9 


1 


8 


13 


7. 


of 6+ 




0.33 




0.3S 


0.07 


0.32 


0.15 


Step 3 




11 




4 


5 


6 


25 


7. 


of 6+ 




0.46 




0. 17 


0.36 


0.24 


0.2S 


Step A 




. 5 




8 


. 8 


7 


34 


7. 


of 6+ 




0.21 




0.33 


0.57 


0.2S 


0.3S 


Step 5 









3 





4 


17 


A 


of 6+ 




0.00 




0.13 


0.00 


0. to 


0.19 



73 



Summary 

This analysis suggests that, in the schools reviewed, 
hundreds of Hispanic students are educationally isolated for far 
longer than contemplated by the Massachusetts Transitional 
Bilingual Education Law; the data provided by the School 
Department seem to indicate that, for many of them, this 
isolation is related to lack of progress in acquiring English- 
language skills and/or lack of opportunity for transitional, 
part-time mainstreaming. 

Other students — notably Greek- and Italian-speaking 
students — are similarly retained in their bilingual programs 
for prolonged periods. In the case of these latter, however, the 
retention appears to be in spite of many students having mastered 
an adequate level of skills in English, and it is legitimate to 
ask whether such non-educational purposes as avoidance of 
desegregation are factors. 

In the case of many Hispanic students, it appears that 
bilingual programs both segregate them and fail to teach a 
substantial proportion of them the skills which, according to the 
Lau decision, are essential. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. It is difficult to see how decisions can be made about 
bilingual assignments which will satisfy the desegregation and 
equity considerations in the absence of accurate data. State 



74 



monitors will test the meaning of the data presently available 
through on-site visits, but it should be a matter of priority for 
Boston to have valid information available on the progress of all 
students in the bilingual program, and to use this information in 
the assignment process. 

2. Further monitoring will also attempt to determine why 
bilingual programs in Boston are apparently — according to the 
data provided by the Department of Implementation on the number 
of years that students remain in the program — failing to teach 
English to so many Hispanic students within a reasonable time. 

3. Some parents, including many linguistic minority parents, 
have a particular concern that their children not only learn 
English-language skills but also maintain and progress in their 
native language.* This desire can and should be accommodated 
within the student desegregation plan, subject to the assignment 
provisions which the Court has established for other programs of 
choice, including the Rafael Hernandez School. There is reason 
to hope, in fact, that more and more students for whom English is 
the primary language will be able to enroll in "two-way bilingual 
schools" as such opportunities are multiplied throughout the 



* A survey conducted in Boston, in January 1985, by the 
professional polling firm Martilla & Kiley found unexpectedly 
strong interest in this educational approach among all racial 
groups. Three out of four parents of students in the public 
schools replied that a "two-way language program" was "essential" 
(10%), "very important" (42%), or "somewhat important" (23%). In 
the same survey, 62% of the public school parents said they would 
definitely send their children to a distant in preference to a 
nearby school, if the former offered a "magnet program important 
to your children," and another 16% said they would consider the 
distant school. 



75 



system. At present such opportunities are sharply limited, but 
in 1986 the Hernandez will expand into the larger Holland School, 
and the Mackey Middle School will become a two-way bilingual 
school as well; several other Boston elementary schools have 
expressed interest in developing such a program. 

There is no reason why a language maintenance program should 
not be offered in Italian, for example, at one of the 
desegregated magnet high schools, with students choosing that 
program through the regular application process rather than on 
the basis of an atypical bilingual program assignment. The state 
has funded such programs as part of desegregation plans in 
Holyoke, Springfield, Worcester and other cities in 
Massachusetts . 

4. It is essential for those with responsibility for equity and 
desegregation to begin an appraisal of the assignment and 
placement mechanisms which have produced the present undesirable 
results. For too long the process of admitting students to and 
discharging them from bilingual programs has operated in a 
vacuum, with no accountability to the desegregation process and 
with an insufficient linkage to the overall educational 
opportunities available in Boston. The recently-revised Lau 
Plan, if implemented as written, should help to protect the 
equity considerations, though it is not clear from a 
desegregation perspective that students at steps 4 and 5 should 
be receiving school assignments as though they required a full 
transitional bilingual education program. 



76 



5. A priority for further analysis — though not as an excuse 
to fail to act now in the interest of students presently in the 
Boston public schools — will be a longitudinal study of the 
records of every student who entered the bilingual program in 
Boston in 1980-81, with his/her school and Lau category each 
year, when mainstreamed, and subsequent academic career. This 
information has already been requested by the monitors, subject 
to discussion of how academic progress will be measured. The 
present analyis is perforce limited to students who have not been 
mainstreamed, but we need to know more about those who have been. 

6. An assessment is needed of the extent to which former 
bilingual program students require further assistance with 
English- language skills, as recommended by the National 
Commission. A major national study in 1983 found that home 
language was only one — and not the major — factor limiting the 
achievement of linguistic minority students, and our efforts to 
ensure their full participation in the benefits of public 
education should not be limited to transitional language 
instruction. 

Students from homes in which English is not ordinarily 
spoken may also require counselling and home-liaison support in 
their native languages, and such support should not be contingent 
upon continued enrollment in a bilingual program. Every student 
under a comprehensive desegregation plan is entitled to all of 
the support necessary to achieving his or her full potential 
without unnecessary segregation. 



77 



7. What may be needed above all is flexibility in developing a 
strategy to meet the educational needs of linguistic minority 
students, a strategy which will certainly include transitional 
bilingual education but which will provide long-term language 
maintenance in the native language only for those whose parents 
choose that as one of the educational options available to them 
under the desegregation plan. For students who begin their 
schooling in the kindergarten of a Boston school the educational 
prescription will presumably be very different from that for a 
student who comes to us after a number of years of formal 
schooling in another language. 



78 



79 



HUMPHREY OCCUPflTIONftL RESOURCE CENTER 
SPRING. 1985 
DATA 
Desegregation Compliance 

Jotai Cornplj. a nee 

Only one program complied with court -ordered guidelines for 
^i-i. ttltiee racial/ethnic categories (derived from citywide 
enrollments, plus or minus 5%): Fashion Illustration. Two 
additional programs — Data Processing and Outomot ive/Truck 
Repair — complied with the guidelines for Black and White 
enrollment. It should be noted, however, that the upper and 
lower limits for Other Minority students (£1% and 1954) are 
extremely narrow. 

Last fall, two programs met the guidelines for all three 
categories, and six additional ones met the guidelines for 
two of the categories. 

Individual Categ.orles 

Black Enrollments 

This spring, twenty-seven programs were out of compliance 
with the court-ordered guidelines for Black enrollments 
(lower limit=55, ideal=59, upper limit=63*); seven of them 
underenrol led Blacks, twenty overenrolled Black students. In 
comparison, twenty-five programs were out of compliance last 
fall. (See Table Ifl. > 

Thirteen programs were seyerejly out of compliance — that is, 
more than ten points above or below the ideal of 59S. That 
compares with nine, last fall, and thirteen, the previous 
spring. 

White Enrollments 

Twenty nine programs were out of compliance this spring with 
the guidelines for White enrollments (lower limit =16, 
ideal=c:l, upper limit=c:6); twenty three underenrol led White 
students, while six overenrolled Whites. Last fall, twenty- 
two were out of compliance. (See Table IB.) 

Fifteen programs were seyerel^y out of compliance — more than 
ten points away from the ideal. That is five more than last 
fall; in the previous spring sixteen programs fell outside 
these standards. 

♦These guidelines differ from those for District IX in 
that they exclude examination school enrollments. 



80 



other Minority Enrollments 

Thirty-two programs were out of compliance this spring with 
the guidelines for other minority students. These guidelines 
are, as already noted, extremely narrow. Only twenty-two 
were out of compliance last fall. (See Table IC. ) 

By contrast, only five programs failed to meet the more 
generous standard of 10 points' deviation from the ideal. 
That compares with seven last fall, and eight last spring. 

Female Enrollments 

This spring, five programs complied with the standard of 
enrolling female and male students so that the proportions of 
both groups fall between 35% and 65%. Last fall, ten 
programs complied with this standard; in the previous spring, 
six programs did. (See Table £. ) 

Earlier monitoring reports had also applied a much looser 
standard of £054 and 80%, in recognition of the difficulties 
involved in enrolling male and female students in programs 
non-traditional for their sex. This spring, fourteen 
programs fell within that standard, compared with sixteen 
last fall and fifteen the previous spring. 

Summary 

There has been an erosion of compliance from last fall to 
this spring in each of the three racial/ethnic categories and 
in the male/female standards. This presumably reflects 
uneven attrition patterns during the school year. 

The actual and percentage enrollments for each program, for 
each category, are provided in tables at the end of this 
report. The programs are listed in ascending order of 
percentage enrollment of the category in question. Each 
table shows the number and percentage of students assigned to 
the program for the beginning of the school year, 1984; the 
number and percentage actually enrolled in November, 1984; 
and the number and percentage enrolled March, 1985. 

When spring 1985 enrollments are compared with spring 1984 
enrollments, a more constant pattern is found. Approximately 
the same number of programs met the monitors' more generous 
standards in each of the categories, with the exception of 
other minority students where there has been improvement. 

fln additional table (# 4) has been included in this report 
showing the total minority enrollment (Black plus other 
minority) in each program. Although there are no court 
orders regulating total minority enrollment (i.e. Black plus 
other minority), it should be noted that twenty seven of the 
thirty five programs at the Humphrey Center had minority 



81 



enrollments of 80S or more in March, 1985. 
Enrol Inent Patterns 

Last February, the monitors reported a 2.Qi'A decline in 
enrollments in skills-training programs from fall 1383 to 
fall 1984. Enrollments in the exploratt>ry program showed a 
more alarming droD of A5%. Data supplied to the monitors 
this spring show that enrollments continue to decline. There 
has been a 34% decline in the number of students enrolled in 
skills training programs from the fall of 1983 to the spring 
of 1985, and a 60% decrease in the number of students taking 
the exploratory program. The decline has been steepest among 
White students, but the rates for all three racial/ethnic 
categories are comparable. (See Table 5. ) 

Capaci ty Ut ilizat ion 

Low enrollments result in unused capacity at the Humphrey 
Center. In March of this year, the enrollments in sixteen 
programs were at 50% or less of capacity. (See Table 6. ) 
Another eight were below 80%. Clearly, the Boston students 
for whom the impressive and expensive Humphrey Center was 
built are not benefitting fully from it. 

Causes of Lom Enrollments 

Low 9PPil£3t ion Rates 

Boston students 3.re not applying to the Humphrey Center in 
sufficiently high numbers to fill its one exploratory and 
thirty five skills training programs. There are numerous 
reasons for low application rates, and many of them are 
beyond the control of the Humphrey Center staff. Some of 
them may be remedied by the merger of the ORC with Madison 
Park. Nevertheless, &r\ effective and coordinated recruiting 
program is essential, as the Department's previous monitoring 
reports have noted. 

dlab. Bt.tnit.lQD Ri:t.ss 

Many of the students who do enroll in Humphrey Center 
programs do not remain in them. Data supplied by Humphrey 
Center staff for the 1983-84 school year show an overall 
attrition rate of £8% — a loss of 839 students between those 
assigned in ftugust and those enrolled the following June. 
(See Table 7 for a summary, which excludes special education 
students in the SNRP program. ) Rates for program clusters 
ranged from a low of 19% in the Business cluster to a high of 
34% in the Metals Fabrication cluster. The attrition rate 
for the exploratory program was 35%. 



82 



It is evident that retention measures are imperative for the 
Humphrey Center. Improved recruiting without improved 
retention will simply exacerbate the problem of unstable 
program enrollments at the ORG. 



ANALYSIS 



Background 

Department of Education monitors visited the Humphrey Center; 
interviewed Center staff; reviewed additional Department 
data, especially information pertaining to 636 grants; and 
consulted Department staff familiar with occupational 
education programs. Some of the findings ars presented in 
the 1984-85 Annual Report on Desegregation in Massachusetts 
submitted to the Board of Education in April 1985. ft copy is 
included in the appendix to this report. 

The report compared the situation in Boston with that in 
Springfield, where there have been recent, dramatic 
improvements in the access of minority students to vocational 
education and in the quality of that education. It 
identified several factors responsible for that improvement: 

o The mutually cooperative working atmosphere established 
between the Department and the school system. 

o The development of comprehensive plans for the 
improvement of minority access to vocational education, 
plans that identify clear lines of authority in the 
school system. 

o The clear and continuing commitment of the 
Superintendent of the Springfield schools to the 
improvement of vocational education. 

By contrast, these factors appeared to be missing in Boston: 

Cftlthough] the access of minorities to vocational 
education in Boston has improved immeasurably since it 
was desegregated in the mid-seventies with the 
implementation of the Unifited Plan for Vocational 
Education, CtheD issues now are Questions of commitment 
and qual ity. . . . The first monitoring reoort Cto the U.S. 
District Court] documented extensive non-compliance 
with significant portions of the Unified Plan. Since 
that time the compliance situation with regard to 
vocational education has improved. However, no clear 
declaration of commitment to excellent vocational 
education has been forthcoming from Boston Public 
Schools' leadership, and relations between the 
Department of Education and the School Department have 
been insufficiently cooperative. ftl though the Court 



did not direct the Depart merit to evaluate the quality 
of vocational education in Boston, there are indirect 
measures available which suggest that Boston students, 
both white and minority, do not perceive that valuable 
opportunities await them in vocational education. 

The report also noted that there is some evidence that the 
pattern of negative attitudes and poor classroom management 
practices identified among some teachers at the examination 
schools also exists at the Humphrey Center. "Boston has 
been disinclined to take notice even when, as recently, the 
Department invited it to apply Chapter 636 funds to inservice 
training for Humphrey Center teachers on effective teaching 
practices for minority and limited-English proficient 
students. " 

The report noted some promising developments, especially the 
plan to merge the Humphrey Center with Madison Park next year 
(1986-87), and the joint commitment of Boston and the 
Department to revise the Unified Plan. 

Proaising Developanents 

The merger may resolve many of the problems contributing to 
low application rates and high attrition rates, problems 
arising from the current skills-center arrangement. For 
example, responsibility for ORC students is divided between 
the headmasters of the students' home schools and the 
headmaster of the Humphrey Center. Some of the Humphrey 
Center attrition can be attributed to competition among high 
school flexible campus administrators to place high 
proportions of students in jobs; often placements made by 
home school administrators conflict with the students' 
Humphrey Center skills-training schedule. The new 
promotional policy is another example; students have been 
leaving the Humphrey Center in order to satisfy promotional 
requirements in home schools. 

The merger will also, presumably, modify the current "open 
entry, open exit" policy mandated for the Humphrey Center, 
which encourages students to enter and leave skills training 
as they please. Technically, attendance at the Humphrey 
Center for as little as a half semester complies with the 
pol icy. 

The merger should also enable the Humphrey Center headmaster 
to pursue goals that s.re virtually impossible to fulfill 
under the current half-day arrangements. These include 
improved curriculum continuity, increased job-site experience 
and better discipline. 



84 



Continuing Problems 

L^^k of Central BdmlDlstrat j.on Suogort 

The issue of administrative support for vocational education 
is equally important, but there is less evidence that it will 
be forthcoming. The superintendent has recently stated 
publicly his opposition to vocational education at the high 
school level. Departmental monitoring revealed poor 
communication between central office and Humphrey Center 
staff and a serious lack of support from central 
admini station in general. 

One example. The Department had, as noted, actively 
encouraged Boston to apply 636 funds to inservice for 
teaching staff at the Humphrey Center on effective teaching 
practices for minority and LEP students. Department monitors 
who visited the Humphrey Center learned that (1) the 
headmaster had no knowledge of these negotiations, (2) the 
headmaster, on his own initiative, had already begun 
arranging for such inservice through Roxbury Community 
College and (3) no 636 funds have been allocated by Boston to 
the Humphrey Center. 

The monitors found that the Humphrey Center leadership had 
undertaken a number of promising innovations to recruit and 
retain students and to improve the school climate and the 
quality of skills training at the center. However, these 
seem to be operating in a vacuum, without central 
administrative support and — often — without the support of 
the school's teaching staff. 

Lack of SuBPort for Headmaster's Init iat ives 

The attitudes and practices of teachers are, of course, 
critical to the success of the Humphrey Center's programs. 
There ars numerous indications that they are negative among 
some staff. Department staff who have conducted audits at 
the Humphrey Center, for example, are familiar with 
statements from staff such as "the best way to impv^ove the 
school would be to change the student body," or "...to get 
more white students into the school. " Monitors have also 
learned that there are a number of outstanding grievances 
between the teachers' union and the Humphrey Center 
administration. 

For example, this year the headmaster wanted to be sure all 
students were thoroughly familiar with the Humphrey Center's 
school-based rules. He devised some exemplary case studies 
(Department monitors asked permission to present them as 
models for other schools) to stimulate discussion, and 
required each student to pass a simple true-false test. The 
union filed a grievance against the headmaster, contending 
that their contract did not oblige them to correct these 
tests. The exercise was eventually completed. One result 



85 



was that the headmaster launched a campaign against tardiness 
in the school after learning from the case studies that 
students displayed a casual attitude toward tardiness. 
Tardiness was reduced by 1^%. 

One final example involved several Department monitors, who 
ate lunch in the school restaurant while waiting to speak to 
the headmaster. During the hour they were in the restaurant 
they saw no evidence of supervision of the half-dozen 
students working there. The students ignored their 
customers, failed to serve them correctly and made several 
serious mistakes — all without comment or correction. Their 
educational experience did nothing but confirm working habits 
that would be anathema to any employer. 

The headmaster does however have evidence that Humphrey 
Center teachers would like to serve their students: the 
teachers' responses to a survey of their goals as 
instructors. The Humphrey Center teachers accorded much 
higher importance both to vocational goals (e.g., to develop 
skills needed to get jobs for those not planning to attend 
college) and to non-vocational (e.g., to develop respect for 
and understanding of other races, religions, nations and 
cultures) than did U.S. teachers in general. (The survey 
results are in the appendix. ) 

There is in fact a distinguished tradition among 
Massachusetts vocational educators, which defines their 
mission as educating youngsters who could not succeed in 
regular high schools, who would have dropped out if it were 
not for the special attention and methods of the vocational 
educator. 

The Humphrey Center teachers' responses to the educational 
survey are in this tradition. In-service training that would 
build on this solid foundation of commitment and enable the 
teachers to understand and instruct their students better 
would significantly strengthen the Humphrey Center and the 
educational system of Boston. 

RECOhMENDAT I QMS 

1. Boston should make a clear commitment to strong 
vocational education at the secondary level. 

£. Boston should support the efforts of the Headmaster of 
the Humphrey Center to improve school climate and program 
Quality. 



86 



APPENDIX 
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 



TABLES — HUMPHREY OCCUPATION RESOURCE CENTER 

Enrollments — Black Students 
Enrollments — White Students 
Enrollments — Other Minority Students 
Enrollments — Females 
Enrollments — All Minority Students 
Comparative Enrollment Data — (1983 - 1985) 
Capacity Utilization — Spring 1985 
Attrition Rates by Cluster 



MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY HEADMASTER 

Educational Survey Results 

Questionnaire for Exploratory Students 

August to June Differences (Attrition Data) 

Sex-Equity Grant Proposal 

Materials Related to Proposed Roxbury Community 

College 
School -Based Rules & Case Study 
Second -Term Failures (Analysis by Cluster) 
] 984-85 Annual Report to the Board of Education, "Oocational 
Education" 



87 



Progru 



I AliLfc. ' ' ■ 

Huiphrey Occupational Resource Center 
Black Students 1984-1985 



Assigned 



Enrolled 11/84 Enrolled 3/85 



fiUTOBODY REPAIR 
t of Blacks 
i of Total 


39 
55.71 


35 
60.34 


12 
29.26 


PLUMBING 

t of Blacks 
t of Total 


33 
51.56 


27 
50.00 


19 
44.18 


MACHINE DRARINB 
t of Blacks 
* of Total 


17 
58.62 


8 
38.09 


7 
50.00 


CARPENTRY 

1 of Blacks 
t of Total 


48 
55.17 


41 
51.25 


35 
51.47 


(EATING AIR CONDITION' G 
t of Blacks 
t of Total 


16 

64.ee 


13 
54.16 


12 
52.17 


CHILD CARE 

i of Blacks 
t of Total 


12 
26.66 


22 
47.82 


21 
53.84 


ELECTRICAL TECH 
t of Blacks 
% of Total 


80 
55.17 


65 
53.71 


51 
54.25 


NEDICAL OFFICE 
t of Blacks 
* of Total 


23 
52.27 


25 
52.08 


21 
55.26 


UORO PROCESSING 
• of Blacks 
i of Total 


26 
56.52 


26 

50.00 


26 
56.52 


AUTOMOTIVE/TRUCK 
1 of Blacks 
* of Total 


ie2 

68.71 


81 
55.10 


79 
57.66 


DATA PROCESSING 
t of Blacks 
* of Total 


67 
52.75 


67 
59.29 


61 
58.09 


MARINE I SHALL ENGItt 
t of Blacks 
i of Totfll 


24 
44.44 


21 
56.75 


17 
58.62 


FASHION ILLUSTRATION 
« of Blacks 
% of Total 


18 
69.23 


17 
68.00 


12 

60.00 



Huiphrey Occupational Resource Center 
Black Students 1984-1985 



Assigned 



Enrolled 11/84 Enrolled 3/85 



C09OX06Y 

• of Blacks 
X of Total 


55.55 


53 
59.55 


44 
51.97 


6WKING 

t of Blacks 
i of Total 


23 
52.27 


21 
53.84 


23 
62.16 


ELECTRONICS TECH 
t of Blacks 
t of Total 


70 
53.83 


68 
60.71 


54 
63.52 


CflBirOWKING 
i of Blacks 
* of Total 


24 
54.54 


27 
61.36 


20 

64.51 


PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHJOLOGY 
1 of Blacks 
i of Total 


30 
50.84 


29 
67.44 


21 
65.62 


COWCRICflL DESIGN 
i of Blacks 
i of Total 


14 
50.00 


15 
57.69 


14 
66.66 


HEflLTHfllDE 

* of Blacks 

* of Total 


11 
64.70 


6 
66.66 


8 
66.66 


WELDING LflBORflTORY 
« of Blacks 
* of Total 


28 
62.22 


23 
58.97 


25 
67.56 


HOTEL/HOSPITflLITY 
t of Blacks 
t of Total 


23 
71.87 


19 
67.85 


13 
68.42 


SHEET METAL 1 ABORflTORY 
i of Blacks 
% of Total 


23 
67.64 


16 
69.56 


13 
68.42 


FOOD SERVICE 
t of Blacks 
< of Total 


84 
65.62 


72 
68.57 


55 
68.75 


PRINTING 

t of Blacks 

% of Total 


56 
58.33 


46 
68.65 


41 
69.49 


NURSING ASSISTANCE 
f of Blacks 
t of Total 


35 
63.63 


22 
62.85 


16 
69.56 



89 



Huiphrey Occupational Resource Center 
Black Students 1984-1985 



Prograa 



Assigned 



Enrolled 11/84 Enrolled 3/B5 



DENTAL OFFICE 
t of Blacks 
i of Total 


21 
61.76 


14 
68.86 


12 
78.58 


BUILDING MAINTENANCE 
t of Blacks 
i of Total 


22 
59.45 


22 
59.45 


17 
78.83 


TELEVISION PRODUCTION 
t of Blacks 
i of Total 


50 
57.47 


52 

72.22 


39 
78.90 


HEALTH LABORATORY 
« of Blacks 
i of Total 


le 

76.92 


7 
77.77 


6 
75.88 


LEGAL OFFICE PRACTICE 
t of Blacks 
* of Total 


29 
64.44 


26 
72.22 


21 
75.88 


FASHION/INTERIOR DECOR 

# of Blacks 

* of Total 


27 
61.36 


22 
64.78 


17 
77.27 


ADVANCED OFFICE 
t of Blacks 
t of Total 


59 
71.88 


41 
75.92 


41 
78.84 


RETAILING, MARKETING 
1 of Blacks 
i of Total 


19 
86.36 


28 

66.66 


21 
88.76 


MACHINE LABORATORY 
t of Blacks 
t of Total 


28 

71.42 


18 
75.88 


16 
81.81 



90 



Huiphrey Occupational Resource Center 
White Students 1984-1985 



Prograi 



Assigned 



Enrolled 11/84 Enrolled 3/85 



(CflLTH LflBORflTORY 
1 of Whites 
i of Total 


1 
7.69 


1 
11.11 


8 
8.88 


DEVTW. OFICE 

• of Uhites 

* of Total 


5 
14.70 


1 
4.34 


1 
5.88 


LEBflL OFFICE PRflCTICE 
i of Uhites 
% of Total 


4 
8. 88 


2 
5.55 


2 
7.14 


AOVflNCED OFFICE 
t of Uhites 
i of Total 


8 
9.63 


6 
11.11 


4 
7.69 


BflNKING 

t of Miites 

i of Total 


9 

28.45 


5 
12.82 


3 
8.18 


HEALTH AIDE 
t of Miites 
* of Total 


2 
11.76 


2 
22.22 


1 
8.33 


NURSING ASSISTANCE 
t of Uhites 
t of Total 


10 
18.18 


6 
17.14 


2 
8.69 


FASHION/INTERIOR DECOR 
t of Uhites 
% of Total 


18 
22.72 


5 
14.78 


2 
9.89 


MACHINE LABORATORY 
i of Uhites 
% of Total 


2 
7.14 


2 
8.33 


2 
9.89 


PHOTOGRAPHIC TEDM1L06Y 
1 of Uhites 
i of Total 


18 
38.58 


4 
9.38 


3 
9.37 


ELLCIKUNICS TECH 
t of Uhites 
% of Total 


15 
11.36 


11 
9.82 


a 

9.41 


HOTEL/HOSPITALITY 
« of Uhites 
% of Total 


1 
3.12 


3 
18.71 


2 
18.52 


StCET ICTAL LABORATORY 
t of Uhites 
t of Total 


5 
14.78 


3 
13.04 


2 
18.52 



91 



Huiphrey Occupational Resource Center 
White Students 1984-1985 



Prograa 



Assigned 



Enrolled 11/84 Enrolled 3/85 



FOOD SERVICE 
t of Whites 
i of Total 


20 

15.62 


12 
11.42 


9 
11.25 


RETATITNfi,mRKETIN6 
t of Miites 
t of Total 


2 
9.09 


7 
23.33 


3 
11.53 


BUILDING HAINTENflNCE 
t of Uhites 
* of Total 


7 
18.91 


4 
10.81 


3 
12.50 


TELEVISION PRODUCTION 

• of Uhites 

* of Total 


21 
24.13 


11 
15.27 


7 
12.72 


tOICflL OFFICE 
« of Whites 
% of Total 


8 
18.18 


8 
16.66 


5 
13.15 


WELDING LflBORftTORY 
i of Whites 
< of Total 


7 
15.55 


8 
20.51 


5 
13.51 


MRI« t SMfla EN6IIC 
t of Whites 
% of Total 


17 
31.48 


5 
13.51 


4 
13.79 


COWtRICflL DESIGN 
t of Whites 
* of Total 


4 
14.28 


4 
15.38 


3 
14.28 


PRINTING 

t of Whites 
% of Total 


26 
27.08 


8 
11.94 


9 
15.25 


COSICTOLOGY 
t of Whites 
i of Total 


21 
23.33 


15 
16.85 


11 
15.49 


DATA PROCESSING 
t of Whites 
t of Total 


31 
24.40 


21 
18.58 


20 

19.04 


CABII€TNAKING 
t of Whites 
% of Total 


11 
25.00 


10 

22.72 


6 
19.35 


AUTOMOTIVE/TRUCK 
« of Whites 
t of Total 


29 
17.26 


31 
21.08 


27 
19.70 



92 



Huiphrey Occupational Resource Center 
Uhite Students 1984-1985 



Prograi 


Assigned 


Enrolled 11/84 


Enrolled 3/85 


FASHION ILLUSTRATION 
t of Whites 
* of Total 


6 
23.87 


5 
28.80 


4 
28.80 


CHILD CARE 

t of Whites 
i of Total 


14 
31.11 


14 
30.43 


9 
23.07 


flUIUUJDY REPAIR 
1 of Whites 
% of Total 


17 
24.26 


13 
22.41 


10 

24.39 


WORD PHIHI-HKINe 
t of Whites 
t of Total 


12 
26.88 


16 
30.76 


12 
26.08 


MACHINE DRARING 
i of Whites 
* of Total 


4 
13.79 


5 
23.80 


4 
28.57 


ELECTRICAL TECH 
t of Whites 
* of Total 


37 
25.51 


35 
28.92 


28 
29.78 


CARPENTRY 

t of Whites 
* of Total 


19 
21.83 


23 
28.75 


21 
30.88 


HEATING AIR CONDITION'S 
t of Whites 
% of Total 


5 
20.88 


7 
29.16 


8 
34.78 


PLUMBING 

t of Whites 
% of Total 


21 
32.81 


24 
44.44 


22 
51.16 



93 



Huaohrey Occupational Resource Center 
Other Minority Students 1984-1985 



Prograi 


Assigned 


Enrolled 11/84 


Enrolled 3/85 


PLlieiNG 








t of Other Ninority 
* of Total 


le 

15.62 


3 
5.55 


2 
4.65 


RETAILING, NflfiKETING 
i of Other Minority 
i of Total 


1 
4.54 


3 

10.00 


2 
7.69 


NflCHINE UfflORflTORY 








t of Other Minority 
t of Total 


6 
21.42 


4 
16.66 


2 
9.09 


lEflTINB AIR CONDITION'S 








t of Other Ninority 
i of Total 


4 

i6.ee 


4 
16.66 


3 
13.04 


ADVANCED OFFICE 








t of Other Ninority 
t of Total 


16 
19.27 


7 
12.96 


7 
13.46 


FASHION/INTERIOR DECOR 








• of Other Ninority 
i of Total 


7 
15.90 


7 
20.58 


3 
13.63 


PRINTIW 








t of Other Minority 
i of Total 


14 
14.58 


13 
19.40 


9 
15.25 


ELECTRICAL TECH 








t of Other Minority 
% of Total 


28 
19.31 


21 
17.35 


IS 
15.95 


CABIICTWKIN6 








i of Other Minority 
i of Total 


9 
28.45 


7 
15.90 


5 
16.12 


TELEVISION PRODUCTION 








t of Other Minority 
* of Total 


16 
18.39 


9 
12.50 


9 
16.36 


BUILDING MAINTENANCE 








i of Other Minority 
i of Total 


8 
21.62 


11 
29.72 


4 
16.66 


UORD PROCESSING 








t of Other Ninority 
t of Total 


8 
17.39 


10 

19.23 


8 
17.39 


CARPENTRY 








i of Other Minority 
t of Total 


20 

22.98 


16 
20.00 


12 
17.64 



94 



Huiphrey Occupational Resource Center 
Other Minority Students 1984-1985 



Prograii 


Assigned 


Enrolled 11/84 


Enrolled 3/85 


LEBflL OFICE PRflCTICE 
1 of Other Minority 
t of Total 


12 
26.66 


22.22 


5 
17.85 


WELDING LABORATORY 

t of Other Minority 
i of Total 


10 

22.22 


8 
20.51 


7 
18.91 


COMICRICflL DESIGN 

t of Other Minority 
t of Total 


10 
35.71 


7 
26.92 


4 
19.04 


FASHION ILLUSTRATION 
i of Other Minority 
t of Total 


2 
7.69 


3 
12.00 


4 

20.00 


FOOD SERVICE 

1 of Other Minority 
t of Total 


24 
18.75 


21 

20.00 


16 
20.00 


HOTEL/HOSPIT«.ITY 

t of Other Minority 
i of Total 


8 
25.00 


6 
21.42 


4 
21.05 


SfCET ICTAL LABORATORY 
1 of Other Minority 
* of Total 


6 
17.64 


4 
17.39 


4 
21.05 


MACHINE DRAFTING 

i of Other Minority 
t of Total 


6 
27.58 


8 
38.09 


3 
21.42 


NURSING ASSISTANCE 

« of Other Minority 
* of Total 


10 

18.18 


7 

20.00 


5 
21.73 


COSMETX06Y 

i of Other Minority 
51 of Total 


19 
21.11 


21 
23.59 


16 
22.53 


AUTOHOTIVE/TRUCK 

1 of Other Minority 
* of Total 


37 
22.02 


35 
23.80 


31 
22.62 


DATA PROCESSING 

t of Other Minority 
i of Total 


29 
22.83 


25 
22.12 


24 
22.85 


CHILD CARE 

» of Other Minority 
i of Total 


19 
42.22 


10 
21.73 


9 
23.07 



95 



Htuphrey Occupational Resource Center 
Other Minority Students 1984-1985 



Prograi Assigned 


Enrolled 11/84 


Enrolled 3/85 


DENTAL OFICE 

t of Other Ninority 
i of Total 


a 

23.52 


8 
34.78 


4 
23.52 


HEALTH AIDE 

t of Other Ninority 
i of Total 


4 
23.52 


1 
11.11 


3 
25.00 


HEW.TH LABORATORY 

« of Other Hinority 
t of Total 


2 
15.38 


1 
11.11 


2 
25.00 


PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY 
1 of Other Ninority 
t of Total 


11 
18.64 


10 
23.25 


8 
25.00 


ElfCTRONICS TECH 

t of Other Ninority 
% of Total 


47 
35.60 


33 
29.46 


23 
27.05 


MARINE ( SMALL ENGIhE 
« of Other Minority 
t of Total 


13 
24.87 


11 
29.72 


8 
27.58 


BANKING 

• of Other Minority 

* of Total 


12 
27.27 


13 
33.33 


11 
29.72 


KDICflL OFFICE 

• of Other Minority 
i of Total 


13 
29.54 


15 
31.25 


12 
31.57 


AUIUBUUY REPAIR 

t of Other Minority 
t of Total 


14 
20.80 


10 

17.24 


19 
46.34 



96 



Huiphrey Occupational Resource Center 
Feule Students 1964-1985 



Prograa 



Assigned 



Enrolled 11/84 Enrolled 3/85 



flUTlMlTIVE/TRUCK 
1 of Feules 
i of Total 


3 
1.78 


1 
8.68 


8 
8.80 


BUILDING NfllNTDMNCE 
t of Feules 
i of Total 


8 

8.ee 


8 
8.88 




0.88 


f£ATINB AIR CONDITION'S 
• of Feules 
i of Total 


e 

8.80 


8 
8.88 


8 
8.80 


MARINE ( SMALL ENGINE 
i of Fetales 
t of Total 


2 
3.70 


1 
2.78 



0.88 


PLUffiING 

t of Feules 
t of Total 


2 
3.12 


2 
3.78 


1 
2.32 


flUTOBODY REPAIR 
1 of Feules 
i of Total 


1 
1.42 


1 
1.72 


1 
2.43 


UELDING LABORATORY 
i of Feules 
* of Total 


2 
4.44 


1 
2.56 


1 
2.78 


ELECTRICAL TECH 
t of Feules 
t of Total 


6 
4.13 


5 
4.13 


3 
3.19 


ELECTRONICS TECH 
t of Feules 
* of Total 


15 
11.36 


9 
6.83 


5 
5.68 


CARPENTRY 

t of Feules 
t of Total 


13 
14.94 


18 
12.58 


7 
18.29 


MACHINE DRAFTING 
# of Feules 
% of Total 


5 
17.24 


3 
14.26 


2 
14.26 


SHEET ICTM. LABORATORY 
t of Feules 
% of Total 


5 
14.70 


4 
17.39 


3 
15.78 


CABI^ETMAKINS 
1 of Feules 
t of Total 


6 
13.63 


6 
16.18 


5 
16.12 



Huiphrey Occupational Resource Center 
FeMle Students 19B4-198S 



Prograa 



Assigned 



Enrolled 11/84 Enrolled 3/85 



MACHINE LABORATORY 
t of Feiales 
i of Total 


6 
21.42 


3 

12.50 


4 
18.18 


PRINTING 

t of Feiales 
i of Total 


39 
40.62 


24 
35.82 


19 
32.20 


COMMERICAL DESIGN 
t of Fewles 
* of Total 


12 
42.85 


12 
46.15 


8 
38.09 


TELEVISION PRODUCTION 

• of Feiales 

* of Total 


46 
52.87 


29 
40.27 


22 

40.00 


FOOD SERVICE 
t of Feiales 
i of Total 


58 
45.31 


42 

40.00 


33 
41.25 


DATA PROCESSING 
t of Feules 
t of Total 


56 
44.09 


56 
49.55 


51 
48.57 


HEALTH lAfinRATORY 
f of FeMles 
t of Total 


8 
61.53 


5 
55.55 


4 

50.00 


BANKING 

t of Feiales 
* of Total 


22 

50.00 


23 
58.97 


19 
51.35 


PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY 
i of Feules 
t of Total 


35 
59.32 


23 
53.48 


17 
53.12 


RETAILING, MARKETING 
t of Feiales 
i of Total 


13 
59.09 


17 
56.66 


14 
53.84 


FASHION ILLUSTRATION 
t of Fewles 
i of Total 


10 
38.46 


14 
56.00 


11 
55.00 


HOTEL/HOSPITALITY 
t of Fewles 
i of Total 


21 
65.62 


20 

71.42 


12 
63.15 


ADVANCED OFFICE 
* of Feules 
i of Total 


61 
73.49 


41 
75.92 


39 
75.00 



Hunphrey Occupational Resource Center 
Fewle Students 1984-19B5 



Prograi 


Assigned 


Enrolled 11/84 


Enrolled 3/85 


HEflLTHfllDE 

t of Feules 
% of Total 


14 
82.35 


6 
66.66 


9 
75.00 


FASHION/INTERIOR DECOR 

• of Feules 

* of Total 


37 
84.09 


28 
82.35 


17 
77.27 


CHILD CARE 

t of Fewles 
t of Total 


39 
86.66 


40 
86.95 


32 

82.05 


LEBflL OFICE PRACTICE 
# of Feules 
t of Total 


39 
86.66 


30 

83.33 


23 
82.14 


OENTflL OFFICE 
t of Feules 
t of Total 


29 
85.29 


20 

86.95 


15 
88.23 


UORD PROCESSING 
t of Feules 
i of Total 


38 
82.60 


40 
76.92 


41 
89.13 


NURSINB ASSISTMCE 
1 of Feules 
t of Total 


52 
94.54 


31 
88.57 


22 
95.65 


leiCAL OFFICE 
f of Feules 
i of Total 


38 
86.36 


46 
95.83 


37 
97.36 


COSIETOLOGY 

t of Feules 
% of Total 


88 
97.77 


87 
97.75 


70 
98.59 



99 



IABU& t 

Huaphrey Occupational Resource Center 
fill Minority Students 1984-1985 



Progra. 


Assigned 


Enrolled 11/84 


Enrolled 3/85 


PLUMBING 

i of All Minority 
% of Total 


43 
67.18 


30 
S5.55 


21 
48.83 


HEATING flIR CONDITION' G 
t of fill Minority 
% of Total 


88.80 


17 
70.83 


15 
65.21 


CARPENTRY 

« of All Minority 
* of Total 


68 
78.16 


57 
71.25 


47 
69.11 


ELECTRICAL TECH 

» of All Minority 
t of Total 


188 
74.48 


86 
71.07 


66 
78.21 


MACHIIC DRARIN6 

t of All Minority 
i of Total 


25 
86.20 


16 
76.19 


18 
71.42 


UORD PROCESSING 

# of All Minority 
% of Total 


34 
73.91 


36 
69.23 


34 
73.91 


flUTOBODY REPAIR 








lo°fM~"*^ 


^71 


^5.58 


^.68 


CHILD CARE 

# of All Minority 
i of Total 


31 
68.88 


32 

69.56 


38 

76.92 


FASHION ILLUSTRATION 
1 of All Minority 
i of Total 


28 

76.92 


28 

80.88 


16 
88.88 


AUTGMOTIVE/TRUCK 

« of All Minority 
* of Total 


139 
82.73 


116 
78.91 


118 
88.29 


CffiI^£TMAKIN6 

t of All Minority 
t of Total 


33 
75.90 


34 
77.27 


25 
88.64 


DATA PROTESSING 

t of All Minority 
» of Total 


% 

75.59 


92 
81.41 


85 
88.95 


COSieOLOGY 

« of All Minority 
% of Total 


69 
76.66 


74 
83.14 


68 
84.58 



100 



Huiphrey Occupational Resource Center 
All Minority Students 1984-1985 



Prograa f 


Issigned 


Enrolled 11/84 


Enrolled 3/85 


PRINTING 








# of fill Minority 
t of Total 


79 
72.91 


59 
88.05 


58 
84.74 


CflMNERICflL DESI6N 








« of All Minority 
i of Total 


24 
85.71 


22 
84.61 


18 
85.71 


MARINE I SWLL ENGM 








i of fill Minority 
t of Total 


37 
68.51 


32 

86.48 


25 
86.28 


UEL0IN6 LflBORflTDRY 








t of fill Minority 
« of Total 


38 
84.44 


31 
79.48 


32 

86.48 


MEDICAL OFFICE 








t of All Minority 
* of Total 


3B 
81.81 


48 
83.33 


33 
86.84 


TELEVISION PRODUCTION 








t of All Minority 
i of Total 


6£ 
75.86 


61 
84.72 


48 
87.27 


BUILDING MAINTENANCE 








f of All Minority 
t of Total 


38 

81.88 


33 
89.18 


21 
87.58 


RETAILING, MARKETING 
t of All Minority 
i of Total 


28 
98.98 


23 
76.66 


23 
88.46 


FOOD SERVICE 








1 of All Minority 
* of Total 


188 
84.37 


93 
88.57 


71 
88.75 


HOTEL/HOSPITALITY 








t of All Minority 
t of Total 


31 
%.87 


25 
89.28 


17 
89.47 


SHEET PETAL LABORATORY 








t of All Minority 
i of Total 


29 
85.29 


28 

86.95 


17 
89.47 


ELLIIRUNICS TECH 








# of All Minority 

* of Total 


117 
88.63 


181 
98.17 


77 
98.58 


PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY 








# of All Minority 

* of Total 


41 
69.49 


39 
98.69 


29 
98.62 



101 



Huiphrey Occupational Resource Center 
fill Minority Students 1984-1985 



Prograa 


Assigned 


Enrolled 11/84 


Enrolled 3/85 


FASHION/IKTERIOR DECOR 








i of fill Minority 
i of Total 


34 
77.27 


29 
85.29 


20 
90.90 


HflCHINE LflBORflTORY 








1 of fill Minority 
* of Total 


26 
92.85 


22 
91.66 


20 

90.90 


NURSING ASSISTANCE 








t of All Minority 
* of Total 


45 
81.81 


29 
82.85 


21 
91.30 


HEALTH AIDE 








i of All Minority 
i of Total 


15 
88.23 


7 
77.77 


11 
91.66 


BWKING 








# of All Minority 
i of Total 


35 
79.54 


34 
87.17 


34 
91.89 


ADVANCED OFFICE 








t of All Minority 
* of Total 


75 
90.36 


46 
88.88 


48 
92.30 


LEKL OFFICE PRACTICE 








t of All Minority 
t of Total 


41 
91.11 


34 
94.44 


26 
92.85 


DENTAL OFICE 








i of All Minority 
t of Total 


29 
85.29 


22 
95.65 


16 
94.11 


HEALTH LABORATORY 








1 of All Minority 
* of Total 


12 
92.30 


8 
88.88 


8 
100.00 



102 



TABLE 5 



SKILLS TRAINING 

BLACK 

WHITE 

OTHER MINORITY 
TOTAL 

EXPLORATORY 



BLACK 
WHITE 

OTHER MINORITY 
TOTAL 



HUMPHREY RESOURCE CENTER 
COMPARATIVE ENROLLMENT DATA* 



FALL 83 



1,362 



491 



2.301 



FALL 84 



1,096 
342 
392 



1,830 



232 
42 
89 

363 



SPRING 85 



939 
269 
304 



1,512 



159 
36 
69 



264 



PERCENT 
CHANGE 



-31% 
-40% 
-38% 
-34% 



-58% 
-66% 
-61% 
-60% 



SOURCE: "ORG RACE BY GRADE BY SEX BY CLUSTER TALLY' 
FOR: 9/26/83, 11/2/84, 3/20/85 



103 



HUMPHREY OCCUPflTIONftL RESOURCE CENTER 
Capacity Utilization - Spring, 1985 



Prograi 



flssignKnts Enrolled 11/84 Enrolled 3/85 
% of Capacity t of Capacity t of Capacity 



HEflLTH LMBUHHIORY 


29.54 


20.45 


18.18 


HEflLTHfllDE 


38.63 


20.45 


27.27 


NURSING flSSISimCt 


65.47 


41.66 


27.38 


RETAILING, MARKETING 


26.50 


36.14 


31.32 


MRIIC t SMALL ENGINE 


60.00 


41.11 


32.22 


CABINETMflKING 


48.88 


48.88 


34.44 


DENTAL OFICE 


80.95 


54.76 


40.47 


HOTEL/HOSPITflLITY 


72.72 


63.63 


43.18 


StCET f€T«. LABORATORY 


80.95 


54.76 


45.23 


FOOD SERVICE 


73.14 


60.00 


45.71 


PRINTING 


76.19 


53.17 


46.82 


CHILD CARE 


54.87 


56.09 


47.56 


PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY 


89.39 


65.15 


48.48 


AUTOBODY REPAIR 


83.33 


69.04 


48.80 


BUILDING MAINTENANCE 


77.08 


77.08 


50.00 


FASHION/INTERIOR DECOR 


100.00 


77.27 


50.00 


PLUMBING 


75.29 


63.52 


50.58 


ELECTRONICS TECH 


80.48 


68.29 


51.82 


MACHINE LABORATORY 


66.66 


57.14 


52.38 


ELECTRICAL TECH 


88.41 


73.78 


57.31 


ADVANCED OFFICE 


101.21 


65.85 


63.41 


MACHINE DRAFTING 


131.81 


95.45 


63.63 


LEGAL OFICE PRACTICE 


107.14 


85.71 


66.66 


CARPENTRY 


%.66 


88.88 


75.55 


AUTOMOTIVE/TRUCK 


98.82 


86.47 


80.58 



10^ 



Progran 



liMPHREY OCCUPflTIONflL RESOURCE CENTER 
Capacity Utilization - Spring, 1985 

flssignments Enrolled 11/84 Enrolled 3/85 
i of Capacity i of Capacity % of Capacity 



COSMETOLOGY 


182.27 


101.13 


80.68 


NEDICflL OFICE 


mee 


109.09 


86.36 


BANKING 


104.76 


92.85 


88.09 


MELDING LflBORflTORY 


107.14 


92.85 


88.09 


TELEVISION PRODUCTION 


140.32 


116.12 


88.70 


FASHION ILLUSTRflTION 


118.18 


113.63 


90.90 


COMMERICflL DESIGN 


127.27 


118.18 


95.45 


WORD PROCESSING 


109.52 


123.80 


109.52 


DflTft PROCESSING 


144.31 


128.40 


119.31 


HEATING AIR CONDITION' G 


1250.00 


1200.00 


1150.00 



105 



TABLE 7 

HUMPHREY RESOURCE CENTER 
ATTRITION RATES BY CLUSTER 



1983 - 1984 (AUGUST TO JUNE) 
AM PM TOTAL 



(AM + PM) 



BUSINESS 










// LOST 


29 


35 


64 




% LOSS 


17% 


21% 




19% 


COMMERCIAL MALL 










// LOST 


38 


60 


98 




% LOSS 


18% 


24% 




21% 


CONSTRUCTION 










//LOST 


50 


77 


12 7 




%LOSS 


23% 


35% 




29% 


GRAPHICS ?MEDIA 










// LOST 


33 


34 


67 




% LOSS 


26% 


24% 




25% 


HEALTH 










// LOST 


11 


32 


43 




% LOSS 


12% 


33% 




23% 


METAL FAB 










// LOST 


50 


83 


133 




% LOSS 


30% 


37% 




34% 


POWER MECHANICS 










# LOST 


36 


37 


73 




% LOSS 


28% 


28% 




28% 


EXPLORATORY 










# LOST 


91 


143 


234 




% LOSS 


32% 


33% 




35% 


TOTAL 










i LOST 


338 


501 


839 




% LOSS 


24% 


31% 




28% 



106 



EDUCftTlCNftL SJSiVEY RESU.TS 



These are the results of the educational surveji c;iven to a ssnpling of KORC and Madison Park Instructors. 
Thirty HORC and forty-three Madison Instructors responded to the questions. The sanpling of Instructors 
represented a cut across disciplines. The results are presented along with national ratings of U.S teachers 
and the U.S. general public. The percentages represent the number who gave the goal the highest rating which was 
a number 10 in this survey. 



GOAL 



HffiC Ha)ISOI ftLLTEftCHEJS KJCJWL PiSLIC 



To help develop good work habits, the 
ability to organize one's thoughts, the 
ability to concentrate 



83% 



5SJi 



m 



To develop the ability to think - 
creatively, objectively, analytically 



83» 7Zi 



5S% 



51« 



To develop the ability to speak and 
write correctly 



708 74» 



To develop the ability to use mathenatics 
for every day problems 



73X 53« 



53% 



S-W 



To encourage the desire to continue 
learning throughout life 



53X 56» 



51« 



To encourage respect for law and 
order, for obeying the rules of 
society 



67X 49^^ 



46;i 



525{ 



To develop the ability to live in 
a complex and changing world 



57X 37% 41% 



51% 



To prepare those who plan to attend 
college for college 



67% 58;'. 36;; 



46% 



To develop skills needed to get jobs 
for those not planning to attend 
college 



53% 34% 



107 



eoM. 



KC^ KADISM dLT^fXiSSS ^TdVlL FtSLIC 



To develop standards of what is 
•fight and wrong" 



59K 39« 



33X 



64$( 



To develop the desire to excel 



418 34X 



32» 



SIX 



To develop an understanding of 
democracy and to promote participation 
in the political process 



24X 



2A% 



31% 



33X 



To develop the ability to get along 
with different kinds of people 



62% 



318 



42X 



To develop respect for and understanding 
of other races, religions, nations and 
cultures 



79% 



34% 



30% 



39X 



To develop the ability to deal with adult 
responsibilites and problems, i.e., sex, 
marriage parenting, personal finances, 
alcohol and drug abuse 



52% 36% 



46% 



To help students make realistic plans for 
for what they will do after high school 
graduation 



76% 44% 37% 



52% 



To develop an understanding about different 
kinds of jobs and careers including their 
requirements and rewards 



41% 20% 



56% 



To gain knowledge and understanding of 
science and scientific facts 



27% 32% 17/. 



To gain knowledge and understanding of 
of history, geography, etc. 



21% m 15X 



42% 



108 



GERL 



hSCSC fSftOlSCN fa TEACHERS 60€}W. PUaiC 



To develop en appreciation for and 
participation in the arts, music, 
literature, theater, etc. 



24« 23X 



35« 



To help students overcome personal 
problems 



50% 19X 



45X 



To develop the ability to understand 
and use computers 


m 


14X 


IZi 


431 


To promote physical development through 
sports programs 


30X 


1% 


BA 


20JI 


To help students get good/high-paying 
jobs 


5055 


28X 


ea 


46X 


To develop an appreciation of the 
•good* things in life 


37% 


28% 


&i 


3Zi 



109 



HUNHEY CENTER OffSnorMIRE FOR EXPUMffOCr STIBENTS 



NWC (optional). 
DIRECTItMS: 



mf, 1985 



In order to help us improve the quality of the exploratory program, please respond to 
the statments below. Circle the one best answer for each item. 



1. Mhat is your age? 



2. What is your sex? 



(a) 13 (b) 14 (c) 15 (d) 16 (e) 17 
(f) more than 17 



(a) male 



(b) female 



3. What is your race? 



4. What is your home school? 



5. Hou many classes/periods have you 
been taking at your home school second 
semester? 



6. Did you like coming to the Humphrey Center? 



(a) Black (b) White (c) Spanish White 

(d) Spanish Black (e) Oriental (f) American Indian 

(g) Other Minority 



(a) Charlestoun (b) Dorchester (c) East Boston 

(d) English (e) Hyde Park (f) Jamaica Plain 

(g) Burke (h) South Boston (i) Kadi son Park 

(}) Unana (k) West Roxbury (1) Horace Mann 

(•) Boston High (n) McKinley 



(a) less than 3 (b) 3 (c) 4 (d) more than 4 



(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little 
(d) not at all 



110 



7. Did you feel that you had enough time at The (a) yes (b) no, too little time (c) no, too much time 

Humphrey Center to do your class work? 



I learned valuable skills and information 
during my exploratory experience 



(a) almost always (b) often (c) sometimes 
(d) infrequently (e) almost never 



Were you in any classes where you felt 
uncomfortable because you are female 
or male? 



(a) almost always (b) often (c) sometimes 
(d) infrequently (t) almost never 



10. How many days were you absent during 
the 90 days you spent at The Humphrey 
Center? 



(a) less than 5 (b) 5-10 (c) 11-15 (d) 16-25 
(•) more than 25 



11. Using the scale please 
(Obly aarfc th» prt^sH 

Business 

Carpentry 

Cormercial Mall 

Data Processing 

Electricity 

Hospital Careers 

Medical Laboratory 

Machine Laboratory 

Graphics 

Sheet Metal 



circle the response that indicates how much you liked the following programs: 
that 7M ha** actvaily had a chance t» explore) 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 



mEE2 



111 



12. Using the following scale, please circle the response that indicates how much you liked the following features 
of your Humphrey Center programs: 



Learning Guides 

Equipment 

Work Environment 

Products Hade 

Class Instruction 

Visual Aids (films, filmstrips) 

Other Students 



(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 

(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 



13. Has the exploratory progran 
increased your awareness about 
job opportunities 



(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 



14. Has the exploratory progran helped you 
decide on a career choice? 



(a) very much (b) somewhat (c) a little (d) not at all 



15. Using the scale, please circle the response that indicates how important you think the following skills are 
for you to be successful in your career interest; 



English 
Science 

Social Studies 
Reading 
Coninuni cat ions 
Human Relations 



(a) very important (b) somewhat (c) little (d) not at all 

(a) very important (b) somewhat (c) little (d) not at all 

(a) very important (b) somewhat (c) little (d) not at all 

(a) very important (b) somewhat (c) little (d) not at all 

(a) very important (b) somewhat (c) little (d) not at all 

(a) very important (b) somewhat (c) little (d) not at all 

(a) very important (b) somewhat (c) little (d) not at all 



112 



16. Please indicate j*our overall impression of 
of your exploratory experience. 



(a) excellent (b) very good (c) good (d) fai? 
(t) poor 



17. In your Sophnore, Junior, or Senior year 
do you intend to return to The Hunphrey 
Center to further your education? 



(a) yes (b) no 



OM.Y M9CR TIE >ecr 2 QUESnOC IF YOU ME A BUJNBHAL SmOfr. IF YOU ME NOT A BIUNGUM. STUDENT SUP TO 
TIC COfeir SECTIIM 



18. What is your primary language? 



(a) Spanish (b) French (c) Chinese (d) Vietnanese 
(•) Portugese (f) Italian (9) Russian <h) Cape Verdean 



19. Mere you in a Hioiphrey Center Prograa 
that you could not understand because 
of langauge problens 



(a) aliMst always (b) often (c) sometimes 
(d) infrequently (•) almost never 



113 



;:^?^SP = 5f? 




; a ^-j i.' -: s t; 



^KJu:: 



DrVtSlON OJOCCUMYJONAL EDUCA-nON. .MASS. D:?ARTMiXT Of E3UCATIO.N. APinJCATTON roa.M(3?:U-4) 

(I»wm»ctJo« In Pwt rV, AppUeatJoo Instniction* for PuWk Law 9*-«a3 ,„„.„ «,«,x 

A. APPUCA710N SUMMAflY ^^^^^ 2/8A) 



en3. Education Agency (LEA) BOS TON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Cnie* Aaministrativ* Officer . 



aEA cc<s«_ 



035 



.RQt?srv -'?ni]1nn^ 



26 Court Street, Boston, MA. 021( 



Apciication Contao Person ,1^?.^ Michaels. Occuoatior.?! O-r-nts Spec 



"26-62jC 



TelwnoneL. 



:i_515 



Education Rsgion i_ 

Is Thi» Institution Accredited: 
Accredited 8y Whom 



Labor Mariset Area. 



J( No 



Date of Acc-editation 



TABLE A-1 


TYPH Q»» FINDING 




NUMBSa PflOJeCT TTOE 


S2 


i 

as 


III 




1 SEX EQUITY SUPPORT MODEL 


X 




s 13.0:3 








s 










s 


< 








s 






1 


s 





TABLE A-2 
pngrama v wrttiln tti0 toUowIng eatmgertM. m In tttm 03.0-2, Coda/VU* 

PROJECT 

NuuasfltS} 



122 
123 
126 
127 

128 



m 



•■ctVmiamcii 

09.0101 

09.0102 



TABLE A-a 



Tm.2 



CATeCORT 
191 



oaoio4 

QJ.01C3 

09.01 ca 

09.0107 

09.01 ta 

09.0109 
09.0110 



ComorviHfUjvv Gonsu/nvf if>d Hc/iiafii ailing 

CMld 0*»«*OB»nBnt Car* and Guidane* 

Cotntng and TaxttiM 

Consumer &jucat)oo 

Farmly/lndlvicluaJ Hwiltn 

FamiJy Living and Parontneca Educaoon 

Poods an<3 NutntJon 

Horn* Maraqafnant 

Housing ano Hom» Pumisninga 

SxsWratofv C;H S-ucatlon Sluaiy^fS 



PSOJCCT 

NUM8ZK(ST 

FRCMTAStJjl 



James Caradonio 






■^■vy. 



FOB STATE USE ONLY 



O 01* 



. 115 



i-'i, 7/p Gomrr>onuipa///i o/ jITasstic/iuie/h 

In l^y li," !7\.oxoijry Gommunily Gof/ege 

,-\ V "(y'.-i 62 J Jjunlin^lon ITloenue 

'■^yj J5os/on, JlCassacfiuiplts 02113 



October 1, 1984 



Dear RCC Faculty and Staff: 



October 1 is the official starting date of our new FIPSE 
project, "Teaching from Strengths." This letter is to invite 
you to participate in it as a trainee and/or a member of the 
project's college steering committee. 

As you may know, the first training cycle will be in January, 
probably on the 17th, 18th, and 19th. The training v;ill be cm 
becoming ethnographers of communication - our own, our students', 
and that of our subject areas - and on enabling our students to 
excel by having them become ethnographers as well. The three 
trainers in January, Dr. Shirley Brice Heath, Dr. Boyd Davis, and 
Dr. Dixie Goswami, all long-time colleagues in educational acd 
anthropological research, have devised various approaches to msing 
ethnographic techniques to promote total success in various learning 
and communicative settings. They have also trained business and 
technology personnel and other people in these techniques abd 
enabled them to provide better training and communications im their 
enterprises. 

We will also learn the logic systems behind various dialects of 
English (including Standard English), and behind most of the languages our 
ESL students speak. This and other information on culturally learned 
verbal behaviors and norms will help you to better understand and instruct 
your students. And the techniques your students learn from you will 
help them develop strong communicative and critical thinking skills. 
These will enable them to attain high levels of academic achievement. 

The project has a lot to offer you, whether you are a teacher or 
a staff member. For teachers, the project will also provida reduced 
teaching loads and/or the help of graduate teaching assistants for 
those who wish to experiment with new techniques learned in training, 
but who need help in order to do so. The consultants who train us in 
January will be returning several times throughout the semester to 
regroup the trainees for questions, problem solutions, and further 
training. That way we V7ill be building in support systems for your 
efforts, and a lot of potential sources for you to draw frran (or with 
whom you might wish to collaborate and publish) , as you implement new 
techniques into your courses and comnunication. 

Attached here is some background material for you to review. Please 
read it soon and decide if you would like to be a trainee. If so, fill 
out the attached application for training, and return it to me by Nov. 1. 
After that, we will be filling up e;r.pty slots with outside applicants. 
I hope that you will sign up. Be assured that you will profit from it. 

Adele MacGowan 
Project Director 
116 



BACKGROUND MATERIAL 1-OR TIIK FJrSI': I'KOJFXT'S TIRST TRAINING CYCLE, JAN. 



For years, educators, linguists, cultural anthropologists, 
rhetoricians, sociologists, psychologists and others have sought 
answers to the dilemma of underachievement among so many minority 
groups in our schools. Myriad explanations have been followed by 
many new approaches to teaching that promote higher levels of 
academic success. Most of these approaches have concentrated on 
reorganizing academic content to make it more learnable, or on 
training the student to have stronger academic skills in order to 
better deal with college learning. At best, these approaches have 
been moderately successful. 

But now there is compelling evidence from the work of cultural 
anthropologists and linguists that underachievement is a result not 
of cultural deprivation, or student deficits, nor of improper 
organization and presentation of material to be learned. It stems 
more from the differences in the ways people communicate, with the 
language of academia differing substantially from the ways in which 
many minority groups are socialized into using language. These 
differences are so pervasive and so much a part of the person, that 
for many groups, underachievement in academia starts from the first 
grade and continues throughout schooling. Thus the student sees 
him- or herself as not very intelligent, despite efforts to learn. 

Happily, there now exist not only explanations of the different 
ways in which different groups communicate, think, and learn, but of 
ways to enable people to become aware of their ways with language, 
then learn the second way (and third, fourth, etc. if necessary). 
Thus one can build from one's strengths - the native culture, dialect, 
language, logic - and then "add those of academia, thus becoming doubly 
aware, and doubly strong. Or if one (such as you) is from the mainstream 
culture, and thus your language, thinking, etc. are one and the same as 
those of academia, you can also add a second, third, or fourth way 
of using language and 'thinking, and thus broaden your own knowledge and 
your ability to see the world through your students' eyes, and then better 
instruct them. 

These techniques are from the field of ethnography, and they have 
been used with total success by educators like our main consultant and 
trainer. Dr. Shirley Brice Heath of Stanford University. They have been 
used to train many kinds of people: teachers, administrators, corporate 
executives, special education students, dialectcTlly different students, 
bilingual students, all kinds of underachieving students, and human service 
workers, so that communication and everything done via conimunication, 
especially learning, can be improved. One example of success will give 
some indication of the power of these techniques. Dr. Heath challenged 
a tenth-grade special education classs (all reading on or below the second 
grade level) to become ethnographers of communication in their communities 
and classrooms. They did this in addition to their rcgular»curriculum. By 
the end of one academic year, all of them were reading at or above the 
tenth grade level; six had been assigned to honors English classes. 

117 



That example is one among many, where teachers have used and 
had students use ethnographic tecliniques instead of or in addition 
to other ones, and have had exceptional improvement in their students' 
learning as a result. Some attribute it to the critical thinking 
skills which develop; some to the understanding of the differences 
between the mainstream culture and language and those of other 
groups; and others to the heightened active roles students take in 
their learning. The results may be due to a combination of these as 
well, but the important thing is that students have had success where 
before the rule was underachievement or failure. 

There will be many questions running through your mind as you 
consider these ideas and the proposed training. How can I implement 
new activities and techniques when I can hardly get across what I 
have to teach now? Shouldn't these techniques be used in developmental 
courses so that I don't have to worry about them? And if you were to 
become bi- or multi-cultural yourself, as some of you already are, 
you would see that you have even more questions. But these are all 
steps in the right direction. A large part of ethnography involves 
questioning: questioning our assumptions about learning, language 
upe, values; questioning how other cultures learn, think, use language, 
develop literacy; questioning why some groups do well in school while 
others underachieve; questioning how a subject-area is organized, 
thematically and linguistically; questioning how students best learn; 
questioning why some teaching and learning activities are more success- 
ful than others; etc. Questioning leads to answering; answering to success. 

The training will help you to question further, and to learn more, 
so that your questions will lead to new insights and hopefully to the use 
of more powerful teaching/learning strategies, so that your students' 
successes will multiply. 

If enough of us learn to use strategies that promote higher levels 
of success, there will be side, effects like substantially less difficulty 
with underpreparation for higher level courses. Thus students will be 
so well prepared for subsequent courses that we will not have to worry 
about exit exams or entry criteria. (It is not that teachers are not 
covering course objectives to prepare students for higher level courses, 
but that students' achievement is so low, yet high enough for passing^ 
that they are not ready for higher level work.) 

And with increased multicultural understanding, we'll be more adept 
at using students' strengths to help them build on a second set of 
strengths - those that they need to succeed in academia. It has been 
said that the opposite of multiculturalism is dogmatism. To be multi- 
cultural is to be aware that others' cultures enrich our otm, and to be 
able to incorporate different syste~s of cultural knowledge into one's oum. 
We customarily expect our students to do this; but we don't do it ourselves. 

Thj.s all probably sounds complicated, maybe even a bit messy. That's 
because it is both of these. There are no simple answers; hut this 
training will help us to figure out the complex ones we need at R. C. C. 



HUBERT H. HUMPHREY OCCUPATIONAL RESOURCE 
CENTER 

SCHOOL BASED RULES FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR 
1984-85 

1 . Wearing of Hats 

You will not be permitted to wear hats 
Exceptions: 

a. If required for medical reasons 

b. If required in designated shop/lab areas for 
safety reasons 

2. Sports Bags /Backpacks, Bookbags, etc. 

You are required to store such items in lockers and are not allowed to carry 
them around during class time. 

3. Eating of Food is not Allowed in Shop/Classroom/Lab Areas 

If a break is allowed in your program/cluster, refreshments may be consumed 

in designated areas only. Each student must follow proper clean-up procedures. 

4. You Must Follow Shop & Lab Safety Rules and regulations must be followed as 
posted in each cluster/program. All persons must follow rules in or out 

of their cluster. 

5. Use of Lavatories Lavatories will be kept locked at all times. Lavatories are 
to be used during posted times only. Students must use lavatories in their 
cluster only. Emergencies will be handled on an individual basis by classroom 
teacher. You must have a yellow pass. 

6. Public Telephone is to be used for emergencies only. You must have a pass issued 
by the Cluster Administrator-. 

7. Issuing of Passes No student is to leave the cluster or program area for any 
reason without a valid pass . A valid pass is yellow in color and is filled out 
completely by an instructor or Cluster Administrator. A valid pass also is 

a nurses 's pass or an early dismissal notice. No passes will be issued to visit 
other areas of the Humphrey Center. 

8. Tardiness 

A.M. classes start at 7:25; P.M. classes, start at 11:25. 

a. Any student arriving after these times is tardy. 

b. Any tardy student must sign the tardy log provided 
by the teacher and include reason for tardiness. 

c. Students issued late bus passes must put their 
name and bus nutober on time stamped pass. 

9. Evacuation of Building Due to an Emergency 

1. All students are to follow policy established for the school. 

2. No students are allowed to leave their designated areas outside the 
building. 

3. Attendance will be monitored on retu^--. to building. 

119 



Humphrey Center Services for Studencs Services are available for students. 

However, you must have prior written permission from instructor and Cluster Administra- 



11. 



tor. 

Radios , Tape Players, Electronic Games, Etc. You are not permitted to 
bring items of this description into the Humphrey Center. Violators will 
be subject to the following: 

F irst Offense - Item will be taken from student and returned at the 
end of the session. 

Second and/or Additional Offenses -Item will be taken from student and 
returned only to parent or guardian. 

12. Smoking: You are not allowed to smoke anywhere inside the building. 

Sanctions Any of the following sanctions will be imposed for infractions of 
"" School Based Rules: 

1. Parent Qotification and Conference. 

2. Loss of school privileges, i.e., services, student clubs, field 
trips, breaks, etc. 

3. After school sessions 

4. Restitution 

5. Referrals to support agencies 

An accumulation of infractions of School Based Rules will lead to suspension 
according to the Code of Discipline. 



120 



Humphrey'CPnter Orientation 
School Based Rules 



Joe Lynch, an eleventh grade student assigned to the Printing 
Program made a complaint to the Headmaster. Joe's complaint 
was that his teacher did not recommend him for a good paying 
part-time job at a nearby printing company. Joe felt he deserved 
an opportunity to get an interview for the job because he could 
do the work required of him. His teacher agreed that he could 
do the work but because of his poor tardiness record at the Humphrey 
Center, Joe was not recommended for the job and another student, 
who had grades below those of Joe's but came to school regularly 
and on time, was recommended. The Headmaster had a conference 
with Joe Lynch, his teacher and job counselor to discuss the matter. 

Discussion Questions 

1. Do you think the teacher was right by not recommending Joe 
for the job. Why? 



2. Should tardiness count towards a student's eligibility for a job' 
Why? 



3. Should the Headmaster give Joe a chance at the job? Why? 



4. IVIake up a school rule that you think is fair regarding tardiness. 



121 



3£CC'-.I) TiS:-! FSlLUSLb 



t! FAILURES % rfiriUSES « FfllLUKES i FAILURES 
TQTfiL »-€ TO DUE TO DUE Tj s.E TO TCTfit % TOTRL 

P.SSIG\ED PTTENDSNCE fiTTENDPNCE PE.vQRMSNlE -'ESFOR^'P.SCE FS!lL.'.".E3 FfiiuUSES 



12.5* 


3 


12.5* 


6 


2^j.ii 


5.i% 


b 


&.1* 


li 


11.1* 


5.1* 


8 


12.1* 


12 


18. c* 


5.1* 


^ 


5.1* 


6 


18.3* 



BLSINESo/DSTA P?.C:£5SI\G 267 16 6.e* 21 7.5* 

6SPJ)E 9 2^ 

GRADE IC 99 

SSrJE il 66 

BSPI^E 12 "5 

CDirXESCIPL WLL 3A2 £3 8.2* 55 17,3* 87 25. « 

B33CE 3 
3RRDE 13 
GRACE 11 
GRADE 12 

CGNSTSJCTIGN/ELEGTaiCITY S'tE 52 14.9* 79 22.7* 131 37.6* 

tMil 9 
SSftDE 10 
GSPOE 1; 
ERPDE 12 

E.^RPHICS/^EDIfi 254 "53 28.5* 32 12.6* 85 33.5* 



£3 


4 


14.3* 


i; 


33.5* 


15 


53.6* 


126 


12 


10.3* 


21 


16.7* 


34 


27. « 


111 


7 


6.3* 


14 


12.6* 


21 


18.9* 


77 


4 


5.2* 


13 


16.9* 


17 


22.1* 



52 


8 


25.0* 


19 


59.4* 


27 


84.4* 


123 


25 


£«.3* 


21 


17. 1* 


46 


37.4* 


115 


11 


9.6* 


27 


23.5* 


33 


35.8* 


76 


8 


1Z,3* 


12 


15.4* 


20 


25.6* 



GRADE 9 


28 


5 


17.9* 


Iv 


35.7* 


15 


5-3,6* 


GRfSE 13 


111 


38 


27.0* 


13 


11.7* 


43 


38. 7* 


53ft5E 11 


7^ 


8 


11.4* 


5 


8.6* 


14 


28.0* 


GRfiDE 12 


45 


13 


22.2* 


3 


6.7* 


13 


26. S* 


«♦»♦♦♦«♦♦♦*««**»««*♦*) 


tmitnim^<»« 


!»iHH(»»»*»» 


*4»t«»H»« 






HEALTH 


56 


9 


9.4* 


12 


12.5* 


21 


21.9* 


GRADE 9 


4 


2 


50.0* 


I 


25. C* 


3 


75. S* 


GRADE :a 


32 


3 


9.4* 


5 


15.6* 


a 


25.0* 


G3fiD£ U 


37 


4 


12.8* 


6 


16.2* 


10 


27.8* 


GRADt 12 


23 


G 


0.0* 





e.w 





8.8* 



25 


6 


24.0* 


9 


36.8* 


15 


68.8* 


91 


28 


22.0* 


IS 


17.5* 


35 


39.6* 


83 


18 


21.7* 


6 


7.2* 


24 


£3.9* 


49 


6 


15.3* 


3 


5.1* 


11 


22.4* 



fErPiS/ELECTRKICS 243 52 21.0* 34 13.7* 86 34.7* 

GRADE 9 

GRADE 10 

GR;ffiE 11 . 

G.IADE 12 

POWER ?'£CH?;MIC3 163 29 17.3* 37 22. C* 65 39.3* 

G.RAT-E 9 

Ei^ADE 10 

GRADE 11 

GRADE 12 

SNA? 50 1 1.7* 

GPP.JE 25 
G=;?jE 12 
G.r-C'E U 
G^PDE 12 1 ij *^' I o f'l! 122 



12 


5 


59.8* 


55 


8 


14.3* 


64 


13 


23.3* 


36 


2 


I.e. 



i2 


1 


1.9* 


5 





c.e* 


2 • 





3.f* 


1 


' 


■' ' 8.f.* 



33.3* 


le 


83.3* 


21.4* 


20 


33.7* 


17.2* 


24 


37.5* 


27.6* 


12 


33.3* 


33.8* 


19 


31.7* 


28.3* 


16 


SJ.S:'. 


4'?.W 


2 


48. 0* 


53. 0;' 


1 


58. W 


8.e* 


8 


8.6*" 



from: Bureau of Equal Educational Opportunity: 

"Desegregation in Massachusetts, 1984-85 Annual Report" 
April 1985, pages 23-30 

Vocational Issues 

by Judith C. Taylor 

Springfield Overview 

At present there are four thematic high schools in 
Springfield, three of which are vocationally oriented — 
Commerce, Technical and Putnam Vocational High Schools; 
Classical High School is college preparatory. For some 
time. Commerce and Technical have overenrolled minority 
students and Classical and Putnam Vocational have 
underenrolled them. In 1978, Commerce's minority enrollment 
was 60%, 14 percentage points higher than the district 
average; in 1984 it was 66%, 11 points higher than the 
district average. Technical' s minority enrollment was 52% 
in 1978 (6 points higher than the district average); in 1984 
it was 83% (28 points higher than the district average) . In 
contrast. Classical' s minority enrollment was 17% in 1978 
(28 points below the district average); in 1984 it was 24% 
(21 points below the district average) . At Putnam, the 
minority percentage was 33% (12 points below the district 
average); in 1984 it was 46% (9 points below the district 
average) . 

However, Springfield is near completion of a high school 
construction/reorganization program. A new combined school 
will replace Classical and Technical, eliminating the two 
schools whose enrollments are most disproportionate. A new 
wing at Putnam will add modern facilities and enable the 
school to accommodate more students. Renovations and 
curriculum revision will make significant improvements at 
Commerce. 

Planning for Increased Minority Access to vocational 
Education 

In cooperation with the Department of Education Springfield 
has deVeloped two related plans for improving the quality 
of, and minority access to, vocational education. First was 
the Admissions Plan, developed in 1981 in response to a 
statewide Departmental requirement. The plan centralizea 
authority for recruiting (the Occupational Education 
Director is responsible) , described the resources (both 
staff and materials) that v/ould be committed to recruiting, 
the activities that would be undertaken and how they would 



123 



be coordinated. Federal vocational education funds have 
been used for initial support of certain components of the 
Admissions plan. 

Then, in 1982, the State Board of Education approved a long- 
range secondary component of the Springfield Desegregation 
Plan, developed by Springfield staff, which had been used as 
(among other things) a vehicle for comprehensive planning 
for vocational education in the city, including recruitment 
and retention of underrepresented groups. Chapter 636 funds 
have been used to develop and implement the vocational 
education components. 

Putnam Vocational High School 

Enrollment Patterns 

Statistically speaking, Putnam has been something of an 
elite school in the Springfield system. Since 1978 its 
minority enrollment has been 12-14 percentage points below 
the system average, and its low income enrollment has been 
16 or more points below the system average. From a 
statewide perspective, however, Putnam (together with the 
Humphrey Occupational Resource Center in Boston) enrolls a 
far higher percentage of minority students than the other 
vocational high schools in the Commonwealth. 

Application/Acceptance Patterns 

Putnam has also been unable to accept all the students who 
have applied. In the fall of 1984, for example, the school 
only had room for 614 of the 776 students who had applied 
(or, 20% of the applicants could not be accommodated) . 

The current acceptance patterns at Putnam will not have the 
effect of bringing the proportion of minorities closer to 
the system average. For example, 46% of the new students 
accepted for the fall of 1984 were minority, exactly the 
same proportion of overall minority enrollment in the school 
in 1984. Statistically, that is because the school accepted 
approximately the same proportions of its white and minority 
applicants (and the proportion of minorities in the school 
cannot increase until a relatively higher proportion of 
minorities than whites is accepted for entry, over a period 
of years) . 



Recruitment to Putnam vocational 

Metword of Special Guidance Counselors 

A special guidance counselor responsible for career 
education/ awareness has been established in each Junior high 
school, with each counselor linked to one of the five 

5 12 4 -r 



counselors at Putnam. As part of their comprehensive career 
awareness program, the junior high counselors inform 
students of the skills training programs available at Putnam 
and their relation to careers. The counselors conduct 
visits of junior high students, in small groups, to 
Putnam. Translators accompany the groups whenever limited- 
English proficient students are included in the groups. 

Because the junior high counselors have close relations with 
a counselor at Putnam, they are able to advise students 
about the specific details of the individual programs at 
Putnam. Each of them has received special training 
emphasizing "active efforts" to recruit minority and non- 
traditional students. Originally these counselors were 
funded through P.L. 94-482, but the school system has since 
assumed financial responsibility for them. 

There is an annual special recruiting program, which has 
been coordinated by the Occupational Education Director 
since 1981 when the Admissions Plan clarified and prescribed 
the roles of various Springfield officials in recruiting. 

The recruiters used a film strip developed by the system and 
a slide tape developed in conjunction with the Springfield 
Chamber of Commerce (using federal matching funds) . The 
slide tape highlights the five major areas of employment 
opportunity in Springfield, and links each to the vocational 
education program (s) in the system where the relevant skills 
can be obtained. Slides can be changed easily to reflect 
changes in local employment patterns. 

The principal of Putnam leads the recruiting delegation to 
each school, where he speaks with interested students after 
the presentation is completed. Because guidance counselors 
have been active throughout the year, the number of 
interested students is usually high. 

Program/Curriculum Improvement at Putnam 

Springfield, in cooperation with regional office staff, has 
also initiated a comprehensive curriculum revision program 
that will have important implications for equity. Each of 
the individual programs at Putnam is being rearranged in 
clusters of related programs. Each cluster will be taught 
on an individualized basis using core competencies, and will 
include programs that have traditionally appealed to one sex 
only along with programs that attract both sexes. The mere 
improvement of program quality will serve all Springfield 
students well, and will in itself constitute a recruiting 
attraction. 



125- 



The New High School 

The technical component of the new high school will replace, 
and improve significantly on, the programs currently offered 
at Technical High School, where most minority students have 
been concentrated in the outdated and ineffective programs 
of the school. The new school's technical offerings will be 
housed in a special career development wing, will reflect 
current employment opportunities in technical fields and use 
new curricula. In addition, the wing will include 
industrial arts programs, updated and using the new 
curricula from Putnam. 

There are several innovative features important for 
equity. Ninth grade industrial arts students who apply to 
and are accepted by Putnam for tenth grade matriculation 
will lose no time, since the curricula at the two schools 
will be the same. Because the vocational education 
curricula v^ill be the same there will be, in effect, an open 
campus in which students will be able to take classes at 
both Putnam and the new school — so that vocational students 
can develop academic skills and academic students can 
acquire more intensive skills training. This feature should 
be of particular importance for those (many) students who 
had not chosen vocational education by the 9th grade (and 
are now, as in most school systems) unable to pursue 
vocational training until after leaving their high schools. 

CoKunents 

The regional staff of the Department of Education who have 
worked with Springfield over the past years are pleased with 
the progress that has been made. They attribute it to 
several factors. First is the mutually cooperative working 
atmosphere that has been created between the Department and 
the school system. Second is the establishment of 
comprehensive plans (cooperatively developed) for the 
improvement of minority access to vocational education. 
Third is the superintendent' s clear and continuing 
commitment to the improvement of vocational education in his 
system, and fourth is the direct involvement of the 
vocational school principal in minority recruiting. 

Of course, the regional staff do not believe that the task 
is finished. For example, the current 9th grade career 
exploratory at Putnam, which should be a vehicle for 
recruiting minority and non-traditional students to new 
fields, is largely ineffective and needs to be entirely 
revamped. Finally, it should be pointed out that Putnam has 
reached the stage where minority recruiting in itself is 
insufficient. As pointed out earlier, there are numerous 
minority applicants to the school but proportion of minority 
students at Putnam will not increase as long as the current 
pattern of minority/majority admissions prevails. 

126 



VOCATIONAL EDUCATION IN BOSTON 

The access of minorities to vocational education in Boston 
has improved immeasurably since it was desegregated in the 
mid-seventies with the implementation of the Unified Plan 
for Vocational Education. Prior to that time, there was a 
two track system in which the good training programs were 
reserved for white students and minority students were 
segregated in the remaining ones. Today minority students 
have full access to the programs at the multi-million dollar 
Humphrey Occupational Resource Center, to the various magnet 
vocational programs of the city and to the "core" programs 
in the district high schools. 

At issue now are questions of commitment and quality. There 
was only negligible monitoring of the extent of Boston's 
implementation of the Unified Plan before 1983, when the 
State Board assumed responsibility for monitoring Boston's 
compliance with outstanding desegregation orders at the 
direction of the U.S. District Court. The first monitoring 
report documented extensive non-compliance with significant 
portions of the Unified Plan. Since that time the 
compliance situation with regard to vocational education has 
improved. However, no clear declaration of commitment to 
excellent vocational education has been forthcoming from 
Boston Public Schools' leadership, and relations between the 
Department of Education and the School Department have been 
insufficiently cooperative. Although the Court did not 
direct the Department to evaluate the quality of vocational 
education in Boston, there indirect measures are available 
which suggest that Boston students, both white and minority, 
do not perceive that valuable opportunities await them in 
vocational education. 

Boston and the State have agreed that the Court-ordered plan 
is outdated and an insufficient blueprint to guide the 
development of vocational education in Boston. Recent news 
in this respect is encouraging. Serious negotiation over 
modification of the Unified Plan has begun between Boston 
and the Department of Education. In addition, Boston has 
proposed changing the Humphrey Center from a half-day skills 
center to a more traditional vocational school (whose 
students will be full time, attending Madison Park for the 
non-vocational part of their education) , which should make 
vocational education more attractive, at least to younger, 
in-school students. 

The Humphrey Occupational Resource Center 
Enrollment Patterns 

The Unified Plan requires that each of the 35 programs at 
the Humphrey Resource Center "reflect the racial ratios 
established by the Court for the citywide schools." 



127 . 



Ideally, there would be a sufficient number of applications 
to each program to permit assignment of students from each 
racial/ethnic group in numbers that filled the program to 
capacity and reflected citywide ratios. In many cases, 
however, insufficient numbers of students from one or more 
racial group have applied, so the pattern of applications 
does not reflect citywide ratios. In such cases, the 
Department of Implementation has only two choices: either 
unaerenroll the programs in question (resulting in 
underutilized capacity) or overenroll students from the 
racial groups with disproportionately high numbers of 
applications (resulting in non-compliance) . 

Enrollment data from 1983 and 1984 showed a significant 
number of deviations from the ideal pattern of compliance. 
In the fall of 1984 only two programs complie-3 with the 
Unified Plan requirement in all three racial categories. 
However, when a more generous standard was applied 
(deviation of 10 percentage points, compared with five 
points in the Unified Plan) there is evidence of progress 
from 1983 to 1984. The number of programs falling within 
the 10 point standard has increased for each of the three 
racial groups. Even with this generous standard, one- 
quarter to one-third of the programs are (depending on the 
racial group) our of compliance. 

Application/Acceptance Patterns 

In past years, Boston was in the anomalous position of 
having to deny acceptance to a number of Humphrey Center 
applicants while at the same time maintaining unfilled slots 
in the Center's programs — many of which had non-complying 
enrollment patterns. That was because Boston received 
applications from more students than could be accommodated 
in certain programs, but in disproportionate patterns from 
the vaious racial/ethnic groups. Boston attempted to 
balance the need to comply with Court orders with the desj^ 
to satisfy the choices of Boston students and fell short 
both accounts. 

Last year, part of the problem disappeared. So few students 
applied to the Humphrey Center — applications to the Center 
had been declining for several years — that Boston could 
accept all of them. No student was denied admission on 
account of the Court-ordered admission standards. 

Furthermore, there was serious attrition between assignments 
and enrollments. Eighteen programs failed to enroll at 
least 80% of the White students assigned, and nineteen 
programs failed to enroll at least 80% of the other minority 
students assigned. 

Consequently, the number of students enrolled in skills 
training programs in the fall of 1984 was far below 

'12 8 i 



capacity. Enrollments dropped from 2,301 in 1983 to 1,830 
in 1984 — a decrease of approximately 20%. The number of 
enrollees from each racial group decreased in approximately 
the same proportions. This represented only 69% of the 
estimated capacity of the Humphrey Center. It is likely 
that the underutilization of the Center was even higher. A 
number of sources, both within and without the Center 
reported that the number of students actually attending 
skills-training programs was well below reported 
enrollments. 

Significantly, the number of students in the freshman 
exploratory program declined even more sharply (45%) , from 
661 to 362. Since the exploratory program serves as a 
recruiting base from the Center's programs, it seems likely 
that next year's skills training enrollment will be even 
lower. 

Recruitment 



Recruitment is critical, both to promote compliance with the 
standards of the Unified Plan and to ensure that vocational 
education facilities are fully utilized. The enrollment 
data supplied by Boston show, however, that recruitment 
efforts are insufficient and increasingly ineffective. 

The Unified Plan, recognizing that effective recruitment 
would be vital to the success of desegregating Boston' s 
vocational education system, mandated a comprehensive 
"public information campaign" based on marketing and 
recruiting strategies in use around the nation. Little of 
this recruiting program seems ever to have been 
implemented. The first monitoring report of the Division of 
Occupational Education regional staff documented extensive 
non-compliance. 

The Department of Education, as a result of this non- 
compliance finding in conjunction with patterns of 
underenrollment and disproportionate enrollment by race, 
requested from Boston a comprehensive recruiting plan. It 
specified that this plan should identify a full-time 
director of recruiting, the recruiting activities that would 
be undertaken and the staff and resources that would be used 
to implement the plan. To this date, no such plan has been 
provided, and Boston continues to insist that its current 
arrangements are adequate and effective. 

Comments 

Boston students, on account of the voluntary assignment 

policy that obtains in vocational education, have the 

opportunity to "vote with their feet." It seems clear that 

they have not elected to support the current vocational 

education system in Boston, but their reasons for their 

129 > 



decision are not as obvious. Boston has submitted a long 
list of reasons why its students reject vocational 
education, some of which have some validity (e.g., the 
undesirable location of the Humphrey Center) and others of 
which have none. For example, Boston contended that this 
situation merely reflects broader patterns of choice among 
students when — to the contrary — applications to other 
vocational schools in the Commonwealth have continued to 
rise even as the number of high school students has 
declined. 

None of the reasons cited by Boston addressed questions of 
the quality and content of the education offered at the 
Humphrey Center. 

There is some evidence that the pattern of negative 
attitudes and poor classroom management practices among some 
teachers discovered at the examination schools also exists 
at the Humphrey Center. Boston has been disinclined to take 
notice even when, as recently, the Department invited it to 
apply Chapter 636 funds to inservice training for Humphrey 
Center teachers on effective teaching practices for minor i:y 
and limited-English proficient students. 

It is to be hoped that Boston's extensive and sophisticated 
vocational facilities, which have the potential for 
preparing large numbers of students for effective 
participation in the job market, will realize this potential 
as a result of the planning now underway. A clear 
commitment from Boston to an excellent vocational educatioi) 
system is the first, but critical, step toward fulfillinf^- 
the promise of desegregation initiated by the United Plan i 
1975. 



130 



EXAMINATION SCHOOL PREPARATION: 

ADVANCED WORK CLASS /ACADEMICALLY TALENTED SECTIONS 

In Report No. 4 monitors reported on efforts of the Program 
Director of Gifted and Talented Programs in Boston to improve the 
quality of the AWC/ATS . While many plans had been made and some 
partially implemented, progress in resolving some the major 
problems in improving AWC/aTS were stalled for financial and 
other reasons. The Director was again asked to provide a 
progress report on efforts to resolve those same issues (see 

page ) and the following is a summary of her report in each 

area. 

(1 ) Progress in developing and implementing a more 
effectice way of identifying and selecting students 

Specific multiple criteria for identifying 
students and a method by which the results of the 
various instruments can be scored in quantifiable 
terms in order to select students have been 
developed. These criteria and the selection process 
have been reviewed and supported by curriculum 
specialists and gifted education specialists in 
several urban school systems throughout the 
country. This new process will be presented to the 
school committee in May 1985 for approval. If 
approved it will be submitted to the parties and the 
Court as a modification to be put in place for school 
year 1986-1987. 

(2) Progress in developing a differentiated and 
appropriate curriculum 

Progress continues to be made in acquiring 
regular school funds and Chapter 636 funds to carry 
out the curriculum development activities planned 

since last year (see page ). A national 

authority on gifted education will work with AWC 
teachers on curriculum during the summer and 
curriculum materials already developed will be 
distributed for use in the fall. 

( 3) Progress in training and evaluating AWC/ATS teachers 

Several in-service workshops have been aimed at 
providing training for all AWC/ATS teachers during 
the 1984-1985 school year. These workshops have 
ranged from 'study skills', and 'Children's 
Literature', to 'thinking skills. In addition, some 
schools with AWC/ATS programs have benefitted from 
other forms of training. What appears to be needed 
at this point, is (1) a prescription for the kind of 
training which a regular classroom teacher would need 



131 



in order to be effective in teaching an AWC/ATS class 
and, (2) a method by which this training can be 
instituted to insure that all AWC/aTS teachers have 
received such training. 

(4) Progress in creating links between AWC/ATS and the 
examination schools 

Meetings between AWC/ATS teachers and Latin 
School staff are ongoing. Latin School staff will 
also be invited to participate in AWC/ATS curriculum 
development. Since staff at all three examination 
schools have cited 'lack of adequate preparation' as 
the major problem in the retention of Black and 
Hispanic students at the examination schools, it 
would seem that meetings between AWC/ATS staff and 
the staff of all three examination schools would 
benefit all. The links between these schools and 
programs need to be further expanded. 

(5) Progress in improvement of the Spanish bilingual 
AWC/ATS 

Boston's Hispanic AWC/ATS students have greatly 
benefitted from a support program being offered by U. 
Mass/Boston's Institute for Learning and Teaching. 
The program provided tutoring and counseling, and 
students have been involved in a summer skills- 
building program all parts of this U. Mass program. 
As of mid-May 1985 this U. Mass program is in serious 
jeopardy because of lack of adequate funds to operate 
in the coming school year. 

The bilingual AWC/ATS program appears to be in 
transition. It is unclear from reports received 
whether lasting improvements are being made, or 
whether those improvements, if any, depend in large 
measure on the U. Mass program now in jeopardy of 
losing its 'soft' funding. 



132 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 



BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

DEPARrME'iT OF INSTRUCnONAL SERVICES 

JOANNE M Mc^/IA^:US 

P'Og-im O'rer.lor - Gifled ana Talented 

May 1,1985 

MEMORANDUM 

To: Franklin Banks, Boston Desegregation Monitor 

From: Joanne McManus, Program Director - Gifted/Talented. 

Re: Federal Court, Desegregation Monitoring Report 
Advanced Work Program Update 

The February 1, 1985 Report to the United States District Court on Boston 
School Desegregation cited the need for continued improvement in the Advanced Work 
Program, as a critical desegregation monitoring issue. We were pleased that the Court 
Monitors acknowledged our efforts to comply with their recommendations. 

Each of the five problematic areas identified in the February 1984 report is listed 
below and is accompanied by an update that expresses our commitment to continued 
movement and growth. 

1. Progress in developing and implementing a new method of identifying and selecting 
academically able students for AWC/ATS. This new method would be culture-fair and 
consistent with the state-of-the-art in the identification and selection of gifted 
students . 



As indicated in our November 1, 1984 report. Dr. Spillane requested that the 
Office of Curriculum and Instruction and the Department of Implementation work together 
to further examine the proposed modifications presented to him in September 1984. A 
review committee representing the Department of Implementation, the s uoerintendents office, 
E.E.O., Testing & Evaluation, the Bilingual Department and the Office of Curriculum 
and Instruction met over a three-month period to carefully scrutinize the proposal, 
item by item. During this time we also solicited input from authorities in the field 
of gifted and talented, program directors of urban gifted and talented programs, and 
minority leaders in the fields of education and educational psychology (see attached 
samples of correspondence) . 

Complete agreement on each proposed modification was never reached and in 
December the review committee met with Dr. Spillane to olitline their areas of agreement 
and concern. Dr. Spillane decided Lo approve tne Curriculum and Instruction plan 
for improving the AWC identification process, with one reservation. He asked that we 
review additional non-verbal measures, along with the Raven's Progressive Matrix, 
before we decide upon which figural criterion to adopt. 

On December 17, 1984 Dr. Spillane sent a memorandum to all members of the AWC 
Proposal Review Committee, notifying them of his decision to go ahead and submit the 
proposal to the Court (copy enclosed) . 

2>i COuPT S[f-'Eb', BObTi'. -.'AbSACh^ifc rrs OJ'Ob • /26-6200, EXT ^467 AREA 617 

133 



(2) 

The Department of Implementation received the Superintendent's request 
(Dec. 17,1985) too late to meet the December 15th, court deadline. 

Due to the fact that preparation for implementation of this new identification 
process must begin immediately (notification to parents, principals and teachers, - 
test ordering; computerization of multiple criteria "z" score formulas etc.), 
William Dandridge requesttid that the Superintendent present our AWC Proposal to the School 
Committee as soon as possible. He agreed and we are scheduled for their next session 
which is on May 14, 1985. It is our understanding that with their approval, we can 
proceed to submit the proposal to the plaintiffs for their discussion and comments. 

I remain hopeful that our proposed modifications for adopting a multiple criteria 
identification selection process will be approved in time for students selected next 
year, for the 1986-1987 Advanced Work Program, to be able to reap the benefits of our 
much improved process. 

"Change" of any kind is difficult to accept and implement, but I must speak to 
the great amount of time_, research and careful scrutiny that Central Office personnel 
have devoted to improving the AWC Program. The personal interest and genuine concern for 
desegregation efforts that 1 was exhibited throughout this process is definitely noteworthy. 

2. Progress in developing and consistently implementing a differentiated curriculum 
appropriate for academically able students. 

• Irving Sato has agreed to work with a committee of Advanced Work Class teachers, 
as a consultant, this summer for a period of one week. He will help us to design the scope 
and sequence for our AWC differentiated curriculum. Mr. Sato's services are being funded 
by the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. 

• Mr, Dandridge has also approved a Central Office 636 Proposal that will finance 
the actual writing/printing of an AWC Curriculum Model (see attached abstract) . 

This project draws upon the expertise of Mr Sato, AWC teachers and Latin school personnel. 

•The Children's Literature Guide for AWC teachers will also be ready for distribution 
to all AWC Reading/Language Arts teachers by next fall. 

p The Office of Curriculum and Instruction has also produced a recommended textbook 
booklet, '.-.'ithin this document is a comprehensive listing of materials that are appropriate 
for use with academically talented students. AWC teachers have attended an inservice 
training session that enabled them to review these highly recommended materials. 

3. Progress in developing and implementing both a training program for AWC/ATS 
teachers and an appropriate evaluation procedure. 

I feel significant progress has been made in our teacher training efforts. 

• Advanced Work middle school teachers attended a "Study Skills" inservice on 
September 24, 1984. AWC elementary teachers attended a Children's Literature training 
session on the same day. 

•On January 24, 1985, Boston conducted a citywide all day teacher inservice that 
devoted an entire strand (on each level, high school^ middle school and elementary school) 
to integrating 'thinking skills' and 'thinking skills teaching strategies' A^ith curriculum 
developement. U. Mass/Boston personnel, MA/AIP representatives and EDCO consultants 
were all hired to present teachers with 'state-of-the-art' information. Many AWC 
teachers were also asked to present and share their ideas with their colleagues. 



134 



(3) 

• On April 23, B85, all AWC teachers attended a citywide inservice training 
session on 'Cooperative Learning-Teaching Strategies' for gifted/talented students. 

* * In addition to citywide AWC training efforts, certain schools have identified 
AWC needs that have been funded by external grants. 

♦Thompson Middle School- I am conducting a ten-week, Commonwealth Inservice 
Training ?ro§!ram that is designed to improve teacher^ questioning techniques and broaden 
their knowledge of curriculum development for gifted students. 

•Hennigan Elementary School- The Hennigan School has been awarded a Commonwealth 
Inservice Grant to help improve teacher's knowledge of the writing process and to 
promote the use of Children's Literature in the classroom. This school has also been 
awarded a 1.5 million dollar grant from M.I.T. to explore how technology can improve 
instruction. 

» The ILT division of U. Mass Boston, under the direction of David Vitali, asked 
me to design a course that would help teachers of bilingual and minority gifted students 
to better understand the issues pertaining to identifying and educating the disadvantaged 
gifted child. I have attached the course outline that I developed. We began this sixteen 
week, graduate course in March, 1985. There are fourteen Boston teachers enrolled and they 
represent AWC schools ( Irving, Ellis, Mary Curley) , the v;heatley School, and several otlier 
schools with bilingual programs. I have found this course to be a wonderful 'medium' for 
teachers to air their concerns, discuss issues, and to learn about how to meet the affec- 
tive and cognitive needs of Boston's gifted minority students. 

» Through the Institute for Professional Development i have offered two courses for 
Boston teachers; 

1. Integrating Thinking with Curriculum Development (1 credit) (Fall) 

2. Children's Literature-A Novel Approach to Teaching Reading (1 credit) 

(Spring) 

» Through the AWC Newsletter teachers are constantly being kept abreast of local 
gifted/ talented professional opportunities. Many teachers have taken personal days 
to attend these workshops. 

•The Board of Regents has awarded the Quincy/Timilty and Boston Latin Schools 
a grant to fund a parent and teacher AWC Informational Day to be held May 20th at 
U. Mass Boston. 

4. Progress in the creation of curriculum anu other links between the examination 
schools and the AWC/ATS program feeding students into these schools. 

This is afl ongoing process. Both Latin School personnel and AWC personnel 
recognize the need for continued dialogue . Latin School teachers will also be asked 
to serve on the AWC Curriculum Committee that will design the AWC Differentiated 
Curriculum Model. 

5. Progress in improvement of the Spanish Bilingual Advanced Work Classes . 

I am hopeful that the Preparation and Support Program for Hispanic Students, that was 
developed under the direction of David Vitali at U. Mass Boston, will be funded again 
next year. The services that they have provided Boston's AWC & Latin School Bilingual 
students have been tremendously successful. 



135 



(4) 

The Bilingual Advanced Work Program at the Hennigan School this year has 
undergone staffing problems. A permanent substitute had to be hired to replace a grade five 
teacher who was dismissed. This substitute has been a wonderful asset to the program. He 
and I have worked cooperatively to identify the academic needs of these students. He has 
done a superb job implementing our well thought-out program, but he will not be available 
to teach next year. 

The Mackey School has also undergone many changes this year. The teacher has been 
extremely open to new ideas. I have taught several demonstration lessons in his class 
and we also have a Boston School Volunteers Math Enrichment Program currently in operation 
with these students. 



Significant movement in relation to student identification, and teacher training 
has occurred this year. Our goals for next year will be to continue monitoring these 
areas but to focus closely on curriculum development and program evaluation. Creation 
of a teacher selection process, based on established qualifications, is a major part of 
our long-range plan for improving the quality of instruction in the Advanced Work Program. 

In closing, I must thank you and Roselyn Frank for your support, direction and 
sensitivity to the issues discussed in this report. 



136 



HEADMASTERS* RESPONSES 
EXAMINATION SCHOOLS 



In Reoort #4, monitors concentrated on documenting the progress 
made in imolementing the recommendations of the Department of 
Education regarding the support services for Black and Hispanic 
students at the examination schools. This year, in monitoring 
the changes and improvements made to the support services, the 
monitors developed a questionnaire for each of the exam schools 
to be completed by the headmasters, whereby their responses would 
indicate how much progress has been made. 

These Questionnaires address specific issues raised in previous 
reports which have remained problematic at each of the schools. 
For a full report of the questionnaire and the response of the 
headmasters, it can be located in the appendix. The following 
question and response by school is a summary of their responses. 

BOSTON TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL 

Quest i.on 

1. Describe summer school and pre-school diagnostic efforts. 

Response 

1. Summer Orientation ran five days and was a tremendous success. 
Teachers were hired as instructors and focused on testing and 
identifying students in need of remediation. Results placed on 
student card available to guidance personnel etc., so referrals 
to remedial and after-school programs can be made. 

Question 

£. How many students ar-^e served by peer tutoring? 

Response 

£. Five peer tutors service 3-5 students regularly and four 
teachers in after school tutoring program. 

Question 

3. How many students are served through the Direct Student Services 
Collaborative? 

Response 

3. Seven social workers/psychologists serving 5-7 clients each. 
Quest ion 



137 



4. What indicators from the support services dernonostrate 
improvement in student performance and decrease drop-out rate. 

ResDonse 

4. Improvement of attendance, attitude and increased motivation. 
Quest i.on 

5. How have study skills been infused into classrooms? 
ResDonse 

S.Heigtened teachers' awareness. 
Question 

6. Is there a uniform exit interview? 
Response 

6. Headmaster conducts all exit interviews. 
Question 

7. What changes have been made re staff attitudes towards 
minority students? 

Response 

7. Department Heads have met individually with insensitive staff 
members and guest speakers make presentations regarding diverse 
needs of minority students. 

Quest i^on 

S. Is one ESL teaching positon sufficient to serve student needs? 

RssDonse 

a. Yes. 

BOSTON LATIN ACADEMY 

Question 

1. Is funding available for the Tutoring Coordinator? 

ResDonse 

1. Funding source through 636 funds. 

Question 



138 



£. Identification of summer school students needing remedial 
services. 

Resgonse 

2. No diagnostic testing done due to time constraints in summer. 
Question 

3. Was the shortened 1st term helpful in early identification of 
students likely to fail? What services are avilable to those 
students? 

Response 

3. Yes. Students identified got priority to tutorial 
assignments, additional help from teachers and guidance 
counselors. 

Quest ion 

4. Placement of new students failing £ terms in special classes. 
What supportive services available to those students? 

Response 

4. No space nor instructor available, or flexibility in the 
curriculum to arrange such activities. Plans for implementation 
next year and in summer school. 

Question 

5. Identify remedial and tutoring services and when offered. 
ResDonse 

5. Teachers offer assistance before and after school. Three tier 
tutorial program. Study workshop on Saturday. Emphasis is on 
the classroom teacher, supported by the Department Heads to 
assist students in need of special assistance. 

Question 

6. Has the implementation of academic advisors facilitated the 
identification of students needing supoort services? 

Response 

6. Innovative idea but did not have the universal support of the 
faculty and will take a few years to implement. 

Question 

7. Describe scheduling of the guidance counselors plan to meet 
with students at the beginning of the school year. 



139 



ResDorise 

7. Due to staffing in guidarice department, the new counselor had 
to play catch-up. Meetings with students are held regularly 
throughout the year by the three counselors. 

Question 

8. What efforts have been made to coordinate the summer school 
offerings with BLft academic requirements? 

Response 

8. Currently working with a foundation to plan a summer program 
for 7th graders who have failed in Latin and Math. Exam will be 
offered at the end of the course and if passed will get credit 
for the school year, fls for BPS offering, it is not commensurate 
with course requirements but student can take an exam at the end 
of the summer for passing. 

Question 

9. Development of a uniform exit interview prior to graduation. 
How it is administered and how is the information used to develop 
strategies to retain students? 

ResDonse 

9. Every student who is discharged has an exit interview 
conducted by the headmaster. School program will be reviewed and 
revised to aid and abet those students experiencing academic 
problems. 

Question 

li3. What changes have been made re staff attitudes towards minority 
students? 

Response 

liZI. Attraction and recruitment of minority staff in such 
departments as English, Math and Modern Languages. Planned staff 
forums and meetings next fall on teacher sensitivity. 

Quest i.on 

11. How many students are currently receiving required clock 
hours of PE. What plans have been made to provide PE for all 
students next school year? 

ResDonse 

11. There are no gym, locker or shower facilites. They use the 
Fens when the weather permits. When ari appropriate facility is 



140 



built for the school is when a full PE program can be offered to 
all students. 

Question 

12. What plans have been developed to collaborate with the 
flTS/ftWC to better prepare students for Boston Latin ftcademy? 

Response 

12. Visit feeder schools and working with faculty and staff, 
especially in the schools with Spanish speaking students. 

BOSTON LATIN SCHOOL 

Question 

1. Uere diagnostic measures used during the summer orientation 
successful in identifying students in need of remedial support? 

Response 

1. Yes. Summer School staff met with the parents of those 
students and all were referred for Reading and Study Skills 
Support. 

Question 

2. How many students are being served by the after-school 
tutuoring program and how were they selected? 

Response 

2. No total number is provided nor is a selection process 
identified. 

Question 

3. What services are provided by Roxbury Multi-Service Center and 
how many students are served? 

Response 

3. ft full-time social worker for students and does parental 
outreach, as well as counseling and tutoring services. 

Ojjestion 

4. What are the other support services available? 

Resgonse 

4. Due to the various programs available, please refer to 
Headmaster's report to the Federal District Court. 



141 



Question 

5. What steps have been taken to improve delivery of guidance 
services? 

Response 

5. Attempts are still being made to appoint a coordinator of 
Student Support Services. 

Question 

6. What efforts made to coordinate summer school offerings with 
BLS academic requirements? 

Response 

6. Course content outlines are provided. 
Question 

7. Will the promotion policy change to eliminate unnecessary 
repetition of classes that students have already passed? 

Response 

7. No. 
Question 

8. How is data collected from the exit interview used to assist 
in the retention of students? 

Response 

8. Data is used to dissuade students from leaving BLS. 
Question 

9. How has the teacher evaluation process helped improve staff 
attitudes towards minority students? 

Response 

9. Present teacher evaluation does not address the issue of 
teachers attitude toward minority students. 



142 



HEADMASTER ()IjESTIONNAIKE —BOSTON LATIN SCHOOL 



1) Were tlie additi'jndl .]iat;noscic measures employed <luring suinraer 
orientation and at cne be'^inning of the school year successtul in 
identifying students in need of remedial support? Please 
describe. What steps were taken to provide services to identified 
students? 

2) How many students are being serviced by the after-school tutoring 
program? How were these students selected? 

3) What services has the Roxbury Multi-Service Center provided to 
students this school year? How many students has it serviced? 

4) What other support services are being provided to students 
identified as in need of support services? 

5) What further steps have been taken or planned to Improve deliverv 
of guidance services? 

6) What efforts have been made to coordinate summer school offerings 
with Boston Latin School academic requirements? 

7) Does the school intt^nd to change the promotion policy to eliminate 
unnecessary repetition of classes that students have already 
passed? 

8) Please send us a copy of the exit interview that is administered to 
students leaving school before graduation. How is the information 
collected from these interviews used to develop additional 
strategies to retain students? 

9) How has the Department Chairperson teacher evaluation process 
helped to improve staff attitudes that discourage minority students 
from attendance to Boston Latin School? What other efforts are 
being taken to address this problem? 



143 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 



BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

BOSTON LATIN SCHOOL 

FOUNDED IN 1635 

MICHAEL CONTOMPASIS 

Head Master 

JOHN GRASSO 

Assistant Head Master 

CARMINE VARA 
Assistant Head Master May 10, 1985 



TO : Mr. Franklin Banks, State Board of Education 

FROM: Michael Contompasis, Head Master 

SUBJ.: Response to Headmaster Questionnaire - Monitoring Report 
for the State Board of Education 



#1) Diagnostic measures employed during the summer were successful in assisting students in 
need of remedial support. The Summer School staff met with the parents of these students and 
all were referred for Reading and Study Skills Support. 

#2, #3, & #4) See Headmaster's report to the Federal District Court. 

#5) Attempts are still being made to appoint a coordinator of Student Support Services 
at Boston Latin School. 

#6) See Headmaster's report to the Federal District Court. 

#7) Boston Latin School does not intend to change the current promotion policy. 

#8) A copy of the Exit Interview form is included with this response. 

Information collected from these interviews is used to dissuade students from leaving Boston 
Latin School. 

#9) The present teacher evaluation process does not address the issue of teacher attitude 
toward minority students. 

Furthermore, the issue of staff attitudes toward minority students is one that I feel has been 
over represented. Whenever individual problems of this nature arise, they are fuUy investigated 
and dealt with by the Headmaster. 



HA ^0^4tJ'^/P<^C^ 



Michael Contompasis 
MC/dm HEADMASTER 



144 

78 AVENUE LOUIS PASTEUR, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02115 • 566-2250, 566-2251 AREA 617 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 




BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

BOSTON LATIN SCHOOL 
FOUNDED IN 1635 



MICHAEL CONTOMPASIS 

Head Master 

JOHN GRASSO 

Assistant Head Master 

CARMINE VARA 
Assistant Head Master 



April 29, 1985 



To: Dr. Robert R. Spillane, Superintendent 

From: Michael Contompasis, Head Master 

Re: Status of Support Services at Boston Latin School 

Listed below is a description of the various support programs in place at 
Boston Latin School. As you can see, the majority of the programs have 
been developed and implemented for entering students at Boston Latin School. 
Every program focuses on the issue of retention of black and hispanic students 
in Grades 7 and 8. 

1. A three-week Summer Enrichment Program for all students new to Boston Latin 
School. This program has been in existence for the past 10 years and stresses 

a review of English Composition, Math and Study Skills. In addition, diagnostic 
testing takes place to identify students in need of additional assistance. 

2. A "Buddy" System has been developed at Boston Latin School where members 
of the Junior and Senior classes adopt a new 7th grader for the entire school 
year. The purpose of this program is to provide assistance for our entering 
students. 

3. A Volunteer Tutorial Program occurs during the school's activity period. 
Members of the National Honor Society (Juniors and Seniors) work with the 
students in Graded in a peer tutorial program. The program meets twice a 
week. 



4. An After-school Tutorial Program is in place for 7th graders. There are 
two sessions per week. Ten Boston Latin School faculty members, along with 

a Guidance Counselor, are available to over 100 7th graders who have been re- 
ferred by their subject teachers for assistance. 

5. Approximately 25 upper class students are tutoring one on one with 7th 
graders two afternoons per week. This program is also supervised by a Boston 
Latin School Guidance Counselor. 

6. A student intern from Boston University is available twice a week for in- 

78 AVENUE LOUIS PASTEUR, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02115 • 566-2250, 566-2251 AREA 617 

145 



-2- 



dividual counseling of high risk students in grades 7-12. The intern works 
under the supervision of a Boston Latin School counselor. 

7. Eight Wellesley College Interns training in group counseling lead 
small group sessions with 7th graders once a week. Tutorial assistance 
is also provided at this time. 

8. A Full-time Reading/Study Skills Instructor has been assigned as a full- 
time instructor to the Latin School for the past 10 years. The reading in- 
structor works solely with Grade 7 and 8 students who have been identified 
as potential high-risk academic problems. 

9. A program exists with the Roxbury Multi-service Center/Boston Latin 
Collaborative. High risk minority students are involved in programs of 
counseling and tutoring. A full-time Social Worker is assigned to Boston 
Latin School as part of this collaborative. In addition to her school-based 
programs, the Social Worker conducts parental outreach programs. 

10. Boston Latin School/Boston University Afro American Studies Program. 
This program provides enrichment and support for minority students during 
the summer. It is under the direction of Dr. Adelaide Gulliver, Director 
of the Afro American Studies Program at Boston University. Dr. Gulliver 
also conducts sessions for parents of her students during the school year. 
Progress of the students is discussed during these sessions. 

11. Shady Hill Summer Review Program. This program has been in existence 
for the past three summers. It has provided a summer school review for 7th 
graders at both Boston Latin School and Boston Latin Academy. Approximately 
150 7th graders have participated over the past three summers. 

12. Boston Public Schools Summer Review School. We have provided course 
content outlines for all Boston Latin School students who attend the Boston 
Summer School. These outlines are provided for the summer school teachers 
so that they may coordinate their objectives with what our students need to 
know for purposes of receiving credit from summer school. 

13. The Mass. PEP Program. Boston Latin School has participated in this 
Pre-engineering program for minority students since the program's inception 
five years ago. This program provides additional enrichment, tutoring and 
support for minority youngsters interested in pursuing a career in Math, 
Science or Engineering. 

14. Leader Development Program. New 9th graders to Boston Latin School 
participate in this enrichment program at Thompson Island each summer. 

15. Days in the Arts. A summer enrichment program for 7th graders held 
at Tanglewood as part of our involvement with the Boston Youth Symphony 
Orchestra. Approximately 50 7th graders participate in this program. 

16. Individual Counseling. Six counselors at Boston Latin School serve a 
cross section of students in grades 7-12. ""»« counselor load is approx- 
imately 1 - 450. 



146 



17. Recruitment Component. During the months of September and October, 
members of the Boston Latin School faculty are involved in various high 
school fairs during which information regarding the Boston Latin School 
is disseminated. 

18. Activities Fair. This event is held annually for parents and students 
new to the school. It provides information regarding extra-curricular 
activities at Boston Latin School. Our older students and their parents 
have developed and implemented this program over the past four years. 

19. Open House. Held annually on a Sunday in May for new parents and 
students. Members of the faculty and staff of Boston Latin are present 
to welcome our new invitees. 

20. A Parent Telephone Network. This is an outreach program developed by 
the parents of the Home and School Association in which all Boston Latin 
School parents are linked. 

21. September Orientation Program for New Parents. An evening meeting is 
held in September meet and orient parents of new students. In addition, a 
minimum of 3 meetings are held during the school year between parents and 
teachers. The meetings are held to discuss students' progress. 



Michael Contompasis 
Head Master 



MC/emm 



147 



HEADMASTER QUESTIONNAIRE —BOSTON LATIN ACADEMY 



1) Is the funding for the Tutoring Coordinator secure for next year? 

2) How many students attending the summer orientation were identified 
as "likely to fail"? What steps were taken to provide remediation 
services to these students? 

3) Was the shortened first term (implemented this school year) helpful 
in early identification of students likely to fail? What steps were 
taken to provide services to these students? 

4) A plan was proposed to place new students who failed the first two 
terms of the school year in special classes to begin the first 
semester over. Was this plan implemented? If so, what do 
preliminary results indicate of the academic progress and retention 
of these students? Do you still plan to provide summer school 
services to these students? 

5) Identify the remedial and tutoring services now available to 
students, including the time of day the service is offered. 

6) How has the implementation of academic advisors for new students 
facilitated identification of students who may need support 
services? 

7) A plan was proposed to require guidance counselors to schedule 
meetings with students with problems at the beginning of the school 
year. Please describe the results of this effort. 

8) What further efforts have been made to coordinate summer school 
offerings with BLA academic requirements? 

9) What steps have been taken to develop a uniform exit interview for 
students leaving Boston Latin Academy before graduation (in order to 
collect information on the reasons why students leave school)? How 
will it be administered to exiting students? What process will be 
employed to use this information to develop additional strategies to 
retain students? 



148 



Page -2- 

Boston Latin Academy 

Headmaster Questionnaire 



10) What has been done to identify and change staff attitudes that 
discourage minority students from attendance at BLA? 

11) How many students are currently receiving the required clock hours of 
physical education? What plans have been made to provide PE to all 



12) 



students next school year' 

What plans have been developed to work collaboratively with the 
ATS/AWC Director to better prepare students enrolled in these 
programs for Boston Latin Academy? 



149 



HEADMASTER QUESTIONNAIRE - BOSTON LATIN ACADEMY 

Iv "e have just received the fvmding formula for our #656 funds and 
that is the source of our tutorial program support'. The year began by- 
using the School Development Officer as the tutorial coordinafc or but the 
Officer had to resign in ^ebrumy so a teaoher has been handling the program 
from ^arch thru June>V We expect to use the Development Officer next year 

2I- We do not give a pre- and a post-test since it is a 10-tay orientation 
program to introduce study skills and homework habits^^ We introduce the 
major subjects the in-coming students will have in their programs'!!;' Thus',' 
we have ncF process to select those "likely to fail" nor could we ujiless 
we offered an examination to compote with the initial entrance exanr. 

Students were identified by individual instructors as having potential 
weakness in that subject area'v ■'^^hftse so identified were noted by the 
counsellors and onoe the year began the teachers were informed aad asked 
to give special attention to the problems^- Tutorials began in early Octbber 
and summer orientation students were assigned to tutorials as appropriate 

"^ We believe the shortened first term was helpful in identifying 
students with problems'',' -^here is no honest or fair way to make a judgemant 
In the opening weeks of a school year that any student is likely to fail. 
We do not make such judgementsr'i^" They would be too subjective^' What the 
diort term allows is the opportunity to see some students who do not have 
the basios or foundations we feel will aid in their years at the schoolv 
Students that were highlighted at the end of the short term got priority 
in terms of tutorial ansignments",' special help from teacher coordinators, 
and extra attention from guidance^ 

4V The proposed plan to organize special classes Is still of interest bit 
it could not be implemented as we had no extra or open classrooms for subh 
use, no instructor la the key areas of ^atin and ^ath, and not aafficient 
flexibility in the curriculum to arrange such activities",' We are trying 
to plan for such an offering next year and if we do summer school may be 
offered to those who seem most likely to benefit, 

5f Teachers offer assistsince before school^ A three tier tutorial effolrt 
is available through School Voliinteer interns aid tutors', peer tutors', 
tutor supervisors from the ^ath, Iiatin and English departments",' afl special 
tutors who work with particular students on a set problem ad once mastered 
move to another tuteeli' At the end of the third term Department Heads prpared 
individualized prescriptions for students having acadenic difficulty^ The 
faculty frequehtly remain vintil the late bus especially teachers in Latin 
and English,' aJid also Math\ We offered study workshops on a Saturday; 
The emphasis is on the classroom teacher, supported by the epartment hei,ds, 
to see that students in need get special assistance, 

6^' Academic advisors were an innovab ion that did not have universal 
faculty supportl' T^ogg ^^o took the assignment seriously, including the 
^eadMaster, met two or th*ee times with the in-coming students but the initial 
contacts were focussed more on how to find lockers, textbooks, write down 
assignments and generally adjust than to an evalixation on academic success,' 
It is doubtful that an advisor or a trained guidance cftunaelor could make 
such a judgement and support it by fact in the opening weeks of a new school 
yeai*t Some challenged the concept as being outside the union contractand 
thus illegal", ^^he process will take a few years to implement, a relatively 
brief implementation time for a new idea in a school environment, 

150 



7. The critical factor in guidance was staffing^' A member had been 
rated as unsatisf actor/.' '•'^he person opened the school year aid then 
announced at the end of the first week that hd vra.s resigning from the 
school system in two weeks". hus, little positive action occurred:' At a 
particularly hectic time a counselor had to be recruite*V ^'he search and 
selection process resulted in a talented, educated; thoughtlul and interested 
individual. He had to play catch-up but has done a fine job that has changed 
the office to one that is individualized, keeps good records, responds to 
parents and aids students'. Meetings with students having academ^^ px^bLma 
have bee^x _Bld regularly throughout the year by the three c unBOllor^' 

»;< We have been working with a foiinlation to plan a summer program 
for 7th graders who have had a failure in ^atin, %th and/or English; 
Students would take an exadnation at the end of the summer prepared by the 
respective departments and if passed they will get credit for the yea.i*^ 
Currently, summer school courses offered by the BPS are not commensurate 
with the course requirements at the Academy so that an exam offered by tbe 
school will also be required at the end of the summer for passin^'i^ 

9, Every student discharged from the school now has an exit interview 
with the Head Master^ \e interview follows a set format^ During the 
summer the datawill bd reviewed and assessed and where directions are 
forthcoming the school program^ will be revised to aid and abet those pupils 
experiencing aoademio problem^'.' It is important to point out that only 
a few discharges are due solely to poor grades or poor classroom performance 
and that other factors, allcohol, drugs, family problems, illness^",' moving, 
etc. In a way, exit interviews are too late for leamihg what it is th*t 
we oxight to be doing to save students wtoo can and ought to be saved^' 

10,- AttitudinaL change is a long term process^' One way is the attraction 
and recruitment of q\ialified minority staffv ■'■'his has been startedv Minority 
staff have finally broken the barrier in such departments as English', Math 
and odem languages-^ Secondly, more needs to be done with department 
heads and in building an administrative team 3) that they understand and 
begin to move on the probleD*:' It is a slow but necessary process-t It is 
planned that staff forums and meetings will be held next fall on the topic",' 

ll'^' As you know, we have no gym, lockers or shower faoilitiei?'',' We have 
introduced outdoor classes, utilizing the Fens on clear days up until the 
winter weather prevents such classe^l' ^e try and give as many students s 
as possible gym classes as we believe that the opportunity for exercise 4s 
important to the learning process,-. Once we have an appropriisgr e facility 
designed for school use we exoect to offer a full physical education pro^ramt' 

12, ''e have begun to work directly with feeder schools by visiting the 
sohol^ and working with faculty and staff on mutual concerns, especially 
in the schools with Spanish speaking students,' "'e would be happy to work 
with advanced work classes and planning or planners^ 



151 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CI];y.,a|;„ga§jON 



Sfs29 I 31 FH'65 



ROBERT B BINSVVAiNGER 

Head Masier 

DORIS JONES 

JAMES J. ZANOR 

Assistant Headmasiefs 



BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

BOSTON LATIN ACAOEMY 



TO: Robert Spillane 
Superintendent 



April 25, 1985 



Robert I 
Head Mas 



',^:;"12^>~< 



RE: Response to Marshall Simonds 
memo dated April 23, 1985 

Attached are responses to the three questions asked by the Court with 
regard to Latin Academy and its student support services. Not a great 
deal of attention was given to the normal services as it was assumed 
that they are known and understood. Beginning in September, 1983 the 
Latin Academy has been focussing on the issues of retention. I have 
added two charts below that indicate the actual numbers of discharges 
Contrary to the press accounts, or the monitor's reports, the Latin 
Academy has a balanced record of discharges and as you will note a 
decreased number in just one year between 1983-84 and 1984-85. our 
record with Hispanics is quite positive as well as strongly supportive. 
This is equally so of our record with other minorities. 







1 



V^v\\\"& ^^i^^ 













_ \c 


% y 


u % 


KsK, 


K y 


\1 


% y 


5^ \ 


% Xx 


% y 


(1 


Ki y fn %'% y. 


% % 






(bU op <s^0'ljsiT3> 



152 



174 IPSWICH STREET. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02215 • 266-7546 AREA 61 



LATIN ACADEMY 



NATURE OF SUPPORT SERVICES CURRENTLY PROVIDED 



Revised Counselling Program : Emphasis was shifted from 
meetings with groups of students (8-10) to individual meetings 
with students stressing personalized attention. Record keeping 
was improved. Parent contacts tripled. Greater and more intensive 
coordination with teaching faculty regarding individual pupils. 
Staffing changes were effected with high quality performance. 

Private Foundation Supported Summer Program : A special summer 
school organized for students who failed courses in Latin, 
English or Math in their first or 7th grade year that placed 
special emphasis on the, curriculum but with individual attention 
and small class s t uden t : teache r ratio. Transportation was supplied 
by the Boston Public Schools. 

Tutorial Program : Upper'level students with honor grades in 
the subject areas of Latin; Math, English, supervised by a faculty 
member drawn from each of the three disciplines. Over 250 students 
have received tutorial assistance. Teachers write up the specific 
area of need and the supervisors help prepare the tutors to deal 
with the prescription. 

Student Study Skills Workshop : The Academy offered a Saturday 
morning workshop on homework preparation and study skills to the 
parents in early November. A how-to-study booklet was prepared; 
the program advertised in announcements to the home. Teachers, 
students, high school graduates participated in a series of small 
group discussions that focussed on adjusting to a classical course 
of study. Subjects covered: Math, Latin, Science, English. 



Short Term : In order to obtain a quick assessment of new 
students especially those that may have serious trouble in certain 
subjects the Academy organized a first term of 8 weeks so that a 
first report card and f ol 1 ow-up pa rent conferences could be held 
by the first week of November. 

Teacher Advisors : In order to assist in the adjustment and 
speedy orientation of new students each faculty and/or staff 
member was assigned 5-7 new pupils as advisees for the first eight 
weeks of the new school year. Each teacher was asked to meet with 
new students two or three times to monitor the student's adjustment 
to the Academy and to provide advice where appropriate. 



New Student Visitations : Personal letters are sent all invitees 
who have passed the examination and received assignments to the 
Academy urging the parent(s) and child to visit the Academy and 
attend classes, visit with teachers, meet the Head Master and 
obtain a sense of the school and its operation. 

Adul t Tutor i al : A combination of college interns, re t i red teache rs 
and School Volunteers meet on a regular basis with 2-3 pupils in 
focussed tutorial sessions in Latin, Math and English. 



153 



Latin Academy (continued) 
NATURE OF SUPPORT SERVICES CURRENTLY PROVIDED 



page two 



Home Contact : Increase use of telephone by classroom teachers to 
contact parents/guardians directly on such items as tardiness, 
absence, failure to complete homework and poor performance in class 

Mid-Term Evalutions : Notices to parents/guardians of students 
failing coure (s ) To provide information on the fact that course 
record at mid-point is failing and information on ways and means 
to improve performance. 

Department Head Reviews ; Individual student review for those 
failing courses beginning with the second term grades and plan 
of action developed by Department to attack the problems. 
Students are provided individualized prescriptions for improvement 
in conjunction with classroom teacher and guidance counselor. 

Facu 1 t y : Awareness and sensitivity to students in need of aid 
and the offer of after-school special help. This is a voluntary 
activity practiced by more, than 30 faculty members. 

Summer Orientation : Two 2-week sessions to introduce new 



students to the type of class work expected, the nature of course 
work to be taken, preparation of homework, and familiarization 
with the Academy facility and its rules and regulations. 

Recru i tmen t : Visits, made in the fall, to elementary and 
middle schools, with high percentages of Hispanic students to 
acquaint them with the examination school program and to urge 
them to take th examination. 

Education Testing Service : Interactions begun in the fall of 
1 983 to i n t roduce an exam I na t i on in Spanish for students from 
Hispanic backgrounds. Meetings, correspondence and conferences 
have been in process with the support of the Deputy Superintendent. 

Espano 1 : The introduction of a new course for students from 
Spanish-speaking families that emphasizes grammar, literature 
and Hispanic civilization to complement the already existing 
facility in oral expression. 

Staff Recru i tmen t : The active search for competent and qualified 
minority staff to serve as regular instructors but in addition, to 
act as "role models" for students in the subject of computers, 
mathematics, modern languages and science. 

Direct Home Contact by Letter : Communications to the family/ 
guardians during the year, especially between the 2nd, 3rd and ^th 
terms, to provide a status report on the student in terms of his/her 
academic standing and or attendan.ee record. 

Departmental Ba 1 an ce/ I n teg r a t i on : Successful effort to add minority 
staff to previously all-white departments in English, Mathematics 
and Foreign Languages, Search for a Latin teacher has not as yet 
met with success but would be a significant addition to the staff. 

154 



Latin Academy (continued) - page three 

NATURE OF SUPPORT SERVICES CURRENTLY PROVIDED 



Generic Teacher; The teacher assigned to work with special education 
plays an instrumental role in the plans and programs to attack retention 
and remediation. She serves as a counter to the formal counseling pro- 
vided by guidance and she offers personal contact on a daily basis to 
students having adjustment problems with classroom performance. She fol- 
lows up all cases by communications with the family. These services are 
provided in addition to the regular functions of the Generic Teacher. 



Curriculum change; To improve the skills and basic knowledge of in- 
coming students and to afford them greater opportunities for oral as well 
as written expression a new- course has been introduced this year titled 
Speech and Composition. It meets five times a week and is mandatory for 
all 7th graders. Two days a week are devoted to oral expression in terms 
of memorization, debate and public speaking. Three days a week are de- 
voted to writing and each student completes a theme per week which is 
corrected in three days by a group of skilled volunteers and returned to 
the teacher for discussion with the student. 

Faculty - Parent Communication : The faculty engages in a variety of means 
and methods of direct contact with the home on a full spectrum of issues 
including tardiness, attendance, poor performance, homework, honor roll, 
academic achievements, and awards or honors. The parent/guardian are urged 
to visit the Academy for meetings and discussions with teachers and staff. 



155 



Latin Academy (continued) 

EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT PROGRAMS _ pggg f^^,. 



To the best of our evidence to date all of the listed support 
services are proving effective, or conversely, we have no evidence 
that any one in particular has a negative or even a neutral impact 
on student retention. In the majority of cases, the services were 
introduced for the first time this year, or the services were so 
deeply revised that they represent new emphases, and thus we do 
not feel that we can offer empirical evidence with regard to 
overall effectiveness. For example, it is still too early in 
the year to fully and fairly assess the specific value of the 
varied tutorial efforts. Similarly, we cannot assess the impact 
of the introduction of fspanol, a course offering only in effect 
seven months, and the same is true of the Teacher Advisors, 
Department Head Reviews, Revised Counselling and Workshops but 
we have anecdotal comments and informal evaluations to indicate 
that both individually and in the aggregate the new and revised 
support services are startfng to have a positive effect on the 
studentsin the Academy. 



156 



Latin Academy (continued) 
IDENTIFICATION OF PROGRAMS OR FUNDING 



page five 



In 1984 the graduating class had 123 students; the in-coming 
7th grade had over 310 students. Although the Academy is moving 
to a senior class size of 200 the disparity between Class Vl(7th 
grade) and Class l(12th grade) makes for a d i s propor t i ona tethe 
regular load for counselors. The counselor serving Grade VI and 
V serves over 500 pupils: an impossible task. We need an 
additional qualified, competent counselor: one skilled in the 
problems of retention and working with classroom teachers. 

A corollary is the need, expressed in each visit of the monitors, 
for clerical assistance so that the current counseling staff(3) 
would have more time to work directly with students, better 
planning for appointments'. and scheduling, and improved maintenance 
of records with the addition of clerical help for guidance. 

The hiring of a Latin teacher, to act as an auxilliary, working 
with small groups of students having trouble, or with individual 
students, but offering direct and con t 1 nu i ng support to students 
In Jeopardy. 

The addition of an English teacher skilled in grammar instruction 
and the the implementation of basic skills in order to work 
with small groups of students to see that they have an equal 
foundation for the learning of both Latin and English. 



157 



HKADMASTliR QUESTIONNAIRE —BOSTON TECHNICAL HIGH 



^ I ) 0(^S(;rihe the succes.'^ of summer si-hooi .uid prH-school .J L.ij^nosc ic 
el fores to identity students in need of support services. 

2) How nany students have been serviced througti the peer tutoring 
program? 

3) How many students have been serviced through the Direct Student 
Services Collaborative? 

4) Are there iny indical irs ciiat demonstrate the success of these 
support services in improving student performance and decreasing 
drop-out rates? Please describe. 

5) How have study skills been infused into the classroom? 

6) What steps have been taken to develop a uniform exit interview for 
■Students leaving Boston Technical High before graduation ( in or ier 
to colleo.t information on the reasons .ihy students leave school)? 
What process will be employed to use this information to develop 
additional strategies to retain students? 

7) What has been done to identify and change staff attitudes that 
discourage ninorlty -tuients from attendance at BTH? 

8) Is one ESL teaching position sufficient to provide necessary 
servlc.='-s to all LEP students at Boston Technical High? Please 
explain. 



158 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 




BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
BOSTON TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL 



CHRISTOPHER P. LANE 



April H, 1985 



TO: State Board of Education 
PROM: Christopher P. Lane 

RE: Responses to Questionnaire 

1. See attachments for Orientation Information 

2. Peer Tutoring Program 

Five peer tutors work Tuesday-Thursday in conjunction with our 
after school program. Each student tutors 3~5 students regularly. 
Because some students come for tutoring irregularly, it is difficult 
to place an exact number on the number of students services. 
Approximately 30-40 students stay for tutoring and/or participate 
in our after school program each day. The majority of the students 
receive assistance in math. We have four teachers Involved in 
the after school tutoring program. 

3. We have 7 social workers/psychologists working with us through 
the Human Services Collaborative Each carries a case-lad of 5-7 
clients. Some students are counselled and cases are terminated, 
thus their is a turnover of students. Approximately 50 students 
have received regular/formal services through this program. The 
peer counselling program is more Informal and because of the 
confidentiality among the peer counselors and students, exact numbers 
are difficult to provide. 

4. We believe that that improvement of attendance, attitude toward 
school, increased motivation and improvement in school work 
are positive indicators of the success of this program. 

5.. Study skills were focused upon during the freshman orientation 
and inservice/staff development projects have increased the 
teachers' awareness of the importance of infusing study skills 
in each academic class. 

6. The Headmaster conducts the exit interviews and attempts to 
asertain the expectations of the student, his fit within the 
school and the reason for his/her departure. 

7. Department Heads have met individually with staff members who 
may seem to display some insensitivitiy to the needs of minority 
students. We have also had guest speakers and social service providers 
make presentations to the faculty regarding the diverse needs of 

our students. 

205 TOWNSEND STREET, DORCHESTER JWASSACHUSEITS 02t21 • 445-4381 AREA 617 

159 



At the :)V'i-.:.nl time, 1 ESL teacher is sufflceint, 



160 



THE SCHOdL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 



BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
BOSTON TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL 



CHRISTOPHER p L^NE 
Head Mas;er 




TO: Superintendent Spll 
FROM: Christopher P. Lan 
RE: Support Service 

The following Support Services are in place at Boston Technical High 
School. 

HUMAN SERVICE COLLABORATIVE 

We have 7 part time social workers/psychologists working with Boston 
Tech. students. The Collaborative has been extremely successful this 
year and over 50 students have received services. Although funding 
was not an issue this year due vto the involved agencies' ability to 
donate much of the counselors time, we anticipate that many of 
the services will be discontinued unless some funding becomes available, 

AFTER SCHOOL TUTORING PROGRAM 

Remediation and tutoring services are offered to students 3 days 
per week on an after school basis. The success of this program is 
marginal due to the fact that many students in need of assistance 
are hesitant about staying after school.. This program is funded 
through our 636 grant. 

SUMMER ORIENTATION FOR INCOMING STUDENTS 

All incoming students are invited to attend our one week summer 
orientation program. Last year approximately 230 students attended 
and the program was extremely successful. Students were tested in 
math, reading and writing. They also completed a psychological 
survey and a career interest inventory. Study skills workshops were 
offered and a critical thinking through writing program was 
introduced. This project is also funded through our 636 grant. 

PIC PROGRAM 

This year a PIC Job Developer was assigned to Boston Technical High 
School and we have been able to provide job counseling and placement to 
many students. Due to budgetary constraints, we are unsure as to 
whether this person will be funded next year. 



161 
205 TOWNSEND STREET. DORCHESTER. MASSACHUSETTS 02121 • 445-4381 AREA 617 



GUIDANCE SERVICES 

We currently have three guidance counselors who provide academic 
counseling to Tech. students. Each counselor has a case load of 
approximately 350 students. It is obvious that this case load 
makes it impossible for students to receive comprehensive and 
continual counseling. We would request that a forth counselor 
be assigned to Boston Technical High School. 

ESL PFOGRAM 

Cu-.c:.ciy, we have one ESL teacher to service approximately 30 
Asian students. We anticipate a growing Hispanic population 
and it is likely that we will need an additional ESL teacher 
to service this population. 

U. MASS GIFTED AND TALENTED HISPANIC PROGRAM 

This support program provides both counseling and academic assistance 
to Hispanic Youths at Boston Technical. The program has been highly 
successful and we hope more youths will become involved in it next 
year. The District IX Office has made a commitment to provide 
some funding for the program and we have committed a portion of 
our 636 grant to support the continuation of this project. 



In general, the entire faculty makes a real effort to provide 
supports for students. Informal counseling, special after school 
activities and trips are available to students on an ongoing basis. 
Through a variety of staff development projects, we have attempted 
to make our staff more aware of the diverse and unique needs of 
our «'■• '-^s and we feel that our staff has been responsive to those 



162 



FOLLOW UP SURVEY OF STUDENTS 
fiT BOSTON'S EXflMINftTION SCHOOLS 

Spring, 1985 



Introduction 

Last year Department of Education staff interviewed 135 
current and former students at the examination schools as 
part of their mandate to monitor court orders relating to 
high attrition rates among Black and Hispanic students. The 
results of the survey showed a serious lack of support 
services at each of the schools, and as well a perception 
that some school staff were discouraging or even hostile. 

The administrators of each of the examination schools pledged 
to improve the quality and quantity of support services, and 
to ensure, to the extent possible, that all school staff 
approached their students with respect and a commitment to 
their education. 

This year. Departmental monitors returned to the exam school 
students they had interviewed previously, to determine 
whether students perceived any changes. We talked only to 
exam school students who had been included in last year's 
sample. 

Sumnary 

The general impression is that things have improved at all 
three schools, but much remains to be done. The students 
conveyed a more favorable attitude toward school personnel, 
perceiving them to be more committed to helping students — 
although, as before, certain teachers were singled out for 
demeaning students and for "not trying to help you 
understand." fl majority of the students believed that more 
assistance was available this year than previously, and a 
higher proportion of students reported receiving help than 
they did last year. The students' major complaint was that 
there aren't enough tutors; many students who want help are 
simply told there's not enough to go around. 

The students in this years' survey are "survivors". Last 
year we interviewed "droD outs" as well — the students who 
hadn't found assistance in time. It must be emphasized that 
not all the students in our original samole survived. In the 
year since we had interviewed them, 19"/- of the original 
sample had "dropped out, " from their exam school because they 
were failing badly. 

Methodology 

Each of the three exam schools received a cooy of the list of 
names submitted to it last year, when the DOE monitors 



163 



conducted the first round of student interviews. The 
combined lists contained 113 names of students. Sixty four 
students were interviewed (57%). Twenty-one students (19% of 
the original list) had "dropped out" in the year since the 
list was developed; that is, they had transferred to another 
Boston school or left school entirely because they were 
failing. The other £4% had graduated, moved or were absent 
on the days the interviews were conducted. (See Table 1) 

The purpose of the survey was to determine whether the 
students we talked with last spring believed changes had 
occurred in their schools during the intervening year and, if 
so, what kind. The questionnaire was short, and its focus 
was assistance for students experiencing trouble at school, 
ft copy of the questionnaire is attached. 

The results for coded questions are presented in Table 2. 
The results are reported in two ways: by school and by racial 
group. Two racial/ethnic categories were used: White/flsian, 
and Black/Hispanic/other. These categories correspond to 
those used, by court order, when assigning students to the 
exam school. Some of the informative answers to open-ended 
questions are included in the text. 

Counselors 

The majority (58%) of the students interviewed said they had 
met with their counselor at least once during the ♦ 64-' 85 
school year. The highest percentage was at Latin Academy 
(7£%), and the lowest at Tech (27%). ft slightly higher 
percentage of minority students reported seeing their 
counselor than did White/Asian students (61% vs. 52%). Of 
these students, a much higher percentage of minority students 
reported seeing their counselor more than once than did 
White/Asian students (92% vs. 54%). 

A majority of those students who had met with their 
counselors reported that their meetings were helpful (68%). 
Minority students tended to find the meetings helpful at a 
higher rate than White/Asian students (72% vs. 58%). 
"Helpfulness" included information (about colleges, tests, 
etc.), referrals and just talking. A Boston Latin School 
student said "if you needed a tutor, the counselor would get 
you one." A student from Boston Latin Academy said "we just 
talk about things, things I need to talk to someone about — 
my family. " 

Although students who did not find their sessions with 
counselors helpful were in the minority, they also tended to 
have more to say. "I don't get anything out of it — they 
just help you get ready for college [Boston Latin School!." 
"They don't deal with problems, just college. ...I was given 
no guidance for choosing between the history or computer 
track, and don't know if I made the right choice. [Boston 
Latin School]" An Sth grader from Boston Latin Academy said 



164 



"They just ask you a few questions like 'What are your 
favorite subjects?. ... Hobbies?' then give you a rap about 
studying. Mine told me to ask kids in study hall for 
tutoring — but you aren't supposed to talk in study hall. 
One discouraged student at Tech said "I don't listen to mine 
anymore — doesn't have time for me." 

It should be stressed that 4e-/C of the students we interviewed 
had not seen their counselors at all — and some said they 
hadn't seen a counselor in several years. fl Boston Latin 
School student said "I just met my counselor at the 
orientation last year — one time in two years." ft student 
from Boston Latin Academy reported that she had never seen 
her counselor — "you don't, except when you're failing. 
I'm not failing but I would like to be doing better." 
Another student from the same school had never seen a 
counselor or advisor; he had had trouble with pre-algebra 
last year and was now failing algebra. "My teacher just 
tells me to try harder." 

We asked all students — those who had seen a counselor and 
those who hadn't — to compare their experience with 
counselors this year. The majority of students responded 
that it was the same. fit Boston Latin School and Boston 
Latin Academy the remaining students split fairly evenly 
between "better" and "worse. " No students at Tech said 
things were better this year. Similarly, a majority of both 
minority and White/flsian students students replied "same," 
and a slightly higher percentage of minority students than 
White/Asian said their situation was better. 

Trouble Mith School 

When we asked students whether they had had any trouble with 
school this year, half said yes and half, no. The lowest 
proportion of students reporting trouble was at Tech (36S) 
and the highest was at Boston Latin Academy; the Boston Latin 
School students split evenly. 

There was a significant difference in these responses when 
analyzed by race. A majority (61S) of Black and Hispanic 

students said they had experienced trouble, but only a 
minority (3iZi"X) of White/Asian students said they had. 

The types of problems reported by students were generally the 
same as those identified last year: difficulty with classes, 
troubled relations with family or peers, and dissatisfaction 
with certain teachers. One minority student at Boston Latin 
School said "The teachers need to work more with students — 
to show it's OK to work with them. They should change their 
attitudes. They talk down to students — minorities feel as 
through they don't belong." 

When we asked those students who had experienced problems 
whether they had received any help from their schools, a 



165 



majority said they had. The highest proportiori of 
affirmative answers came from Boston Latin Academy students 
(71S) and the lowest from Tech (5iZI?C). fl majority of both 
racial categories said they had received help from their 
schools. For example, a minority student at Boston Latin 
ficademy who was failing a class is getting help after school 
from his teacher (also a minority) ; the teacher is also the 
student's coach and he helps the student between school and 
athletic practice. This student said, "most of the teachers 
seem nice, as though they want to help — that's important, 
it makes the students try harder. " 

Among those students reporting that they had not received 
help, the overwhelming complaint was lack of access to 
tutors; there did not seem to be any significant difference 
among the schools. ft 10th grader at Boston Latin School who 
had asked for a tutor said "They refused — you have to be a 
freshman or below to get help. " Another student from the 
same school said "You can't get tutors after the beginning of 
the school year — they're all scheduled. I tried to get 
tutors the past two years but didn't bother this year." 
Another student said "By the time I found out that I needed 
help all the tutors were taken. I did manage to obtain 
tutoring assistance from a teacher at my old middle school." 
Responses from Boston Latin School students were essentially 
the same. 

Finally, we asked a^l students whether they believed the 
situation at their school with regard to provision of 
assistance had improved, remained the same, or worsened. The 
highest proportion of students perceiving improvement was at 
Tech (36%), with £9% at Latin School and £4S at Latin 
Academy. Except at Tech, the majority of students perceived 
that the situation was unchanged. There was virtually no 
difference in the responses of minority and White/Asian 
student. 

A Tech student, for example, said "more teachers are asking 
students about problems, etc; they are more probing and 
helpful." A Boston Latin School students said that a school 
administrator had "offered to be a person I could talk to, 
and has been helpful; I've gone a few times to talk." One 
older student at the same school said "the tutoring is better 
— there's a lot more than when I came here." 



166 



EXAMINATION SCHOOL SURVEY STUDENTS 



TOTAL OF 
3 SCHOOLS 



TECH BLA BLS 



64 



11 25 28 



21 



12 



1 1 



113 



30 



41 42 



167 



RESPONSES TO SURVEY OF EXMINATION SCHOOL STUDENTS 
DEPflRTtCNT OF EDUCATION, SPRING 1985 





STUDENTS IN SURVEY 






Tech Latin 


Acadeiiy 


Latin School 


Uhite and Asian 4 


9 


10 


Black, Hispanic > Other 7 


16 


18 


Feule 7 


12 


14 


Male 4 


13 


14 


Grades 7/8 


9 


2 


Grades 9/19 11 


10 


4 


Grades 11/12 IS 


7 


6 



TRANSPORTATION 
Uhat is your usual Kthod of getting to and froa school? 



Bus 


29 


MBTA 


28 


Car 


G 


Walk 


1 


Other 










HoM has it been this year? 

Tech 

Good 

OK 

Bad 
Coapare it ttith your previous years here 

Better 

Sax 

Uorse 



Latin Acadeiy Latin School 



7 


13 


12 


3 


10 


14 


1 


2 


2 


3 


7 


6 


6 


15 


18 


2 


3 


4 



RESPONSES TO SURVEY OF EXAMINATION SCHOOL STUDENTS 
DEPflRTNENT OF EDUCATION, SPRING 1985 



COUNSELORS 
Have you Kt with your counselor this year? 

Tech Latin Academy Latin School 



Yes 
« of Students 
i of School 



No 



* of Students 
i of School 



3 
27.27 



8 
72.72 



72.ee 



7 

28.ee 



16 
57.14 



12 
42.85 



Yes 
• of Students 
i of Racial Group 



No 



t of Students 
t of Racial Group 



Black/Hispanic/Other Minority Uhite/Asian 



£0.97 



16 
39.02 



12 
52.17 



11 
47.82 



If you have let with your counselor, hoN often? 

Tech Latin Acadeay Latin School 



Once 
i of Students 

* of School 

Twice or tore 

# of Students 
% of School 



2 
66.66 



1 
33.33 



5 
27.77 



13 
72.22 



e 
e.wi 



15 

iee.ee 



Black/Hispanic/other Minority Hhite/Asian 



Once 

# of Students 
i of School 

Twice or More 

# of Students 
% of School 



2 
8.00 



92.00 



5 
45.45 



6 
54.54 



169 



RESPONSES TO SURVEY OF EXflMINflTION SCHOOL STUDENTS 
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SPRING 1985 



COUNSELORS (cont) 
If you let with your counselor, how Mould you describe the aeetings? 

Tech Latin Acadeny Latin School 



# of students 

* of School 


2 
66.66 


13 
72.22 


10 
62.50 


Neutral 
« of Students 
% of School 


e 

9.M 


2 
11.11 


4 
25.00 


Not Helpful 
t of Students 
% of School 


1 
33.33 


3 
16.66 


2 
12.50 



Black/Hispanic/Other Minority Uhite/Asian 



Helpful 
« of Students 
i of Racial Broup 

Neutral 
« of Students 
t of Racial Group 

Not Helpful 
t of Students 
i of Racial Group 



18 
72.88 



3 
12.88 



4 
16.88 



7 
58.33 



3 
25.00 



2 
16.66 



ALL STUDENTS 

[All Students:] Hon Mould you conpare your interaction with counselors 
this year conpared Mith your experience in previous years 



Tech 



Latin Academy Latin School 



Better 

# of Students 

* of School 




0.00 


7 
28.00 


10 

35.71 


Sane 
» of Students 
% of School 


8 

72.72 


11 

4A.00 


14 

50.00 


Worse 

# of Students 

* of School 


3 

27.27 


7 
26.00 


4 
14.28 



170 



RESPONSES TO SURVEY OF EXflMINflTION SCHOOL STUDENTS 
DEPflRTHENT OF EDUCATION, SPRING 1985 



Better 
« of Students 
% of Racial Group 

Saw 
t of Students 
% of Racial Group 

Uorse 
* of Students 
t of Racial Group 



COMPARE INTERACTION WITH COUNSaORS (cont) 

Black/Hispanic/Other Minority White/Asian 



12 
29.26 



21 
51.21 



8 
19.51 



5 
21.73 



12 
52.17 



6 
2£.08 



Of the 27 students who said they had not aet with their counselors this year 
9 said their situation was better than last year 
16 said their situation was the san as last year 
11 said their situation Mas worse than last year 



TROUBLE UITH SCHOOL 
Have you had any trouble Nith school this year? 



Tech 



Latin Academy Latin School 



Yes 
« of Students 
i of School 




4 
36.36 


14 

56.ee 


14 
58. W 


No 
i of Students 
i of School 




7 
63.63 


11 

44. ee 


14 
50. W 






===== 









171 



RESPONSES TO SURVEY OF EXflMINflTION SCHOOL STUDENTS 
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SPRING 1985 



TROUBLE WITH SCHOOL (cent) 

Black/Hispanic/Other Minority Uhite/flsian 

Yes 
i of Students 25 7 

60.97 30.43 

No 
« of Students 7 16 

]C of Racial GrouD 33.02 69.56 



(If you did have trouble), did you get any helo froi the school? 

Tech Latin Acadeiy Latin School 



Yes 


« of Students 


* of School 


No 


« of Students 


% of School 



2 10 9 
50.00 71.42 64.28 



2 4 5 
50.00 28.57 35.71 



Black/Hispanic/Other Minority Uhite/flsian 

Yes 

# of Students 16 5 
% of Racial Group 64.00 71.42 

No 

# of Students 9 2 
% of Racial Group 36.00 28.57 



172 



RESPONSES TO SURVEY OF EXflMINflTION SCHOOL STUDENTS 
DEMRTIENT OF EDUCATION, SPRING 1985 



BENERflL PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL 

Would you co»pare this year to your previous years here nith regard 
to the overall assistance situation? 



Tech Latin flcadeny Latin School 



Better 
t of Students 
* of School 


4 
36.36 


6 
24.80 


8 
28.57 


SaK 
1 of Students 
t of School 


4 
36.36 


16 

64.ee 


15 
53.57 


Uorse 
i of Students 
% of School 


3 
27.27 


3 

i2.ee 


5 
17.85 



Black/Hispanic/Other Minority Uhite/Asian 



Better 
# of Students 
t of Racial Group 


12 
29.26 


6 

26.08 


SaK 
» of Students 
i of Racial Group 


22 
53.65 


13 
56.52 


Uorse 
t of Students 
X of Racial Group 


7 
17.07 


4 
17.39 



173 



FOiaHiP QUEsriQimiRE FOR asm sihxl sruDOiTs 

student Cods 

School: SLfl BLS Tim 

\jist year sosone frca the deoartnnt of Education intervieted you about 

your exoeriences here at School. Your answers were kept 

confidential, but they mb^ used to irite a resort that Mas suiaitted to 
tie State Soard of Education and the IJ.S. District Court. 



ife'd aooreciate it if you Nould helo us once again. Ue want to 

this year (the one that began in Seoteaber) at School to the 

previous years here — to find out j<hethar you think there have been any 



1. Srade in School 7 3 9 19 11 12 

c. Sex ?(ale Feaule 

3. Race Black Hisoanic Asian terican Indian Uhite 

i. Transoortation to and froa sdiool 

ia. Mut is your usual Kthod of setting to and fro* 
school? 

schoolbus ffiTA oriyate car Malk other 

4b. TTiis year, has it been: eood (X had? 

4c Ccaents 

4d. CoKiare it Mith your previoos years here: 



S. Counselors 

Sa. Have you Kt ttith your counselor this year? Y N 
(IF YES) 
55. Ho* often? 12 3 4+ 
5c. Hm (MHiId ycu desribe the setingis)? 

helaful neutral not heloful 
Sd. Ccaents 



174 



tIFM)) 
5e. Do you have any exDlanatiors/ccMents? 



(aisTUDens) 

5f. Hon MMiId yew conare your interaction Mith counselors 

this year xith your exoerience in previous years? 

better sas tiorse 

5g. Coaoents 

5. Have you had any trouble Mith sdwol this vea-? Y N 

(urotes: trouble Mith classes, health, faaily, disciplire, 
people at school) 

(IF M): go to questim 17) 

(IF YES) 

Ea. Could you describe the trouble? 

fib. Did you set any help froa the school? Y 9i 

(IF YES) 

Gc. 'Would you describe Hhat hapoened? 

(Promts: kind of help, froa Mhoa, Mien, Nhere) 

fid. Uas your situation iaproved? 

(IFW) 

Se. Do you think there is anything the school could do 
(could have done) to help? 



7. Uould you comare this year to your previous years here 

3t School Mith rraard to the overall assistance situation? 

(tutorinn, counselino, stc.) 

istter sae norse 



175 



SPECIAL DESEGREGATION MEASURES 

EXAMINATION SCHOOL REPORT 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE 



RESPONDENTS 



RACE/SEX 



BLS 



BLA 



BTH 



NOT IDENTIFIED 




5 


WHITE FEMALES 




8 


WHITE MALES 




15 


BLACK FEMALES 




5 


BLACK MALES 




4 


OTHER MINORITY 


FEMALES 


1 


OTHER MINORITY 


MALES 






TOTALS= 



38 



13% 



61% 



24% 



2% 



4 


23. 


,5% 


10 


30.3% 


7 






3 




5 


70. 


.5% 


19 


66.6% 














1 


6% 




























1 
33" 


3% 

= 88 

GRAND 

TOTAL 



TOTAL PROFESSIONAL STAFF 



WHITE FEMALES 

WHITE MALES 

BLACK FEMALES 

BLACK MALES 

OTHER MINORITY FEMALES 

OTHER MINORITY MALES 



BLS 

22 
89 
10 

5 

3 

1 

130 



85.4% 



11.5% 



3.1% 



BLA 

30 

33 

5 

7 
1 




83% 



15.7% 



1.3% 



(NON- 
ADMINISTRA- 
TIVE ONLY) 
BTH 



7 
45 
9 
3 

0% 



64 



81.3% 
18.7% 



270 

Grand 

Total 



176 



QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEAPHP^.g AND OTHER 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF RE CARnTMr, tIT^ 

RETENTLOiLQiLBLACj^ND HISPANIC STUn R NT.q 









RACE WJ 



SE X M 



YEARS AT SCHOO L (y 



1. 



PLEASE IDENTIFY THE PROBLEMS WHICH YOU BELIEVE MOST 
AFFECT THE RETENTION OF BLACK AND HISPANIC STUDEN-S 
AT YOUR SCHOOL. BE CANDID AND SPECIFIC ^^^^^^'^ 



2. 



OVERALL WHAT CHANGES (WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS) HAVE 
YOU OBSERVED IN THE AVAILABILITY OF SUPPORT SERVICEr 
FOR BLACK, HISPANIC AND OTHER MINORIT^ sJSSeN^S 
CITE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. ^ur^i^ii,. 



177 



3. HAVE YOU BEEN PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN PROVIDING 

SERVICES SPECIFICALLY FOR THE RETENTION OF BLACK AND 
HISPANIC STUDENTS? {EXAMPLES: TUTORING, COUNSELING, 
. SUr4:-lER ORIENTATION, 'PARENT INVOLVEi-IENTS, EErORi. - OR 
AFTER - SCHOOL ASSISTANCE, ETC.) 

PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR INVOLVEMENTS. 



4. HAVE YOU OBSERVED OTHER SERVICES, STAFF, OR PROGRAMS 
WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE IMPROVED ACADEMIC PERFORr-lANCE 
OF BLACK AND HISPANIC STUDENTS? 

PLEASE SPECIFY. 




^ 



5. AS A RESULT OF YOUR PREVIOUS RESPONSES WHAT 

PROGRAMMATIC, STAFFING, OR OTHER CHANGES WOULD YOU 
RECOMMEND TO FURTHER It4PR0VE THE RETENTION OF BLACK 
AND HISPANIC STUDENTS? BE SPECIFIC. 



PLEASE RETURN ALL QUESTIONNAIRES TO THE OFFICE FOR PICK-UP BY 
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STAFF ON APRIL .{ O " /' 
BETWEEN 8 :00 - 10:00. 



178 



SURVEY OF EXftMINftTION SCHOOL TEflCHERS 
Massachusetts DepartBent of Education 
Spring 1985 

SUMMARY OF TEflCHERS UHO RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY 





SCHOOL BY RflCE 
















TECH 






LATIN ACADEMY 


LATIN SCHOOL 


Uhite 




22 






12 




23 


Black 















9 


Other Min 




1 










1 


Did Not Indicate 




18 










S 




SCHOOL BY SEX 












Male 




23 










19 


Feule 




3 










14 


Did Not Indicate 




7 










5 




SCHOOL BY YEARS OF SERVICE 










1 - 5 years 




11 










IS 


6- le years 
















11 - 15 years 
















16 - 28 years 
















21+ years 
















Did Not Indicate 


















RflCE BY YEARS 














WHITE 




BLACK 




OTHER MIN 


DID NOT INDICATE 


l-Wyrs 


2B 






9 




2 


4 


ll-aeyrs 


22 






1 







4 


21+yrs 


5 






8 




e 





Did Not Indicate 


2 






8 




9 


11 



179 



QUESTIW #1: FACTORS AFFECTING RETENTION 

Staff Here asked to list the probleas they believed most affected the retention 

of Black and Hispanic students at their own schools. Many staff listed Bore than 

one Droble«; the percentages indicated below reflect the total nuaber of responses froa staff 

fESPCWSES FROM ffl.L SCHOOLS 

PROBLEH 

poor preparation/poor study skills 

lack of appropriate parent, hone, coMunity values/support 

absenteeisn, tardiness 

staff insensitivity/racisa, lack of training 

inappropriate adnissions standards 

barriers faced by LEP students 

lack of acadevic/counseling support in exam school 

poor student attitudes/iotivation, low self-estee« 37 22.69 

observed no probleis 5 3.06 

no response 3 



RESPONSES BY SCHOOL 



poor preparation/ poor study skills 
% of School Total 

lack of appropriate parent, hone, coenunity values/support 
% of School Total 

absenteeisB, tardiness 
i of School Total 

staff insensitivity/racisa, lack of training 
% of School Total 

inaporopriate adnissions standards 
% of School Total 

barriers faced by LEP students 
% of School Total 

lack of acadenic/counseling supoort in exasi school 
« of School Total 

Door student attitudes/motivation, low self-esteen 
% of School Total 



RESPONSES 


% OF TOTAL 


50 


30.67 


32 


19.63 


10 


6.13 


9 


5.52 


6 


3.68 


6 


3.68 


8 


4.90 



TECH BLfl BLS 



observed no oroblems 
% of School Total 



180 



14 
25.92 


9 
25.71 


27 
36.48 


6 
14.81 


9 
25.71 


15 
20.27 


a 

14.81 


1 
2.85 


1 
1.35 


1 
1.85 


1 
2.85 


7 
9.45 




0.00 


1 
2.85 


5 
6.75 


2 
3.70 


3 
8.57 


1 
1.35 


4 
7.40 


2 

5.71 


2 

2.70 


14 
25.92 


8 
22.85 


15 
20.27 


3 
5.55 


1 
2.85 


1 
1.35 



QUESTION #1: FACTORS AFFECTING RETENTION 

Staff Nere asked to list the probleas they believed aost affected the retention 

of Black and Hispanic students at their own schools. Many staff listed nore than 

one problei; the percentages indicated beloM reflect the total number of resoonses froii staff 

RESPONSES BY RACE 



PROBLEM 



WHITE 



BLACK 



O.MIN 



NO INDIC 



poor preparation/ poor study skills 
% of Responses froM Racial Group 

lack of appropriate parent, hoMe,co«iunity values/support 

* of Responses froi Racial Group 

absenteeisa, tardiness 

% of Responses froH Racial Group 

staff insensitivity/racisi, lack of training 

* of Responses fron Racial Group 

inappropriate adiissions standards 
% of Responses froB Racial Group 

barriers faced by L£P students 

% of Responses froi Racial Group 

lack of acadenic/counseling support in exaii race 
% of Responses froa Racial Group 

poor student attitudes/aotivation, Ion self-esteem 
i of Responses from Racial Group 

observed no probleas 

% of Resoonses from Racial Group 



34 
31.48 


5 
29.41 


2 
40.00 


9 
27.27 


21 
19.44 


3 
17.64 


1 
20.00 


7 
21.21 


8 
7.40 


9 
9M 



0.00 


2 
6.06 


2 
1.8S 


6 
35.29 



0.00 


1 
3.03 


5 
4.62 


9 

0.ee 




0.00 


1 
3.03 


3 
2.77 


0.00 



0.00 


3 
9.09 


5 
4.62 


2 
11.76 



0.00 


1 
3.03 


25 
23.14 


1 
5.88 


2 

40.00 


9 
27.27 


5 
4.62 




0.00 




0.00 




0.00 



QUESTIONS 2/4: AVAILABILITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 

Staff were asked to list the suoport services (for Black and Hispanic students) 
of t*ich they were personally aware. He tabulated the number of services listed 
by each respondent. Some were non-specific, such as "many" or "more than enough. 

RESPONSES FROM ALL SCHOOLS 



NUMBER OF SERVICES LISTED 


NUMBER OF STAFF 


PERCENTAGE OF ALL STAF RESPONDING 


Non-specific response 


8 


9.09 


Listed 1 or 2 services 


33 


37.50 


Listed 3 to 5 services 


34 


38.63 


Listed more than 6 services 


4 


4.54 


Made no resoonse 


9 


10.22 



181 



QUESTIONS 2/4: PVfllLflBIITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 

Staff were asked to list the support services (for Black and Hispanic students) 
of which they were personally aware. He tabulated the number of services listed 
each respondent. Some were non-specific, such as "many" or "more than enough." 

RESPONSES BY SCHOOL 



NUMBER OF SERVICES LISTED 



Non-specific resoonses 
% of school 



Listed 1 or 2 services 
* of school 



Listed 3 or aore services 
* of school 



Made no resoonse 
% of school 



TECH 





LATIN flCflDEMY 


LATIN SCHOOL 


5 
15.15 



0.00 


3 
7.89 


10 
30.30 


9 
52.94 


14 
36.84 


17 
51.51 


4 
23.52 


17 
44.73 


1 
3.03 


4 
23.52 


4 
10.52 



RESPONSES BY RflCE 



NUMBER OF SERVICES LISTED 


WHITE 


BLACK 


OTHER MIN 


DID NOT INDICATE 


Non-specific resoonses 
* of school 


4 
7.01 


2 
20.00 



0.00 


2 
10.52 


Listed 1 or 2 services 
* of school 


16 
28.07 


7 

70.00 


1 

50.00 


9 
47.36 


Listed 3 or More services 
* of school 


29 
50.87 


1 

10.00 


1 
50.00 


7 
36.84 


Made no resoonse 
* of school 


a 

14.03 



0.00 



0.00 


1 
5.26 



182 



ffiJESTION 3: EXTENT OF PERSONft. INVOLVEMENT IN SUPPORT SERVICES 

Staff Here asked to describe their involveuent, if any with support 
services for Black and Hisoanic students. 



RESPONSES FROM ALL SCHOOLS 



EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT 


NUMBER OF STAFF 


PtRCtNT OF Aa RESPONDENTS 


Made no response 




9 




10.22 




No personal involvement 




17 




19.31 




InfonMl personal involveaent 




29 




32.95 




Fonal involveuent in a program (s) 


33 




37.50 




INVOLVEMENT BY SCHOOL 










tXltNT OF INVOLVEMENT 


TECH 


LATIN AnADFMY 


LATIN SCHOOL 


Made no response 
* of school 




5 
15.15 




3 
17.64 


1 
2.63 


No personal involveaent 
* of school 




8 

24.24 




2 
11.76 


7 
18.42 


Inforwl personal involvewnt 
i of school 




8 
24.24 




9 
52.94 


12 
31.57 


Fonwl involvement in a prograafs) 
i of school 




12 
36.36 




3 
17.64 


18 
47.36 


INVOLVEMENT BY RftCE 










EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT 


WHITE 


BLflCK 


OTHER MIN 


DID NOT INDICATE 


Made no response 
i of racial group 


6 
18.52 


( 


8 

9.00 




0.00 


3 
15.78 


No personal involvement 
i of racial group 


12 
21.05 




8.00 


1 
58.88 


4 
21.05 


Informal personal involvement 
i of racial group 


17 

29.82 


5 
50.00 


1 

50.00 


6 
31.57 


Formal involvement in a program (s) 
i of racial group 


22 
38.59 


5 

50.00 



0.00 


6 
31.57 



183 



RECOMMENDED CHANGES 

Staff Nere asked to describe the prograrmatic, staffing or 
other changes they Mould recomaend to iniDrove the retention 
of Black and Hisoanic students. Many staff listed more than 
one problea; the percentages indicated below reflect the total 
nuBber of responses froa staff. 



RESPONSES FROM ALL SCHOOLS 
RECOWENDflTIONS # OF RESPONSES 

counseling, curriculus, organizational changes 
iaiprove academic preparation 
staff training, changes, redeploynent 
■ore appropriate adnissions standards 
outreach to increase parental involveaent 
other 
no response/no changes needed 



* OF TOTAL RESPONSES 



35 


28.22 


Ifi 


12.90 


18 


14.51 


9 


7.25 


19 


15.32 


6 


4.83 


21 


16.93 



RECOMMENDATIONS BY SCHOOL 



RECOI^eiDATIONS 

counseling, curriculum, organizational changes 
t of school 

isprove academic preparation 
i of school 

staff training, changes, redeployment 
% of school 

■ore aoprooriate adnissions standards 
% of school 

outreach to increase parental involvement 
i of school 

other 

i of school 



TECH 



no resDonse/no changes needed 
i of school 





LATIN ACADEMY 


LATIN SCHOOL 


9 
22.50 


9 
39.13 


17 
27.86 


7 
17.50 


1 
4.34 


8 
13.11 


2 

5.00 


4 
17.39 


12 
19.67 


3 
7.50 



0.00 


6 
9.83 


6 
15.00 


3 
13.04 


10 

16.39 


4 

10.00 




0.00 


2 
3.27 


9 
22.50 


6 
26.08 


6 

9.83 



184 



QUESTION «S: RECOtWENDED CHANGES 



Staff were asked to describe the prograraiatic, staffing or 

other changes they Mould reconaend to improve the retention 

of Black and Hispanic students. Many staff listed sore than 

one recoMendation; the percentages indicated beloM reflect the total 

nmber of responses from staff. 



RECOMNENDflTIONS BY RflCE 



RECOttENMTIONS 



HHITE BLflCK OTH «IN DID NOT INDICATE 



counsel ing, curriculuM, organizat ional changes 

* of racial group 

iiprove acadeaic preparation 

* of racial group 

staff training, changes, redeployient 

* of racial group 

■ore appropriate admissions standards 

* of racial group 

outreach to increase oarental involvement 
% of racial group 

outreach to increase oarental involvement 
t of racial group 

no resoonse/no changes needed 
t of racial group 



25 
29.76 


2 
14.28 


1 
33.33 


2 
8.69 


13 
15.47 


9 

0.00 



0.00 




0.00 


12 
14. 2B 


3 
21.42 


1 
33.33 


3 
13.04 


7 
8.33 


1 
7.14 




0.00 


1 
4.34 


12 
14.28 


4 
28.57 


1 
33.33 


4 
17.39 


4 
4.76 


1 
7.14 



0.00 


1 
4.34 


11 
13.09 


3 
21.42 



0.00 


7 
30.43 



185 



- 2 - 



TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 

In order to provide more comprehensive information regarding 
the high attrition rate of Black and Hispanic students at the 
examination schools monitors developed a questionnaire designed 
to solicit information from examination school faculty on the 
causes and remedies for this attrition. 

The questionnaire consists of five questions regarding the 
retention of Black and Hispanic students covering: 

1.) Major problems affecting retention 

2.) Changes in services provided in the last two years 

3.) Personal involvement in services and other forms of 

help 
4.) Other services or staff observed 
5.) Recommendations for additional improvements 



GENERAL FINDINGS - TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 



Because of time constraints, monitors have only been able to 
provide limited and general analysis of questionnaire results to 
date. 

Professional staff responses to the questionnaire varied 
considerably. Some professional staff chose not to respond at 
all; some chose to respond with one word responses or not to 
respond to certain questions (including information on race or 
sex). Others responded quite elaborately with insightful and 
specific information and suggestions. Professional staff at 
Boston Latin School as a whole have clearly devoted more time and 
effort in developing their responses, as evidenced by the length 
and detail of their responses in general and the organization of 
their return to monitors through the faculty senate. Monitors 
are grateful for the efforts and consideration of all who have 
conscientiously responded. 

Question 1 - Please identify the problems which you believe 
most affect the retention of Black and Hispanic students 
at your school. Be candid and specific. 

Findings : At all three examination schools, three issues 
consistently arose in response to this question: 

% of 
Responses 

A) -lack of appropriate parent, home, 

community values/support 19.6% 



186 



- 3 - 



B) -Poor student attitudes/motivation, 

low self-esteem 22.7% 

C. Poor preparation/poor study skills 30.7% 

Included under the responses related to 'appropriate parent, 
home, community values/support' were: 

(1) the lack of parental provision of values 
and educational motivation which would lead 
to academic success at the more rigorous 
examination schools; 

(2) poverty and its attendant problems; 

(3) family social and psychological problems; 

(4) lack of a clear understanding among some 
minority parents of what the examination 
schools require of students and ways in 
which parents should be supportive, 
especially if the student is having 
academic problems; 

(5) lack of an adequate study environment; 

(6) negative peer influences. 

Included under the responses related to 'poor preparation' 
were: 

(1) lack of study skills; 

(2) weak basic skills, including reading, 
writing and math; 

(3) poor counseling resulting in uninformed 
educational choices and lack of information 
about exam school requirements. 

Included under 'poor student attitudes/motivation, low self- 
esteem' were: 

(1) unwillingness to devote the time and energy needed to 
succeed. 

(2) lack of interest in recreational reading 

(3) poor ability to cope with initial failures by working 
harder and better focusing on remedial problems. 

Staff (particularly at Boston Technical High) also cited 
absenteeism and tardiness as problems associated with the 



187 



retention of Black and Hispanic students. (6.1%) 

In addition to these major problems, some Black (35%) and 
other staff (@ 5%) at both Boston Latin School and Boston Latin 
Academy (Boston Technical High sent no identified responses from 
Black staff) reported problems of staff insensitivity to the 
problems of Black and Hispanic students, and racist attitudes 
among certain faculty members. 

Some staff responses (5%) indicated a lack of academic and 
counseling support in the exam schools as being a problem which 
affects Black and Hispanic retention. 

Others at all three examination schools related problems in 
retaining Black and Hispanic students to faulty admissions 
standards , allowing unprepared and, according to some, less able 
Black and Hispanic students to be admitted only to be frustrated 
by the level of academic competition. (3.7%) 

At both Boston Latin Academy and Boston Technical High some 
staff cited language and cultural barriers as preventing some 
minority students from succeeding, particularly limited English 
proficient students. (3.7%) 

Finally some staff responses (3%) indicated that there were 
no special problems in retaining Black and Hispanic students. 

Question 2 - Overall what changes (within the last two 

years) have you observed in the availability of support 
services for Black, Hispanic and other minority 
students? 

Cite specific examples. 

Findings : -The vast majority of changes occurring in the 
last two years cited by staff were positive changes. 
Many cited the offering of tutoring support in various 
forms. Most staff in response to questions 2 and 4 
simply listed the services they knew about, whether they 
represented improvements within the last two years or 
not. Most staff cited between 1 and 5 specific services 
(@ 76%); some were quite specifically described, while 
most were not. Against the backdrop of all the services 
purportedly offered (see letters from Contomposis, 
Binswanger and Lane pp. 144-lt2. nost staff appear to be 
not well informed. (Boston Latin Academy cites 2_2 
specific support services currently provided, Boston 
Latin School cites ^i' ^"^ Boston Technica High cites 7) 
This, of course, raises the question of how students are 
to be referred to certain services if staff have limited 
knowledge of what's available and of what it consists. 

Boston Latin School 

Staff cited changes in support services in the last two 



- 5 - 



years in the following categories: 

tutoring 

-peer tutoring program 
-after school tutoring 

external support services (health, social, 

psychological) 

-Childrens' Hospital collaboration 

-Mass. PEP (Pre-Engineering Program) 

-Boston Latin School Collaborative coordinated by 

Roxbury multi-Service Center (Mrs. Kraus) which 

provides a social worker and referral services 

-Shady Hill summer school 

-U. Mass. Program providing support to Hispanic 

students 

-"Step" program 

internally provided services 

-remedial reading and study skills class 
-buddy system or big brother/big sister peer 
counseling 

-additional minority guidance personnel 
-summer orientation program (summer enrichment) 
for incoming 7th and 9th graders 

In addition, some faculty also cited general improvements in 
efforts of the guidance department to provide services. 

Seven faculty members in this sample were unaware of any 
changes in support services or did not respond to this particular 
question. 

While many of the services cited above have been operational 
for more than two years, some faculty acknowledged improvements 
in the quality and scope of those services or in the level of 
student participation. Some did not feel peer tutoring was 
particularly effective. 



Boston Latin Academy 

Staff cited these positive changes in support services 
in the following categories: 

tutoring 

-peer 
-after-school 



189 



- 6 



internally provided services 

-Spanish course for Hispanics 

-improvements in guidance services 

-summer orientation program for incoming 7th and 

9th graders 

In a negative vein four respondents could not cite any 
positive changes, or chose not to respond to this question. 
Individual faculty members cited the discontinuance of a study 
skills course (1983-84), the loss of a student leadership 
program, and the reduction in academic standards (including 
covering less material within the school year) as negative 
changes which have occurred at Latin Academy in the last two 
years. 

Boston Technical High 

Faculty cited positive changes at the school in the 
following areas: 

tutoring 
peer 
after-school 

external services 

-Human Services Collaborative 

-U.Mass. support program for Hispanic students 

-Roxbury Childrens' services 

-Minority program for medical laboratory sciences 

internal services 



-peer counseling 

-field trips 

-SAT preparation 

-improved guidance services including more minority 

staff 

-ESL program 

-summer orientation for incoming 9th and 10th 

graders 

-job collaboration program 

-targeting 9th graders for special support 

Six faculty members were either not aware of any changes in 
the level of support services or chose not to respond to this 
question. 



Question 3 - Have you been personally involved in providing 
services specifically for the retention of Black and 
Hispanic students (Examples: tutoring, counseling, summer 
orientation, parent involvement, before or after school 
assistance) . 



190 



Findings ; Following are the numbers of faculty responding 
at each of the examination schools citing no personal 
involvement with support efforts for the retention of 
Black and Hispanic students plus those who chose not to 
respond to the question: 

Boston Tech. 13 

Boston Latin Academy 4 

Boston Latin School 6 

23 

In general, many indicated informal individual assistance to 
students or a willingness to provide assistance before or after 
school in the form of tutoring or counseling. Others spoke of 
their informal efforts to contact and work with the parents of 
students experiencing academic problems. Some of those 
expressing their willingness to assist students were disheartened 
by the unwillingness of students to follow through on their 
offers of assistance. 

Some of the specific program affiliations were: 

BLS 

-Black students association advisors 

-Boston Latin School Collaboration 

-Boston Latin School-Elementary Schools Forum 

-Formal Tutoring Programs 

-Teaching 'Reachback' courses 

-Mass. PEP 

-Upward bound 

-Shady Hill Summer Program 

-Summer Orientation for 7th and 9th graders 

-Study Skills Program 

BLA 

-Shady Hill Summer Program 

-Summer Orientation 

-Tutorial Coordination 

-Enrichment for 7th graders (discontinued) 

-Student Leadership Program (discontinued) 

BTH 

-Mass. PEP 

-Schooner Bowdoin Project 

-SAT preparation program 

-U. Mass. Hispanic support program 

-minority program in medical laboratory sciences 

It was clear from the responses to this question that, aside 
from informal assistance, some faculty citing involvement with 
specific programs often cited multiple program involvements over 
a period of years. 

191 



Question 4 - Have you observed other services, staff or 
programs which contribute to the inproved academic 
performance of Black and Hispanic students? 

Please specify. 

Findings : Many respondents viewed this question as a 

repetition of question #2 regarding changes in the last 
two years, and responded by listing services which had 
been listed before such as tutoring Mass. PEP, summer 
orientation etc. However some respondents listed other 
programs staff and services not previously mentioned 
such as: 

-ROTC at Boston Tech. 

-Black History Month programs at Boston Latin 

Academy and Boston Tech. 

-A resource room for tutoring during the school 

day at Boston Tech. 

-School Clubs and extracurricular activities at 

BLS, BTH 

-the ESL Teacher at Boston Tech. 

-Teacher help provided Asian students with writing 

skills at Boston Tech. 

-Advanced work classes, METCO and parochial 

schools which better prepare students for success. 

-Individual staff members who are particularly 

effective in helping minority students 



Question 5 - As a result of your previous responses what 
programmatic, staffing, or other changes would you 
recommend to further improve the retention of Black and 
Hispanic students? Be specific. 

Findings ; In response to this question there were many 
suggestions provided about ways of improving both the 
retention of Black and Hispanic students and the school 
in general. The responses fell under several broad 
categories: 

-Counseling/Curriculum/Organizational changes. . .33.9% 

-Improv Academic Preparation 15.5% 

-Staff training, changes, redeployment 17.5% 

-More appropriate admissions standards 8.7% 

-Outreach to increase parental involvement 18.4% 

-Other 5.8% 

-No response/no recommendations 



192 



At all three schools recommendations regarding changes in 
counseling, curriculum and school organization, including more 
and different approaches to remediation, tracking, new course 
offerings, and reduction in class size, were among the 
suggestions most frequently received. Recommendations regarding 
staff training and redeployment, increasing parental involvement 
and support and better preparation in elementary and middle 
school also appeared frequently. A sampling of the 
recommendations from each school follows: 



Boston Latin School 

Curriculum/School Organization/Counseling 

-more tutoring 

-more counseling 

-teaching or grouping of students by ability 

-offer more remedial courses 

-repeat fall semester 7th grade math course in 

January 

-review the philosophy of the school 

-offer speed reading and study skills courses 

-require summer orientation attendance 

-smaller class sizes 

-full summer program of remedial work 

Improved Preparation 

-improve elementary programs feeding into 

Latin 

-increase and improve Latin school contacts 

with elementary and middle schools with 

advanced work programs 

-more homework in lower grades 

Staff Training/Changes/Redeployment 

-form a retention team (4 teachers, 1 
counselor, 1 administrator) 

-teacher workshops on reading in content area 
-workshop for teachers in "outreach for 
greater minority participation in school 
activities" 

-workshops for teachers on teen-age problems 
including alcohol, drug, pregnancy 
-sensitivity training for staff on cultural 
differences and to combat racist attitudes 
-workshops to help teachers to individualize 
instruction to meet needs of all students 
-more interaction between teachers, guidance 
regarding students 



193 



10 



Admissions Standards 

-require minimal reading grade level scores 

-require writing samples 

-actively recruit better qualified minority 

students 

-require student interviews for admission 

Parents/Home 

-have teachers and other staff explain 

academic and other requirements of BLS in 

regular meeting with parents 

-identify a parent liaison staff person 

-parent support group 

-more parent participation 



Boston Latin Academy 

Curriculum/School Organization/Counseling 

-more and better counseling for incoming 

students 

-study skills course and integration of study 

skills into other course curricula 

-contracts between students, parents and 

school 

-do not retain disruptive students 

-greater rewards for academic success 

-reduce class size 

-re-institute student leadership program 

-create stronger links between guidance and 

tutorial functions 

-modify curriculum to make it less rigid 

-modify the sequence of certain subjects and 

develop more relevant elective course 

offerings 

Improved Preparation 

increase efforts to improve lower grade 
preparation both academically and socially 

Staff Training/Changes/Redeployment 

-create an Assistant Headmaster position for 

curriculum and instruction for minority 

students 

-staff development for teachers on 

relationship of academic achievement and self 



194 



esteem 

-efforts to increase staff awareness of family 

problems of some students 

-more tutoring and counseling using Black 

personnel 

Parent/Homes 

-stronger and more frequent parent-school 

contacts 

-parent, teacher, student learning contracts 



Boston Technical High 

Curriculum/School Organization/Counseling 

-more tutoring, remediation, basic skills, 

developmental reading 

-half-year study skills/writing course and 

other half-year vocabulary building 

-smaller classes and more individual help 

-limit English-as-a-Second language to one 

year only 

-initiate work-study program 

-more visual aids, books, and teaching aids 

-do not isolate Blacks into remedial learning 

groups thus reinforcing feelings of 

inferiority 

-institute program(s) to reduce absenteeism 

and tardiness 

-expand on U. Mass/Boston Support program model 

(for Hispanic students) 

Improved Preparation 

-establish promotion standards from middle to 

high school 

-control mainstreaming of '766' and "low 

achievers" 



Conclusion 

Although the data reported on has not been subjected to 
an intensive computer analysis, as noted previously, several 
major trends are apparent. Teachers and other professional 
staff clearly see (1) student attitude and motivation, 
(2) family, home and community issues as well as (3) 
academic preparation as being the major issues which affect 



195 



12 



the retention of Black and Hispanic students. In the 
findings from the student questionnaire in Report No . 3 , 
however, students experiencing academic and other 
difficulties reported that they had a generally supportive 
home situation as well as the support of their non-exam 
school peers. Many of these same students, however, did 
express dissatisfaction with the quality of their earlier 
academic preparation in helping them to succeed at the 
examination schools. (see Report No. 3, Vol. IIA, pp. 379- 
381, 352-353) 

With the exception of some Black faculty members and a 
very few White faculty members, staff did not express the 
feeling that their attitudes and behavior or school climate 
contributed to the attrition of Black and Hispanic students 
a position which, again, contrasts with the findings from 
Report No. 3's student questionnaire. (see Report No. 3, 
Vol. IIA, pp. 356-387) In those findings students 
interviewed (some still at an exam school, some having 
transferred to other public schools) expressed their general 
dissatisfaction with the school atmosphere, especially at 
Boston Latin School, and a specific dissatisfaction with the 
insensitive and unhelpful attitudes and behavior of some 
staff members. While monitors are aware that the 
Headmasters at all three examination schools have 
acknowledged the insensitivity of a few staff, and have, in 
some cases, managed to remove some of these individals, the 
importance of staff insensitivity in the attrition of Black 
and Hispanic students, remains unclear. The question of 
what constitutes insensitivity also remains unanswered. Are 
teachers and other staff who express their desire to 
maintain the elitest nature of these schools being 
insensitive; does a "sink or swim" attitude which appears 
to be a traditional attitude among some teachers at these 
schools (beginning well before school desegregation) 
adversely affect the public school population now being 
served? 

Attitudes expressed in the questionnaire, especially 
but not exclusively among teachers having worked more than 
ten years at a particular examination school, do confirm a 
"sink or swim" attitude among some, but more commonly a "we 
must uphold our standards" attitude among many. In the 
responses from these teachers, this translates into one or 
more of the following approaches to the solution of the 
retention problem. 

-there need to be vast improvements in the public school 

preparation of students planning to attend the 

examination schools. 

-there should not be a lower admission standard for 

Black and Hispanic students 

-much more work needs to be done in involving parents in 

the educational support of their children from a very 



196 



- 13 - 



early age 

-students must be willing to take advantage of the 
various support services offered, and sacrifice part- 
time jobs and many social and sports opportunities which 
students in other Boston high schools partake of. 

It is the opinion of monitors that while staff attitude 
problems may not be the most important issue affecting Black and 
Hispanic attrition, the attitudes of some staff do play a 
critical role in the decisions of some students to leave an 
examination school; of particular concern are the attitudes of 
those staff who will not extend themselves to provide extra 
assistance or clarification for those students who need it. This 
situation is critical for many Black and Hispanic students 
because they often need this extra assistance and many have only 
recently moved into a social and academic context which is 
completely new and different. Many have never gone to a school 
(BLS,BLA) in which the majority of students are White and 
Asian; many are all too willing to call it 'quits' when the 
academic frustrations in addition to the "foreign" social 
environment reaches a critical level. It must be noted here that 
there are differences in the school climate among all three 
schools. Boston Latin School is perhaps the most difficult for 
some Black and Hispanic students, while Boston Latin Academy and 
Boston Tech (in part because of the larger numbers of Blacks and 
Hispanics attending) appear more familiar and comfortable. 

Monitors agree with the staff that critical elements in 
reducing Black and Hispanic attrition are better preparation in 
the early grades, a supportive home and community, and a positive 
attitude regarding academic achievement. However, monitors also 
assert that a full range of support services which all staff and 
students have been fully apprised of, and a sensitized staff 
which believes in the abilities of all assigned students is also 
critical for Black and Hispanic retention. 



197 



198 



VOCATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION 



199 



199b 



VOCATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION 



ORDER 



Unified Plan for Vocational and Occupational 
Education in the City of Boston, filed with 
the Court on September 8, 1975, and amended on 
June 14, 1976 and January 28, 1978. 



A. 



COMPLIANCE WITH RELEVANT COURT ORDERS, 
LAWS AND REGULATIONS (pp. 8-11) 



STATE 



SUMMARY 



All vocational/occupational educa- 
tion programs are required to be in 
compliance with (1) racial ratios 
established by the Court and (2) the 
admissions criteria specified by the 
Unified Plan, including proportional 
enrollment representation by sex. 



FINDINGS Partial Compliance 



(The findings of the implementation of this 
requirement are incorporated in the STUDENT 
ASSIGNMENTS report.) 



199c 



SUMMARY 



CORE PROGRAMS (pp. 15-17) 



Boston is required to provide all 
middle school students in 
exploratory programs with a strong 
career guidance emphasis in three 
major cluster areas: Industry 
Related, Food-Home-Health Services 
Related, and Business-Distribution- 
Government Related. In addition, 
supplemental career exploratory 
activities are required to introduce 
students to a broad range of career 
choices free of race or sex 
sterotypes. The Cleveland School is 
required to have a full time Career 
Education Coordinator position. 
High school exploratory clusters are 
required for grades 9-12; the ninth 
grade cluster is mandatory for all 
students. Boston is also required 
to offer employability skill pro- 
grams for grades 10-12 in Business- 
Office Education, Food-Home- 
Services-Health Education, and 
Distributive-Marketing Education. 



FINDINGS 



Partial Compliance 



Middle School Exploratory Clusters 

The status of the middle school Industry 
Related Cluster and Food-Home-Health-Services 
Related Cluster has not changed significantly 
since the last report. As mentioned 
previously, the Business-Disbr ibution- 
Government Related Cluster is implemented 
through computer education programs 
citywide. The type of program offerings and 
length of program duration (i.e., number of 
weeks, number of periods) still vary across 
districts. Moreover, since the last report 
there have been some reductions in staff in 
the exploratory programs. The Holmes, 
Cleveland, and Mackey schools each has one 
less Industrial Arts teacher and the King 
school has one less Home Economics teacher. 
On the other hand the Barnes school gained an 
additional Home Economics teacher. The 
Michelangelo and Cheverus middle schools are 



200 



scheduled for closing next school year. The 
Tobin school (K-8) remains in non-compliance 
in the Industry Related and Food-Home-Health 
Services Related Clusters. Although computer 
education is widespread at the middle school 
level, the only middle schools that were 
reported as having full-time computer 
technology instructors are: Cleveland (2) and 
the Umana (1). Plans are currently underway 
to begin a one week exploratory program at the 
HHORC for all 8th grades citywide, beginning 
in September, 1985. 

Middle School Career Guidance 

The dissemination of the Barnstable 
Instructional Career Exploratory Program 
(BICEP) career education model expanded this 
school year to include most middle schools 
through the use of Chapter 636 and 
Commonwealth In-Service Institute state 
funds. A comprehensive transitional package 
to facilitate the process by which 8th graders 
choose and enter high schools was made 
available to all middle school guidance 
counselors by the career guidance 
specialist. The role of guidance counselors 
is being reassessed at the central level to 
facilitate the implementation of the Career 
Development Model and Policy which was 
recently approved by the School Committee. 
Citywide dissemination and implementation of 
this policy is the next step but will require 
administrative support and internal resources 
at each school level. 

High School Exploratory 

Each district high school offers a minimum of 
two exploratory Industry Related programs. At 
English High as a result of the change in 
school focus to strengthen academics, all 
exploratory offerings have been closed. 
Jamaica Plain High has only one Industrial 
Arts teacher who covers three program areas: 
metals, woods and electricity/electronics. 
The phasing out of the Machine Shop program in 
East Boston High will mean that there will be 
only one Industry Related Exploratory offering 
remaining. Woodworking. Hyde Park reopened 



201 



its woodworking program this school year. 
Each district high school offers a minimum of 
three courses in the Food-Home-Health-Services 
Related Cluster with the exception of Hyde 
Park High in which only one course is offered- 
Comprehensive Home Economics. Boston 
Technical continues to provide an extensive 
drafting program (five teachers) as well as 
exploratory offerings in woods, graphics, and 
electricity. As mentioned in previous 
reports, all of the high schools offer the 
Business-Distribution-Government Related 
program primarily through their Business 
Program. Twenty-four percent (435) of the 
enrollment (1833) at HHORC is exploratory, 
(see Appendix A) 

High School Employability Clusters 

No significant changes have taken place in the 
area since the last reporting period. Major 
non compliance still exists in the Food-Home- 
Health-Services Related Cluster and in the 
Distributive-Marketing Cluster. Full 
compliance exists in the Business-Office 
Education Cluster. Of the 1403 10th-12th 
grade students attending HHORC, 2% (32) are 
from East Boston High while 33% (346) are from 
Madison Park High. (See Appendix A) 

C. MAGNET PROGRAMS (pp. 18-24) 

SUMMARY This provision delineates specific 
program and capacity requirements 
for the HHORC, lists specific 
district programs to be transferred 
or phased out, and requires specific 
magnet programs to be established in 
each district. 



FINDINGS Partial Compliance 



As reported in the previous reports, most of 
the requirements for magnet programs have been 

met. 

At this time there are no plans for 
establishing a magnet program at Jamaica Plain 
High School. However, plans are underway to 
establish a Computer Magnet Program at the 
Jeremiah E. Burke High School. The phasing 



202 



out of the machine shop at East Boston High 
School is scheduled to be completed in June 
1986. 

Enrollments in the satellite (district magnet) 
programs reflect a significant decrease except 
at West Roxbury and Dorchester High Schools. 
Enrollments in the satellite programs are as 
follows: 



District High School 

I Brighton 

III W. Roxbury 

IV Hyde Park 

V Dorchester 



VIII 



East Boston 
HHORC 





Enrollments 




Program 


7/83 


2/84 


1/85 


Automotive 


223 


222 


156 


Agribusiness 


117 


120 


116 


Machine Shop 


93 


83 


56 


Architectural 


84 


64 


85* 



Wood & Upho- 
lstery/Home 
Improvement 
Enterprise 

Machine Shop 



132 
2962 



62 
2193 



30 
1833 



* 1984-1985 Program title changed to Home Improvement 
Enterprise 



203 



Enrollments at the HHORC are also lower than 
previous years. Fewer students elect the 9th 
grade exploratory option, and retention is a 
problem in the upper grades. Declining 
enrollment at HHORC can be atributed to the 
following problems. First, the HHORC 
structure requires excessive transportation 
because there are two half-day schedules. 
Second, the assignment process results in many 
students being assigned to programs that are 
not their first choice. It is this problem 
that contributes to student frustration and 
lack of interest, to discipline problems, and 
ultimately to transfers and dropouts. Third, 
the new promotion policy has caused many 
students to stay in their sending schools to 
obtain credits that they need to graduate. 
Fourth, some middle school guidance counselors 
discourage their students from attending 
HHORC . 

Data indicates that retention is also a 
growing problem. Current data reflect a 
decrease of 79 students (30 of whom are 9th 
graders) in less than one month. (See HHORC 
cluster tallies dated 2/28/85 and 3/20/85). 
(For data on transfers both within and from 
the HHORC see Students Assignment section of 
the report . ) 

The HHORC headmaster has begun to address 
these problems. During the current semester 
at the HHORC, the 9th grade exploratory 
program was expanded to allow students to 
explore within each of the Clusters. In the 
past, exploratory students were limited to 
five program areas. There are also plans to 
conduct an exit poll at the end of this school 
year of all 9th graders to solicit feedback on 
their experiences. 

D. IN-SCHOOL BILINGUAL (pp. 24-30) 

SUMMARY 

The Unified Plan stipulates that 
selective bilingual vocational/ 
occupational programs, with ap- 
propriate administrative, counseling 
and instructional support services, 
would be established to serve 
limited English proficient (LEP) 



204 



students. These bilingual 
vocational/occupational education 
programs would utilize the native 
language of the LEP students as the 
primary medium of instruction. 



FINDINGS Non Compliance 



Native language bilingual vocational/ 
occupational programs are not provided as 
specified by the Unified Plan. While there 
are 14 vocational teachers who are bilingual 
at the HHORC and in some satellite programs, 
these staff were hired as vocational teachers, 
not as bilingual vocational teachers.* 
Nevertheless their linguistic skills are part 
of the support services provided for limited 
English proficient students who are integrated 
into regular vocational/occupational education 
programs. 

These services are outlined in the Policy 
Paper entitled "Bilingual Strategies and 
Procedures." This document is being revised, 
but it has never been approved by the school 
committee. As a result it does not have the 
force of policy, and this lack of formal- 
ization accounts for the variety of ways that 
bilingual vocational education support 
services are being implemented. The focus of 
this section will describe the effect that the 
lack of a policy has had and the achievements 
made despite the lack of policy. 

Inconsistency in service delivery is the 
result of the absence of policy. In the 
middle schools the situation is the same as 
described in the last report, namely a lack of 
bilingual vocational aides for exploratory 
programs. Also there is a shortage of 
bilingual counselors, with none at the 
HHORC. The use of the aides as a strategy for 
delivering services to LEP students is 
contingent on the ability of the bilingual 
vocational education coordinator to negotiate 
their deployment with school headmasters. The 
line authority of the bilingual vocational 
coordinator vis-a-vis the aides is also 
inconsistent. The federal grant aides report 
to the coordinator and are scheduled for 
inservice training on Thursdays. The other 



*0f the 14, 6 are approved bilingual instructors 



205 



aides have different schedules and report to 
different headmasters. 

Despite organizational problems in the role of 
the bilingual vocational coordinator, the use 
of bilingual aides has been a strong point in 
support service delivery to LEP students. 
There are aides for most language groups, and 
these staff perform a variety of roles. They 
act as translator, role model, coach, 
advocate, resource, vocational teacher aide 
etc. Wherever there were aides there was a 
positive and enthusiastic response from the 
teachers. 

There are 19 bilingual vocational aides, and 
they are the mainstay of the service system to 
LEP students. 

The HHORC, while without the services of a 
bilingual counselor, has the most extensive 
support services for LEP students. Besides 
aides, there are 2 support programs. The 
Basic Occupational Speaking Skills (BOSS) has 
a Vocational English as a Second Language 
(VESL) teacher who tries to develop speaking 
skills by using the "vernacular" of the 
student's vocational choice. The computer for 
Occupational Basic Skills (COBS) program 
focuses on developing Basic Skills. These 2 
programs are support services that are 
designed to assist LEP students. 

Adapting materials for LEP students 
continues. In addition to purchasing native 
language instructional materials, efforts have 
been made to translate materials into 
languages where native materials are difficult 
or impossible to find. At Jamaica Plain High 
School there is a bilingual business resource 
area, the opening of which was proclaimed by 
Mayor Flynn. There is a wide variety of 
materials being developed, but there is no 
prioritization. 

Recruitment is done by many staff. Field 
coordinators, teachers, aides, the coordinator 
etc. are all involved in outreach. There is 
little coordination among the bilingual staff 
and between the coordinator and the person 
responsible for public information. Yet 
enrollment of LEP students in vocational 



206 



E. 
SUMMARY 



education programs has increased citywide from 
3022 to 3177. However LEP student enrollment 
at the HHORC has dropped from 283 to 211. 
Declining enrollment of LEP students continues 
to be a problem at the HHORC. 

OUT-OF-SCHOOL YOUTH, AGES 16-21 (PP. 31-35) 



Boston is required to cooperate with 
city agencies to provide vocational 
education services for out-of-school 
youth, ages 16-21. 

FINDINGS Compliance (See Report No. 4) 



F. 



SUMMARY 



VOCATIONAL/OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION FOR SPECIAL 
NEEDS STUDENTS (pp. 36-39) 



Boston is required to maintain 
vocational/occupational education 
services for special needs students 
and to provide training for 
vocational/occupational instructors 
in this area. 

FINDINGS Compliance (See Report No. 4) 

Boston has citywide vocational programming for 
special needs students. Indeed, the 
Micrographic Technology program for the 
Hearing Impaired at the Jackson-Mann School 
and the Building Maintenance program at the 
HHORC Center are outstanding examples of 
vocational special needs programs. 

Communication among the special needs staff, 
especially in the area of placement, is 
noteworthy. 

Improvement has been made in the provision of 
in-service training for vocational instructors 
for whom special needs students are a new 



207 



classroom experience. In November of 1984, 
in-service instruction was provided to the 
Health and Business Clusters in 3 areas: 1) 
Reading and understanding the Boston special 
education coding system; 2) Strategies for 
instructing mainstreamed special education 
vocational students; 3) Types of support 
services available for Special Education 
vocational students. 

Besides the aforementioned clusters, the 
training was done for the HHORC counselors, 
occupational development specialists, and 
administrators. 

In January 1985 at an all day session, all 
teachers citywide were introduced to Boston's 
special education coding system. The special 
education coordinator for vocational education 
has plans to extend the training given the 
Health and Business clusters to the remaining 
clusters at the HHORC. While progress has been 
made, coordination of in-service efforts is 
needed so that all vocational education 
instructors get the information. 



G. 
SUMMARY 



PROGRAM CHANGES AND DELETIONS (pp. 47-48) 



Boston is required to transfer 
certain programs as specified. 

FINDINGS Partial Compliance 

1. Boston has no plans to transfer the 

Architectural Woodworking and Interior Design 
programs from Dorchester. Rather these 
programs have become part of the new Home 
Improvement Enterprise Cluster at 
Dorchester. The Cabinet Making program at 
HHORC will be consolidated at Dorchester 
High. Boston should modify the Unified Plan 
to reflect the above. 



2. 



The Machine Shop program in East Boston will 
close after the 1985-1986 year. There are no 
other program changes in the satellites at 
this writing. At the HHORC, the Fashion 
Design program is scheduled to close due to 
low labor market demand and poor attendance. 
The HHORC will be adding a new 8th grade 
Career Exploratory program. 



208 



H. 



PROGRAM SUPPORT COMPONENTS 



SUMMARY 



SUMMARY 



1. Management Modification 
(pp. 48-52) 

Boston is required to establish a 
distinctive management structure 
which defines clear lines of 
authority and responsibility over 
fiscal control and program operation 
of vocational/occupational education 
programs . 



FINDINGS Non-compliance 



As indicated in every previous monitoring 
report, Boston has not instituted a 
distinctive management structure for an 
effective vocational/occupational education as 
specified by the Unified Plan. The Department 
of Education and Employment, however, recently 
drafted a revised management structure. A 
modified management structure will be filed 
with the Court for review and approval. 

Progress has been made in three major areas of 
non compliance as indicated in the previous 
report: (1) the Director of Education and 
Employment is currently working with the 
Deputy Superintendent of Finance and 
Administration in developing administrative 
procedures that will provide the Director with 
firm fiscal control and supervisory authority 
over all citywide occupational programs; (2) 
in February, 1985 the Department of Education 
and Employment hired an evaluation specialist 
to evaluate the effectiveness of all 
vocational/occupational programs, to conduct 
follow-up studies on program graduates, and to 
compile annual accountability reports; (3) for 
the first time an annual accountability report 
for school year 1983-1984 has been submitted 
to the Division of Occupational Education, 
State Department of Education and is being 
reviewed by staff of the Division. 



2. Public Information (pp. 53-56) 
This section of the Unified Plan 



209 



requires Boston to institute an 
aggressive and systematic public 
information system. This system 
should include a pervasive media 
component directed toward the entire 
population in Boston. 



FINDINGS Partial Compliance 



Boston has produced myriad public information 
materials such as folders, booklets, 
pamphlets, flyers, annual reports, mailings, 
and action plans. The HHORC Development 
Officer has been designated Public Information 
Officer. His work has been qualitative yet 
narrow in scope because it is limited to 
recruitment for the HHORC and is only in 
English. While the scope of his efforts are 
citywide, they are aimed at the HHORC and its 
public recognition. While the marketing of 
the HHORC is important to the future of 
vocational education in Boston, these 
activities do not satisfy the requirement in 
the Unified Plan that there be an aggressive 
and systematic public information system. 

There are many uncoordinated public 
information activities. The superintendent 
has a person on his staff responsible for 
press relations, but his activities do not 
include public information for vocational 
education nor does his office serve as a 
clearinghouse for all materials released to 
the public. Each school where there is 
vocational training prepares materials for 
distribution to the community. Because there 
is no central clearinghouse, efforts at media 
contact for purposes of public information are 
decentralized and uncoordinated. For example, 
recruitment for LEP students is the 
responsibility of the Bilingual Vocational 
Coordinator. Whatever recruitment materials 
are prepared in languages other than English 
tend to come from her office. She in turn 
works with the Bilingual Field Coordinators 
who are very active in their respective 
communities. The lack of coordination, 
centralization and quality control make the 
job much more difficult to do. 

The HHORC is presently advertising through the 
MBTA system. Boston has received a small 



210 



SUMMARY 



grant titled "Sex Equity Model" to help 
recruit and retain non-traditional students 
for vocational training. These are two 
examples of positive accomplishments which 
need to be regularly scheduled activities in a 
comprehensive public information system. 

Because the Director of Education and 
Employment and the vocational administrators 
with citywide responsibilities are housed at 
the HHORC, they tend to become identified with 
HHORC and not viewed as having citywide 
duties. This is also true in the area of 
public information. 



3. Professional and In-Service 
Development (57-63) 

Boston is required to establish and 
implement comprehensive in-service 
training for all systemwide 
vocational/occupational education 
instructors in the areas of equal 
educational opportunity, bilingual 
vocational education, and special 
education. 



FINDINGS Partial Compliance 



As cited in the previous report, the scope of 
in-service training for vocational teachers in 
satellite schools was not as extensive as that 
offered at HHORC. Subjects covered tend to be 
in response to problem areas rather than the 
result of a comprehensive training plan. 
Principals and headmasters have their own 
building-related topics to cover and have 
objected to pulling teachers out for citywide 
sessions. The policy in effect now limits 
pullouts to two of the ten in-service days, 
September and April. As a result it is 
difficult to schedule citywide vocational 
teacher in-service training and far easier to 
offer a comprehensive program at HHORC. For 
example, training was offered at the HHORC in 
Computer Assisted Machining (CAM) but other 
machine trades teachers from the satellites 
couldn't be scheduled. The logistics of 
scheduling citywide training for vocational 
teachers continues to be a problem. 



211 



SUMMARY 



The Department of Education and Employment has 
not completed its survey of individual 
vocational/occupational staff across the 
city. The Staff Development Specialist 
indicates that the survey will be completed in 
late May. After this survey is completed, 
Boston should use the results to develop a 
training schedule that will be as staff 
inclusive as possible; and one that will cover 
the areas of greatest concern, especially 
special needs, limited English proficient, 
shop safety, and non-traditional student 
access and retention. 



4. Industry/Agency Community 
Involvement (pp. 67-72) 

Boston is required to establish an 
Advisory Council for Career 
Vocational/Occupational Education 
(ACCVOE) with specific target group 
representation. 



FINDINGS 



Partial Compliance 

Previous reports indicated that the membership 
of the ACCVOE is in full compliance. The 
involvement of the membership has slipped 
badly. There is no longer a student 
representative. The special education 
representative is an employee of the Boston 
Public Schools. There is no labor represent- 
ative. More serious than the failure of the 
membership to comply with the recommendations 
in the Unified Plan is the lack of partici- 
pation by the membership. The minutes of the 
meetings indicate that two members appeared at 
the December, 1984 meeting, and four members 
were in attendance at the January meeting. 
The March meeting was canceled and not 
rescheduled. 

The Unified Plan requires that the ACCVOE 
advise the Superintendent. Yet the 
Superintendent has not been part of the 
process. Besides the lack of support from the 
administration, the committee does not have a 
mission. If it is to be revived, it must have 
a clear sense of purpose. 



212 



SUMMARY 



5. Curriculum Acquisition/Revision 
(pp. 64-67) 

Boston is required to develop and 
implement full-scale Competency 
Based Vocational Education (CBVE) 
curricula for all programs at the 
HHORC and other schools. 



FINDINGS Non-Compliance 



The development of CBVE curricula at the HHORC 
is still not completed. The previous report 
recommended that the curricula should be 
completed by the staff as soon as possible, 
and that, if necessary, available materials 
should be immediately purchased for 
adaptation. 

To date, little progress has been shown in the 
development of learning guides by the HHORC 
staff mainly due to the unresolved arbitration 
relating to a union grievance regarding 
curriculum development by teachers during 
their working hours. Little progress has been 
made in identifying and purchasing available 
curriculum materials for adaptation. In this 
monitoring process, however, all HHORC staff 
(except in one program planned to be phased 
out next school year) have indicated a 
commitment that all incomplete learning guides 
will be developed by June 30, 1985. Where 
HHORC staff is unable to complete the writing 
of learning guides, they will purchase and 
adapt CBVE curriculum to the learning guide 
format by June 30, 1985 

The effective implementation of CBVE curricula 
for classroom instruction is not in place. In 
areas where learning guides have been 
completed, not all teachers are using them. A 
CBVE implementation team has been formed, and 
procedures for implementation have been 
established. In March, 1985 a CBVE model 
classroom was set up for demonstration 
purposes; however, it is still in the 
development stages. 

Citywide dissemination of the completed CBVE 
curricula at the HHORC to relevant programs 



213 



for adaptation and instructional use has not 
yet begun. 

Some progress has been made in setting up a 
curriculum resource room at the HHORC, and 
indexing of the resource materials. There is 
a plan to complete the indexes and to extend 
services of the resource materials to citywide 
occupational staff. 



SUMMARY 



6. Comprehensive 
and Placement 



Job Development 
(pp. 69-70) 



Boston is required to institute a 
comprehensive and responsive job 
development and placement system 
based upon current manpower demands, 
system capabilities, and student 
capability/interest. The school 
system is required to develop the 
capacity to: (a) design employ- 
ability plans, (b) establish 
counseling teams, (c) plan and 
implement a job development system 
and, (d) maintain three-year 
statistical follow-up of graduates. 

FINDINGS Partial Compliance 

There has been no change since the last 
report. There are extensive job development 
and placement activities by Boston Public 
School staff. 

Students obtain jobs as a result of all the 
efforts made on their behalf, but there is no 
systematized approach for job placement. 
There is no job placement coordinator nor is 
there an administrator whose function is to 
coordinate all citywide placement activities. 

The Private Industry Council operates the Job 
Collaborative which deploys career specialists 
throughout the Boston schools. The State 
Division of Occupational Education funded the 
Private Industry Council through a request for 
proposals to expand their job 
development/placement efforts in a program 
entitled "School-To-Work". In the proposal 
the Private Industry Council sought and 
obtained funds for a placement person for 
Madison Park whose mission would be to provide 
placement services 



214 



to the Madison Park students who attend the 
HHORC. The reason given for duplicating the 
efforts of HHORC placement staff was that 
HHORC is a place "where job development 
activity has not been integrated into the 
citywide Boston Compact Campaign." This 
statement illustrates that there is no 
coordination between HHORC staff and the PIC. 

Besides the extensive citywide placement 
efforts of the Private Industry Council, there 
are five full-time occupational development 
specialists who are mainly responsible for 
placement at the HHORC and, in some instances, 
for satellite vocational programs. Placement 
activities in the Satellite schools are 
carried out by a variety of staff. At 
Brighton and Hyde Park the Career Preparation 
Department Head assumes responsibility. At 
West Roxbury the Career Preparation Department 
Head does most of the placement but 
occasionally calls on the occupational 
development specialists at HHORC for 
assistance. At Dorchester someone from the 
HHORC is scheduled one day per week. 
Consequently, while everyone gets involved in 
job development and placement, there is no 
system or set of procedures for analyzing 
labor markets, sharing information, reporting 
activities and results, and following up. As 
a result there is considerable duplication of 
effort and no uniform follow up system. The 
evaluation specialist recently hired will 
conduct follow-up studies for all program 
graduates. 

In effect there are two approaches to job 
placement in the Boston Public Schools, one by 
the Private Industry Council Collaborative and 
the other by the Boston Public Schools. There 
appears to be little or no coordination 
between the staff of each. They do not share 
information, strategies, successes, and 
failures, etc. 

An outstanding achievement of the Boston 
Compact was the agreement signed on December 
19, 1984 between the schools and the Trade 
Unions to provide access to Union 
apprenticeship for Boston Public School 
Graduates. The agreement calls for 5% of the 
apprenticeship openings in each trade area to 
be set aside for Boston graduates. 



215 



Another significant achievement is the 
projection for the 1985 Summer Jobs program 
which expects to place many more students than 
the 1766 who got jobs last year. The program 
is sponsored by the Private Industry Council. 

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. ASSIGNMENTS 

(See the section for STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS) 

B. CORE PROGRAMS 

1. Middle School Exploratory Clusters 

Citywide standards should be established 
for middle school Industrial Arts 
curriculum, sequential skill development, 
and program duration to ensure 
consistency, equity, and a meaningful 
exposure for all students citywide, 
particularly for limited English 
proficient students. 

2. Middle School Career Guidance 

An action plan is necessary to implement 
the recently approved Career Development 
Model and Policy. Commitment to 
implementing the policy in each school 
building is critical. 

3. High School Exploratory 

English High should offer exploratory 
programs . 

All high school exploratory students 
should be surveyed, not only at the HHORC 
but in the district and magnet schools as 
well to help evaluate existing programs. 

4. High School Employability 

Model programs which have managed to 
consistently enroll and retain students 
and provide adequate placement services 
upon graduation should receive recognition 
and incentives, as well as be used as 
models. 



216 



Boston should seek to modify the 
vocational program requirements for Magnet 
high schools if citywide consistency will 
not be maintained. 



MAGNET PROGRAMS 



The preliminary proposal for the establishment 
of a magnet computer technology program at the 
Jeremiah E. Burke High School reflects careful 
planning, sound objectives, and expert 
input. West Roxbury and Brighton High Schools 
continue to have the highest magnet 
enrollments. These programs should be used as 
models for other programs systemwide. The 
plans for the creation of an 8th grade 
exploratory program at the HHORC may prove to 
be an effective recruitment strategy if 
students receive the optimum exposure, 
encouragement, and interest assessment. 
Teacher in-service in motivational training, 
cultural awareness, attitudinal change, and 
creative teaching strategies will help remedy 
some of the retention problems. These 
problems need immediate attention if the 
merger of Madison Park and the HHORC is to be 
successful. The need continues to exist for 
an effective retention plan which reflects the 
outcome of an in-depth internal evaluation in 
which there is significant student input. 



D. IN-SCHOOL BILINGUAL 



Because there are no native language 
vocational programs being offered, we 
recommend that Boston should seek a 
modification to provide language support 
services in in all vocational programs. 

Boston should formalize the revised Bilingual 
Vocational/Education Policy Paper by getting 
School Committee approval. 

Boston should implement the vocational/edu- 
cation section of the Lau plan. 



E. OUT-OF-SCHOOL YOUTH 



In compliance. No recommendation 
necessary. 



217 



F. VOCATIONAL/OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION FOR SPECIAL NEEDS 
STUDENTS 

A comprehensive staff development plan should 
be developed to include in-service training in 
special needs for all vocational instructors, 
citywide. 



G. PROGRAM CHANGES AND DELETIONS 

If the required program transfers are no 
longer desirable, a motion must be filed with 
the Court to modify the existing order. 

H. PROGRAM SUPPORT COMPONENTS 

1. Management Modification 

Discussions have taken place between 
Boston and the State Department of 
Education outlining the modifications to 
be proposed in this area. 

In addition to accountability reports, 
program operation plans and program 
evaluation reports should be submitted 
annually for review to the Division of 
Occupational Education, State Department 
of Education. 

2. Public Information 

Boston should centralize the public 
information functions by designating one 
staff person to be responsible for 
coordinating all recruiting, marketing and 
publicizing of vocational education. 

Boston should also provide finances to 
support vocational public information 
activities . 

3. Professional and In-Service Development 

Assurances should be provided that all 
vocational/occupational staff, both at 
HHORC and in Satellite programs will 
receive in-service training in: 
instructional strategies for special needs 
students, instructional and linguistic 
strategies for Limited English Proficient 
students, and sex equity. 



218 



Industry/Agency Community Involvement 

Boston should replace inactive members and 
appoint new ones. 

Boston should define the purpose of this 
committee. 

Boston should schedule the Chief Executive 
Officer to appear at the opening meeting 
of the school year. 

If the required monthly meetings are too 
frequent, Boston should file a motion with 
the Court to modify the Unified Plan to 
reduce the number of meetings. 



5. Curriculum Acquisition/Revision 

All incomplete learning guides in the CBVE 
curricula should be completed, or approved 
curriculum materials should be purchased 
for adaptation by June 30, 1985. 

The implementation of CBVE curricula by 
all HHORC staff should be thoroughly 
reviewed, and monitored. 

A plan for the citywide dissemination of 
complete CBVE curricula should be 
developed and implemented. 

6. Comprehensive Job Development and 
Placement 

Boston should review all placement 
activities, both at the HHORC and in the 
district vocational/occupational education 
programs. Regardless of the diversity of 
personnel involved, the approaches and 
record keeping should be standardized and 
systematized. A person should be 
appointed to design, coordinate and 
implement this system with particular 
emphasis on merging the PIC efforts with 
the school efforts to result in one 
comprehensive job development and 
placement system. This system should have 
follow-up capability. 



219 



Documentation 



Appendix B - Current HHORC Enrollment 

Appendix C - Limited English Proficient Student 
Enrollment in Occupational Education Programs 

Appendix D - Letter, Director of Education and 
Employment to Associate Commissioner, 1/23/1985 

Appendix E - Draft Management Structure for the 
Department of Education and Employment, 3/5/1985 

Appendix F - Summary of CBVE Development at the HHORC, 
4/4/1985 

Monitoring_ActivitY Logs_ 
On File at GBREC 



B. 1. Computer Printout (HHORC Cluster Table, 
date 3/20/85) 

2. Updated list of exploratory and 
employability offerings for middle and 
high schools 

3. Career development policy 



C. 1. Satellite program enrollment figures 

(Jan'85) 

2. Preliminary proposal for computer 
techonology magnet program at Jeremiah E. 
Burke High School. 

3. HHORC cluster table dated 2/28/85, 3/20/85 
and 4/2/84. 

D. Policy Paper: Bilingual strategies and 
procedures . 

Lau plan for limited English proficient 

students 

Sample translations. 

Roster of bilingual vocational 

instructional personnel. 

Schedules of bilingual vocational aides. 

E. Neighborhood Development and Employment 
Agency Program manual. 



220 



List of Boston Public Schools Special 
Needs Codes. 

1. Annual Report, 1983-1984, Department of 
Education and Employment 

Personnel Circular for the position of 
Evaluation Specialist, dated 1/14/84 

2. Folder containing samples of materials 
Student assignment information publication 

3. HHORC "Key Results Plan/Report" 

4. General Advisory Committee list - (Blank 
D-1) 

Minutes taken at December and January 
meetings 1984-1985 

5. CBVE Implementation Team, Team Task List, 
Teacher Task List 

CBVE Implementation Team meeting Minutes, 
from April, 1984 to March, 1985 

6. 1984 graduate placement results 

7. Boston Compact Apprenticeship Agreement 



221 



APPENDIX 



CURRENT^HORC ENROLLMENT 



District 



II 



III 



Sending Schools 
Brighton 

Jamaica Plain 

West Roxbury 

Hyde Park 



Grade 9th Grades 10-12 Total 



56 



27 



35 



96 



87 



72 



108 



99 



143 



IX 



IX 



Dorchester 
J.E. Burke 
South Boston 
Charles town 
East Bos ton 
Boston High 
Copley 

Madison Park 
Enelisli High 



44 



27 



136 



55 



85 



94 



32 



33 



346 



117 



148 



127 



53 



60 



54 



392 



165 



IX 



10 



85 



95 



K ni: 



139S 



1833 



n^V.cAiv^^^,u ci-^' (-^^^-^x) 



222 



APPENDIX C 



SEX 


TOTALS 






^ 
^ 


1 




121 


90 






211 


HHORC 


1 


93 


51 






144 


Brighton H.S. 


76 


54 






130 


Edison 


68 


32 






100 


Taft 


88 


45 






125 


Jamaica Plain 


19 


11 






30 


Thomson FV 


67 


53 






120 


Curley 


50 


23 






73 


1 West Roxbury 


90 


75 






165 


Irving 


67 


60 






127 


Lewemburg 


50 


25 






75 


Dorchester H. S. 


76 


54 






130 


1 Cleveland 


70 


50 






120 


1 McCormack 


57 


53 






110 


Dearborn 


89 


76 






165 


South Bos ton 


81 


59 






140 


Edwards 


82 


48 






130 ! 


Timilty 


90 


75 






165 1 


' Charlestown H. S. 


19 


13 






32 ' 


' Lewis 


65 


40 






105 1 


East Boston 


187 


118 






305 1 


! Madison Park 


20 


17 






37 


' Umana 


90 


70 






160 1 


' English High 


60 


35 






95 


i King 


58 


22 






80 


Mackey 


8 









8 


McKinley 


9 


21 






30 1 


' Boston High 


16 


9 






25 1 


Boston Tech 


24 


16 






40 


Gavin 










3177 


TOTAL CITYWIDE 










1882 


Male 












1295 


Female 



223 



APPENDIX O 

THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 



BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS -•'•-- - - ■; •■ .'. i: •:,r,;_ • 

education'EmplON'EM <'-..;■ -J'jcjtun 

January 23, 1985 jam^s a carado:oo o.ecor 

Dr. David Cronin 

State Department of Education 

1385 Hancock Street 

Ouincy, Ma 

Dear Dr. Cronin: 

I am forwarding to you information rega'rding compliance issues in 
two areas: 

1. Job Placement follow-up 

2. Distinctive Management 

On January 22, 1985 the Boston Public Schools hired Dr. Elise 
Bon-Rudin to be the Research Specialist for the Department of 
Education and Employment. 

As Research Specialist, Dr. Bon-Rudin will work with me and other 
staff members to: 

1. Produce follow-up studies on program graduates 

2. Evaluate the effectiveness of all vocational/occupational 
education programs 

3. Publish the Annual Report for the Department of Education and 
Employment (annual accountability report with measurable 
outcomes) 

We have designed and instituted a Progra.T; =.-. : " ..^---i cjlun 

Accreditation Process. Mr. John McDonagh of y .. e-.sff 

participated in the design of the process snr -'• •: instrument we 
will use ^Enclosure). As Mr. McDonach ir.::r-- - r-.e , no other 
vocationa- operation within the State har- -. . . . internal, 

formalized process. This process will is a rait c.f our planning 
and budgeting process. 

Once Dr. Bon-Rudin establishes Boston residency, she will begin 
her employment as Research Specialist. In all future reports, 
please make sure that your staff speak directly with Dr. Bon-Rudin 
so that she can provide any necessary information regarding these 
compliance items. 

I have had follow-up meetings wtih the Superintendent regarding 
the management issues we have discussed. I am now meeting with the 



=-20C'. kE.S7^ =86 



Deputy Superintnendent of Finance and Administration, Dr. James 
Walsh, to finalize the management directions approved by the 
Superintendent. When we have completed these management 
procedures, we will forward them to you. These administrative 
procedures will provide firm fiscal control and suoervisory 
authority within the overall organizational structure and local 
educational agency ooerations. 

In all matters regarding job development and job placement for the 
Boston Public Schools, please have your staff contact me. I am the 
person responsible for the operations and coordination of job 
placement activities within our school system. As Mr. Darr and I 
indicated to you, the Boston Compact provides the coordination of 
all job development/job placement activities within the schools 
system and within the City of Boston. I hope that our meeting 
relating to Compact activities clarified any questions you may 
have regarding job development and placement. 

In summary, I am submitting to you information regarding 
compliance items relating to job placement and distinctive 
management. I expect that these accomplishments will be clearly 
and accurately reported to the Commissioner and the State Board of 
Education . 

If you require any additional data, please do not hesitate to 
contact me. 



Sincere U' yo4;rs , 
/James A. Caradonio 
Enclosures 



Robert Spillane 
James VJalsh 
Elaine Cadican 
John McDonagh 
Marlene Godfrey 
Naisuon Chu 
Elise Bon-Rudin 



225 



APPENDIX 



1 1 


— 







t Dil. Voc. Ed. 
» nusincss F.diica 
1 Distributive Ed 
t Coop Program 
» Home Economi 
> Industrial ArU 
1 SPED 


— 














1 » r 




o 


















c H "9 c n 














i?^i5 














1 




is 2S 






• ••• 










3 s -^ » 






Maintcnan 
Instruction 
Sortware S 
Hardware 




SS 






5? 
























• 


ce/Rcpair 
al/ 

upport 
Support 








m 

O 
C 

n 














• 


> 






n 




Cfl 

c 


H 


• Cable T.V 

• Career (S 

• Cognitive 

• Materials 

• Materials 

• Public ln( 

• Sei Fquil 

• Starr Dev 




5 






z 

ft9 








1 1%-^'n 




c 
r 
c 

z 






d 

s 




z 
S 


m 


e 

opmei. 
ction 
ion 

ent 














^ 


-0 













/ / \ < 




/i\ i 




• ••• 










"0 X a > 




a 




z 




MP 




•V Z 




/ / \ 




Hrt 











.• 










Cfl 








\'- 




a to 






it 




1 






























1 = 




















• • 












^ 








? 5? 




— 




















5f?- 




3»^ 






<^ 




» CQ 


















3 























226 



APPENDIX r 



APRIL 4, X3S5 



Proqrarn ^tasks # of LGs % of LGs 

on list Teacher teacher 



Developed Developed 



PQNER MECHANICS 



AUTG/TRUCi'x 121 42 34.7% 

CHASSIS, 

SUSPENSION 47 17 3G.1% 

FUEL , 

ELECTRICAL 43 3 20.3% 

ENGINE 

REPAIR. 24 24 Furidarnen tal LGs 

Short Version 
100% 

MARINE 

SHhLu. Ei^^GINE 101 4 ^i^ . ^% 



COKHERCIAL MALL 

BANKING ''ST .3^ 5i: . . 

COSI'iETjLCGY 47 27 57.- 

CHILD CARE S4 bS S0% 

FASHION DESIGr-i' 35 14 35 . i 

HOTEL/ 

HO:=PTALIT. 15S 73 -^'. 



-lEDiC 



227 



DATm . 

PROCESSING 109 102 (includes 93. 5% 

state gui des) 



CONSTRUCTION • 

BASIC 

ELECTRICITY 50 . ^^ ^'^■■' 

INDUSTRIAL - , 

ELETCTRICITY 40 23 57. 5o 

SOUNDS/SIGNALS 

COMMUNICATION 32 0% 

GENERAL 

N I RING 14 0?.< 



H'v'AC 3S 19 22?i 

CABINET 

MAKING (BENCH 

MILL) 33 .23 35.7;i 

BASIC 

CARPENTRY . 32 6o SO . 4% 

BUILDING 

MAINENANCE 34 42 _ ^0% 

BASIC 

PLUMBING 73 S3 3^5.3:;^ 



GRAPHICS/MEDIA 



COMMERICAL 
DESIGN 



ILLUSTRATION 

AD'/'ERTISING 53 33 



MACHiNE 
DRAFTIl-IG 



PHOTO 
TECHNOLOGY 



228 



PRirJTING 145 50 34.4% 

VJ PRODUCTION 33 13 21 . 3fi 



20 G&% 



HEALTH 




DENTAL 
ASSISTANT 


30 


NURSING 
ASSISTANT 


49 


HEALTH 
AIDE 


30 


MEDICAL 

OFFICE 

ASSISTANT 


33 


MEDICAL LAB 
ASSISTANT 


31 


MEDICAL 
TERMINOLOGY 


17 


AN.^TOMY 


14 



45 93.3% 



9S.6% 



COMPUTER 
ELECTRONICS 79 



MACHINE 
TECHNOLOGY SO 



AUTOBOD- 
REPAIR 



2HE:l~ METhL 
UELDING 



96 . 9? 



100% 



IS 94.1% 



METALS FABR I CAT I ON/ELECTRON : C5 

BASIC 

ELECTRONICS -42 40 95. 2:'^ 

COMMUNICATIONS 

ELECTRONICS 142 115 80.9% 



229 




Greater Boston Regional Education Center 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 



27 Cedar Street, Wellesley, Massachusetts 02181 



431-7825 



Boston School Desegregation 

Vocational and Occupational Education 

Monitoring Activity Log 



Monitoring Area Core Program 



Date 
3/26 



Interviewee (Title) 

Acting principal, 
asst. principal, 
lA/Home EC teachers 



Monitor Therese Alston 



School/ Site 



Mackey Middle 



Document Collected 
and/ or Examined 

Notes re : scheduling 
bil. voc. students 



3/27 



3/15 



4/1 



4/2/ 



Jean Eg an 
(Director of In 
struction) and 
Janet Short (principal 

Betty Feldman 
(career guidance 
specialist) & 
Jim Mahoney (lA 
coordinator) 

Sid. Smith (head- 
master) & Ed Joyce 
^sst. headmaster) 



Tobin School 



Admin. HHORC 
offices 



English High 



John Daniels(principal)Rodgers Middle 
Director of Instruc- School 
tion, lA & Home Ec 
teachers 



Notes: status 



Note re : career ed , core 
program changes 



Notes re: closing of lA/ 
Home Ec-new school concept 



Notes on status 



Al Holland (principal) 
Helen Varraso( career 
prep, dept . head), 
DE,IA & Home Ec. 
teachers 



Jeremiah E. 
Burke High 



Notes on status 



230 




Greater Boston Regional Education Center 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 



27 Cedar Street, Wellesley, Massachusetts 02181 



Boston School Desegregation 

Vocational and Occupational Education 

Monitoring Activity Log 



Monitoring Area Magnet Programs 



Monitor Therese Alston 



Date 


Interviewee(Title) 


School/Site 


4/ 9 


Curtis Wells-head- 


Madison Park 




master-Bob Perkins 


High 




(adm. asst.) 




4/10 


Cynthia Rock, 
(career ed staff) 


Wilson Middle 


4/12 


Jim Caradonio-director 
of Occ Ed 


HHORC-Citywide 




Betty Feldman 


Admin, office 


4/19 


Observation of plain- 


Federal court- 




tiff-judge interac- 


house 




tion 




4/26 


Clif Janey(headmaster) 
Glen McKenzie 
(registrar) 


HHORC 



Document Collected 
and/ or Examined 

Notes: Madison Park 
HHORC merger, (problems/ 
plans) 

Career ed activity status 



Magnet and core programs 
status 



Citywide assignment/ 
enrollment data 



Notes on enrollment retention 
problems; plans for staff 
in-service and student feedback 
(Transfer data requested by 
Judy Taylor) 



231 




Greater Boston Regional Education Center 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 



27 Cedar Street, Wellesley, Massachusetts 02181 



431-7825 



Boston School Desegregation 

Vocational and Occupational Education 

Monitoring Activity Log 



Monitoring Area Bilingual Voc. Ed. 



Monitor Ed Glasser 



Date 
3/25/85 

3/26/85 

3/29/85 

4/3/85 
4/8/85 
4/9/85 

4/10/85 



Interviewee( Title) 

Tomasa Couverthier 
(Bilingual voc. ed. 
coordinator) 

Bell (principal) 



Tomasa Couverthier 



School/Site 
HHORC 

Mackey Middle 



Gil Hebert 




GBREC 


Couverthier 




HHORC 


Pacifico(Bus. 
dept. head) 


Ed. 


Brighton 


Couverthier 




Jamaica ] 



Document Collected 
and/ or Examined 



Bilingual voc. ed. policy 
paper 



Discussed bilingual student 
enrollment in lA 

LEP participation in voc. 
programs 

Coordination meeting 

Lau Plan for voc. ed. 

Various bilingual materials 



Jamaica Plain High Examined bilingual voc. forms 
South Boston High 



Monitoring Area 



In-Service Training 



3/29/85 Dr. Joyce Malyn- Smith HHORC 
(director curriculum) 

4/1/85 Dianne Quarles HHORC 
(staff development 
specialist) 



Examined CBVE progress sheets 



Prof. Dev. materials 



232 




Greater Boston Regional Education Center 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 



27 Cedar Street, Wellesley, Massachusetts 02181 



431-7825 



Boston School Desegregation 

Vocational and Occupational Education 

Monitoring Activity Log 



Monitoring Area Job Placement 



Monitor Ed Glasser 



Date 
4/3/85 

4/9/85 

4/12/85 

4/23/85 



Interviewee (Title) 



School/Site 



Document Collected 
and/or Examined 



Ed Sprissler(dept. West Roxbury High Job placement data 
head) Mario Communale Dorchester High Job placement data 
(dept. head) 



Al Conte(occ. dev. 
specialist) 



Jim Caradonio(dir. 
ed & emp.) 



Elise Bon-Rudin 
(research specialist) 



Monitoring Area Program Changes 
4/12/85 Jim Caradonio 



HHORC 



HHORC 



Job Placement 



Lau plan for voc ed 



Placement data 



Student assignment book 



233 




Greater Boston Regional Education Center 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 



27 Cedar Street, Wellesley, Massachusetts 02181 



431-7825 



Boston School Desegregation 

Vocational and Occupational Education 

Monitoring Activity Log 



Monitoring Area Management Modification Monito r Nalsuon Chu 



Date 


Interviewee(Title) 


School/Site 


3/20/85 


Jim Caradonio 


HHORC 


4/12/85 


Jim Caradonio 


HHORC 


3/5/85 


Elise Bon-Rudin 


GBREC 



Document Collected 
and /or Examined 

Draft management modification 
chart and description 

Discussed the progress of 
management modification 

Action plan for program evaluation 



Monitoring Area Curriculum Revision 
2/12/85 Joyce Malyn- Smith HHORC 
3/20/85 Joyce Malyn- Smith HHORC 



Summary of CBVE development, 
dated 2/1/85 

Examined the status of incomplete 
CBVE for each program 



234 



SCHOOL FACILITIES 



235 



SCHOOL FACILITIES 



Construction, renovation and closing of school facilities shall 
occur according to the standards contained in the following 
orders: 



I. 



ORDER 

SUMMARY 



Interlocutory Order of June 21, 1974 



This order prohibits the construction of new 

buildings, expansion of existing ones, or 

placement of portable buildings without the 
specific approval of the Court. 



FINDINGS Compliance 



Monitors have found Boston in full compliance 
with this order. 



II, 



ORDER 



Student Desegregation Plan, May 10, 1975 pp. 
6-7 



SUMMARY 



This order (1) requires that each school 
facility which is to remain open will house a 
student body that does not exceed the tables 
in the plan (though these capacities need not 
be met to determine internal distributions by 
programs) and (2) lists schools which are 
closed and are to remain closed and those 
which are to be closed by August, 1975. 



FINDINGS 



III. ORDER 



Compliance 

Monitors have found that no school has 
exceeded the capacity ceiling ordered by the 
Court. See Report No. 4, Vol. II, p. 205. 

Memorandum and Orders Modifying Desegregation 
Plan, May 6, 1977, pp. 37-40 



236 



SUMMARY 



FINDINGS 



This order spells out the long-range 
construction and repair programs filed 
November 1976 and modified in December, 
1976. For example, it establishes timetables 
for the building of Charlestown High and the 
ORC. It establishes the joint planning 
process (city, state, school department) to be 
carried out in developing the Unified 
Facilities Plan due September, 1977 and 
specifies what the plan shall include. It 
also requires state defendants to report to 
the Court any problems with specific financing 
commitments already made, as well as 
commitments hereafter made by the state for 
construction and renovation projects. 

Compliance 

The Unified Facilities Plan was developed in 
accordance with Court Orders and filed on 
March 25, 1985. 



IV. 



ORDER 



On May 9, 1985, the Court gave permission for 
the projects identified on p. Ill B-2 of the 
Unified Facilities Plan for FY 1986 to be 
undertaken and authorized the parties to take 
all necessary steps to accomplish them. 

Further Memorandum and Order as to Unified 
Facilities Plan, August 15, 1979 



SUMMARY 



These orders establish the December 1979 
deadline for filing the revised joint UFP. It 
specifies a ten-year period to be covered and 
calls for the elimination of no fewer than 
half of the excess seats at the elementary 
level, requiring, as well, the names of 
schools to be closed. It also requires a 
revised assignment plan based on the closings. 



FINDINGS 



ORDER 



Compliance 

A ten year facilities plan has been filed. 

Orders Relating to Unified Facilities 
Planning, March 21, 1980 



237 



SUMMARY 



These orders adopted proposals of the joint 
planners insofar as they proposed the closing 
of ten elementary schools beginning with the 
school year 1980-1981, ordered the closing or 
retention of various schools, rejected 
proposals to establish linkage and beacon 
schools, ordered the filing of an elementary 
student assignment plan, and required the 
joint planners to resume unified facilities 
planning and to file further proposals. 



FINDINGS 



Compliance 
See Report No. 



4, Vol. II, 



207 



VI 



ORDER 



Supplemental Order Relating to 
Facilities Planning, April 2, 1980 



Unified 



SUMMARY 



This Order requires the closing of the Mead 
School and states that the Court's failure to 
comment on the content of a secondary schools 
space matrix filed with the Court and dated 
March 6, 1980, not be construed as approval of 
changes in court-ordered capacities. It 
specifically orders that such changes be 
denied but that they may be approved later 
after appropriate discussions between specific 
appropriate parties. 



FINDINGS 



Compliance 
See Report No. 



Vol. II, p. 208 



VII. 



ORDER 



Order on Joint Defendants' 
Adoption, May 11, 1981 



for 



SUMMARY 



This order requires the closing of 27 schools 
and denies the request to create a 
kindergarten program at the Robert Gould Shaw 
Middle School as inconsistent with the Court's 
orders with respect to uniform grade 
structure. It forbids in general all such 
modifications of this type. 



FINDINGS 



Compliance . See Report No. 4, Vol. II, p. 208 



238 



VIII. ORDER 



Memorandum And Supplementary Disengagement 
Orders, September 17, 1984 

These orders identify several earlier orders 
which have not been carried out, including 
filing of a complete Unified Facilities Plan, 
and presents a draft order. Partial 
Termination of Jurisdiction, to be discussed 
in Court on October 12, 1984. 



FINDINGS Compliance 



On March 25, 1985, a Facilities Plan was 
filed. 



IX. 



ORDER Order to File Unified Facilities Plan, 
November 2, 1984 



SUMMARY 



FINDINGS 



This order requires that a unified facilities 
plan be filed on or before December 15, 1984, 
requires that the plan be authored and filed 
jointly by the school defendants, the state 
defendants, and the city defendants, and 
requires that it address among other things 
the Court orders of May 6, 1977, and August 
15, 1979. This plan must be filed regardless 
of whether a modified student assignment plan 
has been negotiated. 



A Unified Facilities Plan was filed on March 
25, 1985, in accordance with these orders. 

X. ORDER Memorandum and Orders regarding the Unified 
Facilities Plan and Excess Seats of January 4, 
1985 

SUMMARY This order among other things summarizes the 
history of requests for a calculation of 
excess seats, provides a draft of tables of 
excess seats using existing documents, and 
requires that the joint Unified Facilities 
Plan planners file complete and accurate 
calculations of current excess seats not later 
than January 10, 1985, together with any 
needed explanatory documents. 

FINDINGS The Joint Planners each filed their responses 
to this order substantially agreeing with that 
filed by School defendants. 



239 



XI. 



ORDER 



Approval to Proceed with First Year Projects 
in the Unified Facilities Plan, May 9, 1985 



SUMMARY This order gives permission to proceed with 
projects identified on page III B-2 of the 
Unified Facilities Plan for Fiscal Year 1986, 
without prejudice to possible additions. 

FINDINGS The City of Boston is now processing 
applications for certain projects in 
connection with the May 9, 1985, order. It is 
anticipated that these proposals will be 
considered by the Board of Education at its 
June 25, 1985, meeting. 



CONCLUSION 



The Board of Education now awaits the written 
findings of the Court with respect to the 
Unified Facilities Plan filed on March 25, 
1985. 



240 



BOSTON DESEGREGATION REPORT # 5 

SCHOOL FACILITIES 

VOLUME II ATTACHMENTS 



December 20, 1984 



Letter from Robert H. Blumenthal, Esq., 
Counsel, State Board of Education to 
Stephen A. Moynahan, Jr., Deputy Clerk 
U.S. District Court, enclosing for 
filing: State Defendants' Motion to 
Modify Order to File Unified Facilities 
Plan. 



January 4, 1985 



Memo from W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U.S. 
District Judge, Memorandum and Orders 
Regarding UFP and Excess Seats. 



January 8, 1985 



Memorandum to David A. Jones, Associate 
Commissioner from Charles Glenn 
regarding Boston Capacity Analysis. 



January 10, 1985 



Letter to Stephen A. Moynahan, Jr., 
Esq. from Henry C. Dinger with 
enclosures for filing and docketing 3 
items: 

a) School Defendants' Motion for Ruling 
Regarding Elimination of Excess 
Seats 

b) School Defendants' Memorandum in 
Support of Ruling Regarding 
Elimination of Excess Seats, and 

c) Filing of "Excess" Seat 
Calculations. 



January 10, 1985 



Memorandum from Robert Blumenthal and 
Robert H. Bohn, Jr., Esq. re State 
Board Filing on Calculation of Excess 
Seats. 



241 



January 10, 1985 



Memo from Steven P. Perlmutter, 
Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of 
Boston Law Dept., re: Public 
Facilities Department's Comments on 
Current Excess Seats. 



January 14, 1985 



Memo from Thomas I. Atkins, Counsel for 
Plaintiffs re: SCF/Plaintif f s ' 
Comments on Unified Facilities Plan, 
Excess Seats. 



January 18, 1985 



From Judge W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., - 
Transmittal of Court Expert's Memoranda 
of 1/15/85 from Robert A. Dentler to 
Judge Garrity re: An Empirical 
Foundation for Reducing Excess Seats. 



January 25, 1985 



Letter to Stephen A. Moynahan, Jr., 
Esq. from Robert H. Blumenthal, Esq. - 
State Board's Reply to City Defendants' 
Comments on Unified Facilities Plan 
Negotiations. 



January 29, 1985 



School Defendants' Report on School 
Closings for 1985-86. Filing by 
Marshall Simonds, P.C. and Henry C. 
Dinger, Attorneys for School 
Defendants. 



February 11, 1985 



Letter to Michael Smith, City of Boston 
Facilities Dept., from Sam Pike re 
review of materials submitted as part 
of the application procedure for state 
construction application assistance re: 
upgrading of heating systems in certain 
schools. 



242 



March 1, 1985 



Letter from Robert Blumenthal to Steven 
A. Moynahan, Jr., Deputy Clerk U.S. 
District Court. The State Board Motion 
that Said Unified Facilities Plan 
Filing Date be Amended to March 25, 
1985. (Motion allowed and so ordered, 
3/5/85 - Garrity, J. - R.R. 368.) From 
February 5, 1985 bench order. 



March 13, 1985 



Letter to John H. Lawson, Commissioner 
of Education from Robert R. Spillane, 
Boston's Superintendent of Schools, re; 
B.O.E.'s Monitoring Report #4, School 
Facilities page 7. 



March 21, 1985 



School Defendants' Motion for an 
Extension of Time in Which to File 
Unified Facilities Plan. 3/25/85 - 
Allowed and So Ordered - Judge 
Garrity. R.R. 3692. Filed by Marshall 
Simonds, P.C. and Henry Dinger. 



March 22, 1985 



Correspondence from William J. Crowley, 
Executive Assistant to the 
Commissioner, attesting that the Board 
of Education approved the Unified 
Facilities Plan with the understanding 
that conditions enumerated be met. 



March 28, 1985 



Letter to Honorable Raymond L. Flynn, 
Mayor of Boston from Robert Spillane 
asking approval of request for 
additional $2,000,000 for alteration 
and repair of school buildings ... etc. 



May 1, 1985 



School Defendants' Motion for Order 
Regarding Facilities — to permit 
implementation of the projects 
identified in the draft UFP for FY 86, 
filed by Marshall Simonds, P.C. and 
Henry C. Dinger. 



243 



May 3, 1985 Letter from Robert Blumenthal, Esq., to 

Stephen A. Moynahan, Jr., Esq., 
enclosing filing by the State Board, 
Comments on the Unified Facilities 
Plan. 



May 5, 1985 Memo from Steven P. Perlmutter 

regarding City Defendants' Opposition 
to School Defendants' Motion for Order 
Regarding Facilities. 



May 8, 1985 Memo from Steven P. Perlmutter re: City 

Defendants' Memorandum on the Court's 
Preliminary Findings on the UFP . 



May 8, 1985 Memo from Marshall Simonds, P.C. and 

Henry Dinger re: School Defendants' 
Supplementary Memorandum Regarding 
Unified Facilities Plan. 



May 8, 1985 Memo from Robert Pressman, Center for 

Law and Education, Inc., re: 
Plaintiffs' Memorandum Concerning the 
School Defendants' Motion Regarding 
Emergency Repairs. 



May 9, 1985 Memo from Steven P. Perlmutter, 

Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of 
Boston Law Department, re: City 
Defendants' Memorandum in Response to 
School Defendants' Supplementary 
Memorandum Regarding Unified Facilities 
Plan. 



May 9, 1985 Order by Judge Garrity Approving School 

Defendants' Motion of May 1, 1985 
Authorizing The Parties To Take All 
Steps Necessary To Accomplish Projects 
Identified on Page III B-2 Of The UFP 
For Fiscal Year 1986. 



244 



The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 

1385 Hancock Sireet. Ouincy, Massachusetts 02169 

December 20, 1984 



Stephen A. Moynahan, Jr., Esq. 

Deputy Clerk 

U.S. District Court 

1525 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 

Morgan v. Walsh-Tomasini 
C.A. 72-911-G 

Dear Mr. Moynahan: 

Enclosed please find for filing in the above action the 
State Defendants' Motion to Modify Order to File Unified 
Facilities Plan and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Modify 
Order to File Unified Facilities Plan. 

Thank you. 




Robert H. Blumenthal, Esq. 
Counsel, State Board of 
Education 



RHB/kal 

Enclosures: 

cc: Parties of Record 



245 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF I-IASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN, et al.. 
Plaintiffs 

V. 

RITA WALSH-TOMASINI, et al. 
Defendants 



C.A. 72-911-G 



STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY 
ORDER TO FILE UNIFIED FACILITIES PLAN 



Defendant Massachusetts Board of Education ("the State 
Board") moves this Court to modify its Order to File Unified 
Facilities Plan of November 2, 1984 by deleting the first 
and last sentence in paragraph one of said Order, and 
inserting in place of the first sentence the following: 



A Unified Facilities Plan (UFP) shall be 
filed no later than thirty days after the 
court has ruled on (a) any motions to 
modify outstanding assignment orders that 
the parties may file, and (b) any 
proposals to modify outstanding 
assignment orders that may be presented 
by the court. 



246 



School defendants and city defendants, who together 
with the State Board are charged with the development and 
filing of the UFP, have assented to the above motion. 

In support of said motion, the State Board files the 
attached Menorandum. 



Res 




Robe/rt H. BlilJfi'enthal, Esq. 
Counsel, State Board of 

Education 
1385 Hancock Street 
Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 
(617) 770-7315 

Robert H. Bohn, Jr., Esq, 
Gitlin, Emmer, Kaplan & Bohn 
160 Milk Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 02109 
(617) 451-6970 



DATE: December 20, 1984 



247 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN, et al.. 
Plaintiffs 

V. 

RITA WALSH-TOMASINI, et al. 
Defendants 



C.A. 72-911-G 



MEMORANDUM IN SUPP'- T OF MOTION TO 
MODIFY 0RD;-.R TO FILE UNI/ '.ED FACILITIES PLAN 



In its Memorandum and Ord'-cs Modifying Desegregation 
Plan of May 6, 1977, and in subsequent orders, most recently 
its Order to File Unified Faciliti€ ;; Plan of November 2, 
1984, the Court has directed school defendants, city 
defendants and the State Board (the Joint Planners) to 
prepare and file a document that addresses long-range 
proposals for the construction, renovation and closing of 
school buildings in the Boston Public School system. This 
document is referred to as the Unified Facilities Plan, or 
UFP. V?hile some progress has been made in past years toward 
satisfying the Court's facilities orders, such as the joint 
submission and approval of a school closings proposal in the 



248 



Spring of 1981, the Court's requirement that the UFP be 
"entire", contained in its Further Memorandum and Order as 
to Unified Facilities of August 15, 1979, has not been 
satisfied. 

In May of 1984, the Joint Planners initiated a new 
effort to reach agreement on a comprehensive facilities plan 
that would satisfy outstanding Court orders. This effort 
was intensified after the h..;ring of October 26, 1984, at 
which the Court ordered the Joint Planners to file a 
completed plan by December 15, 1984. (The filing date was 
later changed to December 20.) Progress has been 
substantial over the past weeks, and the Joint Planners 
coitinue to meet in an effort to proCv::e a UFP. The Court's 
deadline has arrived, however, and we must report that final 
agreement has not been reached. 

The present motion, which seeks postponement of the UFP 
deadline until thirty days after the Court has ruled upon 
assignment modification proposals that either it or the 
parties may offer, attempts to sustain the momentum of 
current negotiations, and to allow for critical facilities 
decisions to be made in the appropriate sequence. 

This motion should be considered in the context of both 
the real progress toward completion of a UFP that has been 
made to date, and the significant issues yet to be 
resolved. Negotiations to date have resulted in the 
follov;ing essential elements of the ultimate plan: 



249 



1) A building profile has been completed of every 
Boston Public School facility currently in 
operation, identifying the alteration and repair 
needs of each building and the cost of each 
project. 

2) A preliminary analysis of this profile has 
indicated that the total cost of all such projects 
is approximately $55 million/ of which 
approximately $30 million is eligible for 
reim>>urseraent under the Massachusetts School 
Building Assistance program, Mass. St. 1948, c. 
645, as amended. 

3) City defendants have made a commitment to 
subsidize those projects eligible for state 
reimbursement over an eight-year period. 

4) Negotiations have commenced around the creation 
of an eight to ten-year schedule for school 
improvement projects that will identify, on an 
annual basis, the order in v,'hich projects are 
undertaken. 



250 



At the same time, the following issues have yet to be 
addressed: 

1) The mechanism for funding those projects 
estimated to cost a total of ';25 million, that are 
not eligible for state reimbursement. 

2) The mechanism for funding the removal and 
replacement of asbestos materials in all school 
facilities, estimated to cost up to $40 million. 

3) The mechanism for funding the provision of 
barrier-free access for handicapped persons to all 
school facilities, estimated to cost up to $25 
million. 

4) An expansion of school defendants* annual 
alteration and repair budget, currently set in 
accordance with Mass. St. 1982, c, 190, §2. 

5) The appropriate method for funding renovations 
of the V7hite Stadium athletic facility, estimated 
to cost $3 million. 



251 



6) The preparation of a comprehensive schedule of 
new construction projects. To date, school and 
city defendants have proposed only the construction 
of a new Latin School/Latin Academy facility, for 
which city defendants have committed $35 million. 

A justification of this project in terms of its 
impact on desegregation has yet to be provided. 

7) The preparation of a comprehensive schedule of 
renovation projects necessitated by any changes in 
facilities use required by proposals to modify the 
student assignment process that are ultimately 
adopted by the Court. 

8) The preparation of a comprehensive list of 
school closings that eliminates unnecessary excess 
capacity at all levels of the school system. 

9) An analysis of all facilities proposals that 
insures both the enhancement of desegregation and 
an equitable spreading of benefits and burdens 
among all members of the Boston Public School 
community. 

Each of the above nine items must be addressed before 
any facilities plan con be considered "entire". At the same 



252 



time, closure cannot be reached on these items, particularly 
the final four, until proposals for modifying the studeat 
assignment process have been acted upon by the Court. The 
relation of possible assignment modifications to school 
closings is especially critical, since school improvement 
budget projections will be reduced, and school inprovement 
schedules will be revised, c5nce school closing proposals 
have been made. 

The State Board shares the Court's disappointment that 
these issues have not been resolved to date. It is 
especially disappointing that school defendants have v/aited 
until the eV^venth hour to propose modif icationr- in the 
assignment process, particularly in light of the clear 
directives contained at Sections VI(B)(5) and IX{B} of the 
December 23, 1982 Orders of Disengagement. We agree, 
however, with the intentions of school defendants to provide 
for public hearings befcre proposals to close specific 
schools are finally adopted. 

The motion for modification that the State Board has 
presented will allow for an orderly and expeditious 
resolution of these outstanding issues. It will permit the 
school defendants to hold public hearings on school closings 
within the next few weeks. It will allow all parties to be 
heard on proposed assignment modifications, and for the 



253 



Court to rule on said proposals. And it will maintain an 
appropriate deadline within v;hich the Joint Planners must 
conclude their negotiations. 

Adoption of the present motion V70uld be consistent with 
the Court's longstanding concern for ensuring that parents 
have the opportunity to be heard during the process of 
developing school closing proposals. The State Board notes 
in this regard that the original UFP submission was rejected 
by the Court in 1978 in part to allow for such input, and 
that public hearings preceded the filing of proposals to 
close schools in December 1979 and March 1981. Further, the 
granting of this motion, together with timely action upon 
proposals for assignment r . iif ications, will in no way delay 
the implementation of the urp finally adopted by the parties 
and approved by the Court. Evidence on this last point is 
provided by the process of identifying and implementing 
school closings during the Spring and Fall of 1981. 
Finally, action upon proposals for modifications in the 
student assignment process, followed within thirty days by 
the filing of a UFP, will permit the Department of 
Implementation to provide the most accurate analysis of the 
anticipated impact of the UFP, as called for at section 
9(d)(4) of the Memorandum and Orders Modifying Desegregation 
Plan dated May 6, 1977. 

By its comments at the hearing of October 26, 1984, the 
Court made it clear that proposals for modifying the student 



254 



assignment process would be forthcoming, from the bench if 
not from the parties. The anticipation of these proposals, 
and the impact that they might have upon facilities 
planning, have not inhibited the Joint Planners in their 
efforts to achieve as much progress on the UFP as 
possible. The filing of the present motion similarly will 
not impede ongoing discussions. For its part, the State 
Board is prepared to see the UFP negotiating process through 
to completion. V7ithout intending to delay the Court's plan 
to have final facility orders in place by June 1985, and in 
the hopes of guaranteeing the most appropriate sequence for 
concluding present negotiations, the State Board urges the 
ax3option of its motion. 




Robert H. BlUmentfhal, Esq. 
Counsel, State Board of 

Education 
1385 Hancock Street 
Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 



(61^3 



70-73.1: 




k 



^^J^'hlB-- 



Robert H. Bohn, Jr., Esq. 
Gitlin, Emmer, Kaplan S Bohn 
160 Milk Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 02109 
(617) 451-6970 



DATE: December 20, 1984 



255 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 

:••■.. -^ J i-w 

TALLULAH MORGAN ET AL., ' ' "~~^ 

Plaintiffs, 

CIVIL ACTION 
V. ' NO. 72-911-G 

RITA WALSH-TOMASINI ET AL . , 
Defendants. 



MEMORANDUM AND ORDERS REGARDING UFP AND EXCESS SEATS 
January 4, 1985 
GARRITY, J. 

By its order dated November 2, 1984 the court ordered the 
joint defendants to file a Unified Facilities Plan ("UFP") which 
was entire, i.e., a UFP which would address inter alia the 
elimination of "no fewer than half of all excess seats". See 
paragraph 2 of Further Memorandum and Order as to UFP dated 
August 15, 1979, which was incorporated by reference and also 
attached as Appendix B. In its follow-up order of November 30, 
1984 the court stated that a calculation of excess seats was a 
necessary starting point for analysis and specifically ordered 
that the UFP contain "(1) a table showing current excess seats" 
similar to that contained in an earlier court order, and "(2) a 
comparative calculation of excess seats, or a range thereof. 



256 



likely under the proposed student assignment plan . . . ." The 
deadline for this filing since the courc's disengageraent orders 
entered Decenber 23, 1982 had been Dece.-aber 15, but at the 
request of the parties this deadline was extended until Decem- 
ber 20, 1984. 

The filings submitted by the parties on December 20 ignore 
the court's repeated order regarding excess seats. The school 
defendants filed a progress report and partial draft of the UFP, 
but nowhere is there compliance or justification of non- 
compliance with the court's repeated order. As was demonstrated 
five years ago in the winter of 1979-SO, capacity and enrollment 
figures are readily available to the defendants, and calculation 
of surplus and excess seats can be made without procrastination. 
As emphasized in its order dated November 30, 1984, what the 
court and parties need at this juncture is not a projection of 
future capacities and enrollments, but current figures. 

Because of the parties' default, and toward avoiding time- 
consuming contempt proceedings, the court has reviewed 
information in presumably outdated docu.-n.ents and undertaken to 
draft the following tentative tables of excess seats; 



257 



Excess Seats by District, 1984 



District 


Capacity 


12/84 

Enrollment 


^Suroius 
Sekzs 


2 5% 
Cushion 


Excess 

Seats 


1/2 Excess 
Seats 


1 


5,269 


4,381 


838 


222 


666 




333 


2 


5,856 


4,687 


1,169 


292 


877 




438 


3 


6,485 


5,272 , 


1,213 


303 


910 




455 


4 


5,394 


4,444 


950 


238 


712 




356 


5 


10,693 


8,708 


1,985 


496 


1,489 




744 


6 


6,969 


5, 397 


1,572 


393 


1,179 




590 


7 


6,072 


5,231 


841 


210 


631 




316 


8 


4,153 


3,139 


1,014 


254 


760 




380 


9 


17,780 


16,054 


1, 726 


432 


1,294 




647 


TOTAL 


68,671 


57,313 


11,358 


2,840 


8,518 


4 


,259 



Excess Seats by Grades, 1984 

12/84 Surplus 25% Excess 1/2 Excess 

Grades Capacity -^ Enrollment ^ Seats Cushion Seats Seats 

K-5 33,106 27,849 5,257 1,314 3,943 1,972 

6-8 15,925 12,631 3,294 824 2,470 1,235 

9-12 19,640 16,833 2,807 702 2,105 1,052 

TOTAL 68,671 57,313 11,353 2,840 8,518 4,259 

Complete and accurate figures must be filed as soon as possible. 



Based on Department of Implementation capacities included in 
the Long Range' Facilities Plan published on May 30, 1984. 

Based on assigned enrollments as of 12/6/84. K-1 and K-2 
half-day students are counted as full students. 

258 



Accordingly it is ORDERED that :ne joint UFP planners file 
complete and accurate calculations of current excess seats as 
soon as possible, no later than January 10, 1985. Such 
calculations shall be filed jointly by the joint UF? planners 
unless they are unable to agree, in which event each of the UFP 
planners shall file a separate calculation. To the extent that 
the filing or filings disagree v/ith the court's tentative 
calculation set forth above, the parties shall accompany their 
filing or filings with an explanatory memorandum explaining what 
they believe to be errors in the court's tentative calculation. 

It is further ORDERED that the hearing scheduled for 
January 14, 1985 at 2:00 p.m. (regarding the school defendants' 
motion to modify the student assignment plan) be expanded to 
include the question of the accurate number of current excess 
seats in the various districts and grade levels, and the impact 
of such excess capacity upon current and future facilities 
planning for the 1985-86 school year and thereafter. 

With respect to the draft UFP filed solely by the school 
defendants, it is inadequate in several respects other than its 
failure to calculate excess seats, such as the failure to provide 
schedules for repairs, renovations, construction, and school 
closings. The state defendants have filed a motion, supported by 
the school defendants, to allow the UFP to be filed within thirty 
days after the court has ruled on "(a) any motions to modify 
outstanding assignment orders that the parties may file, and (b) 
any proposals to modify outstanding assignment orders that may be 
presented to the court." 



259 



There is no need to recount the -ong history of the court's 
efforts to secure responsible facilities planning for the 3ostor. 
public schoo'ls. It is sufficient to state that the court has 
sought such planning from the joint planners since 1977 without 
acceptable result. In its order issued on November 2, 1984 the 
court ordered that the UFP be. filed on December 15, 1984 (later 
extended to December 20, 1984) independently of proposals to 
modify the student assignment plan. Once again this essential 
element of the student desegregation plan has been put on the 
back burner by the joint planners "until proposals for modifying 
the student assignment process have been acted on by the court." 

We again reject the defendants' contention that the r.ethod 
of making student assignments must precede facilities planning. 
However, the court continues to rely upon the joint planners to 
fulfill their promise to achieve as much progress on the LTP as 
possible . 

For these reasons it is further ORDERED that the State 
Board's motion be denied regarding the analysis of excess seats, 
but allowed as to the other components of tne UFP. 



(i/- /IttL'- 




United States Distr/imt Judge 



260 




Bureau of Equa"! E':''..'cational Opportunity 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 



1385 Hancock Street. Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 

January 8, 1985 



TO: David Jones 

cc: Bob Blumenthal, John Calabro, Frank Banks 

FROM: Charles Glenn 

RE: Boston Capacity Analysis 

I have prepared a number of summaries of capacities and excess seats, 
using approximately the format employed by the Court in the January 4th 
memorandum. It v/as necessary to provide alternatives because I was 
working with four different lists of capacities, each emanating from 
the School Department. My summaries are based upon detailed school -by- 
school listings which are available as needed. 

After our meeting with the School Department and PFD tomorrow I will be 
in a better position to form a judgment about the relative merits of the 
different capacity figures. 

The first Table (and the extensive capacity analyses which I gave you 
last week) is based upon the November 1, 1984 printout of the enrollment 
of each school , which includes a figure for the "Court Capacity" of each 
school. My assumption is that this figure was approved by the Court at 
some point. My detailed analyses last week also used the figures for 
"non-programmatic capacity" for each school from this printout. All 
enrollment figures in the tables are also taken from the printout. 

The second Table is based upon the "Space Matrix" for 1984-85, submitted 
for my review last Spring. These capacities are those on which the 
1984-85 assignments were based. It includes the entire capacity of the 
Latins and the Umana under high school capacities, since the Matrix does 
not distinguish between middle and high school space. 

The third Talbe is based upon the capacities included in the 'Long Range 
Plan" draft developed by the School Department in May 1984. These 
figures permit breaking out the middle and high school grades at the 
three schools mentioned above. Note that Latin Academy is not assigned 
a capacity. 

The fourth Table is based upon the December filing by the School Depart- 
ment, and is generally identical with the May figures; three schools 
(all in District VI) are assigned different capacities. 

The fifth Talbe compares the capacities attributed to each elementary 
school by the November printout, the space matrix, and the May 1984 
plan. The sixth and seventh tables provide the same information for 
middle and high schools. 

I trust that these analyses will be helpful to our discussion. 



261 



Cf3 00 

LU d 
CJLU 



ro ro en en f^ -^ '"'J a3 "^ 'J'' 
<!• uT in <r UT UT '-< OJ ijT s 
-H OJ UT OJ fO fO CU ^ ^ -^ 



sr -1 



s ijt s UT '-< h- <r '-• -< 
33 r^ en u: UT fi y3 -4- '-' 
f'l u3 -r u3 en CTi liT r-i >!• 



s 'jt s uT en fo "ja en en 

ij3 ^ liT n >^ -^ S N f'l 

■rt ,^ oj en cTt <f C'J wo -^ 



<• en •^ s s uT t^ cu in 
iiT r^ 1^ u3 en f'l r- s iji 

^ ^ CU ^ OJ CU '- 'H f^ 



■j: 'Sj 'Jl OJ 4- N en >}■ ij: s r>- 

:_n i_ s, ^ ,-,j rn m yD rv. 33 s 

_! rr 'n CO -• 1^ i"u s '-0 "i 'jj 

>< (S 



en uD kO U3 -4- CO (^ Ul CiJ CO OJ 

ID -4- uD en nj f-T r'T r-i ^ -< n 

_J r-T r^ en th vT (23 UT <S OJ u3 

a -ph oj cu i:u n cu ^ --h n s 

3 

en 

^ _j «4- en «4- ij3 cu n i3 m r^ to 

03-1 oj a cu ijj Q -^ CO uD ro <r 

V. a \n [^ '-^ -t 03 <t- ^T r^ t>. ijt 

^ cc ^ <r ui <t ca in ut n j-; n 

-. z -< jt 

LU 



iS UT iS S S S UT ijT llT 

r^ r>- cu (T' -t (Xi -> ^ ui 

CO 03 r-T uT uj cu en -. en 

Ul U3 CO ij3 cu 03 ij3 Nf 33 








cn tn 




-P 


cn^i 




c 


OJ d 






U UJ 




5. 


X en 




a 


UJ 




c 


I.-U 


-^ 





\ 


2 


_ 


*^ en 




"> 


3 




4J 


-1 






a 


+> 


u 


tr 


o 


fl 


ID 




a 


en 


j_^ 


rQ 




4J 


CJ 




121 




<f -1 


•F-t 


-P 


*°7i 


Q 


i. 


>v a 




3 


■rt c: 


>, 





^ z 


J3 


tJ 


LU 


UI 


■ 




■P 


c 




rQ 


Q 


> 


01 


Q. 


cr 


03 


3 




Ul 


T3 


2 


Ul 


OJ 


lU 


HI 


in 


E 


u 


ti 


LU 


X 


-Q 


-1 


LU 




LU 

a 

t- 
cn 

Q 



>r!:ij'^u3'^u3f*5-4-in 
en s f"! CO fo fT r^ ca '.u 

OJ <• UT •4- r^ vO f*l -^ '4' 



•4-roiiTi^cnuT^-^Sy 
<B r^ OJ en '=}■ en en cn f*3 
r^Si'4"OJ!T>y30nsr'- 



u3 OJ in n '-< in -^ •4- fo 

cn •- UT tn <!■ f'T UT uD u3 

OJ CO f^ in cu s s -4- -^ 

cu iij cu OJ \n n f"^ ■^ <" 



sinQsQQtnuTin 

c0c0ca(7iQnm-4-UT0^ 
iS CO '^ CO '^ r^ S on OJ 



"u f'O -^ UT u3 r^ 03 en 



tn tn 


tn H- 


Lu c: 


U UJ 


xtn 


UJ 


cu 


"^s 




cn 


ZJ 


-1 


a 


q: 


3 


cn 


>r -1 


03 -I 


\ o 


^ 01 


-• z 


UJ 


X 


CD 



CO |s^ g ^ OJ r^ cn CO 03 :u 
U3 in f'3 U3 s r^ I kO cu 03 

^ cu y3 CU 



OJ 03 -^ 'XI !0 'Jl f^J S uT 

03 -< 03 vO f'3 S" CU 3: > 
»^ •.cf ^ UT CU I '-I U3 



CO 1IJ en 03 CU ijs n s 'n 

u3 CO '-^ f3 ^ cn cu !"!j ro 

Q r^ f'O en u3 cn T-1 :-2i vf 

■r-l -« ,-..-. ^ 03 



S* Q S S ■'S iS Si S S 

iiT S 'S S Ul S S S ^ 

OJ ,X| <}• ^ ^ OJ '-• CC '- 

^ ^ ^ ^ OJ ^ X-, ^ S 



•rH OJ ro <j- JT ij3 >- 33 ST" CE 

b 



262 



N 



en 'Si 

iSi :— 
UJ CI 

X tn 

Hi 



<f _J 

CO _l 

^ a 
»^ z 

UJ 



>s- ro >- ijT CO ru rij i-ij s 
f^ CO ^ r^ ru n s i~^ ro 



>■ C'J ijj ^ 'H CO p-J Mj uD 

cn oj cr> s <r !jt r^ cr> -T 

^ Mj fl OJ fO f-l OJ -< f'l 



y3 -rt tiT f'T <r '^ s r>- crt 
^ ^ ijj cn cn -^ OJ vj: oj 



1^ t^ OJ u3 Q UT cn ^ OJ 

ijt M ^ r-o cn "ja r- r>- >^ 

f'l M u} -^ OJ r^ < 03 u3 
^ ^ ^ ^ OJ '^ ^ »-• 



^ UT N uD iD S OJ r^ !J3 

-J ;0 i'l -♦ -4- jT r^ cn OJ 
'T T'l <r f'l <f ■■'T OJ -> 1-^ 



.-'1 OJ uT OJ s n vD <r- n 

lil r^ UD -T .T> f'T OJ OJ r-'T 
cncn^u3-<cnfv.UTiTi 



a 

CE 

cn 




CTi 


■^ a 


■4- cn -^ !j3 nj ro q fi ,■>- 
i-ij s nj UJ is <f CO uD M 

UT r>- M <i- CO <}■ fo »-< r^ 

<f <t UT <J- a: UT UT n UT 


CO 

<*• 


c 


IV. -» cn 30 OJ u3 tj3 N OJ 

caa:coiscn^-<s=or- 
^4- u3 -4- ro cn r-i ^ ijj id 
UT IJT yD Ul cn U3 uD f'T r- 


1 







cn CO 






cn H- 






uj a 




^^ 


U LU 




= 


X tn 




X 


lU 




.(^ 






S. 


OJ 


>4- 


+> 


•X 


CO 


"TJ 


1-* 


cr> 


£ 


CO 






rj 




Q] 


_i 


r. 


Cj 


a 


+> 


(Q 


cr 





a 


n 




cn 


03 


5. 






4J 






in 


in 


•4- _i 




03 


CO _1 


Q 




^ C 




<f 


•t-i q; 


>. 


03 


'^ Z 


n 


01 


UJ 


in 






+> 


c 




fO 





> 


0) 


a 


q: 


CO 


3 


cr 


in 


-□ 


2 


■J1 


m 


LU 


OJ 


Ul 


H 


CJ 


IB 


LU 


X 


n 


-J 


UJ 




UJ 

!- 


< 




IT 


■^" 


^_^. 


cn 


y 


^'^ 


a 



fl3Sinr*3cr>iT>rv'^'-< 
msr^coifl'-icnujsi 

CU OJ OJ -H OJ 'Xi -^ OJ 



^ >4- OJ cn N -^ U3 OJ UT 
n M r<3 CO -.^ 03 OJ U3 P'l 
vj3 UT r- <!• N UT UT -^ UT 



ij3 OJ w (^ '^ in -< -4- r-i 

01 ■-< ijT cn vj- n liT 03 u3 

OJ 03 h- IjT OJ S r3 4- th 

OJ OJ CU OJ UT rO f'3 '-' -^ 



QkOr^ojcotTih-ujaj 

f'l <f 03 03 liT '^ r>- OJ cn 
Crir-O-^-iScniOUTUJa! 
iXl fO ro f'3 in M r'l -r^ <r 



tn to 

03 J- 
Ui (I 
U UJ 

X cn 

Ul 
OJ 



s T-i ijt r-- s "f r^ ^ 111 

111 03 ^ UT U-) I OJ y3 cn 



OJ "JJ --^ OJ OJ !'^ I'O S -4- 

f'3 ^ ^ iji f! I r«- i^ 111 

^ OJ r- ^ I - S 



^ OJ n -4- uT y3 r^ OJ cn 



<r _J CO OJ cn 03 OJ 'Jl f-'T iS 03 

CO _i u3 03 T-i ro th IT! nj OJ r^ 

\ C ^ J^ i'O iTi u3 cn w .S OJ 

'I CE '^ --• '-' ^ '-i Q 

Ui 



.■S CO iS '^ nJ- OJ S S OJ 
S cn u3 cn <f cn ij- Ji r-T 
OJ cn I'l iS r^ 0^ .s '-' T'T 



:U f3 -4- IjT U3 .N 03 cn 01 



263 





en en 


ijD uJ kC I^ OD iS uD OJ S 


U3 




U3 H 


03 i:U U") 03 ^ OJ CTi S en 


cn 




Lu cr 


-< - OJ CU -H 1 


cn 




U UJ 








X en 








UJ 








OJ 








\ 
















en 


Cn>rij3'^-^u3u3f'3a^ 


rs. 




n 


OJ OJ ri n 03 03 uT r^ ^^ 


in 




_i 


OJ f'T <r OJ UT UT OJ OJ OJ 


U3 


■^ 


a 


1 


OJ 


1 


q: 






J 


ZI 






i 


en 






:) 


-^ -J 


S UT S in en fT u3 CTi crt 


1J3 




03 _1 


y3 rH UT ro <r --H Si N fO 


vj* 


■^ 


-s O 


^ th OJ en en •4- oj ko ^ 


03 


t 


■^ tr 


^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ro 


OJ 


'-' z 






I 


UJ 






< 


UJ 


en en u3 "JJ s en OJ OJ s 


m 




_l 


ffl n u3 ij3 n en 03 UT s 


s 


r 


Q 


n<j-ujT^li-3Cn^4-C7icn 


"2 


Q 


^ ^ ^ ^ OJ ^ ^ OJ 


\f} 



<t _l 

03 _J 

•^ c: 

- Z 

UJ 



N S liT CO OJ OJ f'T S OJ 

\s-) I'l n <f <r t^ jt 01 -« 
r-3 <t ^ r-T iij ijT cj i-ij i-'3 



n >• -^ 03 -4 li) -^ OJ r-T 

UT -^ y3 OJ ^ OJ i^ h- r'3 

cn-i-Ht-iUir^ij'jvor^iB 



^ en -4- ij3 oj ft St n r^ 

OJ S OJ wDQ <• 03 ij r-i 

111 r^ ('3 -4- 03 ^ f'T '-' N 

<■ ^ llT <*■ 03 UT liT fi \n 



r^ kD [jT <1- r-T en <f U"! s 

(N. UT 03 en »H u3 uT r-T |>. 

<J- 03 >f f'3 UT en >5 01 ijT 

UT UT '43 IjT S iJ UJ f'l y3 





: 


en u3 




C 


03 H 




(0 


uj a 






U UJ 




a 


X cn 

UJ 




0] 






ai 


'M 


•4- 


c 


V. 


CO 


IB 


•.I 


2 


CC 


en 






ZJ 




cn 


_j 


a. 


c 


a 


-P 





ir 


a 


-J 


n 






en 


t 






-p 


sf 




m 


03 


^ _i 




cn 


03 _J 


Q 






>, 


>> 


-* Z 


JQ 




UJ 


U) 






-P 


c 




ttl 





> 


OJ 


a 


CE 


en 


3 


? 


tn 


T3 


z 


m 


Ql 


UJ 


OJ 


U1 


z 


CJ 


nj 


UJ 


X 


J3 


-1 


UJ 




UJ 

t- 
ej 

a. 
I— 
en 

Q 



<i-inf'3<'a3r^o^s© t^ 
OJ 03 UT s -« OJ i£i cn n r^ 
OJ -^ OJ OJ fo ro »H -< 03 



en en 
en h- 

UJ d 

ej UJ 
X cn 



03 -r r>- 1^ !j3 U3 OJ 03 OJ 

-4- ^4- OJ UT S OJ -< CTi N 

w -. I r.j 



h-cn^ineO'^'^cnr- 
cni''3r>-^-4-Ninro^ 

UT >a- O) in 03 "3J '4- iXl n3 



03 'M llT f^ '^ llT -^ ■* rO 
cn'^inCT><l-r<]inU3ij3 
nj 03 r- in OJ s s ■4' -< 
OJ OJ aj OJ in fo f*3 -^ >r 



n--to^cO[x»oJojn3i3 
cn \o OJ rn CO is s s -H 
03 OJ >j- '-* Q cn in r* ut 

itj f'3 n fO 03 f*3 n3 '^ ■4- 



oj f«3 -4- in 03 h- 03 cri 



en r^ ■4- -^ oj oj cn n s 'n 

3 OJ G3 r^ liT tn Ol M k£l OJ 

_i ^ n ^ (xi I OJ h- 

a 

cr 

cn 



-4- _| CO OJ cn 03 OJ \r\ f'3 Si li": 

co _l ij3 03 -^ f3 ^ cn OJ OJ r--; 

V. o is r^ r'3 en u3 cn T^ s <i- 

■^cc ^ r^ r-, rt^cn 



UT OJ i3 ■S -4- <J- Si S S- 
UiOJCnCri(Ti03Cria3ij3 
th th f-T S< 03 'S S OJ ^ 



^ OJ ro <f UT '-I3 >- 3 .■Ti C 

a 



264 



en 03 

en 'r- 

Ui CI 
CJ UJ 
X CD 



^ _i 
^ a 

'^ Z 



Oi — i 



oj ^£1 r^ a CO 111 •;^i s 
'''■1 UT S3 '-' '-^3 cr> S !T> 



rij .ru -H f3 03 '-< iiT 1^ f'3 
i-ij r-3 ^ CU UT ^- '."•J '-'J '"U 



3 UT i3 UT 01 fT uD CTi CTi 
ij3 -ph Ul M -4- -^ '3 r^ M 
»-i »-< i.\J Cn (P <f OJ ^3 '-I 



Ti (71 ij3 ij3 Q r^ CU CU S 

CO fl vjD u3 fl ili -J3 in S 

f.-) vr uD 'H ijT --^ -d- iJ' (Ji 

^ ^ ^ ^ CO OJ »-• cu 



j; UJ > -5 -j- CE Mj N i'T :^ 
--; r- UT f'T f3 ^ -^T f'l UT CT" 
!jj CI i''3 <r <j- ro u3 U3 OJ OJ 



rs-i r^ ^ CO ^ CTi -T oj fn 
ij"3 <!• a) OJ T-i i7> r^ r^ ro 
iTi7-iTHcrir^u3'si3r-G3 



<r _i vi- en vi- kC OJ ro rs r'l r^ 

03 _j OJ "S uJ uD iS ^ G vjLi r'3 

^ C UT 1^ fi <»• C3 <r rn " N 

T^ CE ^ <J- UT <t- 03 U"; llT f'O 10 

- z ^ 



N u3 IjT "* !■••■) OJ <f Jl S 

1^ lj~ 03 (T! ■--' <1" J"! •'■•* f^ 

vl- a •:!- f-''3 UT -^ -3 CT. yi 

UT liT t£l U"3 S r^ U3 r-T ij: 





in 






-p 






c 






rO 






T3 






C 


03 03 




Oi 


COK 




"4- 


Ul d 




01 


ULU 




Q 


X 03 

LU 













CU 


^ 





•s. 


OJ 




•»^ 


en 


D 


03 




tn 


3 


•• 


-i- 


a 


■p 


CO 


cr 


u 


(T» 


3 


••^ 




03 


S- 






4» 


5- 




in 


01 


<f_l 




XI 


03 _l 


Q 


2 


^ a 




01 


^ cr 


> 


u 


- z 


XI 




Ui 


in 






-p 


C 




m 





> 


01 


a 


cc 


en 


3 


CI 

t- 


in 


T3 


z 


in 


01 


UJ 


lU 


in 


z 


CJ 


iQ 


U! 


X 


XJ 


_J 


UJ 




UJ 

u 

tr 

i- 

03 



^!iTro<ta3<fcr"OS ^ 

OJ ij liT "S ■^ "^ "iJ 0^ f'T ''^ 
i\| •^ OJ OJ n f<3 '-^ •^ 03 



(Ji r*3 1^ -4- ^ '^ UT f^T ^l- 

UT <r uD Ul to ir> >4- f»J fi 



u3 OJ in r^T -< '.n ^ -^ fo 

CP -^ UT en < r^ UT U3 uD 
nj 03 h- UT OJ S Q ^ ^ 
■M OJ OJ OJ 111^3 n 'H ,1- 



n '^ a» 03 en '-' OJ (^ 3 

en UT OJ r'3 03 liT S iS '-' 

03 OJ ^ '-' i3 en UT r^ UT 

nj ro r'3 fo y3 ^3 r-i -^ <r 



03 03 


03 <j- f^ IV. yj y[5 OJ Oj OJ 


■^ 


03H 


>3- <■ "J ijt s Oj '-< en r^ 


■ol 


UJ a 


f* -* i OJ 


r- 


U Ul 






X 03 







fN. <- r-i OU OJ 0^ i'3 iS 

OJ oD r^ 111 03 ijj '.-^ ix: 
;-. n - OJ ! OJ 



!M ro -^ in '>o r^ CO (Ti a; 

b 



>4- _I 03 OJ en 03 OJ il"2 i'3 S ;j"3 

03 _J uD 03 »-< i''^ -^ C^ OJ ijj ^'3 

^ □ (S (^ f'T tn '-JS CTi '-' ^•=' "^ 

-'Q: -< -H '- --^03 
- Z 



liT '-jD s s -4- <r s- 'i ^i-- 

iTiij3tTiCncriuOJi33u3 
^ -TH r^-] s 03 -5 S -ru r-. 



•J --- ■XI 7" C 



265 







PRINT-OUT 


SPACE 


MftY 


1984 








CfiPfiCITY 


MATRIX 








I 


Baldwin 


350 


305 


-45 


331 


-IS 




Farragut 


£90 


272 


-18 


£84 


-6 




Gardner 


550 


512 


-38 


512 


-33 




Garfield 


450 


375 


-75 


371 


-79 




Hamilton 


390 


367 


-23 


341 


-49 




Tobin 


630 


630 





611 


-19 




Winshio 


4£0 


469 


49 


443 


23 




DISTRICT I 


3030 


2930 


-150 


£393 


-137 




ftnassiz 


770 


809 


39 


78£ 


12 




Ellis 


550 


509 


-41 


489 


-61 




Fuller 


300 


296 


-4 


£84 


-16 




Hinginson 


310 


218 


-92 


192 


-113 




J. F. Kennedy 


550 


502 


-48 


494 


-56 




Longfellow 


450 


282 


-163 


294 


-156 




Manning 


215 


193 


-22 


191 


-24 




Mendel 1 


300 


283 


-17 


£83 


-17 




Parkman 


440 


254 


-186 


£42 


-198 




DISTRICT II 


3885 


3346 


-539 


3251 


-634 


III 


Bates 


300 


258 


-42 


270 


-30 




Beethoven 


350 


240 


-110 


266 


-34 




Kilmer 


300 


229 


-71 


244 


-56 




Lee 


1000 


799 


-201 


774 


-226 




Lyndon 


250 


192 


-58 


£04 


-46 




Mattahunt 


1000 


872 


-128 


3£4 


-176 




Mosart 


250 


180 


-70 


180 


-70 




Philbrick 


200 


155 


-45 


155 


-45 




Sumner 


530 


562 


32 


512 


-13 




DISTRICT III 


4180 


3487 


-693 


3429 


-751 


IV 


Channing 


420 


296 


-124 


334 


-86 


IV 


Chittick 


450 


410 


-40 


434 


-16 


IV 


Con ley 


400 


244 


-156 


£56 


-144 


IV 


E. Greenwood 


550 


436 


-114 


4£0 


-130 


IV 


Grew 


350 


269 


-81 


£69 


-81 


IV 


Hemenway 


200 


180 


-20 


180 


-20 


IV 


F. D. Roosevelt 


350 


268 


-82 


254 


-96 


IV 


P. ft. Shaw 


490 


409 


-81 


409 


-31 


IV 


Taylor 


680 


570 


-110 


532 


-98 




DISTRICT IV 


3890 


3082 


-808 


3138 


-752 


V 


Dickerman 


350 


361 


11 


335 


-15 


V 


End i cot t 


280 


232 


-48 


232 


-43 


V 


Everett 


400 


310 


-90 


310 


-90 


V 


Fifield 


500 


388 


-112 


388 


-1 1£ 


V 


S. Greenwood 


800 


561 


-239 


543 


-£5£ 


V 


Holland 


1000 


832 


-113 


919 


-31 


V 


Kenny 


400 


332 


-63 


23£ 


-168 


V 


Marshall 


1000 


891 


-109 


995 


-5 


V 


Mather 


800 


665 


-135 


677 


-123 


V 


Murphy 


1000 


912 


-88 


965 


-35 


V 


0' Hearn 


310 


192 


-118 


£04 


-10b 


V 


Stone 


350 


232 


-113 


£34 


-68 




DISTRICT V 


7190 


5958 


-1232 


6089 


-11^11 



266 







PRINT-OUT 


SPACE 




MAY 1984 








CfiPfiCITY 


MATRIX 








VI 


Clao 


350 


206 


-144 


£06 


-144 


VI 


Condon 


1000 


914 


-86 


1000 





VI 


Dever 


700 


576 


-124 


598 


-102 


VI 


Emerson 


300 


268 


-32 


£89 


-11 


VI 


Mason 


300 


180 


-120 


1£0 


-150 


VI 


Perkins 


400 


£18 


-182 


£43 


-157 


VI 


Perry 


350 


179 


-171 


£16 


-134 


VI 


Russell 


450 


435 


-15 


435 


-15 


VI 


Tynan 


500 


390 


-110 


483 


-17 


VI 


Winthroo 


380 


£53 


-127 


£6b 


-114 




DISTRICT VI 


4730 , 


3619 


-nil 


3906 


-824 


VII 


Blackstone 


1200 


987 


-213 


951 


-£49 


VII 


Eliot 


430 


292 


-138 


3£a 


-102 


VII 


Hurley 


470 


435 


-35 


435 


-35 


VII 


Kent 


675 


591 


-84 


515 


-50 


VII 


Quincy 


800 


787 


-13 


742 


-58 


VII 


Warren/ Prescot 


470 


485 


15 


449 


-21 




DISTRICT VII 


4045 


3577 


-468 


3520 


-525 


VIII 


Adams 


350 


278 


-72 


278 


-72 


VIII 


ftlighieri 


170 


155 


-15 


180 


10 


VIII 


Bradley 


340 


269 


-71 


281 


-59 


VIII 


P. Kennedy 


350 


232 


-118 


£84 


-66 


VIII 


O'Donnell 


325 


296 


-29 


£84 


-41 


VIII 


Otis 


420 


■ 396 


-24 


395 


-£4 




DISTRICT VIII 


1955 


1626 


-329 


1703 


-£5£ 


IX 


Cur ley 


350 


310 


-40 


310 


-40 


IX 


Suild 


350 


298 


-52 


£98 


-52 


IX 


Hale 


250 


298 


48 


£33 


-17 


IX 


Haley 


325 


310 


-15 


310 


-15 


IX 


Hennigan 


950 


647 


~3ili3 


559 


-£91 


IX 


Hernandez 


220 


190 


-30 


£0£ 


-13 


IX 


Jackson/Mann 


850 


824 


-£6 


550 


-£00 


IX 


McKay 


700 


617 


-82 


55£ 


-48 


IX 


Ohrenberger 


650 


548 


-10£ 


548 


-10£ 


IX 


Trotter 


650 


556 


6 


548 


-£ 




DISTRICT IX 


•5295 


4698 


-597 



-6507 


4510 


-785 



-5835 




TOTAL 


38250 


31743 


3£414 



'/it9i 



267 



TA-^^e 6 



SCHOOL 



Edison Middle 
Taft Middle 
Tobin Middle 
District I 

M. Carley Middle 
Lewis Middle 
T. Roosevelt 
District II 

Irving Middle 
Lewenbern Middle 
R Shaw Middle 
District III 

Rogers Middle 
Thomoson Middle 
District IV 

Cleveland Middle 
Holmes Middle 
Wilson Middle 
District V 

■Dearborn Middle 
Gavin Middle 
McCormack Middle 
District VI 

Edwards Middle 

Michelangelo 

Timilty 

District VII 

Barnes Middle 
Cheverus 

District VIII 

King Middle 
Mackey Middle 
Wheatlev Middle 
District IX 



Caoacitv S 


pace 


Ma 


y 1984 




11/84 M, 


atrix 








700 


652 


-48 


664 


-36 


750 


615 


-135 


635 


-115 


90 


90 




90 




1540 


1357 


-183 


1389 


-151 


1100 


827 


-273 


729 


-371 


450 


£70 


-180 


365 


-85 


240 


240 




345 


105 


1790 


1337 


-453 


1439 


-351 


1040 


769 


-271 


739 


-301 


900 


483 


-417 


495 


-405 


800 


390 


-410 


432 


-366 


£740 


1642 


-1098 


1566 


-1074 


1000 


606 


-394 


606 


-394 


600 


530 


-70 


560 


-40 


1&00 


1136 


-464 


1166 


-434 


1250 


1087 


-163 


1177 


-73 


600 


471 


-129 


471 


-i£9 


1050 


732 


-318 


882 


-isa 


2900 


2290 


-610 


£530 


-370 


400 


504 


104 


476 


76 


1050 


576 


-474 


780 


-£70 


900 


685 


-215 


743 


-157 


2350 


1765 


-585 


1999 


-351 


670 


594 


-76 


571 


-99 


450 


33id 


-120 


318 


'-13£ 


650 


555 


-95 


573 


-77 


1770 


1479 


-291 


14S£ 


-303 


750 


679 


-71 


734 


-16 


270 


192 


-78 


£13 


-52 


1020 


871 


-149 


952 


-63 


840 


781 


-59 


789 


-51 


500 


509 


9 


509 


9 


350 


352 


2 


35£ 


£ 


1690 


1642 


-48 


1650 


-4lZl 


17400 


13519 


-3881 


14155 


-3£37 



a? //*/"» 



268 



I A/3t< 



SCHOOL 



Brighton High 
Jamaica Plain 
W. Roxbury High 
Hyde Park High 
Burke High 
Dorchester High 
South Boston Hi 
Charlestown High 
East Boston High 
Boston High 
Latin Acad (9-l£) 
Latin Sch (9-12) 
Boston Technical 
Copley Square 
English High 
Madison Park 
Umana (9-12) 

TQTftL 



Cfl 


PflCITY 


SPACE 
MATRIX 




1250 


1200 




12013 


998 




1400 


1360 




1100 


1090 




1050 


• 774 




1100 


970 




1200 


992 




1100 


1050 




1200 


1190 




1000 


510 




630 


1230 




1200 


2160 




1550 


1612 




550 


552 




2200 


1980 




2400 


2254 




570 


1034 



20710 20956 





MAY 






1984 




-50 


1195 


-55 


■202 


1166 


-34 


-40 


1390 


-10 


-10 


1090 


-10 


•276 


804- 


-246 


■130 


1090 


-10 


■208 


1064 


-136 


-50 


1090 


-10 


-10 


1230 


80 


•490 


492 


-508 


600 




-630 


960 


1250 


50 


52 


1560 





2 


552 


•£• 


•220 


£026 


-174 


•146 


£154 


-246 


464 


634 


64 










£46 


18837 


-1373 



<^C '/f/9->' 



269 



GOODWIN, PROCTER S HOAR 

(A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PRO^FSr. C. ■■ - CORPORATIONS) 
COUNSELLORS AT LAW 

28 STATE STREET Sc'i'; 

BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02I09 l";^Z 

TELEPHONE (SI7) 523-5700 ^^Ij; 

INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC K»i 

TELECOPIER (617) 523-1231 JS" 

TELEX 9^-06*0 U"' 

. CABLE- GOODPROCT. BOSTON J*"" 



January 10, 1985 



Stephen A. Moynahan, Jr., Esq. 
Deputy Clerk 

United States District Court 
U.S. Post Office and Court House 
Boston, MA 02109 

Re: Morgan, et al . v. Walsh-Tomasini, et al. 
Civil Action No. 72-911-G 

Dear Mr. Moynahan: 

Enclosed for filing and docketing please find the 
following: 

1. School Defendants' Motion for Ruling Regarding 
Elimination of Excess Seats; 

2. School Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Ruling 
Regarding Elimination of Excess Seats; and 

3. Filing of "Excess" Seat Calculations. 

Please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and give 
the same to bearer. 

Sincerely, 



Henr^ C. Dinger 



HCDzcel 

cc: Counsel of Record 



270 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



************** 



TALLULAH MORGAN ET AL . , 



Plaintiffs, * CIVIL ACTION 
* NO. 72-911-G 



V. 



JOHN A NUCCI, ET AL., * 

* 

Defendants. * 

* 

*************** 



SCHOOL DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RULING REGARDING 
ELIMINATION OF EXCESS SEATS 



School Defendants move for a ruling that they arc not 
obliged to reduce capacity in 1985 in accordance with an up- 
dated version of the formula set forth in this Court's order 
of August 15, 1979. 

A supporting memorandum and other materials accompany 
this motion. 

Respectfully submitted, 
THE SCHOOL DEFENDANTS 
By their attorneys. 



Jilrshall/Simonds," p<C. 
Henry >ef\ Dinger 
G00pi<flN, PROCTER & HOAR 
28^State Street 
Boston, MA 02109 




(617) 523-5700 



271 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
' DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



*******. ********* 

* 

TALLULAH MORGAN, ET AL. , * 

* 

Plaintiffs, * 

* 

V. * CIVIL ACTION 

* NO. 72-911-G 
JOHN A. NUCCI, ET AL., * 

* 

Defendants. * 

* 

**************** 



MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SCHOOL 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RULING 

REGARDING ELIMINATION OF EXCESS SEATS 



School Defendants submit this memorandum in support of their 
motion for a ruling by this Court that they are not obliged to 
reduce capacity in 1985 in accordance with the "one-half of all 
excess elementary seats" formula set forth in this Court's order 
of August 15, 1979. School Defendants seek this ruling to 
alleviate the uncertainty generated by this Court's orders of 
November 30, 1984 and January 4, 1985, which can be read to 
suggest that the Court intends to require strict adherence to its 
1979 formula in connection with any facilities plan submitted to 
the Court in 1985./"^/ 



/I/ Indeed, the Court's request for calculations at all grade 
levels suggests that the Court may be considering applying 
the excess seat elimination formula systemwide. While this 
memorandum assumes that the reference to the 1979 formula 
implies that formula's application to elementary capacity 
only, the accompanying materials contain the reasons for 
not applying the formula at any grade level. 



272 



There are two. reasons why this motion should be granted. 
First, the 1979 formula fails to take into account the predict- 
ably increasing enrollment of the elementary schools in the years 
to come, is based upon overstated capacities and is not a 
rational approach to the calculation of excess capacities. 
Second, adherence to the Court's 1979 formula is not justified on 
remedial grounds. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

On November 2, 1984 this Court ordered the preparation and 
filing of a revised Unified Facilities Plan ("UFP"). In a 
further order dated November 30, 1984, the Court amplified this 
filing requirement by referring to prior UFP orders. The Court 
added: "The provision which should be emphasized for present 
purposes is the elimination of no fewer than half of all excess 
seats, i.e. surplus seats after allowing for a 25% cushion, in 
elementary schools." The provision to which the Court referred 
was contained in this Court's Further Memorandum and Order as to 
Unified Facilities Plan, dated August 15, 1979. The relevant 
portion of that order states as follows: "The revised UFP shall 
eliminate by July 1, 1980 no fewer than half of all excess seats 
(as of April 15, 1979) in elementary schools." 

The requirement that half of all excess elementary seats be 
eliminated originated in this Court's draft order of April 12, 
1979. There the Court proposed the elimination of half of all 
excess elementary seats existing as of October 15, 1979. The 
Court issued its mathematical formula for computing excess 



273 



capacity sua sponte . No party proposed it and no evidence was 
introduced in support of it. 

The Joint Planners incorporated this formula into the Manual 
for District Planning filed on April 23, 1979. The Court approved 
this interim planning manual in general terms on August 15, 
1979 and directed that the UFP eliminate half of all excess 
elementary seats as of April 15, 1979. 

As the Joint Planners conducted their planning exercise in 
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Manual, they 
reached the conclusion that considerations of stability warranted 
the elimination of somewhat fewer seats than would be warranted 
by the strict application of the Court's formula. This judgment 
was reflected in the list of ten schools proposed for closing in 
•late 1979. 

The Court, in its opinion of April 2, 1980, criticized this 
judgment and ordered the closing of two additional schools. In a 
footnote, the Court suggested that the rationale for the formula 
was the Court's apparent perception that, " [h]alf-empty schools 
produce the pressures and invite the manipulations which charac- 
terized the schools before the Court's intervention." Slip Op. at 
4 n.2. 

The School and City Defendants appealed from this order and 
sought a stay. After all parties (other than the State Board) 
joined in requesting a stay, the First Circuit remanded the case 
to this Court. This Court subsequently issued a stay. 



2 74 



In the 1980-81 school year the Joint Planners continued 
their planning efforts during the lengthy pendency of the appeal. 
On March 11, 1981 they filed a revised UFP which employed a 
"utilization rate" mode of analysis and proposed closing a much 
larger number of elementary schools (i.e. 27) than in 1979-1980. 
These closings eliminated approximately 5,480 elementary school 
seats, well in excess of one-half of the number of excess ele- 
mentary seats as determined by the Court's 1979 formula. With 
one extremely modest exception, the Court accepted this revised 
UFP in an order dated May 11, 1981. 

When the Court of Appeals finally ruled on the appeal from 
the 1980 facilities order, it took the position that the specific 
challenge to this Court's reliance on its 1979 formula in order- 
ing the closing of additional schools was moot. The School 
Defendants submit that the mootness resulted from the fact that 
1981 UFP submitted by the Joint Planners satisfied the August 15, 
1979 order's requirement regarding excess elementary capacity 
although the 1979 formula was not employed in the Joint Planners' 
analysis. Since no order of this Court contained any on-going 
requirement that "excess" capacity be eliminated, the School 
Defendants assumed, at least until recently, that the elimination 
of "one-half excess" elementary capacity requirement of the 
August 15, 1979 order was simply part of the history of this case 
without present relevance. 

The resurrection by reference of the August 15, 1979 order 
in this Court's orders of November 30, 1984 and January 4, 1985 



275 



has raised considerable uncertainty regarding the course the 

Court intends to take in 1985. While those orders merely direct 

the calculation of "excess" capacity in accordance with the 

Court's 1979 formula, the School Defendants are concerned that 

the Court's emphatic focus on that formula reflects — and will 

be perceived by the public as reflecting — a prejudgment that 

the 1979 formula will govern the issue of school closings in 

1935. 

The School Committee on December 19, 1984 approved the 

elimination of 1,000 seats system-wide and committed itself to 

complete the process of obtaining public input on the specific 

schools to be closed by the end of January. A reduction of 

this magnitude will not eliminate the number of seats which would 

be required under the Court's formula. However, the School 

Department staff is convinced that adherence to the 1979 formula 

in 1985 is unwarranted under the circumstances. The School 

Defendants now move that the Court rule that they shall not be 

obliged to adhere to the 1979 formula in connection with the 

judgments they face regarding school closings. 

ARGUMENT 

I. THE 1979 FORMULA REGARDING EXCESS CAPACITY IS NOT 
AS USEFUL A METHOD OF ANALYSIS AS THE UTILIZATION 
RATE APPROACH EMPLOYED BY THE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT. 

The School Defendants have attached to this memorandum a 

paper prepared by Senior Officer John Coakley which discusses the 

enrollment trends projected for the Boston Public Schools over 

the next ten years and explore the effect that applying the 



2 76 

- - . ... 1 



Court's 1979 formula in 1985 will have. This paper also con- 
siders the Court's 1979 formula from the perspective of a facili- 
ties planner and concludes that the formula is not tied into a 
rational approach to facilities planning. It outlines an alter- 
native method of analysis, based on utilization rates, which is 
preferable to the 1979 formula as a rubric to guide decisions on 
school closing. The discussion which follows is based on the 
information contained in Mr. Coakley's paper. 

The Court's formula is defective as a tool for facilities 
planning for several reasons. First, it misreads current capac- 
ity. The physical capacity figures used by the Court are based 
upon the maximum number of students assignable to a given class- 
room consistent with the provisions of outstanding collective 
bargaining agreements. To use these maximum enrollment figures 
as the basis for a judgment about "excess" capacity is to assume 
that "ideal" facilities utilization involves assigning the 
maximum number of students to each room. This is neither educa- 
tionally desirable nor in many cases even possible. Since 
assigning" a smaller number of students to most classrooms is both 
necessary and educationally desirable, the capacity figures 
should be reduced. 

Even quite modest assumptions about the "typical" or "ideal" 
classroom change the calculation of "1/2 Excess Seats" signifi- 
cantly. If one assumes that the average elementary classroom 
will have assigned to it 90% of the maximum number assigned 
(e.g., 23 regular education students in a classroom with 25 



277 



seats, or 10 students in a special education classroom with 12 
seats), then the "capacity" of the school system at the elemen- 
tary level is 90% of 32,842 or 29,108. With current elementary 
enrollment of 27,528, the Court's formula would result in one- 
half of all "excess" seats totalling 583, and not 1,805, as 
computed using maximum capacity. 

A more fundamental flaw to the Court's 1979 formula is that 
it is essentially arbitrary. It effectively requires the elimi- 
nation of 3/8 of the difference between current enrollment and 
current maximum capacity. There has never been, to the School 
Defendants' knowledge, any public articulation of the rationale 
for the 1979 formula. There has certainly never been any testing 
of that formula in an adversary proceeding in this case. 

The 1979 formula is arbitrary first of all because it fails 
to take into account population and enrollment trends. It 
determines the quantity of unneeded classroom space by taking 
a "snapshot" of current enrollment and then eliminating a portion 
of the space which is not currently being used. Nowhere does the 
formula take into account the future needs of the system. 

The formula's failure to take into account future trends 
would, perhaps, have been harmless in 1979 when, at least in 
the short term, elementary school enrollment was expected to 
continue its. decline. The risk then was only that further 
"excess" capacity would have to be eliminated later on. However, 
where, as here, there is a projected increase in elementary 
enrollment, the risk is that application of the Court's 1979 
formula will eliminate too many seats. 



278 



This phenomenon may be seen by applying the Court's formula 
to projected 1989-90 and 1994-95 enrollments. If no schools 
close this year and capacity remains constant, application of the 
Court's formula would require elimination of only 641 elementary 
seats in 1989-90 or 683 in 1994-95 in contrast to 1,805 seats in 
1985. Thus, if the School Department were faced with 1990 or 
1995 enrollments this year, the Court's formula would require the 
elimination of fewer than half the elementary seats than it 
appears to require using 1985 enrollments. 

It is obvious that the School Defendants should plan for 
having an appropriate amount of space for the next decade. Rigid 
application of the Court's formula does not permit this. At a 
minimum, the Court's formula should be applied using projected 
future enrollment data and not current data. 

The 1979 formula is also arbitrary because if it is imposes 
an ongoing obligation, it would require year by year reductions 
in capacity even if enrollment remained constant. For example, 
if under the Court's formula 1,805 elementary seats were elimi- 
nated in 1985, in 1986 the elementary school capacity would be 
30,537. If enrollments remained constant in 1985, there would be 
"surplus" capacity of 3,009, "excess" capacity of 2,257, and, 
thus, the 1979 formula would require the elimination of 1,129 
additional elementary seats in 1986. In 1987, assuming the 
elimination of these new "excess" seats took place, the capacity 
would be 29,560 which v/ould, on the assumption of constant 
enrollment, result in "excess" capacity of 1,410 and a further 



2 79 



reduction of 705 seats. If these seats were removed and enroll- 
ment remained constant, there would be a further reduction in 
1988 of 441 seats and so forth. Thus, application of the Court's 
formula gives four different "appropriate" capacities for the 
same enrollment in four succeeding years! It is hard to see the 
logic of a formula which mandates apparently meaningless reduc- 
tions in capacity on a yearly basis. 

The School Defendants submit that the Court's approach to 
determining the extent to which there is excess capacity in the 
school system fails to address the critical question: how much 
space is needed to house the present and predictable future 
enrollments of the Boston Public Schools. A better mode of 
analysis is to employ an appropriate utilization rate for the 
system's capacity, and then determine the amount of needed 
capacity by dividing the enrollment by that utilization rate. 

This method was employed by the Joint Planners in connection 
with the 1980-81 UFP, submitted to the Court on March 11, 1981. 
In that document (at pp. 44-45) the authors set the appropriate 
utilization rate at 90%, and reduced capacity until approximately 
90% of total capacity was used. (This number of seats eliminated 
under this formula was, it should be noted, considerably larger 
than the number which would have been reduced under the Court's 
1979 formula.) The 90% utilization rate was higher than the 
School Department considered "ideal" but was selected because the 
elementary school population was expected to diminish in the 
short term (a trend which would reduce the utilization rate) and 



280 



because of the acute financial pressure existing in the immediate 
wake of Proposition 2 1/2. 

This Court approved the school closing portion of this plan. 
In an order dated May 11, 1981 this Court found that the closings 
would not "defeat or impede implementation of the student desegre- 
gation plan." The Court made this finding even though the Joint 
Planners made no effort to use the Court's 1979 formula. Indeed, 
the Court made no reference at all to -that formula in its order. 

The utilization rate method avoids the anomalies created 
by applying the Court's 1979 formula. It expressly recognizes 
that classroom space will rarely be filled with the maximum 
number of students. The thrust of the analysis is to determine 
an appropriate average utilization rate. 

The utilization rate analysis can also take into account 
demographic trends. The utilization rate can be selected to 
anticipate future capacity needs. Thus, in 1981, a 90% rate 
was selected because of an anticipated future drop in elementary 
enrollments. In 1985, a somewhat lower rate would be appropriate 
because o"f anticipated increases in future enrollments. 

Moreover, the utilization rate analysis gives consistent 
results in succeeding years. If enrollments remain constant 
the utilization rate formula would not require elimination of 
additional seats after an initial reduction in capacity. 

The School Department facilities planners have employed 
this mode of analysis in their planning efforts. They have done 
so in good faith in an effort to determine the appropriate number 



281 



of school closings. The method has led to results acceptable to 

the Court in the past. The Court should not preclude resort to 

this method in 1985 by mandating the application of an untested 

and anomalous formula which no party has endorsed. 

II. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS COURT WHICH RELATES 
THE 1979 FORMULA TO THE REMEDIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THIS 
CASE IN 1985. 

The School and City Defendants argued in connection with the 
1980 UFP appeal that the Court's insistence on adherence to the 
elimination of excess seats formula contained in its August 15, 
1979 order was erroneous. The School Defendants contend that 
their position — on which the First Circuit made no ruling — 
was correct in 1980 when it was made. It is, for the reasons set 
forth below, a fortiori correct in 1985. 

The School and City Defendants contended in 1980 that there 
was no basis on which this Court could find that the excess seat 
formula was remedial. No party sought to apply such a formula. 
Indeed, plaintiffs — together with El Comite, the unions, CPAC 
and the Home and School Association -- vigorously opposed the 
formula on the ground that "the equation of school closings 
(elimination of excess seats) with racial balance and equity in 
education is unproven." Joint Filing Re: Equality in Educa- 
tional Facilities Boston Public Elementary Schools at 17 
(December 17, 1979). More pertinently, no party submitted any 
evidence to support a finding that the 1979 formula was remedial. 
The Court at no time identified the evidence on which it relied 
for its "half-empty schools" thesis. 



282 



The Court's contention in its 1980 opinion rejecting the 
1979 UFP that the parties had stipulated to the Court's formula 
does not reflect the positions of the parties. On December 17, 
1979 the State Board sought to modify the formula. See State 
Defendants' Response to the Court's Further Procedural Orders and 
Questions Regarding UFP at 6. The filing of a UFP that did not 
adhere to the Court's formula made the position of the Joint 
Planners clear. Moreover, even if the Joint Planners had made 
such a stipulation, it applied only to the 1979-80 school year 
and not to any subsequent year. 

The School Defendants do not propose to repeat the arguments 
they made in connection with the UFP appeal. Five years have 
elapsed since the 1979 UFP was filed. Three events have occurred 
during this period which made any resurrection of the 1979 
formula inappropriate and unwarranted. 

First, the Joint Planners more than complied with the 1979 
orders in connection with the 1980-81 UFP. Pursuant to that 
plan, the School Defendants eliminated more than half of the 
excess elementary seats, as computed in accordance with the 
Court's 1979 formula. Excess capacity which has developed after 
1981 must be judged in connection with the circumstances which 
have developed since then, and not by means of a formula developed 
to respond to quite different circumstances. 

Second, in 1981 this Court found that the School Defendants 
were acting in good faith. The School Defendants believe that 
nothing which has occurred since 1981 has caused the Court to 



283 



question that finding. The School Defendants' good faith in 
connection with student assignment matters has been confirmed in 
the past two years by the monitoring reports generated by the 
State Board. The Court's stated intent to withdraw from the case 
during the 1985 school year by itself v.'ould seem to confirm that 
the School Defendants' future conduct should not be evaluated in 
an atmosphere of suspicions voiced a half decade ago and based 
on conduct now a decade old. 

Whatever force the "half-empty schools" thesis may once have 
carried, it should not control the Court's approach today. 
Whatever opportunities for segregative manipulation "half-empty 
schools" may present, they are remedially irrelevant because the 
School Defendants acting in good faith will decline to exploit 
them. 

The third change since 1979 is the demographic one referred 
to above. The children of the "baby boom" generation are enter- 
ing the public schools. Elementary enrollment will increase in 
the years to come. It would be irresponsible educational plan- 
ning to fail to take this predictable expansion in enrollment 
into account when deciding about school closings. "Half empty 
schools" which are likely to fill again require different treat- 
ment. 

The First Circuit has clearly identified the approach this 

Court must take in considering the issue of school closings. 

The particular method or formula used to 
accomplish such closings, however, if devel- 
oped in good faith and in the absence of 
record evidence that desegregation would be 



284 



impaired,- may be an occasion for deferring to 
the local authorities' interest "in managing 
their own affairs." Mil liken v. Bradley , 
433 U.S. 280-81. Certainly, the district 
court should not overturn a good faith 
proposal merely on the speculation that it" 
might cause problems due to a "decline in the 
birthrate" and "proliferation of special 
programs." These are factors beyond anyone's 
ability to control and do not appear to be of 
constitutional moment. 

Morgan v. McDonough , 689 F.2d 265, 278 (1st Cir. 1982). The 
School Defendants, hopefully in conjunction with the City and 
State Defendants, expect to present a good faith proposal for 
eliminating the number of seats which they consider prudent in 
light of all relevant factors. Rigid adherence to a formula, 
developed five years ago, premised on a steady decline in elemen- 
tary enrollment, and justified only with reference to attitudes 
long past should not be required of local authorities in 1985. 

CONCLUSION 
For the reasons set forth in this memorandum and in the 
accompanying materials, this Court should rule that the School 
Defendants are not required to adhere to the Court's 1979 formulj 
regarding the elimination of "excess" elementary seats. 

Respectfully submitted, 
THE SCHOOL DEFENDANTS 
By their attorneys. 



Marshall Simonds, P.C. 
Henry C. Dinger 
GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR 
28 State Street 
Boston, MA 02109 
(617) 523-5700 



L128/Z 
1/10/85 



285 



^'- 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 

*************** 

* 

TALLULAH MORGAN, ET AL . , * 

* 

Plaintiffs, * 

* 

V. * CIVIL ACTION 

* NO. 72-911-G 

JOHN A. NUCCI, ET AL. , * 

* 

Defendants . * 
*************** 

FILING OF "EXCESS" SEAT CALCULATIOKS 

The School Defendants hereby file a calculation of the "excess 
seats" (as that term is used in this Court's order of August 15, 
1979), in the format employed by the Court in its order of January 4, 
1985. Representatives of the Joint Planners met on January 9, 1985 
to review these calculations. The School Defendants understand that 
the Joint Planners are in agreement regarding these calculations as 
of the date of the data on which they are based. 

EXCESS SEATS BY DISTRICT. 1984-85 



Dist. 


Capacity 


Enrollment 
(1/3/85) 


"Surplus" 


"Cushion" 


"Excess" 


1/2 


1 


5,366 


4,345 


1,021 


255 




766 


383 


2 


5,681 


4,685 


996 


249 




747 


374 


3 


6,489 


5,251 


1,738 


310 




928 


464 


4 


5,308 


4,431 


877 


219 




658 


329 


5 


9,992 


8,668 


1,324 


331 




993 


497 


6 


6,376 


5,401 


975 


244 




731 


366 


7 


6,106 


5,220 


886 


222 




664 


332 


8 


3.737 


3.135 


602 


151 




451 


226 


9 


18,182 


15,446 


2.736 


684 


2 


,052 


1,026 


TOTAL 


67,237 


56.582 


10,655 


2,664 


7 


.991 


3,996 



286 



-2- 

Excess Seats by Grade Level. 198A-85 

^T^^^^^ Capacity Enrollment " Surplus " " Cushion " " Excess " " 1/2 Excess ' 

K-5 32,342 27,528 A, 814 1,204 3,610 1,805 

6-8 13,429 10,642 2,787 697 2,090 1.045 

9-12 21.466 18,412 3,054 764 2,290 1.145 

67,237 56,582 10,655 2,664 7,991 3.996 

The differences between this chart and the Court's figures stem 
from the fact that the above capacities are taken from the 1984-85 
space matrix, and the above enrollments are as of January 3, 1985. 
In addition, the above figures do not include the special education 
centers (Carter, McKinley, Mllmore, Tileston and the Mann component 
of the Jackson-Mann). Finally, schools which straddle grade levels 
e.g., the examination schools, Umana, Tobin and McKay are treated as 
schools at the predominant grade level (e.g., exam schools as high 
schools; Tobin and McKay as elementary schools). 

Respectfully submitted, 

THE SCHOOL DEFENDANTS 

By their attorneys. 



Marshall Simonds, P.O. 
Henry/ C. Dinger 
GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR 
28 State Street 
Boston, MA 02109 



(617) 523-5700 



287 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 




BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

DEPARTMFNT OF IMPLEVE.MTATION 
John R. Coakley. Sen:or Officer 

January 10, I985 

MEMORANDUM 

TO; Robert R. Spi llane 

FROM: John R. Coakley yi!T^'^{ 

SUBJECT: 

Special Counsel have asked me to put to writing my views on the matter 
of computing school capacities and determining the relationship between 
capacities and school enrollments. This memorandum, therefore, relates 
to the recent Court Order Regarding Excess Seats (January k, I985). 

CALCULATIONS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENROLLHENTS AND CAPACITIES 

We have completed a series of tables showing the relationship between 
enrollments and capacities. Those tables show the relationship on a district- 
by-district basis at the elementary, middle and high school levels. They 
also compare enrollments and capacities - by district and by grade level - 
for the current school year, for I989-9O and for 199^-95- 

The Court Order of January k, I985 also directed us to provide an 
explanation for any differences between our calculations and those of the 
Court on page 3 of its Order. (I prefer not to characterize the Court's 
tables as erroneous. Rather, our calculations are based on the latest 
available space matrix and enrollment listing.) There follows an rixplanat ion; 

1. We used the Space Matrix of I98i*~85, and it appears 
that the Court used an earlier one which apparently 
the Joint Planners employed. 

2. We used the latest available enrollments of January 3, 
■ 1985, and the Court utilized a printout of December 6, 

198^ made available to it by this office. 

3. In my calculations of capacities and enrollments I ex- 
cluded the Special Education Centers: Carter, McKinley, 
Milmore, Tileston and the Mann component of the Jackson- 
Mann School. 



288 

'IS ti.'li';. 



Robert R. Spillane 2. January 10, I985 

k. In my calculations of capacities and enrollment 
I treated the following schools accordingly: 

Tobin K-8 = elementary 
McKay K-6 = elementary 

BLA = high 

BLS = high 
Umana = high 

In summary, there is no significant bottom-1 ine difference betv/een the 
Court's 198^-85 calculations and ours. There is, however, a significant 
difference in the results of the calculations on a district-by-district 
basis. The District 9 difference Is no doubt explained immediately above 
(see Items 3 and k) . However, the District 5, 6 and 8 differences probably 
highlight the philosophical disagreement between the Court and us regarding 
the Court's formula. 

ENROLLMENT TRENDS: LOCAL AND NATIONAL 



The Court has not at this juncture requested future capacities and 
enrollments. Respectfully, we feel obliged to portray enrollment trends 
over the next decade and the 1il<ely impact on facility utilization. It is 
Inconceivable that the Court which rightfully (and helpfully) has pressed 
for joint facility planning would really expect us to Ignore enrollment 
trends. Indeed, the Court received from us in our December filing on the 
Student Assignment Plan our five-year enrollment projections and our ten- 
year enrollment estimates. They seem to be an essential element of any 
ten-year facility plan. 

Our dilemma In dealing with facility utilization at this point in the 
history of the school system Is the changing nature of our enrollments: 

- our elementary school enrollments have begun 
to rise 

- our middle school enrollments are declining BUT 
will be rising by 1990 

- our high school enrollments are just now entering 
decline BUT they will be bottoming out by I99O and 
will be rising again in 199^. 



Kindly examine: 



198^-85 1989-90 199^-95 



15297 
10725 
30632 

5665^ 


I69AO 
11308 
30521 
58769 



High 18^12 

Middle I06i*2 

Elementary 27528 

TOTAL 56582 

From 1966 to I98I we have closed 9O schools and Innumerable portable 
classrooms. Actually, v;e have opened some 32 new buildings, so that our 



289 



Robert R. Spillane 3. ' January 10, I985 

net decline in school facilities has been 58. The poinl is, however, thaL 
the school closings have been related to an enrollment decline from approxi- 
mately 96,000 students to 55,000 students. Now, vie are entering a new 
phase in the constantly changing cycles of enrollment fluctuations. We 
must be cautious about school closings as we enter the next cycle. 

Beginning in 1977f the number of births to Boston residents began to 
increase for the first time in many, many years. Not only are there more 
children being born in the city, the number of births of 31ack and Other 
Minority children has risen to some 51^ of the total. These children in . 
the past have been much more likely to enroll in public than in private 
schools. 

Allow me to offer some excerpts from a study' done by my colleague, 
Robert Murray, as part of facility planning. According to the U. S. Census 
Bureau, significant change has taken place in the racial composition of 
the Boston population. For example: 

1970 1980 Change 

Black 10'»,707 126,229 +20.6? 
White 52^,709 393.937 -25.1% 
Hispanic 17,971 36,068 +100.7% 

During this same period, while the overall population of Boston was declining, 
and the numbers of persons in every age group was also decreasing, the number 
of persons in the 20-3A year age group increased dramatically and now represents 
almost k3% of the total population of Boston. Decisions that this age group 
will make about lifestyle and permanence of residence will have a major im- 
pact on the public service provided by the city including the public school 
system. 

HOUSING 



The U. S. Census Bureau estimates some 240,000 housing units in the 
City of Boston in I98O, up some 10,000 from 1970. Of these, 8-10% are now 
vacant. Policies on public housing and restoration and use of vacant units 
are not sufficiently determined at this time to make pupil projections 
based on use. The mean number of persons (2. A) per household in I98O is 
at an all-time low in Boston. It is not clear if this trend toward smaller 
households, perhaps due to some combination of f actors-^greater life longev- 
ity, delayed marriages, out-migration of couples with children, divorce, 
low fertility rates, etc. — will continue throughout the 1980's. 

PRIVATE/PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS 

Historically, a number of Boston residents have attended schools other 
than Boston Public Schools. In 1983-8'*, when the public school population 
was approximately 55,000, there were some 27,730 students attending private 
and parochial schools in and outside of the city. Thus, at least one in 
three students of school age in Boston does not attend a Boston public school 
And while the total number of students has been declining over the years, 
as have public school enrollments, the percentages of such students not 
attending Boston Public Schools is at its highest rate in recent history. 



290 



Robert R. Spillane k. January )0, I985 



Perhaps for the first time ever, during the J983-8'» school year, more 
white residents of Boston were in private or parochial schools (16,599) 
than were enrolled in Boston Public Schools (i5.700)- 

Given those and other factors affecting the long-range school enroll-' 
ments, it is difficult to project over a decade the collective impact of 
individual decisions, government policies and societal responses. None- 
theless, we believe there are indications that Boston school populations 
will mirror to some degree the national trends for school-age children. 
As reported in a recent projection of the Educational Researcli Service, 
the national school-age population, in decline from I98O {kj million) 
through I98A (^4 million), will slowly increase over the late 1980's to 
some ^5.1 million by the turn of the century. 

We in Boston, note the stabilization and recent increase in elementary 
school populations and anticipate that middle school enrollments will 
"bottom" out by I988, and begin to rise to I98O levels through the 1990's. 
We see high school populations declining slowly until the early I990's, 
but beginning to increase through the 1990's and return to I982 levels by 
the year 2000. In essence, the recent school enrollments in the years 
1980 through I983 are, with some projected increases at the elementary 
level, fair barometers of long-term enrollment figures and serve as a basis 
for long-range planning. 

It is also important to note other factors v/hich argue to more opti- 
mistic enrollment projections than those premised on historical birth and 
grade survival rates. They relate to educational improvement in the Boston 
Public Schools. As an example, the Boston Compact agreements with the 
Boston Public Schools have already given indication of increasing the hold- 
ing power of secondary schools at the upper-grade levels. Other initiatives, 
such as improved remedial programs at all levels, standard curriculum in all 
subject areas, effective school-based planning, a broader range of special- 
ized programs, promotional standards related to student achievement and 
attendance, emphasis on basic skills, proposed improvements in the assignment 
process, and collaborative efforts with the Boston community will also have 
a long-term potential of attracting and retaining students and of offering 
Incentives for them to complete their public school education. We propose 
as reasonable planning estimates the following grade-level populations: 

Projected Range 

(D.I. Projection) , ^ 

^ •' Long-Term 

Low High Planning 

Kg. I/I I 6,50A (1985) 8,^69 (I988) 8,1^00 

Elementary 20,819 (1985) 22,293 (1991) 22,300 

Middle 11,A17 (1987) 13,283 (1995) 13,300 

'illgh 13,^93 (1990) 16,079 (1985) 16,000 

Total 60,000 

V/e propose that long-range planning be directed not at the valley years at 
each organizational level, but at peak levels — lest Boston find itself, as 
have other communities in recent months, in the position of having a scarcity 
of school capacity just a few years after school plants have been shut down 
and diverted to other public and private sector use. 

291 



Robert R. Spillane 5. January 10, I985 



The Boston Public Schools plan to maintain a total school capacity 
based on approximate utilization rates of 85t at the high and middle schools 
and of 87^ at the elementary level. Applied to these long-range planning 
figures, the following are recommended capacities by school level: 

High Schools - 18,820 
Middle Schools - 15,6^7 
Elementary Schools - 31,200 

Sufficient schools must be retained to accom-nodate these capacities at each 
school level. (If I may add my own postscript to Bob's comments, the above 
capacities provide us with enough f lexibi 1 i ty to deal internal ly with any 
grade-level f luctuat ions . in enrollments. Also, please find attached a paper, 
prepared by the Educational Research Service, which supports our assessment 
of enrollment trend.) 

THE COURT FORMULA FOR EXCESS SEATS 

I have conveyed my views on the Court Formula to Special Counsel and It 
does not seem necessary to repeat my concerns in detai 1 . However, I will 
offer my views in general terms: 

1. The formula is a mathematical device, not unlike the Court's 
racial/ethnic percentage computations, which has the result 
of our always appearing to be out of compliance or progress. 
In reality, the formula points toward 100% utilization of 
schools despite its seemingly generous use of a "25^ cushion" 
and only a "50% of excess" reduction-demand. Thus the formula 
Is a device for capacity reduction; it is not a standard for 
determining the minimum or maximum relationship between enroll- 
ments and capacities at any point in time. 

2. The formula suddenly — in my opinion — has surfaced as a device 
for assessing middle and high school utilization. Its in- 
adequacy at the secondary level is more grievous than at 

the elementary level. Any school person who has had 
responsibility for "building" the program or schedule for 
a middle school or high school knows that significant 
"underuti I ization" (a poor word) is a necessary reality, 
particularly if that school is offering a wide range of 
courses and classes for its students. 

3. The formula at the high school level collides with the 
Court Order of 1975 mandating a K to 12 availability in 
every Community District. Implicitly, therefore, tjie formula 
seems to limit us to examining only District V witK its two 
high schools or District IX with its several high schools 
for facility reduction. 

k. The formula at any level does not seem to make sufficient 
tolerance for the unique capacity sub-sets in a school. 
Examine just one district, District I, for its enrollment 
sub-sets which require capacity sub-sets. 



292 



Robert R. SpMlane 6. January 10, 1985 

District I - Enrollments as of 1/3/83'^ 
Regular Voc.Ed AWC 



5^ 



Brighton 


628 


155 


Edison 


308 


_ 


Taft 


kk] 


- 


Baldwin 


1A8 


_ 


Farragut 


lAO 


- 


Gardner 


229 


• - 


Garfield 


160 


- 


Hami Iton 


128 


. 


Tobin 


336 


. 


Winship 


180 


- 



'2L 


SPED 


Bil. 


Total 


' 


li* 


201 


998 


_ 


16 


141 


519 


- 


2h 


68 


533 


-■ ■ 


_- ■ - 


114 


262 


35 


- 


- 


248 


38 


10 


117 


394 


25 


2A 




209 


- 


26 


156 


310 


22 


12 


127 


497 


- 


26 


98 


304 



73 



TOTAL 2698 155 127 120 152 1022 4274 

*These enrollments are taken from a "Budget" printout 
which gives no "staffing" credit to students assigned 
but not yet reported as attending. 

Compare the above enrollment analysis to the "bottom line" 
capacities on our charts 

Level Capacity 

Elementary = 2899 

Middle = 1267 

High = 1200 

Total ^ 5366 

It Is one thing to talk about "surplus," "cushion," "excess" and 
"1/2 of excess." However, a student seeking a tenth grade seat In regular 
education at Brighton High School cannot be assigned to the automotive 
program which may have vacancies or to a special education or bilingual 
education class. As a matter of fact, the above chart doesn't even reveal 
whether there Is space in the college course, vis-a-vis the general or 
business course. In grade ten at the school. ' .- 

IN DEFENSE OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM'S SCHOOL UTILIZATION RATIO 

I believe most school persons would employ a seemingly simple but 
effective measurement device for determining desirable or minimal facility 
needs. i . 

School Utilization Ratio = Enrollment Divided by Capacity, 

The value of such a formula Is that It enables a school system to set a 
standard and then periodically measure the system's effectiveness in attain- 
ing that standard. Incidentally, you and I were at a meeting last Fall 
wherein the Commissioner of Education, citing his former role of Superintendent 
of Schools In Lexington, employed an 80^ utilization ratio in closing schools 



293 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 




TALLULAH MORGAN, et al.. 
Plaintiffs 

V. 

RITA WALSH-TCMASINI, et ale 
Defendants 



C.A. 72~911"G 



STATE BOARD PILING ON CALCULATION OF EXCESS SEATS 



The present filing is made in response to the Court's 
Memorandum and Orders Regarding UFP and Excess Seats, entered on 
January 4, 1985. Those orders, inter alia , directed the joint 
UFP planners to file "complete and accurate calculations of 
current excess seats," together, if necessary, with "an 
explanatory memorandum explaining what they believe to be errors 
in the court's tentative calculation." 

In preparation for this filing, a meeting among 
representatives of the joint UFP planners was scheduled for - 
January 9, 1985. Prior to this meeting, staff of the 
Massachusetts Department of Education prepared calculations of 
current excess seats. These calculations indicated that the 
resulting number of excess seats would differ from the Court's 
calculation for two reasons: 

294 



1, Rather than use the May 30, 1984 Long Range Facilities 
Plan of the Department of Implementation as the source document - 
for current capacities, it was felt that the approved Space and 
Program Matrices for 1984-1985 contained more accurate capacity 
information; and 

2. The use of more recent enrollment data than the 
December 6, 1984 figures would inevitably pfpduce minor 
variations in results. 

At the meeting of January 9th, the Joint UFP planners agreed 
with the above reasoning. Based upon these considerations, and 
using January 2, 1985 enrollment data. School Defendants 
presented excess seat calculations that indicated a systemwide 
total of 10,655 "surplus seats," 7991 "excess seats/' and thus a 
"^excess seats" figure of 3996. School Defendants indicated 
their intention to file these figures in response to the Court's 
January 4th Orders. 

Figures prepared by Department of Education staff varied 
from those presented by School Defendants. Dpon inspection, two 
reasons for the variations were identified; 

1. Department of Education staff did not have January 2, 
1985 enrollment figures available, and had utilized earlier 
enrollment data; and 

2. Department of Education staff had apportioned capacities 
between appropriate grade levels for those few schools (e.g., 
Tobin, Umana) that enroll students at more than one grade level, 
while School Defendants had listed total capacity figures for 



295 



such schools at the predominant grade level (e.g., all Tobin 
seats are listed as elementary seats, all Uraana seats are listed 
as high school seats) . 

Given the de minimus nature of the above differences, and 
the potential added confusion that might arise from filing an 
additional set of figures, the State Board has chosen to join in 
that portion of School Defendants' filing that provides 
calculations in the format appearing at page 3 of the Court's 
January 4th Memorandum and Orders and yields a total figure of 
3996 of " ^^ Excess Seats." The State Board reserves the right 
to present arguments on "the impact of such excess capacity upon 
current and future facilities planning for the 1985-1986 school 
year and thereafter," and the need to include enrollment 
projections in any determination regarding school closings. 

Respectfully submitted. 



Robert H. Blumenthal, Esq. 
Counsel, State Board of 

Education 
1385 Hancock Street 
Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 
(617) 770-7315 



Robert H. Bohn, Jr., Esq. 
Gitlin, Emmer, Kaplan & Bohn 
160 Milk Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 02109 
(617) 451-6970 



DATE: January 10, 1985 



296 



95 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN, et al.. 

Plaintiffs] 



Civil Action No. 72-911-G 



V. 

JOHN A. NUCCI, et al. 



Defendants) 



PUBLIC FACILITIES DEPARTMENT'S CQIMENTS 
ON CURRENT EXCESS SEATS 

The Public Facilities Department reports that its 
representatives attended a meeting of the Joint Planners on 
January 9, 1985 at which the Joint Planners agreed that 
10,655 seats equals to current surplus seats, 7,991 seats 
equals to current excess seats and 3,996 seats equals 
one-half of the current excess seats. For the reasons 
stated in the filing of the State Board of Education, the 
Public Facilities Department believes these figures are more 
accurate than the figures reported in the court's January 4, 
1985 Memorandum and Order Regarding UFP and Excess Seats. 

The Public Facilities Department reserves its rights 
with regard to the relevance and impact of these excess 
seats on the desegregation of the Boston public schools. 



297 




<L.^teven P. PeiTlmutter 

Assistant Corporation Counspl 
City of Boston Law Department 
Room 615, City Hall 
Boston, Massachusetts 02201 
Phone: 725-4026 



298 



i/n'f.: 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 

TALLULAH MORGAN,' ET AL. , 

Plaintiffs, 

-vs- CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 72-91 1-e 

RITA WALSH-TOMASINI, ET AL. , 

Defendants. 



SCF/PLAINTIFFS' COMMENTS ON UNIFIED FACILITIES PLAN, EXCESS SEATS 

In its orders of January 3 and 4, 1985, the Court invited 
the parties to comment upon the submissions of the local 
defendants concerning revisions to < he student assignment plan, 
consolidation of community districts 3 and 4, progress report on 
Unified Facilities Plan, and excess seats as calculated by the 
Court's experts and/or the local defendants. 

On January 8, we submitted comments upon the proposed 
revisions to the student assignment plan and consolidation of 
community districts 3 and 4. Below, we comment on the Unified 
Facilities Plan progress report and on the issue of c?>;cess seats, 

I- Ibi IMPORTANCE OF FACILITY yULlZATION TO DESEGREGATION 

One of the more common bases for federal court findings of 

de jure segregation has been the deliberate manipulation of 

facilities for racial purposes. 

Such manipulation may take, many forms: deliberate siting of 

buildings or additions to contain children of opposite races from 



299 



attending the same schools; dE?l i berately maintaining under- 
utilization in schools attended primarily by school children of 
one race, while deliberately maintaining overcrowding in similar 
schools attended by children o-f opposite racial or ethnic groups; 
eliminating school buildings in non-white neighborhoods to 
guarantee that white children will not have to attend schools in 
these neighborhoods, even though a disproportionate burden of 
movement is thereby placed on non-white children to get to 
school; removing classrooms from service as a means of 
preventing the availability of these classrooms for attendance by 
opposite racE children; building portable classrooms as means of 
racial containment; conversion of facilities from one to another 
grade configuration as a means of preventing multi-racial utili- 
sation. 

These techniques, used alone or i n concert with gerrymandet — 
ing of attendance boundaries and manipulation of grade structures 
and feeder patterns, have usually proved as adequate a way to put 
a permanent mark of racial separation upon the school buildings 
of a district as if the words "white" and "black" were etched 
above the doors. 

In its 1974 findings of liability, this Court documented and 
•found many of these techniques to have been used in this case by 
the local school defendants, leading the Court to have great 
concern that racial segregation not recur through this means. 

We believe the Court's legitimate and well-founded fear of 
such deliberate segregative manipulation of facilities provided 
the basis for its repeated d'fforts to obtain comprehensive, 
coherent and credible data and plans from the school defendants 



300 



on facility utilization- The 1975, 1977, 1979, 1982 and 1934 
orders of the Court addressing unified facilities utilization 
have each been, essentially, ignored by the school defendants. 
It is our belief that the combined affect of the recent submis- 
sions on excess seats and unified facilities continue the pattern 
by which the local defendants have refused to address this criti- 
cal issue in accordance with either the facts of this case or the 
law of the land. 

II- EXCESS SEAIS 

The Court's January 4, 1985 msmorandum and order contained 
preliminary calculations of excess ssats by district, to which 
the school defendants alternatively responded on January 10, 
1985. 

The Court's preliminary estimates concluded that there were 
a total of 4,259 excess seats, based on current enrollment and 
building capacities. 

While the school defendants devote a great deal of time and 
space to a passionate rejection of the Court's methodology and 
presentation of an alternative methodology, they conclude that 
there are 3,997 excess seats, a difference of 262 from the 
Court's own calculations. There are some major differences in 
where the Court and defendants say the excess seats are located. 

The school defendants identify 1 , 026 excess seats in Dis- 
trict IX, while the Court's estimates located only 647 such 
seats. The Court located 744 excess seats in District V, while 
the school defendants identified only 497 such seats. 

Of greater moment than the mere numbers characterizing the 



301 



di-f f erences, however, are the implications of the different ap- 
proach sought to be used by the school defendants. Without 
providing any particularly strong basis, the school defendants 
have concluded that the proper approach is one which aims at a 
utilization rate of 87V. at the elementary, 85"/. at the middle, and 
857. at the senior high levels. The defendants justify the 
utilization rate approach by reference to shifting demography, 
and projections of student births which they believe indicate 
substantial growth from the "baby boom" period. They also assert 
that the Court's approval of the 1980-81 UFP represented specific 
approval of the proposed approach, since a similar approach was 
used to meet the terms of the 1979 orders. Moreover, they con- 
tend that the Court's conclusion in 1981 that the school defen- 
dants had acted in good faith was signi.f icant , since people who 
act in good faith are not likely to engage in racially segrega- 
tive facility manipulations. 

In short, the school defendants argue that both demographic 
changes and the Court's own prior rulings have rendered the 1979 
formula for calculating excess seats obsolete. The Court's ap- 
proach is criticized as being arbitrary, as failing to take 
population and enrollment changes into account, and as requiring 
virtual year — by-year capacity reductions even if the enrollment 
remains constant. 

Even if one adopts all of the school defendants' rationale 
for the approach to be used, one would still have to conclude 
that the combined impact of their excess seat calculations and 
their UFP presentation fails to- comply with the clear and persis- 



302 



tent orders o-f this Court. This is so because the purpose o-f 
calculating excess seats is to use the results in assisting in 
the making of facility decisions. 

If one takes the 3,997 excess seats concluded by the schoo] 
defendants as the safe figure to use, neither their original vote 
to eliminate 1,000 seats nor their more recent decision to reduce 
by 2,000 seats rises to the level of their own analysis. Both 
seem to prejudge the community meetings which seem to occupy such 
political importance for these defendants. Both seem to ignore 
the presentations which have been made about which buildings need 
what repairs in what years. There is no demonstrable evidence 
that desegregation was even one of the factors taken into account 
in reaching either conclwtsion. 

To the extent desegregation considerations were present in 
the excess seat deliberations of the defendants, they were not 
particularly expressed in the submissions. It is not possible to 
tell, for instance, how the particular level of reduction being 
contemplated would maintain or enhance desegregation. Nor is it 
clear how the defendants will prevent such school closings as 
they apparently contemplate from impeding desegregation. 

One is left with the feeling that maintaining the status quo 
has been given a far higher priority than desegregation planning. 
No thought, for instance, appears to have been given to the 
deliberate use of under — utilised buildings as a desegregation 
device, one which might attract students because of lower pupil - 
teacher ratios than pertain elsewhere. No thought seems to have 
been given to the use of underruti 1 i^ed buildings for an expan- 
sion of the extended-day programs which might serve to attract 



303 



children -from families in which both parents work. Other school 
systems have tried such approaches with some success. No evi- 
dence exists that the annual lists o-f student choices for magnet 
schools have been used to designate particular buildings for 
desegregati ve programmatic purposes. 

III. IHE UNIFIED FACILIJIES REPORT 

The program is one which will cost $69,700,000.00 over the 
next 8 years: 

— $35, ©€'0, 000 is to come from special bonds approved by the 
City Council to be used for constructing a new Boston Latin 
Academy on Ave Louis Pasteur. 

— The City has apparently agreed to provide $30,000,000 for 
the major alterations of some 115 buildings over the next 8 
years. 

— An additional $3,000,000 is to be used to renovate White 
Stadium. 

— $1,700,000 is to be used for certain renovations to the 
Central -Kitchen. 

The assumption is that the money for White Stadium and the 
Central Kitchen will come from the regular repair and maintenance 
budget, unless some state money appears that is net yet in sight. 
Yet, the White Stadium and Central Kitchen renovations are among 
the first to take place. 

Since no list of schools to be closed has yet been devel- 
oped, it is quite likely that much of the money included in the 
$30,000,000 for the 115 school's will never bt? spent, once these 



304 



< schools have been identified. 

The alterations listed appear to be reasonable, per se, but 
it is not possible to determine the extent to which any o-f these 
modi -fi cations will have positive or negative impact on desegrega- 
tion, since this subject is pointedly not discussed in the 
submi ssion. 

Without having more information on how these proposed alter — 
at ions will impact desegregation, this Court is put in a very 
di-f-ficult position. The kind o-f submission which has been made 
would, perhaps, be appropriate as one to state officials who have 
plenary authority over public education, but is inadequate as one 
•Co a federal Court which sits in equity to repair constitutional 
violations, leading to a unitary systsmM 

At such time as the school defendants have supplemented 
their filing with the names of any school's to be closed, along 
with the accompanying boundary changes and reassi gnments, it will 
be possible to make more precise comments in a full context not 
now present. 

Resjaectf ul ly submitted, 

Thomas I. Atkins 

135 Eastern Parkway, # 11-B-l 

Brooklyn, N.Y. 11238 

(718) 63S-4153 



Counsel for Plaintiffs 
"CERTIFICATE~DF~SERVICE 



I, THOMAS I. ATKINS, do hereby certify that a copy of the 
foregoing COMMENTS ON UFP AND EXCESS SEATS was hand-delivered thi 
14th day of January, 1985 to aril counsel of record. 



Bij to arii counsel ot reco 
THOMAS I. AThONS 



305 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN ET AL . , 

Plaintiffs, 

CIVIL ACTION 
V. NO. 72-911-G 



RITA WALSH-TOMASINI ET AL. , 
Defendants . 



TRANSMITTAL OF COURT EXPERT'S MEMORANDA 
January 18, 1985 
GARRITY, J. 

The court's continuing discussions regarding facilities 
planning with court expert Robert A. Dentler led the court to ask 
him to reduce to v;riting a tentative application of the seat 
utilization rate analysis (explained in the school defendants' 
memorandum filed January 10, 1985 regarding elimination of excess 
seats) to current school capacities and enrollments; and his 
analysis of the situation in Districts 4 and 5, its impact on 
plaintiffs' rights and suggestions for rectification. Dr. 
Dentler 's memoranda are enclosed herev;ith and submitted to the 
parties for their consideration in planning facilities 
utilization and preparing for the next scheduled hearing in these 
proceedings on January 30, 1985 at 2:00 p.m. 



nited States "t)istryrt,'yjuGge 



306 



/^^^^*r;-^*-^ .. - _. jL>»<Jt^/J^,JfrS' 



. . ^<:<M4 0«aj^ _ . 

^ --^^ ^^ 

-^^SCA/^'. C ^ ^f,i<f*^_ 2^<:^^**« /h<>^*^*4^ a*:^ Z^ -s:^»»^/*<:'«*<j 



307 



,^^^ ^'^=^^** xStt^tf /■/CW/<&«./'/'>f-y^<r >^<»;«^ aAi^ XAa e<rctJi /• ♦»*. 
(iS'c^t?*^ ..s^i^^^so _^^Zs£?. .£:iJ«£iC2' ^ :tAa Z>X J2^ais^f^^2^^Jt^'*^'^ 

^1^^ <?w^ /Uii>»*> /^^ut^i\t« A^'^ A'^'^^9*^-'^J^^ P^^J^:*^.*^*^*^ 

Ccrr/r ^e^U^a**t ^OOA^ c^MAT^a^/ Cl4^i^cz:^_,e^ps-^f^_/eii^4^ 

7'4^^ X< a^// ^tir^ dy //0% _ Aj_€AoJi.yejaj^ ^''**^ /^^<i CA^o^j 
/99o a<t<f u^W-Ht^ ^¥a.^'£*j^» . . . 

aU*u€^ r^^ /y<r«'- //rf ;2w^^«*f, i^f'yk ^^^/f -fl^/^^t-**^ 



308 



- t7^Ae<:^.^7o'^o /^ 'SS'7* ^^t^S*- ^ ^^ aci^o^ , 



309 



-•y 



-e^i^^C ^ciiA/^/-^ 

^if^^iff^iU^ ^^i? /t^ < -21^ J^^>^.:7^i1»<'' . . 

.'<Uj<ta//, a<^<^ z:/^ _>3y^-»«^ <^ ^//jca- ^^^^^^^^ ^ 

. ... ^^z<^ z^^,^ I [^ . _. ' 

.^, ,. ^e.ex>^^4yi«€.MXCz^'>'i*r<i , .' - '. 



310 



.r- 



y^'^Y"'^ C^i^^ ^^**^^<^Zf^ T^a^c^^^'i .*cA/yL_caM^'*<;^_ • 



311 



.. (Or B«5-rot^ ^^k<^ ScH^cLf', j?^r-:L_'f?f?r ._ 



)h^ 


^-Xi^ui^' 










^/i^xr 


f^ooTi ^ 


i7J23 3Zfii .^ 


y/.me 
y/\m. 


iXSS.l_._ 

/3343_. 
iss-f? 




.73... 
.7/_. 
..7J _ 

-7/ _ 






y/m<> 


/ZV/J /iJ4oO .<fr 


Z^^J** .^Zlto '?? 


v/ii-^i. 


iilfS- li^ Jz 


afz<i7 3ZH^ '% 















^A., 
^ 



;^//4. -r^A'^''--^ fi^.^j'Y.m.'^.'ic^^a J^^Us"*. 



/^/.r; cz^«/ .<^-rj^/_.v^4'_ ■ .1 



312 



y ^(^^ 



i/a^M.n^^ /6^ '?i'S~ 



a C^^r/iA/ />irfi^/£^ U^'cJ^ Zi!Ue^^^<s**^ zi^^ ^^*ycM-«, 
Z^/^^4U^ /^yf C2^iZ^t>*fo ^'H^r'c^a :z4e^ '^<n<n 



313 



/^rya^/e ScXoa^ dZ^af :2;^ "^y ^"^ .^^Le-z:^ //<^^^»^««i^ 

d^y^/c:^^ ~p:e4^ <2 y^y^f^/La.*€Z y*fc^y*^6<JuJj~ ^ciHrcJ&S~ 

^c^afc^Uji ^Sf< y^' ^- '^^-l^j ^^^-^ ^u^a^^je. -e**^»^ <?^ 
^,<U^/^/£cc^ ya^£i»^4^ -a^^^a^ <j7>4€<u-«- — ^^a^^^^^y^ "zsfe 



31' 



^ Z^e cJ:^ia~ ^^<i?c/C ^r^c/.e^*iy- /l^/«a^^>^' 

-Z&^fe. ^^:^e*c. y<ia^ .^i* 7xz^ /^*2* a^!tn^ a.J^/f^ ^ .^ 
yt£4^au^ ¥o % £*^rVe. ^ ^i£j/df^e.4c<f y^/c^cf^c^^^ Jen. a^ 



€i*<^c^. ^tf^o^ /hif.a^r^y,a ^r/'^ ^^ A/yc/ii /^f<r a^^^c^ 
t^if j:uj^/^ a^ a. yf*r/af^^e y<3c^>c^i:i<. ^£/e/a/>^ ^e^oe 



315 



-V- 









316 



l/l'-f-'f' 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'] 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN, et al. , 

Plaintiffs 



JOHN A. NUCCI, et al., 

Defendants 



Civil Action No. 72-911-G 



CITY DEFENDANTS C0I4MENTS ON THE STATUS OF 
THE UNIFIED FACILITIES PLAN NEGOTIATIONS 

The City Defendants agree with the School Defendants 

and State Board of Education that substantial progress has 

been made in past weeks on the Unified Facilities Plan 

(UFP) . However, the City Defendants wish to raise the 

following points about the construction and renovation 

component of the UFP: 

1. As part of their responsibilities as local elected 
governmental officials, the City Defendants are commit- 
ted to maintaining necessary school facilities; 

2. On account of this commitment, the City Defendants have 
been negotiating with the School Defendants and the 
State Board in order to reach a voluntary agreement 
about the construction and renovation of school facili- 
ties over approximately the next decade; 

3. The "draft" plan submitted to the court as part of the 
School Defendants filing on or about December 20, 1984 
has not been finally agreed to by the City Defendants 
in any respect. It is merely a draft. 

317 



4. The City Defendants are opposed to any court order on 
the construction and renovation of school facilities. 
In this regard, the City Defendants believe that the 
court lacks the jurisdiction and authority to enter 
such an order. 

5. However, since the Joint Planners are working toward a 
voluntary plan, the City Defendants believe and hope 
that there will be no need to litigate the issues of 
the court's jurisdiction and authority in this area. 

6. Furthermore, the City Defendants, under the leadership 
and vigilance of the Mayor, are committed to ensuring 
that school facilities will not be used as a means to 
frustrate an integrated education in the Boston public 
schools. This commitment from responsible local 
officials should also make it unnecessary to litigate 
the extent of the court's jurisdiction and authority to 
order the construction and renovation of school 
facilities in the context of this case. 

7. , As the court observed during the hearing on January 14, 

1985, the City of Boston is facing a financial crisis. 

In light of the city's uncertain financial footing, the 

following conditions must be met in order for the City 

Defendants to finance a construction and renovation 

plan: 

a. The city must receive 90% reimbursement from the 

State Board for each project undertaken pursuant 

to the plan; 



318 



b. The city's bond rating must permit it to prudently 
borrow the funds needed to finance the plan. 

c. The City Defendants must be able to obtain the 
necessary loan orders for the plan„ 




Jteven P. ''Peflmutter 
Assistant Corporation Counsel 
City of Boston Law Department 
Room 615, City Hall 
Boston, Massachusetts 02201 
Phone: 725-4026 



319 




The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 

1385 Hancock Street, Ouincy. Massachusetts 02169 

January 25, 1985 



Stephen A. Moynahan, Jr., Esq. 

Deputy Clerk 

U.S. District Court, 

1525 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 



Morgan v. Nucci 
C.A. 72-9H-G 



Dear Mr, Moynahan: 

Enclosed please find for filing in the above action the 
State Board's Reply to City Defendants' Conunents on Unified 
Facilities Plan Negotiations and State Board Plans for Future 
Monitoring. 

Thank you. 




Rpbett H. /Baumenthal, Esq. 
Counsel, State Board of 
Education 



RHB/kal 

Enclosures: 

cc: Parties of Record 



320 



'•UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN, et al.. 
Plaintiffs 

V. 

JOHN A. NUCCI, et al. 

Defendants 



C.A. 72-911-G 



STATE BOARD'S REPLY TO CITY DEFENDANTS' CCI-LMENTS 
ON UNIFIED FACILITIES PLAN NEGOTIATIONS 



in accordance with procedural orders entered by this Court 
on January 3, 1985, the Massachusetts Board of Education ("the 
State Board") hereby replies to City Defendants' Comments on the 
Status of the Unified Facilities Plan Negotiations, filed on 

January 16, 1985. 

The "state Board joins City Defendants in the hope, expressed 
at paragraph (5) of their Comiaents, that voluntary agreement can 
be reached among the Joint Planners. To this end. represen- 
tatives of the Joint Planners have continued to meet at least 
once a week. Progress continues to be made, and the State Board 
trusts that further agreement can be achieved before the filing 
deadline established by the Court in its Memorandum and Orders 
regarding UFP and Excess Seats, entered on January 4, 1985. 



321 



At the same time, the State Board must take exception to the 
"condition", described at paragraph (7) (a) of City Defendants' 
filing, that "the city must receive 90% reimbursement from the 
State Board for each project undertaken pursuant to the [Unified 
Facilities] plan." There are two reasons why this condition must 
be challenged. 

First, as enumerated at pages 4-5 of the State Board's 
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Modify Order to File Unified 
Facilities Plan, dated December 20, 1984, a variety of issues are 
under discussion currently-by the Joint Planners. Some of these 
issues involve costs for which state reimbursement is not 
available. To allow facilities planning to be determined only by 
the availability of state reimbursement is an unacceptable 
susbstitute for the comprehensive analysis and prioritizing of 
facilities needs that the current planning effort requires. 

Further, those projects that are eligible for state 
assistance must satisfy the requirements of Massachusetts law in 
order to be eligible for maximum reimbursement. In this regard, 
the State Board notes Massachusetts Acts of 1984, Chapter 394, 
Section 5, approved by the Massachusetts General Court on 
December 27, 1984. This section amends Massachusetts Geperal 
Laws, Chapter 15, Section II, to read in relevant part as 
follov;s: 



The board shall . . . approve grants 
for schoolhouse construction of 
ninety percent of the approved costs 



322 



whenever the board is satisfied that 
the acquisition, construction, 
enlargement, renovation, 
reconstruction, rehabilitation, or 
modernization of a schoolhouse is 
for the purpose of reducing or 
eliminating racial imbalance as 
provided by [M.G.L. c.71] section 
thirty-seven D or imbalance of 
minority students, as defined in 
regulations promulgated under the 
federal Emergency School Aid Act, 
Title VII of Public Law 92-318; and 
the commonwealth shall, subject to 
appropriation and upon the approval 
of the board, pay to a city . . . 
ninety percent of the cost of other 
measures, except transportation . . . 
employed by a school committee 
thereof ... to provide places for 
pupils for the purpose of reducing 
or eliminating racial imbal- 
ance . . .or imbalance of minority 
students .... 

As the statute makes clear, the State Board must be satisfied 

that a specific project "is for the purpose of reducing or 

eliminating racial imbalance ... or imbalance of minority 

students." In the context of the present litigation, this 

requirement means that the State Board must be satisfied that a 

specific project enhances desegregation. While it has been the 

State Board's assumption that most if not all projects eligible 

for state assistance and ultimately included in the UFP will meet 

this criterion, the State Board does not intend to reach such a 

sweeping conclusion at this time. Each project shall be 

considered on its individual merits and its specific contribution 

to the remedy in this case. 



323 



The State Board intends to continue addressing the above 
issues in its facilities planning efforts with City and School 
Defendants. The previous coiaments of City Defendants conpel the 
State Board to articulate its position on the record, hov/ever, so 
that the Court and the other parties will not be nisled regarding 
the financial cocunitments required to support an appropriate 
facilities plan for the Boston Public Schools. 



DATE: January 25, 1985 




Robert H. 'BlMftenthal, Esq. 
Counsel, State Board of 

Education 
1385 Hancock Street 
Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 
(617) 770-7315 



Robert H. Bohn, Jr., Esq. 
Gitlin, Eituner, Kaplan & Bohn 
160 Milk Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 02109 
(617) 451-6970 



324 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT 0? ■•L-'-SSACHuSETTS 



**************** 

* 

TALLULAH MORGAN, ET AL. , * 

* 

Plaintiffs, * 

* 

V. * CIVIL ACTION 

* NO. 72-911-G 
JOHN A. NUCCI, ET AL., * 

* 

Defendants. * 
« * 



SCHOOL DEFENDANTS' REPORT ON SCHOOL 
CLOSINGS FOR 1985-86 



In its meeting on January 29, 1985, the School Conmittee 
voted to approve the follov/ing facility closings. The capacity! ' 
of each facility is noted in parentheses, 

1. The Faneuil School, which houses the Boston 
Preparatory Program and the Another Course to 
College Program. (4 00 seats) 

2. The Michelangelo Middle School in District 7 
(330 seats) 

3. The Cheverus Middle and Kindergarten School in 
District 8 (242 seats) , 

4. The Hemcnway Elementary School in District 4 
(180 seats) . 

5. The Lyndon Elementary School in District 3 (192 seats) 

The School Committee also approved the closing of facilities 



325 



-2- 
in which the district offices for districts 1, 3 awl 5 are cur- 
rently located. These offices v.'ill be relocated in a nurriaer 
of middle schools for a net reduction of 300 to 450 seats. 

The School Committee remains of the view that the Umana 
High School program should be consolidated with that of Boston 
Technical High School and the Umana should become a district 
eight middle school with a magnet component. Accordingly, the 
Committee has directed counsel to seek reconsideration of the 
Court's January 16, 1985 oral ruling. If the Court removes its 
prohibition against the proposed reutilization of Umana, the 
School Defendants will also act on closing the Barnes School 
(679 seats) . This will result in a net reduction of 570 high 
school seats. 

The School Department staff are preparing recorrjnendationsi- 
for the School Committee regarding other proposals which may, 
when implemented, further reduce systemwide capacity. Some of 
these proposals — e.g. relocation of the Hernandez School 
program and its program to a larger elementary school — have 
already been approved in concept by the School Committee. Others 
e.g. conversion of some schools in districts 4 and 5 to citywide 
magnet schools — appeared in Dr. Dentler's memoranda. The 
School Defendants will submit any further proposals as soon as 
the School Committee takes action on them. 

Respectfully submitted, 
THE SCHOOL DEFENDANJIIS 
By ^JB^oar attorr 




£ 



aTshall SimoHds, V.C. 

Ilcnry C. Dinner 

COODKIK, PKOCTER L HOAK 

326 -"> ^'t.u.- :-tvoct 



Greater Boston Regional Education Center 

Jy\ The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
JIJ Department of Education 

27 Cedar Street, Wellesley, Massachusetts 02181 431-7825 

February 11, 1985 
Mr. Michael Smith 
City of Boston 
Public Facilities Department 
26 Court Street, 6th Floor 
Boston, MA 02108 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

This letter is in response to my review of materials that you again submitted 
to this office as a part of the application procedure for state construction 
grant assistance regarding upgrading of heating systems in the Dearborn, Hyde 
Park High, Wheatley and Boston Technical High Schools. 

The materials received on February 1, 1985, include many improvements in 
development of complete, approvable applications for the four schools. 

The blueprints for the Wheatley School are complete construction drawings; 
they bear the stamp and seal of the engineer who developed them. They are 
ready for the bid procedure. Blueprints, complete in accordance with these 
standards are needed in order to complete applications for the Dearborn, Hyde 
Park High and Boston Technical High Schools. 

Please note that PROGRESS PRINTS are interim prints and do not represent the 
complete proposal to this office. Page 2 of the REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE 
SCHOOL BUILDING ASSISTANCE ACT, CHAPTER 645 OF THE ACTS OF 1948 AS AMENDED 
explains the necessity of the architect or engineer's seal and signature on 
either preliminary plans or final working drawings submitted as a part of an 
application. Last, but not least, the requests made in this letter are made 
of every application submitted to the School Building Assistance Bureau. The 
Boston Office of Public Facilities has been following these procedures for 
years . 

The bid specifications, like the blueprints noted above, are in need of seals 
and signatures of the architect or engineer who developed them in the case ot 
each of the four schools. They should be combined i'l one package exactly as 
they are when going out to bid. 

The updated energy conservation calculations indicate improved energy 
conservation at an approvable level for each of the four schools. 

The energy technical audits, each bearing the seal and signature of the 
engineer, are complete and approvable. 



327 



Mr. Michael Smith 
City of Boston 
Page 2 



William J. Curley, Head Administrative Assistant of the School Building 
Assistance Bureau notes that the certified funding votes for the four 
construction proposals are approvable; the total amounts of the. financial 
forms (page 4) for the Dearborn and Technical High Schools have been 
interchanged on the City Auditor's Certification that a total of $1,757,678 
has been earmarked for these proposals. This total amount exactly covers the 
total costs. It is noticeable that there is no leeway for change orders or 
other contingencies in this total amount. 

The School Building Assistance Bureau accepts applications on forms printed on 
paper of a designated color and distributed, free, to each applicant. 
Included herewith are four sets of blank forms; also included is enough yellow 
paper to xerox the forms you submitted onto paper of the correct color at a 
minimum of time and labor to your staff. In this way, the work will not have 
to be re-typed and signed. 

The seal and signature of the Affidavit of Regulatory Compliance means that 
the work to be completed as a part of the proposal is in accordance with code 
requirements and there is no conflict of interest involved. This form signed 
and sealed does not substitute for the required seal and signature on 
documents such as plans, bid specifications and energy calculations. 

The school code number has not been filled in on the first page of the 
applications; please examine each application carefully to ensure that all 
information has been furnished. 

Please do not hesitate to call me regarding any further information needed. 

Very truly yours , 

S'amuel P. Pike 

School Building Assistance Bureau 

SPP:ed 

cc: Marlene Godfrey, Director, Greater Boston Regional Center 
David Jones, Associate Commissioner 
John Calabro, Administrator, School Building Assistance Bureau 



321 




The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 

1385 Hancock Street, Quincy. Massachusetts 02169 

March 1, 1985 



Stephen A. Moynahan, Jr., Esq. 

Deputy Clerk 

U.S. District Court 

1525 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 



Morgan v. Nucci 
C.A. 72-911-G 



Dear Mr. Moynahan: 

Enclosed please find for filing by the State Board in the 
above action Motion to Modify Bench Order of February 5, 1985. 

Thank you. 





Robert H. Blumenthal, Esq 
Counsel, State Board of 
Education 



RHB/kal 

Enclosures: 

cc : Parties of Record 



329 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN, et al.. 
Plaintiffs 

V. 

JOHN A. NUCCI, et al. 

Defendants 



C.A. 72-911-G 



MOTION TO MODIFY BENCH ORDER OF 
FEBRUARY 5, 1985 



The Massachusetts Board of Education ("the State Board") 
moves this Court to modify its Bench Order of February 5, 1985, 
reiterated at footnote 2, page nine of its Orders of February 20, 
1985, which established a filing date of March 15, 1985 for the 
Unified Facilities Plan. The State Board moves that said Unified 
Facilities Plan filing date be amended to March 25, 1985. 

In support thereof, and in accordance with Section VI of the 
December 23, 1982 Orders of Disengagement: 

(A) The proposed modification has been presented to counsel 
for the Original Parties and the Executive Director of the CPC, 



330 



all of whom have indicated that the proposed modification is 
unobjectionable. 

(B) (1) The proposed modification, which seeks to allow 10 
extra days for the filing of the Unified Facilities Plan, is 
intended to permit more effective coordination between the 
business schedule of the State Board and the ongoing negotiations 
of the Joint Planners. Under the current deadline of March 15, a 
final agreement must be reached prior to the State Board's next 
scheduled meeting, which shall occur on March 20, 1985. This 
meeting has already been rescheduled once, and it would be 
extremely difficult to bring the State Board together earlier in 
March to consider any agreements that representatives of the 
Joint Planners may reach. 

By moving the filing deadline to March 25, the State Board 
will have a sufficient opportunity to fully evaluate proposals 
currently under discussion. These proposals, which contain inter 
alia a renovation schedule for all currently operating school 
buildings, and which require extensive financial commitments on 
the part of both City Defendants and the State Board, require a 
detailed analysis and discussion that the State Board intends 
to undertake at its March 20 meeting. A March 25 filing 
deadline will also allow time for representatives of the Joint 
Planners to address any concerns that might arise during the 
State Board's consideration of the proposals. 



331 



(B) (2-5) The proposed modification is complete, has no 
impact upon the educational rights of minority students, is ripe 
for hearing and decision, is not inconsistent with relevant law 
and court decisions, and is filed in a timely manner. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MASSACHUSETTS BOARD AND 
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION 



DATE: March 1, 1985 




RoHert H. Blumenthal, Esq. 
Counsel, State Board of 

Education 
1385 Hancock Street 
Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 
(617) 770-7315 

Joan Entmacher / 
Assistant Attorney General 
Department of the Attorney General 
One Ashburton Place - Room 1902 
Boston, Massachusetts 02108 
(617) 727-1090 



332 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that service of the attached document was 
made on all parties to this action by mailing or hand-delivering 
copies of the same to all counsel listed below: 



Laurence Fordham, Esq. 
Foley, Hoag & Eliot 
One Post Office Square 
Boston, MA 02109 



James T. Grady, Esq. 
Grady, Dumont & Dwyer 
75 Federal Street 
Boston, MA 02110 



Steven P. Perlmutter, Esq. 
City of Boston Law Department 
City Hall, Room 615 
Boston, MA 02201 



Marshall Simonds, Esq. 
Goodwin, Proctor & Hoar 
60 State Street 
Boston, MA 02109 



Center for Law & Education 
Gutman Library 
6 Appian Way 
Cambridge, MA 02138 

Richard W. Coleman, Esq. 
Segal, Roitman & Coleman 
11 Beacon Street 
Boston, MA 02108 

Caroline B. Playter, Esq. 
Kehoe, Doyle, Playter, Novick 

& Strimaitis 
Nine Hamilton Place 
Boston, MA 02108 

Michael J. Betcher 
General Counsel 
Boston Public Schools 
26 Court Street 
Boston, MA 02108 

Martin Walsh 

Community Relations Service 

Department of Justice 

89 Broad Street - Room 1116 

Boston, MA 02110 



Shirley Burke 

Department of Implementation 

Boston Public Schools 

26 Court Street 

Boston, MA 02108 

Lucille Koch, Executive Director 
Citywide Parents' Council 
59 Temple Place 
Boston, MA 02111 

Kenneth Kimerling 

Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

& Education Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
14th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 



Thomas I. Atkins 

135 Eastern Parkway #11-B-1 

Brooklyn, New York 11238 

Nancy Gertner, Esq. 
Silverglate, Gertner, Baker 

& Fine 
88 Broad Street 

iston, MA/<12210 




umental 



DATE: March 1, 1985 



333 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 




BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 
ROBERT R SPILL/^NE 



March 13, 1985 



Dr. John lawson 
Catmissioner of Education 
Massachusetts Department of Education 
1385 Hancock Street 
Quincy, MA 02169 

Dear Camiissioner Lawson: 

I am pleased to submit the response of the Boston Public Schools to 
the Board of Education's Monitoring Report No. 4, dated February 1, 1985. 
Our response addresses all monitoring report areas except Student Assign- 
ments, Special Desegregation Measures and Transportation. We believe it 
more iirportant that the Departmait of Inplementation concentrate its time 
and staff resources at this time on planning for 1985-1986. Ke further 
are of the opinion that Department of Education staff are not unaware of 
affirmative measures that have been taken by the School Department and 
its Department of Inplenentation to address concerns in the three areas. 
Nonetheless, the Department of Inplenentation will do its best to prepare 
a formal response in the near future. 

This most recent of the monitoring reports, we believe it fair to 
conclude, points to the progress and further irrprovement we have made in 
our conpliance efforts. Additionally, implicit in the findings, recon- 
mendations and conclusions is evidence of the serious conplexity of many 
of the outstandina issues. It is innportant, therefore, that cooperation, 
understanding and sensitivity be guiding principles as we strive tcrmain-^ 
tain and even increase our momentum to^^rard further ccnpliance with the 
court order. ^ 

It continues to be our hope that the court will see fit to disengage 
itself from the Boston Public Schools and that, consequently, there will 
be no need for additional monitoring reports. The energies and time of 
staffs fron both our departments, I'm certain you will agree, vrould be\ 
better spent on program development, direct services and student suppori: 
activities. 



RRSrls 
Enc. 




334 

?r, COiiRTSrRFkT BOSTON WAS:VV,H.US-:'TG0?10T • 726 63C-I ARFA Gl" 



RESPONSE TO MCWnORING REPORT NO. 4 
(FEBRUARY 1, 1985) 



BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 



RDBERT R. SPILLANE 
SUPERIiniM)EMr CF SCHOOLS 



^lARCH 13, 1985 



335 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION 1 1 

BILINGUAL EDUCATION 2 

VOCATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION 4 

SCHOOL FACILITIES 7 

STAFF , 8 

SAFETY AND SECURITY 9 

STUDENT DISCIPLINE 11 

PARENT ORGANIZATIONS 15 

STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 19 

ATTACHMENTS 



336 



saiaii, PAcii 



We concur with the findings in Monitoring Report iSio, 4 on school 
facilities. Ihey are accurate and reflecti--e of the current status of 
facility planning. The School Defartirent understands its responsibility 
for completing a Long Range Facilities Flan and has t^iken steps to this 
end as noted below. 

Conclusions/Recomendations 



Boston must yet develop a com- 
prehensive long-range facili- 
ties plan as specified by the 
Coiirt, rrost recently on 
Noveirber 2, 1984. Still to be 
provided by the City is a list 
of all Boston Public Schools 
selected to be closed over the 
ten year period of the plan 
with the capacity of each and 
the estimated date of closing. 



The Boston Public Schools recently 
approved the closing of eight (8) 
school buildings, five of which 
housed a student population. These 
closings were also apprc\-ed by the 
Court and will be incorporated into 
the Unified Facilities Plan (UFP) . 

Other determinants of the facilities 
plan relating to progran locations, 
grade structures, and assignment 
procedures have been approved by tn3 
Boston School Ocrrinittee and filed 
with the Court. Court decisions will 
also be incorporated into the UFP, 



Weekly meetings, and if necessary, 
more frequent meetings, will contir.ue 
with State and City planners to pro- 
duce a Unified Facilities Plan as 
specified by the Court. Planners 
hope to cortplete the Unified Facilities 
Plan by March 1, 1985 to allow for re- 
view and decision making by respecti-.-e 
governance groups of the three joint 
planning manbers. 



337 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COuSt'f i?!,'^^ ^ 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUS?^^ ^ '^""'^/T 



"i'lifil^-^; 



'o^H-ss 



*************** '• t^A^- 

TALLULAH MORGAN, ET AL., * ^ 

* -x 

Plaintiffs, * '^.^, 

* ■ ' 

V. * 

* CIVIL ACTION 
JOHN A. NUCCI, ET AL. * No. 72-911-G 

Defendants. * 



SCHOOL DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 
IN WHICH TO FILE UNIFIED FACILITIES PLAN 

The School Defendants move for an order extending the time 
in which the School Defendants, the City Defendants and the 
State Board may file a Unified Facilities Plan ("UFP") from 
March 25, 1985 to March 27, 1985. In support of this motion, the 
School Defendants state as follows: 

1. The staffs of the Joint Planners have completed their 
work on a draft UFP. This draft has been circulated to the 
Joint Planners for their review. 

2. School Defendants have been advised that the State 
Board at its meeting of March 20, 1985, approved the draft, sub- 
ject, however, to a number of conditions, including a commitment 
by the School and City Defendants to a substantial increase in 
the annual alterations and repair budget. 

3. The Superintendent will not be able to make a recom- 
mendation to the School Committee regarding the conditions 

^^^^ 338 , 



-^--^.^ TT3<i%2 



■^•^■- ^^^^-<^-\-vIkJ 



■^ The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

J^BOARD OF 
EDUCATION 



1385 HanoxJc street Quincj'. Mass. 02169 



March 22, 1985 



To Whom It May Concern: 

At its Regular Meeting of March 20, 1985, the Board of Education 
took the following action*: 

On a motion duly made and seconded, it was 

VOTED: that the Board of Education approves the Uni- 
fied Facilities Plan for the Boston Public 
Schools with the understanding that the follow- 
ing conditions are to be met: that the main- 
tenance budget of the Boston School Committee; 
currently funded at $6 million, will be perma- 
nently increased to $8 million; that there be a 
study of the long-term annual maintenance needs 
of the Boston Public Schools; that responsible 
Boston officials develop and implement a 
schedule of incremental appropriations to meet 
the maintenance needs identified in said study; 
and further, that in taking this action, the 
Board takes particular note of those sections 
in _ the Plan relating to costs being calculated 
in 1984 dollars and the Board's intent, in 
accordance with the School Building Assx3tance 
Act, to consider project applications on an 
individual basis. 




to the Commissioner 



♦Subject to approval within the Minutes of the Meeting of March 20, 
1985. 



339 






UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAfi 


1 ) 
MORGAN, et al., ) 








Plaintiffs ) 




V. 






JOHN 


A. 


NUCCI 


, et al. ) 
Defendants ) 



f^f^fi^/Y 



C.A. 72-9I1-G 



MOTION TO MODIFY BENCH ORDER OF 
FEBRUARY 5, 1985 



The Massachusetts Board of Education ("the State Board") 
moves this Court to modify its Bench Order of February 5, 1985, 
reiterated at footnote 2, page nine of its Orders of February 20, 
1985, which established a filing '^ate of March 15, 1985 for the 
Unified Facilities Plan. The State Board moves that said Unified 



Facilities Plan filing date be amended to March 25, 1985. 

In support thereof, and in accordance with Section VI o£ the 
December 23, 1982 Orders of Disengagement: 

(A) The proposed modification has been presented to counsel 
for the Original Parties and the Executive Director of the CPC, 



340 



-tl^DC^ 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 




30STCN PU3LIC SCHOOLS 




March 20, I985 



TO: 



FROM: 




President and Members, 
Boston School Committee 



Robert R. Spillane, Superintenden 



SUBJECT: implementation of Recent Court Orders 



I am providing you and local school officials with yet another 
summary of the status of various proposals submitted to the Federal 
Court on or after December 20, \SZk as well as a progress report <wr 
those school desegregation activities already under way. 

Proposals Not Approved by the Federal Court 

Proposal 6 . The May 10, 1975 Student Desegregation Plan shall be 
amended by adding at the end of page hS the following language: 
"Beginning in the I986 school year the School Defendants may make 
grade six an entrance level to the three examination schools and 
beginning in the I987 school year the School Defendants may eliminate 
grade seven as an entrance level to the three examination schools and 
grade ten as an entrance level to Boston Technical High School." 

Proposal 7 . Students currently enrolled at the Umana School will Sie 
permitted to transfer to Technical High School without reference to 
an examination or ranking. The Umana School shall become the site 
for a middle school in District 8. The School Defendants shall be 
permitted to make desegregati ve assignments to the middle school to 
be located at the Umana School without regard to district boundaries. 
The McKay School will become a K-5 school beginning September I986. 

MOTE: Neither of the above two proposals (Proposal 6 or 

Proposal 7) was rejected with such finality that we 
could not re-submit either or both prior to the 
I9R6-87 academic year, bearing in mind the criticism 
in the Court's Order of February 20, I985. 



26 COURT 5T?£=i. BOSTON "■^'^'^AChU3c 

341 



'TS 02;Ca.» 726-6200 ArEA 617 



Proposals Not Yet Ruled Upon by the Federal Court 

Proposal k . The rules governing computation of desegregation standard: 
and the determination of compliance shall be modified by adding the 
following language at the end of page 78 of the May 10, I975 Student 
Assignment Plan: 

In computing the applicable citywide and district 
racial percentages, the following students will 
not be counted: 

(a) bilingual students, 

(b) substantially separate special needs students, 

(c) examination school students, 

(d) students attending the Hernandez School or 
any comparable school. 

In determining applicable district racial percentages, 
students attending magnet schools shall not be counted. 
In computing whether a particular school complies with 
applicable numerical standards, neither bilingual 
students nor substantially separate special needs 
students shall be counted. 

NOTE: We do expect to receive a draft order not too 
different from Proposal k in the near future. 

Proposal 8 . The School Defendants may expand the program currently 
at the Hernandez School, and may further expand the program by the 
addition of a suitable middle school component. Such expansions 
may be in languages other than Spanish. 

NOTE 1: We do expect to receive approval of Proposal 8 
in the near future. 

NOTE 2: This proposal was reaffirmed by you on February 13, 
1985 with the designations of the Holland School 
and Mackey School and with a restriction of fifty 
percent on the bilingual enrollment in such schools. 

Proposal of February 13, I985 . The School Defendants seek to desig- 
nate the following schools as citywide magnet schools, effective 
September I986: 

- Burke High School, presently in District V 

- Lewenberg Middle School, presently in District 111 

- Pauline Shaw Elementary School, presently in District IV. 



342 



Further, the School Committee shall designate magnet programs for 

each school at the earliest date but in any event in sufficient 

time to prepare for recruitment and implementation by- September 8986. 

NOTE: We would hope to receive approval of the above 
unnumbered proposal in view of the Court's 
seeming interest in such a proposal as conveyed 
by the Court Expert in January I985. 

Proposals Approved by the Federal Court 

Proposal 1 . The May 10, 1975 Student Assignment Plan shall be anefided 
by adding the following language after the first sentence of the first 
full paragraph on page 2: "provided, however, that beginning with the 
1985-1986 school year the city defendants shall be permitted to con- 
solidate school districts for administrative purposes and to designate 
a single Community Superintendent to be the chief school officer for 
each consolidated district." 

RECOMMENDATION ; In view of the complexity of Student Assignment 
changes taking place this year and in light of my own Impending 
departure from the school system, i urge that action on the 'totality 
of this approved proposal be deferred until the I986-87 school year. 
An added reason for deferral is the uncertainty surrounding the 
Experimental District Project in Districts III and IV as well as 
the possible expansion of citywide magnet programs in Districts III, 
IV and V. If the Experimental District Project succeeds this May 
then I would urge you to move immediately on the designation of a 
single Community Superintendent for the merged districts III and SV 
by September 1, I985, if possible. However, I would urge a delay in 
any other administrative mergers until I986 when it will be possible 
to assess the impact of the expansion of citywide programs and, if the 
Experimental District Project succeeds, the application of the engieri- 
ment in other combined districts. 

Proposal 2 . The August 12, 1977 Memorandum and Orders as to Kinder- 
garten Desegregation shall be amended to include a new paragraph 3(c) 
on p. 9 to read: "Any kindergarten student may, at the election of 
such student's parents, attend ki ndergarten .at that student's geocoded 
school for grades 1-5." 

COMMENT : Proposal 2 is in process for the upcoming Student Assignment 
Process. We do not view it as a major change. 

Proposal 3 . The May 10, 1975 Student Desegregation Plan shall be 
amended by adding at the end of the paragraph carrying over from 
page '♦6 to page '♦7 the following sentence: "No regular educatiow 
student applying for a seat in a community district high school oay 
be assigned to a magnet high school, unless the student's parents 
(or the student him or herself, if over 18) agree to such assignment." 



343 



COMMENT : Proposal 3 is in process for the upcoming Student Assignment 
Process. it lias particular significance for eighth-grade students, 
and Middle School officials are being alerted to advise such students 
and parents of its importance. (The proposal does NOT apply to 
students who fail to return completed applications in timely fashion.) 

We believe this proposal will strengthen the community 
districts. It does, however, present a special challenge to some 
citywide high schools to compete most vigorously for students. 

Proposal S - The School Defendants shall be permitted to make Madison 
Park High School the primary academic home for students wishing to 
pursue vocational education offering at the Humphrey Occupational 
Resource Center. The half-day program currently in effect wi 1 1 be 
phased out. The major thrust, on a phased-in basis of Madison Parfe 
High School shall be vocational education. Students presently 
utilizing the half-day program at the Humphrey Center may continue 
to do so from their present high schools or they may transfer to 
Madison Park High School in September I986. 

Nonvocational education students at Madison Park High School may 
continue at the school or may apply for other high schools on a first 
priori ty (but not absolute priority) basis. The Music Magnet Program 
shall continue at Madison Park High School. Further, Madison Park 
High School may recruit nonvocational education students to the school 
whose presence would bring the school closer to compliance with deseg- 
regation standards. The school system shall have the right, however, 
to reconsider the maintenance of a comprehensive high school component 
at Madison Park High School in future years. 

COMMENT: This proposal has an implementation date of I986. However, 
the approval of the proposal has expedited planning. In particular, 
the Deputy Superintendent for Operations and the Director of Career 
and Vocational Education are developing a plan of action whereby all 
eighth-grade students across the system will participate in a one-v(eek 
exploratory program at the Humphrey Center in I985-86 in preparation 
for some students making decisions to attend Madison Park/Humphrey 
Center in I986-87 as ninth-graders. 

Proposal 9 . The May 10, 1975 Student Desegregation Plan shall fa- 
amended by adding at the bottom of p. 79 two new paragraphs: 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, each school 
may fill a small number of reserved seats (with 
the number determined by school capacity as set 
forth below) with students whose presence in the 
school enhances or brings the school closer to 
compliance with the applicable racial /ethnic 
percentages. Students may be assigned to fill 
such seats without regard to their geocode or 
district, provided, however, that the transfer of 
any student currently enrolled in a Boston Public 
School shall not have a negative impact on the 
compliance of the sending school with numerical 
desegregation standards. All such assignments shall 
be subject to approval by the Senior Officer for 
Desegregation. 

344 



The number of seats which a particular school 
can fill in accordance with the previous paragraph 
is determined as folilows: Schools with capacities 
under 200 nay reserve 10 seats. Schools wich 
capacities between 200 and 500 may reserve 20 seats. 
Schools with capacities between 501 and 1000 may 
reserve ^tO seats. Schools with capacities above 
1000 may reserve 60 seats. Elementary schools may 
reserve an additional 5 kindergarten seats. The 
Senior Officer for Desegregation may permit the 
designation of additional reserve seats in District 8. 

COMMENT : This proposal is known as the Recruitment Incentive Plan and 
was approved by the Court with the following schools and numbers: 

District School Reserved Seats 

II Ellis 20 White 

III Lee 20 White, 20 Other Minority 

R. G. Shaw 20 White, 20 Other Minority 

IV Thompson 30 White, 10 Other Minority 

P. A. Shaw 10 Black, 10 Other Minority 

V Burke 30 White, 10 Other Minor! ty 

Dorchester 25 Black, 15 White 

VI Emerson 20 White 

I Baldwin 10 Black, 10 White 

Garfield 20 Other Minority 

Hamilton 10 Black, 10 White 

II Jamaica Plain ^tO White 

Mary Curley 10 Black, 30 White 

J. F. Kennedy 5 B lack, 1 5 Whi te 

Manning 10 Other Minority 

\\l Chittick 15 White, 5 Other Minority 

Taylor 30 White, 10 Other Minority 

V Kenny 20 Black 

Marshall 10 Black, 30 White 

VI Dearborn 30 White, 10 Other Minority 

McCormack 30 Black, 10 White 

Perkins 15 Black, 5 Other Minority 

Russell 10 Black, 10 White 

VII Edwards 25 Black, 15 White 

Timilty 30 White, 10 Other Minority 

Blackstone 15 Black, 25 White 

VIII All Schools Per Capacity; Black and 

Other Minority Only 

Given the date of the Court's approval and our desire to move on 
the annual Student Assignment Process as soon as possible, this 
proposal will be implemented in May and June of this school year 
as well as September of I985. Specific directions will be pro- 
vided by the Department of Implementation to affected schools in 
the upcoming weeks. 



345 



Proposal IC . The May 10, 1975 Student Assignment Plan shall be 
amended by adding a new paragraph after the first paragraph on 
p. 72: 

In order to preserve ethnically integrated 
neighborhoods, the following special assignment 
rules shall apply. The Department of Implementa- 
tion, after consultation with the other parties, 
shall designate those schools which are located in 
ethnically diverse areas of the city. For each 
such school, the Department of Implementation 
shall identify a racially mixed contiguous 
recruitment area. The staff at such schools may 
recruit students from such area and such students 
may be assigned to the school, subject, however, 
to capacity constraints and to the numerical 
desegregation standards. The Senior Officer for 
Desegregation must approve any such assignment. 

COMMENT : This proposal is limited to the Mather School in District V 
and the Elihu Greenwood School in District IV for I985-86. (if 
successful, we can seek to expand it in I986-87.) The Department 
of Implementation will issue directions within the week to the 
affected students and schools. 

The Mather Desegregation Project will focus on students resid- 
ing in geocodes 333 to 3'»2, 3^5. 3^6, 3^8, 350, 352, 460 to 462, 
254 and 841. The Elihu Greenwood Desegregation Project will focus 
on geocodes 478 to 489 and 491 to 497. This proposal will be begun 
during the upcoming Student Assignment Process and may be conti,nued» 
if necessary, in the period between May 1, I985 and Septerfiber 30, 
1985. 

Proposal 11 . The Boston School Committee reaffirms- its vote of 
December I9, 1984 to create the consolidated district resulting- 
from the merger of community districts 3 and 4 to explore new 
student assignment options for desegregation. The Committee agrees 
not to implement the plan if the results of the Spring Student 
Application Process in the consolidated district do not permit 
desegregation comparable to that currently in effect in community 
districts 3 and 4, 

COMMENTS : Intensive planning of the Experimental Project has been 
underway. Staff of the Department of Implementation are meeting 
with key school personnel in District III and IV this week. They 
also are attending the first of two community meetings urged by 
the Citywide Parents Council on March 20, I985. A second meeting 
is planned for March 27, 1985- A special application form is^ 
being printed for elementary school students in the two districts, 
and the Department of Implementation will issue guidelines this 
week to school personnel to assist in their recruitment efforts 
and to enable them to instruct parents. The City-Wide Educational 
Coalition also has developed a flyer containing some general 
information in question-answer format. Staff of the Department of 
Implementation also will make themselves available to staff of the 
School Committee to enable them to be better informed on this project 
and others identified earlier in this paper. 

346 



Conclusion 

This paper only touches upon the issues before. us as we 
endeavor to prepare for this year's Student Assignment Process 
as well as co anticipate planning efforts for I986-87. The 
Department of Implementation has been allocated $300,000 in 
Chapter 636 FY'86 funds in an effort to provide special assist- 
ance to the schools embarking on Proposals 11,9 and 10. The 
prolonged Court Hearings following our filings of December 20, 
1984 (in addition to the somewhat frantic nature of the filings 
when negotiations with local plaintiffs broke down last December) 
have not provided us with all the time we would desire. Nonethe- 
less, we are endeavoring to carry out the proposals and orders 
of immediate concern and suggest to you that we are putting in 
place planning activities for I986. This paper does alert you 
to my recommendation that we defer action on proposal I (admin- 
istrative merger of community districts), except possibly In 
the case of districts III and IV if the student assignment 
experiment succeeds this spring. 



bmj 



Deputy Superintendents 
Senior Officers 
Community Superintendents 
Principals and Headmasters 



347 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 




BOSTON, PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 
ROBERT R. SPILLAN5 • 

March 28, 1985 • 



Honorable Raymond L. Flynn 

Mayor of Boston 

Boston City Hall 

City Hall Plaza 

Boston, Massachusetts 02201 

Dear Mr. Mayor: 

On behalf of the Boston School CoDinittee, I respectfully 
transmit and ask for your approval of our request for a 
permanent supplementary appropriation in the amount of 
$2,000,000 for the alteration and repair of school buildings, 
thereby establishing the base alteration and repair 
appropriation at $8,000,000 per annum. 

The need for this additional funding cannot be questioned. 
Between 1971 and 1982, the alteration and repair appropriation 
for school buildings was essentially level-funded under a 
charter formula keyed to the City's total assessed valuation 
less abatements. The formula produced an amount which 
fluctuated between $4.6 to $4.9 million per year. In 1982, the 
formula was changed to a fixed dollar amount. The dollar amount 
was set arbitrarily at $6.0 million per year, even though an 
adjustment for inflation would have required $9.2 million just 
to maintain the equivalent 1971 funding level. 

The deleterious effect of this charter formula on the 
school physical plant was documented in your transition report 
entitled Boston in Transition: A Program and Policy 
Analysis." This report says, in relevant part: 

There is a quiet crisis brewing 
within the Boston Public School system 
related directly to the unavailability of 
even a marginally adequate funding system 
for the maintenance of school facilities. 
The crisis is rendered even more acute by 
the existence of a vast "modern" school 



348 



Honorable Raymond L. Flynn 
Page Two 
March 28» 1985 



?lant which was constructed in the late 
960 's and 1970 's but for which no 
provision was made for ongoing 

maintenance The school system is 

currently comprised of approximately 130 
buildings representing 11.1 million 
square feet. Using a rudimentary 
replacement cost calculation of $75-90 
per square foot, the replacement value of 
this plant ranges from $833-999 millioa. 
Such a plant would normally require an 
ongoing maintenance reserve of 
approximately 1.5-2X annually or 
$12.5-19.9 million in annual maintenance 
expenses. This number ignores the 
estimated backlog of approximately $45 
million in immediately necessary repairs. 

As you no doubt know, the State Board of Education has 
endorsed a Unified Facilities Plan giving initial approval to 
some $65 million in state-reimbursed capital improvement 
projects. The State Board has insisted, however, that prior to 
granting any further school building improvement funds , Boston 
must demonstrate its willingness to devote sufficient resources 
to the ordinary maintenance and repair of school buildings. 
Given the sorry condition of our school buildings, it is 
understandable that the State Board would be reluctant to pay 
for the modernization of a facility, only to have that facility 
deteriorate due to inadequate maintenance. The State Board has 
specified an $8 million annual budget as the minimum stop-gap 
neasure, and asks that we join in efforts to determine and to 
und incrementally the maintenance budget level required for the 
. iture . 

The Unified Facilities Plan was filed on March 27, 1985. 
That Plan is meaningless unless a commitment is made to provide 
adequate maintenance funding. Once the commitment is made, the . 
State Board will begin releasing the $65 million in state aid, 
and the Federal Court will be assured that state and local 



349 



Honorable Raymond L. Flynn 
Page Three 
March 28, 1985 



officials are willing and able to administer a school building^ 
improvement program consistent with desegregation principles. 

I urge you to make that commitment. You have within your 
hands, with the concurrence of the City Council, the power to 
release $55 million in state school building aid, and to remove 
one last obstacle to Federal Court disengagement. The School 
Committee has requested the supplementary appropriation knowing 
full well that you can grant the request at no additional cost • 
to the City, simply by reducing the School Committee's General 
School Purpose request by $2,000,000. The School Committee 
recognizes that if the State fails to provide sufficient revenue 
relief to enable the City to afford the school pi-ograms desired 
by the School Committee, you may have no choice but to compel a 
reduction in the General School Purpose budget. Despite these 
risks, the School Committee still seeks this supplementary 
appropriation. The disgraceful physical condition of our school 
buildings can no longer be tolerated. 

Very truly yours , 




Robert R.^pillane 
Superintendent of Schools 



ctm 



cc: President and Members, Boston School Committee 
/commissioner John H. Lawson 



350 



^S^ c/cSc 



c^^leyn 



Jrn C/CACCC '^OTHTTU^lU' 



March 26, 1985 



ORDERED, that, in accordance with Section 21 of Chapter 190 
of the Acts of 1982 the Mayer be hereby requested; to reccEnend 
to the City, Council a supplener.tarv appropriation for Fiscal 
Year 1986 in the anount of $"2 ,000,000.00 exclusively for the 
alteration and repair of school bviildirgs, end for furniture, 
fixtures and ceans of escape in cese of fire, md for fire 
protection of existing buildinzs and for in-proving existing 
school yards; and further, that t:ic Mayor c<nd •our.ci) be hfrre-t<y 
requested to allow said supplementary apprcprii^iuiofj to be 
included in the accur.t that" ray be appropriated by the School 
Cotamittee for said purposes in subsequent fiscal years, for a 
total annual alteration and repair anproorisrlon of 
$8,000,000.00. 



On roll call the order was approved by the following vote: 

AS - Ms. Browne, Mr. Marchione, Mr. McCluskey, Mrs. McGuire, Mr. O'Reilly '" 
Mrs. Owens-Hicks, Mrs. Romero, Mrs. Walsh-Tomasim", and Mr. Nucci - 9 

NA - '-^ 

PRESENT - Mr. Burke and Mr. Casper - 2 
ABSENT - Mr. Grady and Mr. G'Bryant - 2 



Attest 




Secre 



351 



DISTRICT OF M:=.SSACHUSETTS 



**************** 

* 

tallulah morgan et al . , * 

* 

Plaintiffs, * 

* 

V. * CIVIL ACTION 

* NO. 72-911-G 
JOHN A. NUCCI, ET AL., * 

* 

Defendants. * 

* 

**************** 

SCHOOL DEFENDANTS* MOTION FOR ORDER RDGARDING FACILITIES 

The School Defendants move this Court for an order directing 
the City Defendants to take all steps necessary to permit the 
implementation of the projects identified in the draft Unified 
Facilities Plan for fiscal year 1986 (UFP at P. Ill 3-2). In 
support of this motion. School Defendants rely on the evidence 
presented in Court during hearings held on April 19, 25 and 29 
and the need for these first year renovations to take place during 
the summer. 

A draft order is attached for the Court's convenience. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THE SCHOOL DEFENDANTS 

By their attorneys. 




fa r s ha 1 1/ S imond s , 

.'Henry C. Dinger 

/ GOODWXN, PROCTER-' & HOAR 

28 State Street/ 

Boston, M;^ 2109 

(G17) 5:3-:."00 
352 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



************* 
TALLULAH MORGAN , ET AL . , 

Plaintiffs, 
V. 
JOHN A. NUCCI, ET AL., 

Defendants, 
************* 



CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 72-911-G 



ORDER 



Upon the motion of the School Defendants and after hearing 
regarding the proposed Unified Facilities Plan {the "UFP"), it 
is hereby ORDERED that the City Defendants promptly take all 
steps necessary to permit the implementation of the projects 
identified on Page III B-2 of the UFP during the summer of 1985, 



W. Arthur Garrity 

United States District Judge 



353 




The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 

1385 Hancock Street, Quincy. Massachusetts 02169 

May 3, 1985 



Stephen A. Moynahan, Jr., Esq. 

Deputy Clerk 

U.S. District Court 

1525 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse 

Boston, Massachusetts 02109 



Morgan v. Nucci 
C.A. 72-911-G 



Dear Mr. Moynahan: 

Enclosed please find for filing by the State Board in the 
above action State Board Coxaments on Unified Facilities Plan. 



Thank you. 



Sihc'e'rely, / /W^ / ^ t-~'- 

R6ber^ H. /Blu^eiithal, Esq 
dounsel, Stat^Board of 
Education 



<l 



RHB/kal 

Enclosures: 

cc: Parties of Record 



354 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN, et al . , 
Plaintiffs 

V. 

JOHN A. NUCCI, et al. 

Defendants 



C,A- 72-911-G 



STATE BOARD COMMENTS ON 
UNIFIED FACILITIES PLAN 



On March 27/ 1985, the Massachusetts Board of Education 
("the State Board"), City Defendants and School Defendants filed 
a Unified Facilities Plan ("UFP") with the Court. (For the 
purpose of this filing, the above-named parties have been 
referred to as "the Joint Planners".) By its very nature, a 
filing of this type represents a product of negotiation and 
compromise, of concessions made by individual parties on specific 
points in order to v/in acceptance on other issues. It is thus 
unrealistic to assume that any one of the Joint Planners, v/hen 
called upon to defend the document in an adversary proceeding 
such as the hearings of April 22, 25 and 29, can offer a sweeping 



355 



and unqualified endorsement. For its part, the State Board 
registered a three-part condition to its endorsement of the UFP 
upon the filing of the document. At the same time, the UFP does 
represent h. significant effort to address the facilities needs of 
the entire Boston Public School system, and as such deserves the 
support of the parties and the Court. 

I . The UFP and Prior Court Orders 

Contrary to comments made during recent hearings, the UFP 
was not developed without attention to prior Court orders. In 
fact, an analysis of these orders v/as the starting point of the 
State Board's participation in the negotiating process. 
Negotiators for the State Board examined all orders relating to 
facilities contained in Appendix A, Section 8 of the Court's 
December 23, 1982 Orders of Disengagement. After receiving the 
Court's Order to File Unified Facilities Plan of November 2, 
1984, particular attention was given to the orders of May 6, 1977 
and August 15, 1979. Based upon an analysis of these orders, 
negotiators for the State Board prepared an outline of issues 
that the UFP was to address. This outline, with some changes in 
sequence but none in substance, was adopted by the Joint Planners 
and is reflected on the Table of Contents page of the UFP, 

The Court was accurate in its comment that the UFP does not 
specifically reflect the Stipulation filed by Plaintiffs, City 



356 



Defendants and the State Board on J^ovc-Tiber 15, 197G. This 
Stipulatio.-i is not referenced, however, in either Appendix A of " 
the Orders of Disengagement or the Court's more recent order of 
November 2^ 1984. Given that various portions of the Stipulation 
were incorporated in later facilities orders that are included in 
said Appendix A, and that the UFP as filed does reflect 
facilities needs and schedules regarding each school building 
currently in use by the Boston Public School system, the State 
Board believes that the terms of the Stipulation have been 
properly addressed in the UFP. 

Regarding an analysis of the desegregative impact of the 
UFP, the State Board notes that such an analysis was prepared by 
the Department of Implementation as per Court order and included 
at Section V of the UFP. The Joint Planners recognized that this 
statement of desegregative impact was the single section of the 
UFP not subject to negotiation, and v/hile the Joint Planners were 
given the opportunity to comment on a draft of Section V, they 
agreed that it ivas intended to be an independent analysis. 

II . The UFP and Financial Commitments 

VThile the UFP as filed responds to the directives contained 
in prior Court orders, it is driven in the first instance by 
considerations of finance. VThile this statement may seem self- 
evident, and v/hile the mechanisms for financing facilities 



357 



construction, renovation, repair and maintenance may be v;ell 
known, they are worth repeating in order to gain a clear 
understanding of how this or any other UFP is developed. 

School facilities projects can be divided into two 
categories, based upon the source of funding. The first 
category, often referred to as capital improvement projects, 
involves both new construction and major renovations to existing 
structures. These projects are undertaken through School 
Building Assistance Grants from the State Board in accordance 
with Massachusetts Acts of 1948, Chapter 645, as amended. In its 
current form. Chapter 645 allows for certain energy-related 
capital improvements such as roof and boiler repairs to be 
undertaken that were previously ineligible for state funding. In 
addition. Chapter 645 nov/ provides 90 percent reimbursement on 
both principal and interest costs for those projects deemed to 
enhance desegregation. 

A second category of school facilities projects is not 
eligible for state reimbursement. These projects involve work on 
existing structures such as painting, plumbing and landscaping 
that are considered to be part of the ongoing maintenance 
responsibilities of local school authorities. Such projects are 
financed out of either annual school budget appropriations or 
special appropriations by municipal governments. 



358 



Given a condition of adequate financial i-esources, long- 
range programs such as the UFP v;ould be neod-dr iven; specific 
priority projects v^rould be identified and sc'neduled, and the 
necessary 'financial commitments would follow. vrnen financial 
resources are limited, however, not all needs can be addressed on 
an accelerated basis. This latter situation prevailed during the 
development of the UFP, v/ith City Defendants identifying specific 
financial commitments to which criteria of need and desegregative 
impact were then applied by the Joint Planners. It is important 
to note in this regard that the State Board did not impose 
limitations on its level of participation, " in terms of either 
rate of expenditure or the ultimate total expenditure, at any 
time during the UFP negotiations. On the contrary, the State 
Board would have v/elcomed the opportunity to address facilities 
needs more quickly and more comprehensively under the UFP, and 
raised the possibilities of an expanded and/or accelerated 
schedule during the course of negotiations. We were given 
specific commitments by City Defendants, however, that did not 
change appreciably during the course of negotiations, and the 
Joint Planners took these commitments as the base from which the 
present plan was developed. 



359 



III. The UFP and Capital Improvements 

It has been stated in Mayor Flynn's April 12, 1985 letter to 
the Court and elsev/here that City Defendants have coimnitted $69.7 
million over the next ten years to capital improvements. Such 
statements imply that the commitment to capital improvements is 
undifferentiated, and that the total sum is available to address 
appropriately prioritized renovation needs of the Boston Public 
Schools. In reality. City Defendants have actually made distinct 
financial commitments that total $69.7 million. These 
cominitments must be considered separately in order to accurately 
describe the position of the State Board. 

(A) Boston Latin School/Boston Latin Academy 

Prior to the commencement of the present round of UFP 
negotiations, the Boston City Council approved the financing of 
renovations at the Boston Latin School, and the construction of a 
new Boston Latin Academy, at a combined cost of $35 million. 
This coxtimitment was made specifically to these two facilities, 
and was intended to represent a ceiling on combined capital 
improvements at the two schools. Since School Defendants are 
currently considering alternative options for construction of a 
new Latin Academy, including a proposal to house both the Latin 
School and Latin Academy on the site now occupied by the Latin 



360 



School, it would be accurate to characterize the City Council's . 
$35 million authorization as a corj-dtment without a project. 

Given the current status of planning regarding these two 
schools, the State Board is not able to take a position on these 
projects, and has gone on record to this effect at pp. IC-3 and 
IC-4 of the UFP. At such time as specific projects are 
presented, the State Board intends to analyze the proposals in 
terms of both their impact on desegregation and the overall 
secondary education program in Boston. The desegregation 
analysis is essential to determine whether the tv;o Latin Schools, 
which enroll a disproportionate nu-'.ber of white students, are 
eligible for 90% state reimbursement; the educational analysis is 
essential in determining whether these projects are eligible for 
state reimbursement in the first instance. V/hile the State Board 
would not oppose making this $35 million commitment available for 
other capital improvements in Boston, the commitment as presently 
given by the City of Boston is directed only toward the two Latin 
schools. 

(B) Other Capital Improvements 

Pages IIIA-1 of the UFP suinmarizes the remaining 
financial commitments of City Defendants. These include $3 
million for the renovation of VThite Stadium, a project that the 
State Board believes is not eligible for reimbursement under 
current statutes; $1.7 million for the renovation of Central 



361 



Kitchen facilities; and ?30 over the naxt 10 years for capital 
improvements in all Boston Public Schools v/ith the exception of 
the Latin School and Latin Acadtray. This last corair.itment is more 
specifically limited to an expenditure of approximately .^3 
million in years one through three of the UFP, according to the 
schedules contained at part IIIB of the UFP; and approxiaately . 
$17 million in years four throuah ten of the UFP, v/ith projects 
to be drawn from those appearing at part IIIC of the UFP. Vrnile 
specific annual commitments are only identified at part IIIB, and 
represent roughly $4.2 million in each of the first three years, 
it was made clear during the course of negotiations that City 
Defendants propose to commit the remaining $17 million in. roughly 
equal annual installments. 

As previously noted, these specific commitments dictated the 
content of the negotiations that followed. In endorsing the 
particulars of the UFP related to capital improvements, the State 
Board accepted neither the adequacy of the net commitment nor the 
scheduling of funds over the life of the UFP. The State Board 
did attempt to structure an appropriate UFP within the bounds of 
these commitments. 

During the course of negotiations, both City and School 
Defendants indicated that the projects contained in the schedules 
for years one through three represented critical repairs 
essential to the continuing functioning of the schools in 



362 



question. These repairs, which may have been neglected in the 
past due to unavailability of state reimbursement , could now be 
undertaken under the revised School Building Assistance Act. 
After a review of these critical needs by negotiators for the 
State Board, the emergency nature of these needs v/as verified. 
It was acknowledged, however, that a development of priorities .on 
the basis of need alone would not insure that desegregation was 
enhanced by directing funds to schools in stably integrated 
neighborhoods, or that equity of burden was addressed by 
directing facilities funds to schools in predominantly minority 
areas of the city. These concerns were addressed by the 
development of criteria for the selection of future projects, 
once the emergency renovations had been completed. These 
criteria, which include detailed considerations of location, 
enrollment pattern, equity and desegregation, are included at pp. 
IIIC-10 and IIIC-11 of the UFP. While the State Board does not 
feel that this is an ideal solution, it is an approach that the 
Joint Planners were able to reach agreement upon during the 
course of negotiations, and which the State Board intends to 
honor in its review of annual schedules of school facility 
expenditures and other related measures called for at p. IIIC-10 
of the UFP. 



363 



Vrhile the State Board agrees v/ith Plaintiffs that 
desegregation enhancement should be a consideration in the 
development of a facilities plan, building renovations should not 
be viewed .as a panacea intended to resolve all existing 
desegregation problems. In their initial filing on the UFP, - 
Plaintiffs express concerns regarding special desegregation 
measures, safety and security and student discipline that mirror 
the findings contained in State Board monitoring reports. It is 
doubtful/ though, that the UFP is the proper means to address 
most of these problems. Many of the schools that have 
experienced difficulty in complying vvith racial/ethnic guidelines 
are among the newest facilities in the system, and it is unclear 
that facilities improvements can solve safety and discipline 
problems unless it can be shown that the nature of the facility 
itself contributes to the problems. 

IV. The UFP and Maintenance 

Under current statute, Massachusetts Acts of 1982, 
Chapter 190, section 21', the School Defendants are guaranteed an 
annual appropriation of $6 million for alterations and repairs. 
This money has been characterized by Mayor Flynn, in his April 12 
letter to the Court, as a "strong conmii tment" on the part of the 
City Defendants, although in fact this is the minimum annual 
alteration and repair appropriation required by law. By the terms 



364 



of the statute, this $6 million figure may only be increased on a 
permanent basis with the approval of the mayor and an 
appropriation by the Boston City CoLincil. 

There appears to be general agreement that the current $6 
million figure is v/oefully inadequate. The Mayor's Transition 
Committee on Education, Subcommittee on Structure and Compliance, 
estimated that an ongoing annual maintenance reserve of $12.5 to 
$19.9 million is required for the present school system. For the 
past two years. School Department officials responsible for 
ongoing maintenance have recommended an annual appropriation of 
$15 million. The State Board cannot identify v/ith precision the 
appropriate level of alteration and repair funding for Boston; it 
can state v/ith certainty that a failure to address the 
maintenance, needs -of the school_.^ys.tem.4^ill. impede. the__ongoing . 
desegregation effort, and that the awarding of substantial school 
building' assistance grants to a system that cannot maintain its • . 
physical plant on an ongoing basis would not be in the best 
interest of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For these 
reasons, the State Board has attached three conditions relating 
to maintenance to its endorsement of the UFP; . 

(1) that the maintenance budget of the Boston School 
Committee, currently funded at $6 million, will be permanently 
increased to $8 million - The $8 m.illion figure is a product of 
negotiations among the Joint Planners, and represents an offer by 



365 



School Defendants to increase the current appropriation by a 
transfer of funds from the separate budget appropriated for 
general school purposes. As such, it represents no net increase 
in the overall level of current school appropriations in Boston; 
but in order to become a permanent addition to the maintenance 
appropriation, the approval of the Mayor and City Council are 
required. ^ 

(2) that there be a study of the long-term annual 
maintenance needs of the Boston Public Schools - Because 
estimates vary of the appropriate level . of funding for annual.., .^ 
maintenance of the Boston Public Schools, the State Board views 
the §2 million increase in (1) above as a first step tov;ard 
adequately addressing maintenance needs, to be followed by a 

..determination of the precise-level , of maintenance -f uading. ... The , -. 
State Board has offered to share in the cost of such a study. 

(3) that responsible Boston officials develop and implement 
a schedule of incremental appropriations to meet the maintenance 
needs identified in said study - In recognition of the fiscal 
constraints facing City and School Defendants, it should be 
stressed that this final condition neither dictates a specific 
schedule of future maintenance budget increases, nor specifies 
the source of additional funding. The condition does call for a 
commitment from City and School Defendants to address maintenance 



366 



needs in a responsible manner once the magnitude of the budgetary 
shortfall has been precisely identified. 

I 
Conclusion. 



The above comments are presented in the knowledge of the 

Court's announced intention to send the Joint Planners "back to ' 

the drawing board" for the purpose of producing a revised UFP 

that the Court will- find more acceptable. The State Board feels 

that the UFP as presently drafted does not address all of the 

facilities needs of the Boston Public Schools; but within the 

fiscal limitations presented to the Joint Planners by City 

Defendants, and with the conditions attached to the UFP regarding 

maintenance, the UFP does provide a comprehensive approach to the 

facilities needs in Boston, including those needs relating to 

desegregation. For these reasons, the State Board feels that the 

Court should reconsider its rejection of the present UFP. To the 

extent that the Court seeks further planning and restructured 

commitments, and without waiving the jurisdictional issues it 

raised in 1976, the State Board offers these comments for the 

Court's consideration in anticipation of the Court's further 

directions to the Joint Planners. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MASSACHUSETTS BOARD AND 
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION 



36 7 



DATE: May 3, 1985 



.ak 




.€ 



Robert H ." "Blu'menthal, Esq, ^ 
Counsel, State Board of /^"'''^ ' 

Education /^^ 

1385 Hancock Street // 
Quincy, Massachusetcs' 02169 
(617) 770-7315-" ^ ^i 

Joan Entmacher <^ 

Assistant Attorney General 
Department of the Attorney General 
One Ashburton Place - Room 1902 
Boston, Massachusetts 02108 
(617) 727-1090 



368 



CERTIFICATE OF SEI'.VICE 

I hereby certify that service of the attaciied docuraent was 
made OiT all parties to this action by mailing or hand-delivering 
copies of the same to all counsel listed belov/: 



Laurence Fordham, Esq. 
Foley, Hoag & Eliot 
One Post Office Square 
Boston, r4?\ 02109 



James T, Grady, Esq. 
Grady, Dumont & Dv/yer 
One Center Plaza 
Boston, t-IA 02108 



Steven P. Perlmutter, Esq. 
City of Boston Law Department 
City Hall, Room 615 
Boston, MA 02201 



Marshall Simonds, Esq. 
Goodwin, Proctor & Hoar 
60 State Street 
Boston, MA 02109 



Robert Pressman 

Center for Law & Education 

Gutman Library, 3rd Floor 

6 Appian Way 

Cambridge, MA 02138 



Shirley Burke 

Department of Implementation 

Boston Public Schools 

26 Court Street 

Boston, I4A 02108 



Richard W. Coleman, Esq. 
Segal, Roitman & Coleman 
11 Beacon Street-- ,. - 
Boston, MA 02108 



Lucille Koch, Executive Director 
Citywide Parents' Council 

59 Temple Place - 

Boston, I^ 02lii' 



Caroline B. Playter, Esq. 
Kehoe, Doyle, Playter, Novick 

& Strimaitis 
Nine Hamilton Place 
Boston, MA 02108 



Michael J. Betcher 
General Counsel -. 
Boston Public Schools 
26 Court Street . - 
Boston, MA 02108 



Kenneth Kimerling 

Puerto Rican Legal Defense 

& Education Fund, Inc, 

99 Hudson Street 

14th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 



Thomas I. Atkins 

_1.35 Eastern Parkway #11-B-1 

Brooklyn, New" York 11238 



Martin Walsh 

Community Relations Service 

Department of Justice 

89 Broad Street - Room 1116 

Boston, MA 02110 



Nancy Gertner, Esq. 
Silverglate, Gertner, Baker 
& Fine 

88 Broad Street - 

Boston, MA 02210 



Grover G. Hankins 

General Counsel 

N.A.A.C.P. Special Contribution 

Fund 
186 Rensen Street 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 



DATE: May 3, 1985 




Robert H, 



Blum'e' 



369 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN, et al., 
Plaintiffs 



JOHN A. NUCCI, et al., 

Defendants 



Civil Action No. 72-911-G 



CITY DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO SCHOOL DEFENDANTS' 
MOTION FOP ORDER REGARDING FACILITIES 

The City Defendants hereby oppose the School Defen- 
dants' motion for an order directing the City Defendants to 
take all steps necessary to permit the implementation of the 
projects identified in the March 27, 1985 Unified Facilities 
Plan for the fiscal year 1986 (UFP at page IIIB-2) . In 
support of this opposition, the City Defendants state the 
following: 

1. An order of the court is unnecessary because the City 
Defendants intend to voluntarily take the steps neces- 
sary to permit the implementation of the projects 
identified in the March 27, 1985 Unified Facilities 
Plan for the fiscal year 1986; 

2. The court has neither the jurisdiction nor the authority 
to enter the requested order. This court does not have 
the jurisdiction or the authority to equalize school 
facilities. Morgan v. McDonough , 689 F.2d 265, 276 
(1st Cir. 1982) . However, since the City Defendants 
plan to voluntarily take the steps necessary to permit 



3 70 



the implementation of the projects identified in the 
March 27, 1985 UFP for fiscal year 1986, there is no 
need for this jurisdictional issue to be raised or 
litigated. 
3. The School Defendants' motion is contrary to the 
provisions of the March 27, 1985 Unified Facilities 
Plan, which, with the exception of the maintenance 
issue, the School Defendants endorsed in every respect. 
The School Defendants' motion is contrary to the 
provisions of the Unified Facilities Plan because the 
plan in its introductory section specifically states 
that the Joint Planners intend to voluntarily implement 
the UFP. This language was included in the UFP so that 
the parties and the court could work together and be 
able to avoid litigating the issue of the extent of the 
court's jurisdiction and authority in this area. 

CITY DEFEI^ANTS 
By ,-€heir attori>^';^,. 




"Sxeven^PV Perlmutter ' 
Assistant Corporation Counsel 
City of Boston Law Department 
Room 615, City Hall 
Boston, Massachusetts 02201 
Phone: 725-4026 



371 



-3- '? 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF f'lASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN, et al.. 
Plaintiffs 



JOHN^A. NUCCI, et al.. 

Defendants 



Civil Action No. 7 2-911-G 



CITY DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM ON THE COURT'S 
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON THE UFP 

This memorandum is submitted in response to the court's 

preliminary findings on the Unified Facilities Plan (UFP) 

filed on March 27, 1985 and in response to certain comments 

made by the court during the hearings on the UFP. The 

purpose of this mem.orandum is to raise particular concerns 

the City Defendants have about the preliminary findings and 

the court's comments. Although this memorandum identifies 

the City Defendants' disagreement with some of the court's 

preliminary findings and comments, it should not be taken as 

a signal that the City Defendants are unwilling to continue 

to work with the court on the UFP. They are so willing. 

However, the City Defendants are very concerned that the 

court's order on the UFP may contain language and orders 

which may make a continuation of this > cooperative effort 

impossible. The City Defendants believe this would be 

unnecessary and unfortunate. This memorandum identifies 

these areas of concern. 



372 



1. In its oral preliminary findings made on April 29, 
1985, the court stated that this UFP was unconnected v/ith 
desegregation except for the distant future. This prelimin- 
ary finding appears to be based on the erroneous assumption 
that, since the UFP does not use the term desegregation in 
connection with the projects designated for years 1-3, the 
Joint Planners must not have considered desegregation'"' in 
identifying these projects. This preliminary finding is 
clearly erroneous. Both Mr. Murray and Dr. Glenn testified 
that years 1-3 of the UFP addressed the issue of desegrega- 
tion. Moreover, the UFP contains a process for years 4-10 
v/hich requires the Joint Planners to plan in accordance with 
desegregation principles. 

The court's preliminary finding on this matter appears 
to have been influenced by the plaintiffs' insistence that 
painting and other types of repairs were required by desegre- 
gation lav/ while the projects identified by the Joint 
Planners were not. Plaintiffs' position on this natter is 
misguided for several reasons. First, plaintiffs offered no 
legal authority or factual basis to support tJieir contention 
that desegregation required the Joint Planners to paint 
before they fixed boilers and roofs. Gedond, the assumption 
that painting of schools is required by ^desegregation, while 
the replacement of old boilers and roofs is not, is legally 
and factually incorrect. Third, the plaintiffs' position is 
disingenuous. If the Joint Planners had scheduled painting 



3 73 



in years 1-3 but had. failed to address the important boiler 
and roof projects identified in years 1-3, plaintiffs would 
certainly be arguing that this omission somehow hinders or 
impedes desegregation. There is little doubt that under 
these circumstances plaintiffs would, be arguing that what 
good is a paint job if a school's boiler breaks down or a 
roof caves in resulting in students not being able to go^'to 
school. 

2. City Defendants are also concerned about the court's 
inquiry to Ms. Nee on what the City would have to do if it 
ordered the City to spend the money scheduled for the Latin 
schools on repairs at other school -buildings. This concern 
was also triggered by the court's comments on April 25, 1985 
that the limited funds for repairs at other buildings make 
it hard to accept $35 million for the Latin schools and that 
the projects scheduled for years 1-3 be done in year 1 with 
the projects now scheduled for years 4-6 being dene concur- 
rently. It is the City Defendants' position that an order 
either directing the City to spend the money designated for 
the Latin schools on other schools or forcing the City 
Defendants to alter the schedule on wh^l^h all the Joint 
Planners have agreed is beyond the authority of this desegre- 
gation court. Although the court may have some good ideas 
on these matters, these are matters of educational policy 



374 



entrusted to local governmental officials and beyond the 
authority of this court. 

3. This same concern is also raised by the court's comments - 
at the beginning of the UFP hearings that this court v^ants 
to eliminate inequalities in school, facilities. Although 
this is a lofty and praiseworthy goal, it is beyond the 
power of this court. A desegregation court is under'^'no 
obligation to make all schools of the same quality or 
mediocrity. Desegregation is not a mandate to equalize 
schools except insofar as the inequality reflects racial 
bias. Morgan v. McDonough , 689 F.2d 265, 276 (1st Cir. 
1982) . The record in the present case does not support a 
finding that whatever inequality, in facilities which pre- 
sently exists is a vestige of the past acts of intentional 
discrimination found in 1974. This is supported by the fact 
that the facility condition which was found to offend the 
Constitution in 1974 v/as not the condition of school facili- 
ties but rather the placement of school facilities and the 



City Defendants are aware of' their obligation 
under this court's injunctioA to seek lea^l> of court before 
beginning the construction of any new school or expansion of 
any existing school, including either Latin school. See , 
Morgan v. Hennigan , 379 F.Svipp. 410, 484 (D. Mass. 1974) 
(preliminary injunction) ; Morgan v. Kerrigan , C.A. 72-911-G 
(D. Mass. June 5, 1975) slip op. at 104 (permanent 
injunction) . The City Defendants have neither begun the 
construction of a new Latin Academy nor the expansion of the 
Latin school. Moreover, neither project is presently 
scheduled in the UFP. 



375 



assignment of students to facilities v/ith the intent to 
create one race schools. Morgan v. Hennigan , 379 F.Supp. 
410, 415, 426-431, 470, 472-473, 479-484 (D. Mass. 1974). 

4. The School Defendants and the State Board want the 
school departments maintenance budget increased. However, 
neither Joint Planner nor any other party has requested this 
court to order such an increase. Furthermore,' the City 
Defendants agree with Dr. Glenn that the maintenance issue 
is not within the jurisdiction of this desegregation court. 
This is a matter governed by state law which the local 
elected officials are responsible for addressing. 




Assistant Corporation Counsel 
City of Boston Lav; Department 
Room 615, City Hall 
Boston, Massachusetts 02201 
Phone: 725-4026 



376 



^ ■ 9, 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



**************** 

* 

TALLULAH MORGAN, ET AL., * 

* 
Plaintiffs, * 

» * - 

V. * CIVIL ACTION 

* NO. 72-911-G 

JOHN A. NUCCI, ET AL. , * 

* 

Defendants. * 

* 

**************** 



SCHOOL DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTARY 
MEMORANDUM REGARDING UNIFIED FACILITIES PLAN 



The School Defendants submit this supplementary memorandum 
regarding the proposed Unified Facilities Plan ("UFP"), jointly 
filed by the School, City and State Defendants. The School 
Defendants urge the Court to approve the implementation of the 
UFP and to order the City to comply with the conditions set by 
the State Board and endorsed by the School Committee. The School 
Defendants offer the following in support of such action by the 
Court. 

1. The School Defendants urge the approval of the UFP 
because it represents a good faith effort on .the part of the 
joint planners to address the critical faciiit'Ses needs of the 
Boston Public Schools, to direct the process of selecting future 
projects in favor of those projects which will facilitate 
desegregation at particular schools, and to accomplish these 
tasks in a context of constantly shifting facilities needs and 
consistently limited municipal resources. It is by no means an 



377 



ideal solution. All parties recognize that the UFP does not make 
provision for every identifiable facilities need in the Boston 
Public Schools. Nor does it address even pressing needs as 
promptly as one would prefer in an ideal world. It is a compro- 
mise, a balance struck among a number of legitimately competing - 
interests'. 

It is unfair to criticize the UFP for being a compromise.. 
The Court ordered that the facilities plan be a joint filing. 
Even if that order originated in a joint stipulation, the Court 
has always had the option of directing one of the joint planners 
to file a plan, holding a hearing on that plan and entering 
appropriate orders. The Court's insistence on a joint filing 
made a compromise inevitable. 

2. It is inaccurate to criticize the UFP, for ignoring 
schools with desegregation needs for three years. During the 
first year, $2,765,000 (64% of the total allocated for the first 
year) is identified for schools in Roxbury, and $1,865,000 (43% 
of the total) is directed to projects for three schools with less 
than 20% white enrollment. Only 12% of the' first year total is 
slated for schools with white enrollment greater than 25%. During 
the first three years district 8 will receive only $191,000 (1% 
of the three year total), in contrast to $545;v6.00 and $794,000 
(4% and 5%) for elementary schools alone in dtis.tricts 4 and 5 
respectively. It is true that the schools scheduled for capital 
expenditures for the first three years were selected primarily on 
the basis of urgency of need. However, the impact of those 
choices is entirely positive from a desegregation perspective. 



378 



3. The construction of a new Boston Latin Academy is the 
most pressing new construction need in the Boston Public 
Schools ' and the UFP's identification of that project as a 
possible undertaking should pose no obstacle to approval of the 
Plan. Latin Academy is the only high school in the city without 
a building of its own. As the testimony at the hearing indi- 
cated, it is currently housed in a woefully inadequate building 
currently leased from the state, and the state is pressing for 
the return of its facility. 

The School Defendants find objections on desegregation 
grounds to the Latin Academy project difficult to understand. 
Latin Academy is in fact majority non-white (37%B - 48%W - 15% OM 
in 1984-85). The percentage of minorities at Latin Academy has" - 
steadily increased since 1975. The entry grades at Latin Academy 
have substantially exceeded the court-ordered 35% floor on non- 
white enrollments in recent years. The school is a integrated one, 

In addition, the State Board has not yet given its approval 
to the projects proposed for either Latin School or Latin Academy. 
Court approval of the UFP does not, therefor^, constitute any 
final endorsement of these projects. Once the details of these 
projects are completed, the State Board will make a determination 
whether the projects are consistent with desegregation aoals and 
are therefore eligible for state reimbursement at maximum rates. 



/I/ Despite the uncertainty of the testimony at the hearing, 
current planning is premised on the location of the new 
Latin Academy facility on the same site as the existing 
Latin School. 



379 



Accordingly, the Court risks nothing from a desegregation per- 
spective from approving the UFP in its current form. 

4. The School Defendants also urge this Court to resolve 
the only dispute among the joint planners in favor of the 
position taken by the State Board and endorsed by the School 
Committee; and to order the City Defendants to approve a per- 
manent $2 million increase in the alterations and repair ("A & R") 
budget. Such an order is within this Court's power since, under 
the circumstances presented here, the inadequacies of the A & R 
budget may well have an adverse impact on the desegregation pro- 
cess and because the impact of the requested order on the City of 
Boston is extremely modest. 

Mr. Scagnoli's undisputed testimony at the hearing was that,- 
in his view, the Boston Public Schools may be uhable to open all 

of its schools in September 1985 without an A & R budget of at 

■ 72/ 

least $8 million, $2 million more than the current level.' ' The 



/2/ The City introduced testimony that the maintenance budget 
for non-school municipal buildings is less than the A & R 
budget even though there are a larger number of the former. 
However, the relevance of this testimony depends on facts 
not in evidence. For example, the relevant comparison is 
not between the number of buildings but rather between total 
school and non- school square footage. Ei^glish High School 
requires considerably more r^aintenance- tH^ti several police 
stations or fire houses. Nor did the Cfty present evidence 
identifying whether the maintenance o"f facilities such as 
the Boston Public Library which, we understand, benefits 
from endowment income applied to maintenance, are included 
in the figures to which Ms. Nee testified. Nor did the 
City's witnesses testify that the municipal maintenance 
budget is adequate. Absent such clarification, there is not 
a sufficient basis for a judgment regarding the efficiency 
with which the A & R budget is utilized. 



380 



inability to open a school would upset the delicate balance 
currently being fashioned by the Department of Implementation in 
the course of making assignments. ^■fhile the precise impact of a 
$2 million A & R shortfall has not been determined, under the 
present circumstances it would be imprudent to assume that it 
would be trivial. 

In contrast, the burden of a permanent $2 million dollar 
increase in the A & R budget on the City is modest. First, the 
Mayor has it within his power to reduce the General School 
Purposes budget by whatever amount it adds to the A & R budget.' ' 
As a result, granting the requested relief does not legally 
oblige the City to spend any additional money for the public 
schools. Of course, the School Defendants believe that the 
impact of a $2 million cut in the General School' Purposes budget 
would be so dramatic that the Mayor will be persuaded not to 
require such a cut. Nonetheless, the Court is being asked to 
order only an accounting maneuver. 

Second, while the School Defendants recognize and applaud 
the City's apparent willingness to devote concededly scarce 
resources to capital projects in the Boston Public Schools, they 



/3/ As David Jones testified, the State Boarci' s condition would 
not be satisfied simply by a budget transfer on the part of 
the School Committee from General School Purposes to A & R. 
A permanent increase in the latter is required and so action 
by the City is essential. The School Defendants believe 
that the Mayor, by submitting a $258 million General School 
Purposes recommendation, has in effect already made the 
$2 million transfer in light of the larger request submitted 
by the School Defendants. 



381 



are also cognizant of the real cost to the City of its co3?jnitment. 
The joint planners anticipate that at least most of the projects 
approved would qualify for 90% state reinibursement. This reim- 
bursement applies to both principal and interest on funds borrowed 
by the City to finance these projects. Accordingly, the City's 
commitment of $69.7 million amounts, in real terms, to a commit- 
ment of municipal funds of approximately $7 million over ten 
years or approximately $700,000 per year, plus carrying changes. 
This sum, while significant, does not make a large dent in a 
municipal operating budget of over $435, 000,t)00, exclusive of the 
School Department budget. Given the dire condition of the 
facilities in the Boston Public Schools, an additional $2 million 
per year to plug a few more holes in the dike does not strike the- 
School Defendants as an unreasonable or excessive request. 

5. The School Defendants urge the Court not to ignore the 
significant value of an agreement among the joint planners on 
virtually all matters contained ik the UFP. Obviously, an agree- 
ment, however imperfect, can be implemented immediately upon 
Court approval. However, to the extent that, the Court sends the 
planners "back to the drawing board, " it can only be to cause an 
increase in the financial commitment of the City because the 
undisputed evidence is that the projects identified for the first 
three years must have priority and changes ca^ ^ome only by 
accelerating other projects so that they take place concurrently. 
The School Defendants do not know whether the City will challenge 
an order directing a greater expenditure of municipal funds. If 



382 



the City does mount such a challenge, the School Defendants are 
concerned that all facilities projects will be delayed. The 
School Defendants counsel the Court to hesitate before rejecting 
the UFP. 

1 Respectfully siobmitted, 
THE SCHOOL DEFENDANTS 
By their attorneys. 



Dated: 



L150/N 
5/3/85 



Marshall Simonds, P.C. 
Henry C. Dinger 
GOODWIN, PROCTER & HOAR 
28 State Street 
Boston, MA 02109 
(617) 523-5700 



383 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULA.H MORGAN, ET ALS . , * 
Plaintiffs * 

* 

V. * CIVIL ACTION 

* . NO. 72-911-G 

JOHN A. r^JUCCI, ET ALS., * 

Defendants.* 

* 

******** 



Plaintiffs' Memorandum Concerning the School Defendants'* 
Motion Regarding Emergency Repairs 

At the recent hearings concerning the UFP, the first year 
alterations and repairs were represented to be of a crisis nature, 
bearing upon the fitness of buildings for use. The lack of avail- 
ability of any of the affected buildings, whether due to the failure 
to make an essential repair or a delayed repair, would substantially 
interfere with the implementation of the desegregation plan. In 
addition, there is a past record of delay by the City in undertakinc 
similar work. State's Second Monitoring Report, Vol. II, pp. 196-9' 
Third Monitoring Report, Vol. I, p. 99; Fourth Monitoring Report, 
Vol. II, p. 89. Therefore, it is proper for the court to enter the 
order sought by the Boston school defendants, without reaching the 
point raised by the mayoral defendants. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Robert Pressman 

Center for Law and Education, Inc. 

6 Appian Way 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 

Thomas I. Atkins 

135 Eastern Parkway, #11-B-1 

Brooklyn, New York 11201 

384 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN, et al., 
Plaintiffs 



V. 

JOHN A, 



NUCCI, et al. , 

Defendants 



Civil Action No. 72-911-G 



CITY DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE 
TO SCHOOL DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM 
REGARDING UNIFIED FACILITIES PLAN 

This memorandum is submitted in response to the argu- 
ment made by the School Defendants in their Supplementary 
Memorandum Regarding Unified Facilities Plan on the dispute 
over the School Departments' alteration and repair budget. 
In addition to the serious issues of authority and jurisdic- 
tion, the order requested by the School Defendants in their 
supplementary memorandum would be inappropriate for the 
following reasons: 

1) The School Defendants have employed a back door tactic 
in order to obtain more money for their alteration and 
repair budget. At no time either before or during the 
hearings on the Unitied Facilities Plan did the School 
Defendants file a motion seeking such an increase. Although 
there was testimony on the maintenance budget during those 
hearings, that testimony was provided strictly for the 



U^ V. •ffi' f- 



]'^^< 



3^5 



informational purposes of the court. The City Defendants 
were never presented with a motion seeking an increase in 
the alteration and repair budget and therefore did not 

consider that to be an issue before the court for 

2 

resolution. It is inappropriate for the School Defendants 

to after-the-fact seek a court order awarding them additional 
funding when they never sought such funding from the court 
in the appropriate manner. 

2) The School Defendants' reliance on Mr. Scagnoli's 
testimony that the Boston Public Schools may not be able to 
open all of its schools in September 1985 without an addi- 
tional two million dollars in the alteration and repair 
budget is misplaced. In the first place, Mr. Scagnoli never 
offered such testimony. This testimony was hearsay offered 
by Mr. Jones. Secondly, this hearsay testimony is highly 
suspect and unreliable. Although Mr. Scagnoli may have told 
Mr. Jones that more money was needed, the undisputed testi- 
mony was that neither Mr. Scagnoli nor Mr. Jones ever 
informed Ms. Nee or any of the other City Defendants of this 



As the court indicated during the hearings, 
purported evidence was admitted because it may have 
contained some "good ideas", not because it necessarily 
related to an issue properly before the court or was 
admissible under the rules of evidence. This procedure 
during the UFP hearings v/as consistent with such a long 
standing practice in this case. 

^ Throughout the proceedings in this case, the court 
has repeatedly emphasized to the parties the need for an 
appropriate motion before the court will consider a matter. 



386 



purported situation. Joint Planners have a responsibility 
to plan jointly and not selectively. If this hearsay is 
actually true, it is hard to believe that neither a repre- 
sentative from the School Department nor a representative of 
the State Board ever brought this fact to the attention of 
any of the City Defendants during the planning process. 
This is especially true in light of the fact that both the 
School Department and the State Board want more money for 
their special and particular interest-schools. One would 
think that the inability to open all schools because of a 
shortfall in the alteration and repair budget would be an 
argument that would be made in favor of an increased allo- 
cation during the joint planning process. However, this 
contention was never presented to any of the City Defendants 
during the innumerable meetings the Joint Planners held on 
the UFP. It must be viewed as highly suspect. Under these 
peculiar circum.stances, this highly suspect testimony is 
certainly not a sufficient factual basis for the court to 
exercise its questionable authority and jurisdiction in this 
area. 

Moreover, if there is any validity to Mr. Scagnoli's 
hearsay, the remedy is not an order of the court but rather 
a reordering of priorities for the first year of the UFP by 
the Joint Planners. However, the City Defendants doubt that 
such a reordering will actually be necessary because they 
find it difficult to believe that the School Defendants and 
the State Board were so irresponsible in the joint planning 



process that they intentionally failed to identify school 
projects required to open schools in September 1985 in order 
to position the City Defendants during the hearings on the 
UFP. This would be gamesmanship of the worst sort. This 
type of gamesmanship has no place in this case and should be 
rejected by the court. 

3) The School Defendants' argument that the court should 
order the additional funding since it would help the School 
Department and not constitute a burden on the City is 
misguided. The authority and jurisdiction of a desegregation 
court is not determined by a cost benefit analysis. Moreover, 
the simple fact is that the School Defendants have it within 
their power to allocate an additional $1.5 million dollars 
to the actual alteration and repair of school buildings. 
The undisputed testimony at the hearings was that at present 
the School Defendants use $1.5 million of the $6 million 
alteration and repair budget for personnel purposes. It was 
also undisputed at the hearings that it is within the power 
of the School Department to pay these personnel costs out of 
the general school purposes budget. If the School Defendants 
were to choose this course of action, that would allocate 
close to the additional $2 million dollars which the State 
Board is seeking for the alteration and repair budget. 
Since the School Defendants are only seeking "an accounting" 
from the court, the City Defendants suggest that the School 
Defendants undertake this accounting maneuver and thereby 



388 



both resolve this matter and devote the entire alteration 
and repair budget to its stated purpose — the alteration and 
repair of school buildings. 

It should also be emphasized that the Unified Facili- 
ties Plan itself will make the $6 million alteration and 
repair budget go much further than it has in recent years. 
The uncontradicted testimony was that in recent years the 
$6 million dollar alteration and repair budget had to be 
used for capital projects as well as maintenance since the 
City was unable to undertake bonding for capital projects in 
recent years. With the commencement of the Unified Facili- 
ties Plan, the alteration and repair budget will no longer 
be taxed for capital needs and will be able to be devoted to 
the maintenance requirements of the schools. 
4) The School Defendants (and the plaintiffs) maintain, 
without any factual support, that a failure to increase the 
alteration and repair budget will hinder or impede desegre- 
gation. This position seems to stem from a belief that if 
school buildings look nice, desegregation will work but that 
if the buildings do not look nice, desegregation v.'ill. be 
defeated. Although the argument has the appeal of simplicity, 



The various "accounting maneuvers" suggested by 
the City Defendants and the School Defendants only serve to 
highlight the reasons for the court not intervening in this 
matter. Whether this court's authority and jurisdiction 
extend to ordering that the desegregation remedy mandates 
one accounting procedure or another is highly debatable. 
This is a matter governed by state law which is to be 
addressed by local elected officials. 



it is wholly unproven. Assuming arguendo that the process 
of desegregation is not complete, is it incomplete because 
of the alteration and repair budget, or because parents 
believe that their children will not get a quality education 
in the Boston public schools, or because parents disapprove 
of the quality of teachers and administrators in the schools, 
or because parents for philosophical reasons do not want 
their children to be bused under an order of a court, or 
because parents fear for their children's safety in the 
Boston public schools? The list of possibilities is in- 
finite. There is absolutely no evidence that desegregation 
would be furthered or at least not hindered if the alteration 
and repair budget was altered but the host of other variables 
which may arguably be impeding the desegregation process 
V7ere not remedied. To the contrary, the evidence supports 
the conclusion that the improvement of school facilities is 
not a solution to many of the desegregation issues v/hich the 
plaintiffs continue to raise. (See State Board Comments On 
Unified Facilities Plan at p. 10.) 

5) Since the UFP does address desegregation and does not 
hinder or impede desegregation, the court should permit the 
joint planners to voluntarily implement the UFP. 

CITY DEFEi^DANTS ,-^ _ / / 

By thpiD'attorney ,'T '^ /' .•' 




-^'Steven P. Petlmut t e r 

Assistant Corporation Counsel 
City of Boston Law Department 
Room 615, City Hall 
Boston, Massachusetts 02201 
Phone: 725-4026 

390 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN ET AL . , 

Plaintiffs, 



JOHN A. NUCCI ET AL. , 

Defendants. 



CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 72-911-G 



ORDER 
May 9, 1985 
GARRITY, J. 

Upon the motion of the school defendants and after hearing 
regarding the proposed Unified Facilities Plan ("UFP"), the 
projects identified on page III B-2 of the UFP for fiscal year 
1986 are hereby approved without prejudice to possible additions. 
The parties are authorized to take all steps necessary to 
accomplish them. 

It is not necessary to address the city defendants' 
objection concerning the court's authority to enter orders which 
require spending on facilities, since the city defendants have 
indicated their intention to proceed voluntarily. However, the 
court's authority to order improvements to facilities to enhance 
their desegregative potential has been established in this case 
and in the case law generally. 




391 



392 



STAFF 



393 



393b 



STAFF 



I. 



ORDERS The desegregation of faculty and 

administrative staff shall be implemented 
according to the standards contained in the 
orders of July 31, 1974; January 28, 1975; the 
amended Order of August 20, 1975; the Order of 
February 24, 1976; the Special Order of July 
7, 1977; the Further Order of July 5, 1978; 
the Modification of January 27, 1981; the 
Conditional Order of June 2, 1981; the Bench 
Order of July 9, 1981; and the Memorandum and 
Order of November 26, 1984. 



SUMMARY 

These orders: (1) require the Boston schools 
to achieve and maintain at least 20% black 
teaching staff, and spell out some of the 
procedures to be used to attain this level; 
(2) require the Boston schools to achieve and 
maintain at least 20% black administrative 
staff in two categories (building level; 
district and central offices) and spell out 
some procedures, including a promotional 
rating system, to be used to attain this 
level; (3) require that the proportion of 
black teachers assigned to each school reflect 
approximately the proportion of black teachers 
in the system at that grade level (K-5, 6-8, 
9-12); (4) require the Boston schools to adopt 
an affirmative action plan and actively to 
recruit black administrators and teachers 
until the level has reached 25%; (5) require 
the Boston schools to use their best efforts 
to increase the number of other minority 
teachers and administrators; (6) require the 
Boston schools to file annual personnel 
reports by position category and race. 
Certain modifications to these orders deal 
with maintaining the required levels of 
minority staffing during periods of staff 
reduction; (7) require modifications in the 
screening and rating process to delete some 
non-academic positions, to modify the 
representation on screening committee and to 
increase the percentage of other minority 
administrators . 

FINDINGS Despite a considerable number of new 

appointments during this monitoring period, 
the percentage of black teachers increased 
only .62%, and of other minority teachers 
.21%. The number of black teachers increased 



393c 



from 870 to 922 (up 52), of other minority 
teachers from 351 to 386 (up 35), and of white 
teachers from 2951 to 3111 (up 160). In other 
words, approximately two white teachers were 
hired for every one black or other minority 
teacher. While the mandatory 20% level of 
black teachers has been maintained, little 
progress has been made towards the goal of 
25%, and there were, for the first time in 
several years, real opportunities for such 
progress. 

Further, in terms of desegregation of staff at 
individual schools, the findings indicate that 
one elementary school (Baldwin), one middle 
school (Taft) and one high school (Boston 
Latin) are below the minimum required 
percentage of black staff. 

Additionally, there are two middle schools 
very close to the required limits: the 
Michelangelo, which has barely enough black 
staff, and the Thompson, which has barely 
enough non-black staff. 

The percentage of black administrators in 
Category I (principals) has increased slightly 
from 23.58 to 23.77; the percentage of black 
administrators on Category II (district and 
central office staff) has also increased 
slightly, from 23.80 to 24.21. (See table.) 

The percentage of other minority 
administrators in Category I increased from 
4.88 to 4.92; the percentage of other minority 
administrators in Category II decreased from 
7.02 to 7.01. (See table.) 

Due in part to a court-approved simplified 
promotional rating system for acting 
appointments, Boston has taken major steps to 
decrease the number of such appointments. 
Specifically, 130 department heads have been 
rated and are pending appointment. 

The promotional rating system for new 
vacancies has also been used during this 
monitoring period. Since September 1984, (and 
not previously reported) 62 ratings have been 
scheduled, and 10 more have been advertised 
but not yet scheduled. Of the 62, 15 have 
been cancelled or voided (lack of candidates 
or lack of funding); 13 are in process; 33 are 



394 



on hold while searches continue for additional 
minority candidates; and one appointment has 
been made. 



CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 



After five monitoring reports covering two- 
and-one-half years, trends and consistencies 
in the data become apparent. In the area of 
staffing, there are two such trends: first, 
in filling administrative vacancies, Boston 
has made real progress in increasing the 
numbers and percentages of black and other 
minority administrators in both categories, 
and is approaching the affirmative action 
goals set for it by the Court. Second, in 
filling teacher vacancies, Boston has barely 
maintained the minimum requirements set by the 
Court, and has made no progress toward the 
affirmative action goals. 

The progress in administrative staff 
integration has been made despite a scarcity 
of applicants, certification problems, union 
disputes, an elaborate screening and rating 
procedure, and only minimal resources for 
recruiting. The results appear to indicate a 
real and commendable commitment on Boston's 
part to the hiring of minority administrators. 
The fact that some administrative units are 
still not integrated is less important than 
the general progress. 

The integration of the teaching staff, by 
contrast, has stalled. Many of the reasons 
given to the monitors for this lack of 
progress are the same as those overcome by 
Boston in hiring administrators: e.g., lack 
of qualified applicants, union contracts, lack 
of recruitment efforts. The results indicate 
a significant lack of commitment to 
affirmative action. The monitors have been 
told, for example, that because the hiring 
process is so lengthy and confusing, qualified 
minority applicants recruited by the system 
have given up and taken other jobs. One 
reason cited for this delay in hiring is the 
reinclusion of the original recall roster in 
the most recent contract with the teachers 
union (BTU): each qualified person on that 
roster must be given a chance to refuse a job 
before it is offered to a new applicant. By 
the time calls have been made to all the 
candidates on the roster, the new minority 
candidates have lost patience. 



395 



It is important to emphasize the barriers to 
achieving affirmative action goals in the 
teaching staff. To those already mentioned 
should be added the city of Boston's residency 
requirement, competition from other systems 
for qualified minority teachers, an increasing 
general shortage of teachers, and a practice 
in Boston of promoting minority teachers to 
administrative positions. These are not 
barriers which are easy to overcome, but the 
monitors have seen very little evidence that 
any significant efforts have been made. 
Without any such evidence, and without any 
convincing results, one must conclude that 
Boston is content to disregard the Court's 
affirmative action goals, its own affirmative 
action plan, and the fact that it remains a 
largely non-white system with a largely white 
teaching staff. 

Recommendation . Boston refers to a "new 
policy to advertise widely in newspapers all 
promotionally rated positions" (memo from M. 
Monteiro to N. Stein, 4/30/85). Such a policy 
should be adopted immediately for all teacher 
vacancies. A similar recommendation was 
included in the last monitoring report but has 
apparently not been adopted. The Boston 
schools should therefore immediately 1) make 
the recruitment of black and other minority 
teachers a major priority 2) fund and 
undertake extensive and aggressive teacher 
recruitment efforts, and 3) make every effort 
necessary to retain currently employed black 
and minority teachers. 

Even though the increased use of the 
promotional rating system has not yet produced 
a significant number of new black and minority 
administrative appointments, it appears that 
real progress is being made and that 
additional recruitment efforts are under 
way. The Boston schools are to be commended 
for this effort. 



396 



PERCENTAGE OF BLACK AND OTHER MINORITY 
TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS 





#1 (6/83) 


#2 (2/84) 


#3 (7/84) 


#4 (2/85) 


Current 
Finding 


Teachers 












Black 


20.46 


20.30 


20.85 


20.24 


20.86 


Other 


8.25 


8.54 


8.42 


8.53 


8.74 


Category I 
Administration 












Black 


21.14 


21.14 


22.76 


23.58 


23.77 


Other 


1.63 


2.44 


3.25 


4.88 


4.92 


Category II 
Administration 













Black 



21.76 



not 24.44 

monitored 



23.80 



24.21 



Other 



4.01 



not 
monitored 



5.72 



7.02 



7.01 



397 



BOSTON DESEGREGATION REPORT #5 

STAFF 

VOLUME II ATTACHMENT 



1. Tallulah Morgan, et al, Plaintiff v. Rita Walsh-Tomasini , et 
al. Defendant (Civil Action No. 72-911-G), Memorandum and 
Order on Administrator Screening and Rating Procedures,, 
November 26, 1984. 

2. Number and Percent of White, Black, and Other Minority 
Teachers, March 15, 1985. 

3. Number and Percent of White, Black and Other Minority 
Administrators, March 15, 1985. 

4. Memorandum from Manual Monteiro to Nan Stein, April 29, 1985, 
including a list of promotional ratings. 

5. Memorandum from Thomas Hehir to Vic Mclnnis, April 29, 1985. 

6. Letter from James F. Walsh to James Case, May 1, 1985, with 
attachment . 

7. Percent of Black Staff, by School, Boston Public Schools, 
May, 1985. 



398 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR-: 
• DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH MORGAN ET AL. , 

Plaintiffs, 

CIVIL ACTION 
V. ' ' ■ NO. 72-911-G 



RITA WALSH-TOMASINI ET AL., 
Defendants , 



MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON ADMINISTRATOR 
SCREENING AND RATING PROCEDURES . 

November .26, 1984 

GARRITY, J. 

Upon consideration of the "School Defendants' Motion to 
Modify Administrator Rating and Screening Procedures" filed 
October 11, 1984 with the consent of the plaintiffs and 
plaintif f-intervenor, and the comments of Boston Teachers Union 
filed October 19, 1984, and after hearing on October 26, 1984, it 
is ORDERED that the school defendants' proposal, to the extent 
that it is contained in a memorandum from Equal Opportunity 
Senior Officer Barbara E. Fields to Superintendent Spillane dated 
August 29, 1984 ("Fields memorandum") as amended by a memorandum 
from Spillane to the Boston School Committee dated September 21, 
1984, and as further amended by the provisions of this order, be 
adopted as an order of the court. 

The proposal of the school defendants is hereby modified in 
the following manner: 



399 



(1) The number of "non-academic" positions exempted in 
Section A of the Fields memorandum from the screening and rating 
process shall be reduced by deleting from that category those 
listed as "(b) Facilities Management and Food Services and (c) 
Transportation and Records Management Units in the Department of 
Implementation." These positions shall be included in the list 
of positions on page 6 of the Fields memorandum which are subject 
to the full screening and rating process and shall in all ways be 
treated identically with comparable "academic" positions - 

(2) The number of teachers on both the School-Based 
Screening Committee and the Central/District Screening Committee/ 
as shown on page 9 of the Fields memorandum, shall be increased 
from one to two. The teachers shall be selected by the Boston 
Teachers Union ("BTU") in such a way as to enhance the racial 
composition of the Screening Committee. 

(3) . The headmaster or principal position on the School- 
Based Committee shall be filled by a person selected by tie 
Boston Association of School Administrators and Supervisors in 
such a way as to enhance the racial composition of the Screening 
Committee. 

(4) Add the following on page 5, at the end of the first 

full paragraph: 

In order to attain this goal the appointment of Other 
Minorities will be made at the rate of at least one out 
of three. If this goal cannot be reached by January 
1986, the one to three hiring ratio vvrill continue until 
the goal has been met. 



400 



The first modification, concerning the elimination of the 
exemption for certain "non-academic" positions is necessary to 
preserve open parent and community participation in the selection 
of administrators whose responsibilities, contrary to the 
assertions of the school defendants, substantially and directly 
affect the quality and equality of services to the students in 
the Boston public schools. • Conversely, the relatively snail - .v:., 
number of positions hereby added to the process v/ill not 
significantly increase the likelihood of a recurrence of a 
backlog in the future. 

The second modification concerning the number of teachers on 
the committees was urged by the Boston Teachers Union. Tne court 
agrees that two teacher-members are necessary to preserve the 
balance of representation among the various parties which has 
existed since the court adopted the "Leftwich Plan" by its order 
of February 24, 197 6. The third modification merely incorporates 
an uncontested clarification of the proposal to which the parties 
agreed in open court. I 

The final modification represents the first and third 
sentences of the amendment proposed in the second memorandum from 
Fields to Spillane dated September 21, 1984, to which no party 
has objected. The BTU objected to the adoption of the second 
sentence of the second Fields memorandum concerning the 
maintenance of thd percentage of other minority administrators in 
the event of layoffs as being unsupported by findings of 
<Jiscrimination against other minorities and therefore 



401 



impermissible under the holding of Firefighters Local #1784 v . 
Stotts , 1984, 104 S.Ct. 2576. Accordingly, as stated in open 
court, a decision on this issue will be deferred until the court 
can consider the arguments and offer of proof to be submitted by 
the Boston Teachers Union pursuant to a separate order issued 
concurrently herewith. . 

/I 



United States District' kludge 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 



TALLULAH .MORGAN ET AL . , 

Plaintiffs, 



RITA WALSH-TOMASINI ET AL . , 
Defendants , 



CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 72-911-G 



rt^iSiA 



..^ 



PROCEDURAL ORDER 
November 26, 1984 
GARRITY, J. 

The Boston Teachers Union ("BTU") has objected to an 
amendment to the modifications of the administrator screening and 
rating procedure proposed by the school defendants, which would 
require that "[i]f there is a reduction in force or layoffs, the 
percentage [of administrative positions held by other minorities] 
attained will be maintained." At the hearing the BTU requested 
that it be allowed to offer evidence and argue that the proposed 
amendment is prohibited by the Supreme Court's recent decision in 
Firefighters Local #1784 v. Stotts , 1984, 104 S.Ct. 2576. 

Therefore it is ordered that the BTU make an offer of proof 
by way of affidavits and exhibits and submit a brief in support ■ 
of its objection on or before .December 5, 1984. Other parties 
may respond on or before December 19, 1984. ■ 



ted States'.Distric/t/v/uc 



United States .Districrt/ jSadge 



403 



■■n 

< = 






3D .-\ 


■" CO 


1 • 


- - - - - - . 


SJ3H3B3J,' 


■i 5 




o =o 







1 3ifu.n 






- ^ 


^ 

- ^ 


. ■" 




vo a 


E 3 


'^ g 


r § 




ii 

z < 

3i3 


jamo 


S3 ^ 




r- vo 

.-V. o 


.-1 




saaqaeax 
Hoerg 




^ 1 


=1 

s 5 


i^ VO* 










vO 

5 d 


- 5 




sjaqDeai 


5 ° 


1 3 


ro o 

=1 iH 


^ 

2- 


c 




sasnoeax 




■ ^ Ca 


O. 
■" VO 


>- 


■a 






In cA 


VO o 


'° 


=5 

"ai 


sjaqaBajr. 




2 33 




^ 


. 


saaqDB3£ 

XB50i 


J^ o 


O O 






a 


<3 

> w 


sjoqoeax 


'^ CO 


o 


^ 


in 


■ § 


saaqoeaj; 
HaBta 


•^ d 







-1 ^ 


•0 


saaqoBSx 


rH O 


s H 


s 5 


VO 
VO 


:s 


sjaqoBax 


O O 
O O 


VO O 

^ .-1 


? § 


_ 

5 s 





• 


sjonoeax 
jaq^O 


<=> 




in 
m 


. 


1 


saaqaeai 




CO U-l 


VO 




*5 


sjaqaeax 


fVl S 


rH Co 
O VO* 


CO 

vO 


VO ° 


c 


w 


saaqoBax 
IB-lox 


g ° 


VO O 

n o 

vO .H 


rg 


1 ° 






>- 


1 c 


CTV to 

c-> o 


1 1 
33 I, 


■n n 

- 1 
1 c 

i ^ 


404 



ADMINISITlftTORS 
CATEGORY I ' " ' 
IIU^rBER 



PERCEUT 



TITLE 


B 


w 





T 


v>% 


u? 


0% 




Eeadinas ter/Principal 


29 


87 


6 


1 122 


23.77 


71-31 


i».92 






- 1 

CATEGORY II - BY LOCATION 


KUI-IBER PERCENT ^ 




B 


V 





T 


B? 


w^- 


P?- 




Central Administration 


56 


ll|l+ 


21 


221 


25 3U ^5.16 


?.50 




Offices of the Community Superintendents 


•8 


13 





21 


38.10 


61.90 









School Facilities 


86 


266 


23 


375 


22.-93 


10.9^ 


6.13 




TOTAL 


150 


U23 


1|U- 


617 


2!;. 31. 


6S.56 


7.13. 







CATEGORY II - BY TITLE 



TITLE 


B 


V 





T' ■ 


Bg ' 


T*^- ■ 


02J ■ 




SuTierintendent 




I 





1 ' 





"•00 





. 


Deputy Superintendent 


1 


2 





1 3 


^3.33 


66.67 







Senior Officer- 


1 


2 





3 


33.33 


66-67 







.'xecutive Administrative Assistant 


1 


? 





h 


25.00 


75-00 







•enior Administrative/Administrative Assistant- 


8 


9 


3 


20" 


Uo.oo 


1+5.00 


15-00 




ledia/Special Assistant 





2 





2 





inn 







executive Director 


1 








1 


100 


n 


n 




lenior Advisor 


1 


8 





9 


11.11 


fl3.89 







ssociate Director 





1 





1 


■ 



100 







ssistant Director 


3 


11 





IH 


21.J;3 


78.57 







"roject/Program Director 

enior Project/Program Director • • 


9 


15 





2h 


37.50 


62.50 







taff Assistant 





1 





1 





100 





- 


405 



















CATEGORY II - BY TITLE 



Page 31 ■ 



TI1T£ 


B 


w 





T 


Bl 


vt 


n^ 


CO rdinator-Safety/Clinical/Jimior /Senior 


18 


3!^ 


2 


9^ 


' 33-33 


62.97 


3.70 


Supervisor . 





1 





1 





100 





s 1 


6 


9 


11 


26 


23.03 


^U.6i 


1*2.31 


Officer 


6 


6 


. T.... 




l;6.15 


lf6J5 


7.f0' 


Investigative Counselor 


1 


1 





2 


bo-00 


5or6o 





Manager /Senior M??n5iD-PT- 


2 


1* 


1 


7 


28-57 


57. in 


lU.29 


Assistant/Associate Manager 


1 


7 





8 


12.50 


87.50 





Analyst-Junior /Senior 


t1 


8 


2 


12 


16.6T 


56.66 


16.67 


ProjectAJait Leader 


2 


6 





8 


25-00 


r5.oo 





• 
Budget/Security Chief 





2 





2 





100 





Evaluation/Systems Specialist 





2 





2 





100 





Chief/Senior Engineer 





3 





3 





100 


.0 


Senior Curriculum Advisor 


1 


1 





2 


50.00 


JO.OO 





-susitional Associate/Assistant 





3 





■ 3 





100 





.-neral/Assistant General Counsel 


1 


U 





5 


20.00 


80.00 





Program Advisor 


1* 


12 


1 


17 


23.53 


70.59 


5.88 


Special Education Monitor 





1 





1 





100 





Director 


1 


10 


. 


11 


9-09 


• 
90-91 





".distant Program/Pro.lect Director 


u 


6 


. 


.1 


-CO. 00 


60.00 







1 


1 





2 1 


50.00^. 


50.00 


Q 


Staff Attorney 


1 


1 





2 


50.00 


50.00 


.0 




3 


6 





, 1 


33.33 


66.67 





406 






1 











CATEGORY II - BY TITLE 



Page 32 







im>tBER 






PERCEIJT 




TITLE 


B 


w 





T 


B% 


W^ 


0% 


Assistant Headmaster 


lli 


2h 


2 


IfO 


I35.GO 


60.00 


5.00 


Department Head 


18 


83 


5 


io6 


116.93 


78.30 


1;.72 


Guidance Counselor 


22 


32 


8 


62 


!35-^ 


51-62 




Registrar 





16 





16 


1 


100 





Development Officer 


5 


11 





16 


131-25 


68-75 





Assistant Principal 


7 


53 


6 


66 


10 -61 


80.30 


9-09 


Teacher-in-Chaxge 





1 


.0 


1 


!o 


100 





Cluster Adpiinistrator 


1 


6 





7 


U.29 


85-71 





Director of Instruction 


h 


lU 


2 


20 


20.00 


70.00 


10.00 


















TOTALS 


150 


1;23 


hh 


617 


21* -31. 


68.56. 


7.13 










1 














































r 






, 
























! 

! 
























































































. ,„, 

















THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 




BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS 

MANUEL P. MONTEIRO 



April 29, 1985 



MEMORANDUM 



To: Nan Stein, 

Massachusetts Department of Education 



Department of Personnel and Labor Relations 
SUBJECT: Promotional Ratings, September, 1984 - April 30, 1985 



The attached list shows promotional ratings initiated and carried 
through by the Recruitment and Evaluation Unit. In several instances 
ratings were cancelled for reasons such as inadequate pools of qualified 
candidates, . lack of minority candidates, etc. However, in every case, 
(with the exception of two) the Recruitment and Evaluation Unit completed 
all phases of each promotional rating up through the evaluation of cre- 
dentials and determination of eligibility. 

Despite the focus on recruitment efforts some ratings were not con- 
summated i.e., persons were not appointed to positions. Hopefully, the 
school department's new policy to advertise widely in newspapers all 
promotionally rated positions and even greater recruitment efforts will 
result in larger pools of qualified candidates. 

During the last few months the Recruitment and Evaluation Unit initiated 
the U. S. District Court approved procedures for effecting one-time con- 
versions of incumbents to permanent status. Two hundred and sixty-seven 
(267) names of incumbents were considered. One hundred and thirty-one 
(131) were declared eligible and are now being screened by Responsibility 
Center Managers and appropriate panels of parents. 



rt 

cc Dr. .James Wdlsh 

408 
26 COURT STREET, BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 021C3 • 726-6600. Ext. 5G42 AREA 617 



PROMOTIONAL RATINGS 



SINCE SEPTEMBER, 1984 



NAME OF POSITION 



Health Ed .Coordinator 



Asstistant Business Manager, Expenditures 

Senior Program Director - Computer 
Technology Development 



Department of Student Support Services 

Coordinator IMPACT II Teacher Networking 
Program 



Teacher Specialist - Elementary Physical 
Education 

Alt. School Coordinator Home Based Program 



Project Director, Alt. Programs 

Materials Support Specialist/Teaching 

Cluster Program Clinical Coordinator 
Senior Coordinator - Cluster Program (6) 
Program Director/Social Studies 

Junior Specialist - School-Based Management 

Coordinator, External Grants 

Senior Coordinator, External Grants 
Coordinator (2) Bilingual/Multi-Educational 



STATUS (as of April 29, 1985) 

Completed - names of 
finalists sent, to 
Superintendent 



Completed - names of 
finalists sent to 
Superintendent 4/29/85 ^^- 

Voided - t6 be rerated 

Completed - sent to chair- 
person of Screening Committee 
4/29/85 

Completed - sent to chair- 
person of Screening Committee 

Completed - names of 
finalists sent to 
Superintendent 

Completed - sent to chair- 
person of Screening Committee 
4/29/85 

Rating cancelled (only one 
candidate) 

Rating cancelled 

Rating cancelled 

Completed - person appointed 
to position 

Rating Cancelled - no 
eligible candidates applied 

Completed - but further re- 
cruitment efforts in progress 
because of lack of minority 
candidates 

Completed - sent to .chair- 
person 4/12/84 

Completed - sent to chair- 
person 



/ 



^ 



v/f 



*RATING COMPLETED BUT ADDITIONAL RECRUITMENT EFFORTS ARE UNDERWAY 
~P'V '-■ 409 - 



NA^IE OF POSITION 

Occupational Development Specialist 

Administrative Assistant/Bilingual Ch 636 
Personnel Specialist 

Senior Manager, Personnel & Labor Relations 

Junior Coordinator School-Based Management 

Laxi Coordinator For Testing/Compliance 

Assistant Program Director/Music Field 
■ Support Services 



Project Director, Title. VII 

Principal, Middle & Elementary 
(13 positions) 

Headmaster (3~ positions) 

Analyst-Psychometrics 

Assistant Manager, Devlopment Unit Leader 
Information Center Project Leader (2) 

Assistant Program Director - McKinley School 

Junior Coordinator, Food Services 

Junior Specialist - Accounting & Audit 

Junior Specialist - Ch. 636 Office 

Junior Specialist - Facilities 



STATUS (as of April 29, 1985) 

Completed - sent to chair- 
person of Screening Committee 
but later cancelled due to 
budgeting restrictions 

Voided - Insufficient number 
of applicants - 

Completed - sent to chair- 
person of Screening Committee 
Screening Committee to meet 
on May 3, 1985. 

Completed - but furtlier re- 
cruitment efforts in progress 
because of lack of ninority 
candidates 

Completed - eligible candi- 
dates being reviewed by OEO 



Completed - but additional 
recruitment efforts in 
progress due to insufficient 
minority candidates 



y^ 



Rating cancelled - 
insufficient candidates 






y ^ 


l/^- 


1/ ^ 


l/ ' 


V i 



*RATING COMPLETED BUT ADDITIONAL RECRUITMENT EFFORTS ARE UNDERWAY 

410 



if 



NAME OF POSITION 
Headmaster - Humphrey ORG 

Pupil Adjustment Counselor 
Senior Advisor/High School 
Specialist - Title VII 

Junior Recruitment Specialist 

Analyst, Junior Analyst 
Athletic Trainer - Citywide 

Assistant Manager, Day Field Operations 

Community Superintendent (5 positions) 

Administrative Assistant to Community 
Superintendent (5 positions) 



STATUS (as of April 29, 1985) 

Completed - sent to chair- _ ^ 
person of Screening Committee 

* 



Completed - sent to chair- ^ 
person of Screening Committee i 
4/29/85 

Completed - sent to chair- / 
person of Screening Committee . ^ 
4/29/85. 



No application - to be' 
advertised " • 



Credentials due 5/3/85 
Credentials due 5/3/85 



y< 



v/-^ 



*RATING COMPLETED BUT ADDITIONAL RECPvUITMENT EFFORTS ARE UNDERWAY 



411 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CiTY OF BOSTON 




BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES 



TO: Vic Mclnnis, Unit Leader 
Recruiting and Evaluation 

FROM: Thomas Hehir , Manager -—-^J 
Special Education ^'^:^__' 

DATE: April 29, 1985 

SUBJ: Clinical Coordinator and Sr . Coordinator Positions 



The promotional rating for these positions should not 
go forward for the following reasons: 

(1 ) Clinical Coordinators 

These positions have been determined to be B.T.U. positions 
through negotiations between the School Committee, B.T.U. 
and BASAS. Therefore, they are not subject to promotional 
ratings. 

(2) Senior Coordinators 

The" collective bargaining unit determination for these 
positions are currently being determined by L.R.C.- Testimony 
has finished. Both BASAS and the B.T.U. are claiming 
the positions. In addition, five out of six of the current 
positions are being processed through the expedited process. 
Therefore, the promotional rating for the vacancy should not 
occur until the collective bargaining unit is established. 
Also, it should be noted that v/e anticipate the establish- 
ment of 2 (two) additional Senior Coordinator positions in 
September. These v/ill be posted v/hen there is a budget 
commitment . 

Thank you for your attention to this matter, 
cc: Kenneth Caldv;ell 



26 COURT STREET ,• BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02103 • 726-6200 AREA 61 7 

412 ' 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 




BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT 

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION 

JAMES F WALSH 



May 1, 1985 



Dr. James Case 
1385 Hancock Street 
Quincy, MA 021^ 

Dear Dr./Case^ 




Pursuant /to a verbal request for additional information from 
Nan Stein to Manuel Monteiro, I am providing you with a further 
update on the implementation of the conversion of administrators 
serving in acting capacities to permanent status. 

Attached you will find a compilation of the number of individuals 
who are eligible or ineligible for conversion pursuant to the criteria 
established in the modified orders. Those who are eligible are 
currently awaiting final (joint) recommendation from the responsibility 
center manager and the appropriate parent panel. Individuals in- 
eligible for conversion did not meet one or more of the established 
criteria i.e., position was not posted, individual does not meet stated 
qualifications for the position, individual was not recommended by 
the responsible administrator, or the individual was not included 
in the March 15, 1985 Court Report. 

Since my communication of November 7, I98M on the subject, the 
Labor Relations Commission has certified Department Heads to be 
included in the BASAS bargaining unit. Development Officers and 
Registrars continue to be subject to the legal proceedings before 
the LRC. At this time, the School Department has made a decision 
to proceed with the conversion of Development Officers and to hold 
the Registrars pending further recruitment efforts. 

I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 

Very truly yours. 



J^ms^s F. Walsh 
"Der/uty Superintendent 
Fj^ance and Administration 

JFW/k 

Attachment 

26 COURT STREET, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 • 726-6200 EXT 5800 AREA 617 

413 



ACADEMIC /SCHOOL BASED !!£ NO 



Guidance Counselor 1 



63 26 

13 3 

14 



Department Head 

Development Officer 

Registrar 

Sr./Cl. Coordinator 10 1 

Administrative Assistant 1 

Job Supervisor 2 

Teaching In Chg. 1 

Senior Program Director 3 

Asst. Sr. Program Director 4 1 

Program Advisor _1, 



CENTRAL-ACADEMIC 



92 60 



Senior Program Director (Compact) 1 

Coordinator " * 

Senior Program Director (Oper/SIP) 1 

Director of ATT (Oper.) 1 

Asst. Mgt/Field Operator (Oper/Fac/Mgt) 1 

Asst, Manager (Oper./Fac. Mgt) 1 

Specialist (Oper./Fac. Mgt) 1 

Project Director " " 2 
Ch. Str, Engineer 
Sr. Str. Engineer 

Sr. Engineer " " 1 

Safety Chief (Oper/Safety) 1 

Coord, of Inv. & Discip (Oper/Safety) 1 1 

Administrative Assistant 1 1 

Sr. Safety Coordinator (Oper/Safety) 1 

Assistant Director, Ch. I (Curr.) 5 

Senior Coordinator (Curr/I.P.D. ) 1 

•f t> o 

Coordinator * 

Sr. Cur. Advisor " " 1 

Prog. Dir. - Gifted " " 1 

Prog Dir-Elem Rd/Lang Arts(Curr/Instr) 1 
Asst. Prog. Dir. -Music " 1 

-Media " 2 

-Arts " 1 

Coord. -Swimming " ■'• 

Bil. Coordinator " 2 

Adm. Asst. - Bil. " 1 

Jr. Specialist " 1 

Lau Specialist " 1 

Evaluation Spec. (Curr/Test) 

Junior Analyst 

Director (Adult Education) 
Coord. Superv. 

Staff Asst. (St. Sup. Serv.) 
Sp. Ed. Monitor 
Project Director 
Program Director/Occ (HHORC) 1 



414 



CENTRAL ACADEMIC (Continued) 


YES 


NO 


Manager (Student Support Services) 


1 


Program Advisor 


" 




18 


Transitional Assoc. 


(Ed & Emp) 




3 


Coord, of Urban Retrofit 


" 






Monitoring Inf. Spec. 


(Impl.) 






Inf. Officer (IMD) 


" 






Oper. Assign Coord. 








Assign/Tran. Spec. 


" 






Dir. - Transportation 


" 






Trans. Officer 


" 






Dir - Rec. Mgt 


" 






Systems Analyst 


" 






Program Analyst 


" 






Data Cont. Spec. 


" 






Community Supt. (Dist. I, 


, II, IV) 




3 


Adm. Assistant (Dist. I. 


,11, III, V.IX) 




5 


Proj. Dir. -Stud. Lead (Dist. V.IX) 




1 


School Psych, 




1 




Pupil Adj. Couns. 




2 


2 


Sup. of Att. (Dist. IX) 






_2 



TOTAL 



68 



NON-ACADEMIC 



YES 



Sr. Prog. Dir. F&A/SBM 

Assist. Bus. Manager(FYA/Bus. Mgr.) 

Coordinator 

Manager F&A/ISD 

Project Leader 

Unit Leader 

Analyst 

Senior Coordinator 

Unit Leader (F&A/PERS) 

Specialist 

Senior Specialist 

Junior Specialist 

Business Agent 



415 



ACADEMIC/SCHOOL BASED YES 



Guidance Counselor 1 



63 26 

13 3 

14 

10 1 



Department Head 

Development Officer 

Registrar 

Sr./Cl. Coordinator 

Administrative Assistant 1 

Job Supervisor 2 

Teaching In Chg. 1 

Senior Program Director 3 

Asst. Sr. Program Director 4 1 

Program Advisor _i. 

TOTAL 92 60 
CENTRAL -ACADEMIC 

Senior Program Director (Compact) 1 

Coordinator " ^ 

Senior Program Director (Oper/SIP) 1 

Director of ATT (Oper.) 1 

Asst. Mgt/Field Operator (Oper/Fac/Mgt) 1 

Asst. Manager (Oper./Fac. Mgt) 1 

Specialist (Oper./Fac. Mgt) 1 

Project Director " " ^ 
Ch. Str. Engineer " '* 
Sr. Str. Engineer 

Sr. Engineer " " ^ 

Safety Chief (Oper/Safety) 1 

Coord, of Inv. & Discip (Oper/Safety) 1 1 

Administrative Assistant 1 1 

Sr. Safety Coordinator (Oper/Safety) 1 

Assistant Director, Ch. I (Curr.) 5 

Senior Coordinator (Curr/I.P.D. ) 1 
Coordinator 

Sr. Cur. Advisor " " ■'• 

Prog. Dir. - Gifted " " ^ 
Prog Dir-Elem Rd/Lang Arts(Curr/Instr) 1 

Asst. Prog. Dir. -Music " ^ 

-Media " 2 

-Arts " ^ 

1 



Coord . -Swimming 
Jil. Coordinator 



2 
Adm. Asst. - Bil. " 1 

Jr. Specialist " ^ 

Lau Specialist " ^ 

Evaluation Spec. (Curr/Test) 

Junior Analyst 

Director (Adult Education) 
Coord. Superv. 

Staff Asst. (St. Sup. Serv.) 
Sp. Ed. Monitor 
Project Director 
Program Director/Occ (HHORC) 1 



416 



(Ed & Emp) 
(Impl.) 



CENTRAL ACADEMIC (Continued) 

Manager (Student Support Services) 

Program Advisor 

Transitional Assoc. 

Coord, of Urban Retrofit 

Monitoring Inf, Spec. 

Inf. Officer (IMD) 

Oper. Assign Coord. 

Assign/Tran. Spec. 

Dir. - Transportation 

Trans, Officer 

Dir - Rec. Mgt 

Systems Analyst 

Program Analyst 

Data Cont. Spec. 

Community Supt. 

Adm. Assistant 

Proj. Dir. -Stud. 

School Psych. 

Pupil Adj. Couns 

Sup. of Att. (Dist. IX) 



(Dist. I, II, IV) 




(Dist. I, II, III, V, IX) 




Lead (Dist. V.IX) 






1 




2 



TOTAL 



32 



68 



NON-ACADEMIC 



Sr. Prog. Dir. F&A/SBM 






1 


Assist. Bus. Manager(FYA/Bus. 


Mgr.) 




1 


Coordinator 


" 




3 


Manager F&A/ISD 




1 




Project Leader 






1 


Unit Leader 




2 


1 


Analyst 




2 


1 


Senior Coordinator 






4 


Unit Leader (F&A/PERS) 




1 


2 


Specialist 






1 


Senior Specialist 






1 


Junior Specialist 






2 


Business Agent 




J^ 







TOTAL 


6 


24 



417 



198'! 



.j85 



Maximum - 52.10% 
M iddle - 26.05% 
Minimum - 13.03> 



MIDDLE SCHOOLS 



RACIAL PERCENTAGE AS OP MARCH 15, 1985 



R.C. 



SCHOOL 



TOTAL 



BLACK 



50i| 


Barnes 


^9 


508 


Cheverus 


12 


510 


Cleveland 


77 


513 


Curley, M. E. 


60 


516 


Dearborn 


H2.5 


519 


Edison 


^e 


522 


Edwards 


^7 


525 


Gavin 


il2.5 


528 


Holmes 


30 


531 


Irving 


60 


53*1 


King, M. L. 


^7 


537 


Lewenberg 


36 


5^10 


Lewis 


22 


5^3 


Mackey 


36 


5^9 


McCormack 


50 


552 


Michelangelo 


22 


555 


Rogers 


HO 


558 


Roosevelt, T. 


22 


561 


Shaw, R. G. 


29 


56ii 


Taft 


n 


567 


Thompson 


29 


570 


Timilty 


39 


573 


Wilson 


51 


s^je 


Wheatley 


32 



8 


16.3 


3 


25 


16 


21 


17 


28.3 


18 


i<2.3 


7 


15.2 


8 


17 


8 


19 


9 


30 


10 


17.6 


17 


36 


li\ 


39 


7 


32 


11 


30.5 


8 


16 


3 


13.6 


6 


15 


6 


27.2 


5 


17.2 


6 


12.7 


15 


51 


13 


33.3 


13 


25.^ 


12 


37.5 



418 



198i< - i^85 



Maximum - 39.08< 
Middle - 19.5^^ 
Minimum - 9.77* 



HIGH SCHOOLS 



RACIAL PERCENTAGE AS OF MARCH 15, 1983 



SCHOOL 



TOTAL 



BLACK 



609 


Boston High 


h6 


612 


Boston Latin School 


103 


615 


Boston Latin Academy 


62 


6l8 


Boston Technical 


6^ 


62iJ 


Brighton High 


69 


627 


J. E. Burke 


55 


630 


Charlestown High 


76 


633 


Copley Square High 


32 


636 


Dorchester High 


74 


6i|I 


East Boston High 


60 


enH 


English High 


107 


651 


Hyde Park High 


66 


65^1 


Jamaica Plain High 


60 


657 


Madison Park High 


125 


669 


South Boston High 


6i| 


672 


Mario Umana High 


61 


675 


West Roxbury High 


78 


110 


A.C.C. 


10 


125 


H.H.H.O.R.C. 


312 



7 


15.2 


8 


7.7 


9 


m.5 


10 


15.6 


11 


16 


15 


27.2 


10 


13.1 


6 


18.7 


9 


12.1 


11 


18.3 


23 


21. i| 


10 


15.1 


15 


25 


ii3 


34.il 


13 


20.3 


9 


14.7 


9 


11.5 



10 

30.3 



419 



420 



TRANSPORTATION 



421 



421b 



TRANSPORTATION 



ORDER 



MAY 10, 1975, PP. 80-83 



SUMMARY The May 10, 1975 Order includes general remarks 
about the provision of transportation. These 
remarks are more in the nature of an explanation of 
the need for transportation than of specific 
instructions to Boston. 

Monitoring has concentrated on concerns about the 
adequacy, reliability, and safety of transportation 
services, as these concerns have emerged during 
implementation rather than as the Orders have 
addressed them. 

Findings Partial Compliance 

In Report No. 3, the Monitors made several 
recommendations to Boston. The gist of these 
recommendations was that Boston should take a 
stronger role in transportation management to 
establish standards and procedures to ensure 
consistent performance of high quality. These 
recommendations recognized that the Boston 
desegregation plan depends significantly on the 
adequacy of the transportation system. 

Monitors have not received any response from Boston 
in the year since these recommendations were 
originally made. During that year, the press has 
reported numerous, unfortunate transportaiton 
incidents, especially regarding the failure to 
screen drivers for felony records and to properly 
train drivers regarding permissible contact with 
students. Information from parent organizations 
and elsewhere suggests that the incidence of more 
mundane problems is also increasing. Stories of 
late buses, early buses and "no show" buses rarely 
make the evening news, yet they can be equally 
disruptive of an educational system and equally 
discouraging to parents and students. 

The fact that the superintendent has recently 
recommended that Boston modify its transportation 
arrangements suggests recognition of the 
seriousness of the problem and presents an 
opportunity to address the monitors' 
recommendations . 

The monitors recognize that the transportation 
situation may change dramatically between the time 
this report is written and the time it is submitted 
to the court. Consequently, the State Board will: 



421c 



(1) communicate its concerns to Boston under 
the provisions of section IV C of the 1982 
Disengagement Order; 

(2) will urge the School Committee and School 
Department to establish standards and 
procedures to ensure consistent performance 
of high quality; and 

(3) will offer the State's assistance to achieve 
these goals. 



conOjUS ions/ recommendations 



Monitors have not received evidence that 
improvements have been made in the development and 
implementation of a system of contractor and driver 
accountability. 

Boston should develop and implement standards and 
procedures to ensure consistent performance of high 
quality. 



B. School Bus Safety 

In Report No. 3 and 4, monitors described the 
implementation of a new school bus safety program by 
Boston. At the time of Report No. 4, an evaluation of the 
effectiveness of that program was not possible because the 
program had not operated long enough to evaluate properly. 
The major components of the new school bus safety program 
are: 

(1) the addition of transportation attendants assigned to 
elementary and middle schools according to the 
following formula: 

1 to 3 buses - 1 attendant 
4 to 6 buses - 2 attendants 
7 to 9 buses - 3 attendants 
10 or more buses - 4 attendants 

(2) the development of rapid response vehicles from the 
School Safety Department to follow certain troubled 
high school buses and others in need of immediate 
assistance; 



422 



(3) improved training for transportation attendants, and 
other staff involved with school bus safety, and a 
re-emphasis on proper handling of school bus safety 
and discipline procedures for all school staff. 

To evaluate the effectiveness of the school bus safety 
program, a questionnaire was sent in February to meiribers of the 
school community, a major proportion of whom were parents. Nine 
hundred responses were analyzed (see pp. 428-49) and the results 
indicate that most respondents feel that the school bus safety 
program has brought about a great improvement, particularly the 
addition of transportation attendants. In support of the actual 
data submitted by the School Safety Department showing that 
incidents reported on school buses have decreased by 70% (and 90% 
on those buses with attendants), the majority of respondents felt 
the number of incidents has indeed decreased as well as the 
number of complaints and concerns expressed by parents and 
others. 

While improvements in most areas of transportation safety 
responsibility were found by more respondents than those citing 
no improvements, most respondents felt unable to respond to items 
about improvements in specific areas of transportation 
responsibility (ARA, transportation unit. Department of Safety 
Services, school administrators). 

The one area in which most respondents felt the need for 
further improvements was in placing transportation attendants on 
all full-size buses (see page 431). Mooitors reported on this 
suggestion in interviewing headmasters and principals for Report 
No. 4. 

Members of the CPC attended the training sessions for the 
transportation attendants and have generally reported favorably 
on the quality of the training (see page; 450) despite 
problems with specific aspects of the overall training program 
(i.e., film on bus safety procedures). 

CONCLUS IONS/ RECOMMENDAT I ONS 

It would appear that on the basis of these findings that 
Boston is moving toward resolving its school bus safety 
problems. Some concerns still remain regarding (1) the 
assignment of transportation attendants to all school buses; 
(2) the effectiveness of the ARA in screening and training bus 
drivers and ARA follow-up complaints filed. 



423 



Transportation - Attachments 

1. letter: Judith Taylor to Dr. Catherine Ellison 

2. Assessment of Student Transportation Safety Plan 

3. School Bus Attendant Data 

4. Memo: John Chistolini to Joseph McDonough 

5. Student Transportation Safety Program Questionnaire responses 

6. Bus Attendants training Monitoring Report 

7. Changes in Tranportation Attendants 

8. CPC - Transportation Survey results 

9. CPC ~ Parents comments re, transportation 

10. Newspaper editorial: Standards for School Bus Drivers 



42' 




The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Department of Education 



1385 Hancock Street, Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 

May 1, 1985 



Dr. Catherine Ellifon 
Department of Implementation 
26 Court Street 
Boston, Massachusetts 02108 

Dear Dr. EUison: 

In its last two monitoring reports the Department of Education made a number of 
reoDm mendations regarding transpDrtation. (See Report No. 3, VoL lEA, p. 632; and 
Report No. 4, VoL U, p. 349.) 

1. The School Department shjuld develop and implement a complaint 
management procedure to (a) identify troiiblft spots, and Qd) identify and fallow 
up inadequate responses fro m the oontractor. 

2. The TranspDrtation Unit should revise its oo mplaint log form to require the 
oontractor to (a) identify by name the driver involved in the alleged infraction, 
(b) identify the bus run by name, (c) indicate whether substantiated infractions 
involved a recant change in route assignment and/or tardiness/abseiteeism, 
and (d) develop a standardized list of oo mplaints and responses. 

3. Boston should continue to press the oontractor to make oo mplaint investigation 
and management a fuH-time staff responsibility with sdgnificant authority. 

4. Boston should ensure that bus drivers receive training in the laws that define 
and prohibit child abuse and sexual harassment. It should revise its co m p lai n t 
procedures to ensure that educational administrators and other mandated 
reporters oomply with Section 51a of Chapter 119 of the Massachusetts 
General Laws ("child abuse law"). 

Could you please describe the measures Boston plans to take? We are anxious to include 
Boston's response in its fifth monitoring report. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Sincerely, 



Judith Taylor 

Attachment 

cc: Arthur Gilbert 
Charles Glenn 



425 



SAFETY and SECURTTY 

Section I - (D) Assessment of Student Transportation Safety Plan 

An effort was undertaken by the School Department to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the Plan for Student Transportation Safety in March 1985. 

Responses to an evaluation survey were sutroitted by approxiinately nine hundred 
(900) representatives of the school comnunity. 

The number of returns submitted did not represent the total membership of 
these groups. However, the survey was a sincere attenpt to gather information 
pertinent to the effectiveness of the program. 

A review of reported transportation incidents for the period September 1, 1984 
through April 1, 1985 reflects a decrease by 70% the number reported incidents 
during the same period last school year. 

Those persons with knowledge of the subject responded that there was 15) to a 
94% reduction in the number of incidents aboard school buses staffed with 
Transportation Attendants. 

Each group was provided with results of the survey for interpretation and 
analysis of those statistics of special interest. 

Based on the results of the survey, the effectiveness of the program warrants 
its continuation. 



426 



SAFEnY and SECURITY 

Section I - (C) School Bus Attendant Data 

Transportation Attendants were assigned to designated elementary and middle 
school buses for the 1984-85 school year. Ttiis plan provided student 
supervision on certain full sized buses servicing these schools. 
Transportation Attendants report directly to the Principal in all matters of 
student safety and discipline v^ile assisting the bus driver who remains 
ultimately responsible for the passenger and vehicle. 

Transportation Attendants were assigned according to a formula which 
considered allotted funds and the number of full sized buses assigned to each 
elementary and middle school as follows: 

1 bus - 1 attendant 

4 buses - 2 attendants 

7 buses - 3 attendants 

10 buses - 4 attendants 

The school principal assigned his/her Transportation Attendants to buses 
(routes) as needed throughout the school year to address safety and student 
management concerns. 

Transportation Attendants were selected from existing school staff. Utilizing 
this personnel resource assured consistency and accountability in matters of 
student discipline and safety while in transit. 

Personnel selected as Transportation Attendants attended an eight (8) hour 
training program prior to the start of the school year. Additional training 
was provided during the school year. Training was coordiriated jointly by the 
Transportation Unit and the Department of Safety Services utilizing resources 

of the ARA Transportation Conpany. Training was provided in the areas of 

student manageiT>ent , emergency first-aid and safety policies and procedures. 



427 



THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF BOSTON 



BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
DEPAHIMENI OF SAFETY StRVICFS 



lUHNA^.HIS.OLIN, ^^^^ ^3^ ^^^^ 



To: Joseph M. McDonough, Deputy Superlntende[nt/.9peratlons 

From: John A. Chistollni, Chief of^SaFetvp-Services 

Re: Student Transportation Safety | Program, Questionnaire 

Please be advised that the following persons met this date to review Student 
Transportation Safety Program, Questionnaire/Survey data: 

1. Elaine Almeida, ARA Representative 

2. Alfred Binns, Teacher/Transportation Attendant 

3. Arthur Gilbert, Director, Transportation 

A. William Murray, Coordinator, Pupil/Personnel Safety 

5. Charles Ray, Principal 

6. Elizabeth Wood, Educational Advocate, CPC 

Responses from approximately nine hundred (900) questionnaires were tallied. 
There were an additional 200-300 parent returns which were not included in these 
totals. 

The number of returns submitted by sub-divisions of the school community do not 
represent the total membership of those groups. It is also evident that many 
respondents did not have adequate information on the subject (s) to make an 
evaluation. 

The consensus of those in attendance is that by converting the numerical totals to 
percentage and disregarding the "I don't know" response the findings are more 
significant. 

Example: 

1. Question //I - total responses - 627 yes, 63 no, 50 same, 

174 I don't know. 

Disregarding "I don't know" responses, 627 represents 84% of 
the respondents answering affirmatively. 

2. Question #2 - total responses by those persons identified ^'^—^^ 

as Building Administrators or Principals. S>^^ 7 ^ 



47 yes, 2 no, 1 same, 1 I don't know. <>j- 

Disregarding "[don't know" response, 47 represents 94% of the J— M^n — ' 
respondents answering affirmatively. 7^ ^^^ 5<* 



Nr.viMinirr "^trfft • ho^rury 



42 8 



Re: Student Transportation Safety Program, 
Questionnaire 



Each representative group may interpret and analyze those statistics of special 
interest to them. 

I believe that despite obvious short comings the instrument used was a sincere 
effort to gather information on the subject. 

You may wish to share the attached information with representatives of the 
School Committee and other interested parties. 

Please advise if further assistance in this matter is required from this 
department. 

JAC:bj 

Attachments 

xc: E. Almeida, ARA Representative 

A. Binns, Teacher/Transportation Attendant 

A. Gilbert, Director, Transportation 

W. Murray, Coordinator, Pupil/Personnel Safety 

C. Ray, Principal 

E. Vfood, Educational Advocate, CPC 



429 



STUDENT IHANSPORTATION SAFEIY PROQIAM qUESTlCMJAIRE 
September, 1984 — January, 1985 

Dear School Cbnmmity Member, 

Please conplete the follovdng questionnaire in order to assist in the 
evaluation of the Transportation Safety Program. 



Joseph M. hJcDonough 

T,o,r.LS ^P"^y Superintendent 

-2^^i^ Sclxx)l Operations 

Please put a check next to the vrord that best responds to each question. 

1. Has the assignment of a Transportation Attendant been an effective way to 
maintain order and safety on school buses? 

6g?/ Yes ^3 No ci^ Sane /74 I don't know 

2. Have Incidents on school buses with Transportation Attendants decreased? 
CTZy^ Yes ^f No ^^ Same < J-7S ^ don't know 

3. Have complaints/concerns expressed by parents whose children ride buses 
with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

y(/i^^ \es /^^ No CO Same 3*^(^ 1 don't know 

4 Has support from the following agencies improved in resolving/addressing 
transportation issues: 

a.- Transportation Unit 

o^£2 Yes /^^ No 9/ Sane ^C/ I don't know 

b. Department of Safety Services 

^7/) Yes ^ No fj Same V/^ I don't know 

c. ARA Transportation 

_/22Yes /// No ^7 Same >$/^7 l don't know 

d. School Ehrincipal/Building Administrator 

V/^ Yes ^f <^ No i>// Same V^ I don't know 

5. Is the amount of time spent by School Principal /Building Admin Lstr.a tors 
less on buses with Transportation Attendants than on those without 
Transportation Attendants? 

. 3^:y Yes /y No fyf Same .^y/ I don't i:now 



STUDENT 'TOANSPORTATION SAFETY PROGRAM QUESTiaiNAIRE 
September, 1984 - January, 1985 

- 2 - 



6. • Are Transportation Attendants apprtjpriately assigned to service a 
kf. school' 8 more difficult rvms? 

T?^/ Yea /^^7 No ■ .53" Same J^^ l don't know 

7. AiB Transportation Attendants receiving adequate training? 

J/T^ Yes /^3 No .^.^ Same ;7<5/^ I don't toow 

8. Are Transportation Attendants necessary for all full sized buses 
vrhidiserve your school? 



^^9 Yes CC> No g2^ Same 
9. With which 8chool(s) are you associated? 



^J<f 'l don't know 



10. Please indicate your position(s) in the school community. 



Parent 


.■i-a'J 




Transportation >^ttendant 
Driver 




ARA Safety Sc Training 
Personnel 


/ 



OOHENTS: 



Teacher 



ZJJ^ 



Bus Coordinator 



^^ 



Building Administrator/ _ 
Pr inc ipa 1 y^ / 



Conminity Superintenden t ^ 



{U^^^^/d^^y^ /^ 



;\^Cii^ 



PLEASE RETURN CCMPLETED FCRhC TO TOUR PRINCIPAL/COtWUNTIY SUFERINrENDErTr ON CR 
BEFORE EIHUJARY 13. 1985. 



431 



STUDENT TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PROGRA^^ qUESnOM^^AIRE 
September, 1984 — January, 1985 



Dear School Connunity Member, 

Please conplete the follovdng questionnaire in order to assist in the 
evaluation of the Transportation Safety Program. 



Thank you. 



Joseph M. NfcDonough 
PARENTS Deputy Superintendent 

School Operations 



Please put a check next to the vrord that best responds to each question. 

1. Has the assignment of a Transportation Attendant been an effective way to 
maintain order and safety on school buses? 

J'V? Yes V/ No ^J Same /J-Q I don't know 

2. Have Incidents on school buses with Transportation Attendants decreased? 
cZd'^ Yes S7 No ^'V same /^/ l don't know 

3. Have complaints/concerns expressed by parents whose children ride buses 
with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

/fV Yes 7C> No ^C Same U/f l don't know 

4 Has support from the following agencies improved in resolving/addressing 
transportation issues: 

a. Transportation Unit 

/y-^ Yes C'l No ^f Same JVJ- ^ don't know 

b. Department of Safety Services 

/y6 Yes S/ No -^^ Same J, ^5 ^ don't know 

c. ARA Transportation 

/f/^ Yes CC No yy Same J^M. ^ don't know 

d. School Ehrincipal/Building Administrator 

,-2CC Yes ^7 No >yif^ Same JV^ I don ' t know 

5. Is the amount of time spent by School Prlncipal/BuildLng Administrators 
less on buses with Transportation Attendants than on those without 
Transportation Attendants? 

^'d 1 Yes S4 No ^.^ Same .'^ 9"^ \ don't mow 

432 



SnUDEOT TKANSPORTATION SAFEHV HIOQIAM QUEST tgJNAIRE 
September, 1984 - January, 1985 



6. Are Transportation Attendants appropriately assigned to service a 
school's more difficult mns? 

/jT^ Yes c^y No -yy Same cJfC l don't know 

7. Are Transportation Attendants receiving adequate training? 

//^ Yes ^^ No ^J Same .^££j I don't know 

8. Are Transportation Attendants necessary for all full sized buses 
whichserve your school? 



.//I Yes J^/ No J3 Same 
9. With vMch school(s) are you associated? 



/// I don't know 



10. Please Indicate your position(s) in the school conmunity. 
Paren t J^ ^ y^ Teacher 



Transportation Attendant 
Driver 



AEIA Safety Sc Training 
Personnel 



Bus Coordinator 



Building Administrator/ 
Pr inc ipa 1 



Community Superintendent_ 



CXMIEinS: 



PLEASE RETURN aWPLEIED P0Rh6 TO YOUR PRINdPAL/COMMUNTIY SUPE3lINrEl©DTr CN CR 
BEFORE FEBRUARY 13, 1985. 



433 



STUDEKT -IHANSPORTATia^ SAFETY PROGRAM (^JESTiaJNAIRE 
September, 1984 — January, 1985 

Dear School Coaiunity Member, 

Please conplete the following questionnaire in order to assist in the 
evaluation of tl^ Transportation Safety Program. 

Thank you. 

Joseph M. McOonough 
TRANSPORTATION ATTENDANT Deputy Superintendent 

School Operations 

Please put a check next to the ^rord that best responds to each question. 

1. Has the assignment of a Transportation Attendant been an effective way to 
maintain order and safety on school buses? 

rJ-S^ Yes .^ No O Same <:> I don't know 

2. Have incidents on school buses with Transportation Attendants decreased? 
^^^ Yes ^/ No O Same /_ I don't know 

3. Have complaints/concerns expressed by parents whose children ride buses 
with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

Ul Yes ^ No o Same ^ I don't know 

4 Has support from the following agencies improved in resolving/addressing 
transportation issues: 

a. Transportation Unit 

/i^ Yes -J. No 3 Same S_ I don ' t know 

b. Department of Safety Services 

/j. Yes O No V San^ .f" I don't know 

c. ARA Transportation 

/JL Yes >^ No ^ ^ Same Y I don't know 

d. School Principal/Building Administrator 

-2 ^ ] Yes O No oL Same 3 I don't know 

5. Is the amount of time spent by School Principal/Building Administrators 
less on buses with Transportation Attendants than on those without 
Transportation Attendants? 

/^ Yes X No ,5 Same ^j I don't Imow 

434 



STUDENT 'mAi^lSK)RTATIUN SAFL'i'Y mOQlAM CyjESlTCtJNMRE 
- 2 - 



6. Are Transportation Attendants appropriately assigned to service a 
school's more difficult runs? 



8. 



/ Same 



V 



I don't know 



^^ Yes ,^ tto 

Are Transportation Attendants receiving adequate training? 

.JA^ Yes U No ^ Same ^ I don't know 

Are Transportation Attendants necessary for all full sized buses 
whichservB your school? 



^7 Yes ^ No <^ Same 
9. With which school(s) are you associated? 



c>£- I don't know 



10. Please Indicate your position(s) in the school connunity. 
Parent Teacher 



Transportation Attendant 30 
Driver 



ARA Safety St Training 
Personnel 



Bus Coordinator 



Building Administrator/ 
Principal 



Comnunity Supertntendent_ 



OOflElirS: 



PLEASE RETURN OCMPLEnD EXI»B TO TOUR PRINCIPAL/COM-IUNTIY SUPERINrEM)QTr ON CR 
BEETLE FEBRUARY 13. 1985. 



'2S 



STUDENT -mANSPORTATION SAFETY PROCaWl qUESnONT^AIRE 
September, 1984 ~ January, 1985 

Dear School Comajnity Member, 

Please conplete the following questionnaire in order to assist in the 
evaluation of the Transportation Safety Program. 

Thank you. 

Joseph M. McDonough 
DRIVERS Deputy Superintendent 

School Operations 

Please put a deck next to the vrord that best responds to each question. 

1. Has the assignment of a Transportation Attendant been an effective way to 
maintain order and safety on school buses? 

ol )( Yes ^ No / Same /_ I don't know 

2. Have incidents on school buses with Transportation Attendants decreased? 
^/^ Yes -V No / Same oL^ I don't know 

3. Have complaints/concerns expressed by parents whose children ride buses 
with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

^ Q Yes ^ No / Same /6 I don't know 

4 Has support from the following agencies improved in resolving/addressing 
transportation issues: 

a. Transportation Unit 

,j^ Yes /O No V Same /J? I don't know 

b. Department of Safety Services 

^ Yes S^ No 3 Same l_ I don't know 



c. ARA Transportation 

/Z' Yes ^-> No ,>5^ Same 3 I don't know 

d. School Principal/Building Administrator 

/ ^ Yes ^ No •^'f Same /-/ I don't know 

Is the amount of time spent by School Principal/Building Administrators 

less on buses with Transportation Attendants than on those without 
Transportation Attendants? 

/S Yes J^ No .^"^ Same / () I don't Itiow 

436 



glUDENT -mAMSPORTATiU'^ SAi'L'lY PRUCRAM C^ESTiaWLCRE 



6. Are Transportation Attendants appropriately assigned to service a 
• school's more difficult runs? 

_,jyf Yes (^ No / Same ^, I don't know 

7. Are Transportation Attendants receiving adequate training? 

XJ^ Yes . /^ No {^ Same /^ I don't know 

8. Are Transportation Attendants necessary for all full sized buses 
whichserve your school? 



-/J Yes 



6 No 



^ 



^5^ I don't know 



9. With which school (s) are you associated? 



10. Please indicate your position(s) In the school coainunity. 
Parent Teacher 



Transportation Attendant 
Driver 3^ 



ARA Safety St Training 
Personnel 



Bus Coordinator 



Building Administrator/ 
Prlnc ipal 



Cotnnunity Superintendent 



ocrtiEirrs: 



PLEASE RETURN CXJ-tPLETED FCRhC TO YOUR PRINCIPAL/CCli>1UNnY SUPERINTENDENr CN CR 
BETORE FEBRUARY 13, 1985. 



437 



STUDENT TKANSPORTATION SAFETY PROGRAM qUESTIONNAIRE 
Septen±>er, 1984 — January, 1985 

Dear School Connunity Member, 

Please ccnrplete the following questionnaire In order to assist in the 
evaluation of the Transportation Safety Program. 

Thank you. 

Joseph M. McDonough 
ARA SAFETY & TRAINING PERSONNE L Deputy Superintendent 

School Operations 

Please put a check next to the \rord that best responds to each question. 

1. Has the assignment of a Transportation Attendant been an effective way to 
maintain order and safety on school buses? 

/ Yes [) No /y Same O I don't know 

2. Have Incidents on school buses with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

O Yes ^ No O Same /_ I don't know 

3. Have complaints/concerns expressed by parents whose children ride buses 
with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

C^ Yes O No / Same Q I don't know 

4 Has support from the following agencies inproved in resolving/addressing 
transportation issues: 

a. Transportation Unit 

Yes O No / Same Q_ I don't know 

b. Department of Safety Services 

/ Yes O No O Same O I don ' t know 

c. ARA Transportation 

Yes O No / Same ^ I don't know 

d. School EYlncipal/Building Administrator 

Yes C No / Same O I don't know 

5. Is the anKjunt of time spent by School Principal/Building Administrators 
less on buses with Transportation Attendants than on those without 
Transportation Attendants? 

O Yes C__ No /_ Same O I don ' t Imow 

438 



STUDENT IKANSPORTATION SAfETY FkOJlAM C^JESflONNAlRE 
September, 119^ - January , 1953 

- 2 - 



6. Are Transportation Attendants appropriately assigned to service a 
school's more difficult runs? 

Yes O No / Same o_ I don't know 

7. Are Transportation Attendants receiving adequate training? 

(? Yes ^^ No C^ Same /_ I don't know 

8. Are Transportation Attendants necessary for all full sized buses 
whlchserve your school? 



O Yes O No / Same 
With which school (s) are you associated? 



(^ I don't know 



10. Please indicate your position(s) in the school coninunity. 
Parent Teacher 



Transportation Attendant 
Driver 



ARA Safety Sc Training . 
Personnel ' 



Bus Coordinator 



Building Administrator/ 
Princ ipa 1 



Conmunity Superintendent 



OOmENTS: 



PI£ASE RETURN OOIPLETED FCRMS TO YOUR PRINCIPAL/CX]^WUN^Y SUPERINTENDENT ON CR 
BEFORE FEBRUARy 13. 1985. 



439 



STUDENT TRANSPORTATION SAFEHY PROGRAM qUESTIONNAIRE 
September, 1984 — January, 1985 

Dear School Conminity Member, 

Please complete the follovring questionnaire in order to assist in the 
evaluation of the Transportation Safety Program. 

Thank you. 

Joseph M. McDonough 
TEACHERS Deputy Superintendent 

School Operations 

Please put a check next to the Movd that beat responds to each question. 

1. Has the assignment of a Transportation Attendant been an effective way to 
maintain order and safety on school buses? 

/^<^y Yes -X No ^ Same rJ^ l don't know 

2. Have Incidents on school buses with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

fy Yes o^ No /^ Same Jf^^ 1 don't know 

3. Have complaints/concerns expressed by parents whose children ride buses 
with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

^/ Yes 7 No kJ" Same -J^y I don't know 

4 Has support from the following agencies improved in resolving/addressing 
transportation issues: 

a. Transportation Unit 

V^^ Yes J^ No // Sane _^ I don't know 

b. Department of Safety Services 

. f 7 Yes f No /Y' Same 7^' I don't know 

c. ARA Transportation 

^JJ_Yes / V No // Same ^^ I don't know 

d. School Ehrincipal/Building Administrator 

f^ Yes c7 No // Same ^^ /, I don't know 

5. Is the amount of time spent by School Principal/Building Administrators 
less on buses with Transportation Attendants than on those without 
Transportation Attendants? 

_4^Yes "7 No .^ Same ^'/'f l don't Itiow 

440 



STUDEin' TRANSPORTATIOM SAFEH^ mOQ^AM CUESTIONNAIRE 
$)0j^MMi*M»v , 1984 - January, 1985 

- 2 - 



Are Transportation Attendants appropriately assigned to service a 
school's more difficult runs? 



ZL^es 



V 



No 



^J Same 



^r/f 1 don't know 



7. Are Transportation Attendants receiving adequate training? 

v^ Yes .5^ No c:J Same ^/ l don't know 

8. Are Transportation Attendants necessary for all full sized buses 
whlchserve your school? 



XL Yes 



Z^^ 



O Same 



3^ 1 don't know 



9. With vMch school (s) are you assoclated?_ 



10. Please indicate your positlon(s) in the school coninunity. 



Parent 



Transportation Attendant 
Driver 



AE^A Safety & Training 
Personnel 



Teacher 



/JX 



Bus Coordinator 



Building Administrator/ 
Principal 



Community Superintendent 



OCMIENrS: 



PLEASE RETURN OOMPLETED FCRM5 TO YOUR PRINCXPAL/OCTWUNITY SUPERINrQ©EM' CN CR 
BEEt3RE FEERUARY 13. 1985. 



441 



STUDENT TBANSPORTATION SAFETY PROGRAM qUESTia^NAIRE 
September, 1984 — January, 1985 

Dear School Connunity Member, 

Please conplete the following questionnaire in order to assist in the 
evaluation of tb« Transportation Safety Program. 

Thank you. 

Joseph M. McDonough 
BUS COORDTNATORS Deputy Superintendent 

School Operations 

Please put a check neact to the word that best responds to each question. 

1. Has the assignment of a Transportation Attendant been an effective way to 
maintain order and safety on school buses? 

/f Yes ^ No a Sane ^ I don't know 

2. Have incidents on school buses with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

// Yes / No C Same (_ I don't know 

3. Have complaints/concerns expressed by parents whose children ride buses 
with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

/S Yes / No JL Same X I don't know 

4 Has support from the following agencies improved in resolving/addressing 
transportation issues: 

a. Transportation Unit 

//' Yes /_ No C_ Sane JL I don't know 

b. Department of Safety Services 

Yes / No y Same / I don ' t know 

c. ARA Transportation 

^ Yes JL No y Same . ^"' I don't know 

d. School Principal/Building Administrator 

/-f Yes O No J^ Same O I don't know 

5. Is the amount of time spent by School Principal/Building Administrators 
less on buses with Transportation Attendants than on those without 
Transportation Attendants? 

/a Yes / No -^ Same / I don't toow 

, 442 



STUDENT TKANSPORTATION SAFETY PRQQIAM CpESTIONNAIRE 

September, 1984 - January, 1985 



6. 



Are Transportatijon Attendants apprxsprtately assigned to service a 
schcwl's mare difficult runs? 



j£_'ies 



/7 No 



/ Same 



/ I don't know 



Are Transportation Attendants receiving adequate training? 

/<6 Yes / No / Same S I don't know 

Are Transportation Attendants necessary for all full sized buses 
whichserve your school? 



/Cj Yes 



^ No 



_/ Same 



I don't know 



9. With which school (s) are you associated? 



10. Please Indicate your position(s) in the school coranunity. 
Parent Teacher 



Transportation Attendant 
Driver 



ARA Safety Se Training 
Personnel 



Bus Coordinator 'j>^^ 



Building Administrator/ 
Princ ipal 



Conmunity Superintendent 



OWIENrS: 



PLEASE RETURN CXliPLErED PGRhB TO YOJR PRINCIPAL/CCMIUNnY SUPEMNTEUDDfr CW CR 
BEFORE FEBRUARY 13. 1985. 



443 



STUDEKT •TOANSPORTATION SAFEHY PROGRAM qUESTICM^AIRE 
September, 1984 — January, 1985 

Dear School Conmunity Member, 

Please complete the following questionnaire in order to assist in the 
evaluation of the Transportation Safety Program. 

Thank you. 

Joseph M. McDonough 
Deputy Superintendent 
BUILDING ADMINISTRATOR/PRINCIPALS School Operations 

Please put a check next to the WDrd that best responds to each question. 

1. Has the assignment of a Transportation Attendant been an effective way to 
maintain order and safety on school buses? 

-fY Yes / No / Same /_ I don ' t know 

2. Have Incidents on school buses with Transportation Attendants decreased? 
^/ Yes -^ No / Same / I don't know 

3. Have complaints/concerns expressed by parents whose children ride buses 
with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

V^ Yes gZ No 3 Same Q I don't know 

4 Has support from the following agencies improved in resolving/addressing 
transportation Issues: 

a. Transportation Unit 

-/)^- Yes 3 No // Sane ^i I don ' t know 

b. Department of Safety Services 

c^/ Yes oL No / (^ Saiae /_ I don ' t know 

c. ARA Transportation 

/' ^ Yes / V No /-V same /f I don't know 

d. School Principal/Building Administrator 

^ ^ "3 Yes ^ No ^ Same (T-' I don ' t know 

5. Is the amount of time spent by School Principal/Building Admin Lstra tors 
less on buses with Transportation Attendants than on those without 
Transportation Attendants? 

,1 <^ Yes ,^ No ^ Same ^1 I don ' t i:now 

444 



- 2 - 

6. Are Transportation Attendants appropriately assigned to service a 
school's more difficult runs? 

V(^ Yes /_ No <^/ Same _3 I don't know 

7. Are Transportation Attendants receiving adequate training? 

"^ Yes c^ No C^ Same ^^ I don't know 

8. Are Transportation Attendants necessary for all. full sized buses 
whichserve your school? 

V/ Yes V No <r^ Same /_ I don't know 

9. With which school (s) are you associated? 



10. Please indicate your position(s) in the school conniunity. 
Parent Teacher 



Transportation Attendant Bus Coordinator 



Driver Building Administrator/ 

Principa l .j"/ 

ARA Safety 8t Training 

Personnel Conmunity Superintendent 



OGTflENIS: 



Fl^ASE RETURN OOMFLETED FCRhG TO YOUR PRINCIPAL/COttlUNTIY SUPERINrENDEOT CW CR 
BETORE FEERUARY 13, 1985. 



STUDEirr "reANSPCJRTATION SAFETY PROQIAM qUESTIONNAIRE 
September, 1984 — January, 1985 

Dear School Coanunity Member, 

Please conplete the follovrlng questionnaire In order to assist in the 
evaluation of the Transportation Safety Program. 

Thank you. 

Joseph M. ^^c^tonough 
COMMUNITY SUPERINTENDENTS Deputy Superintendent 

School Operations 

Please put a check next to the word that best responds to each question. 

1. Has the assignment of a Transportation Attendant been an effective way to 
maintain order and safety on school buses? 

, 3 Yes C/ No O Same O I don't know 

2. Have Incidents on school buses with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

^ Yes o No C Same Q I don't know 

3. Have complaints/concerns expressed by parents whose children ride buses 
with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

J, Yes <<7 No o Same 0_ I don't know 

4 Has si^jport from the following agencies improved in resolving/addressing 
transportation issues: 

a. Transportation Unit 

^ "/ Yes O No O Same c^ I don ' t know 

b. Department of Safety Services 

^ ^ Yes (P No O Same 0_ I don ' t know 

c. ARA Transportation 

C^ Yes ^-^ No O Same <-'' I don't know 

d. School Principal/Building Administrator 

^ ■^ Yes (^ No O Same O I don't know 

5. Is the amount of time spent by School Principal/ Building Administrators 
less on buses with Transportation Attendants than on those without 
Transportation Attendants? 

X ) Yes ^^ No O Same c'- I don ' t Itiow 

446 



STUDEKT TKANSPORTATia^ S/J=L'i7 IrUUQlAM QUESria^NMRE 
inpttambtfr, lV04 - Janwai«y, L9S9 



Are Transportation Attendants appropriately assigned to service a 
school's more difficult runs? 



Yes 



O No 



Same 



I don't know 



Are Transportation Attendants receiving adequate training? 

^ Yes . <<-' No C7 Same / I don't know 

Are Transportation Attendants necessary for all full sized buses 
whichserve your school? 



^:> Yes . 5 No /C Same 
9. With vMch school(s) are you associated? 



O I don't know 



10. Please indicate your position(s) in the school connunity. 
Parent Teacher 



Transportation ^tendant 
Driver 



ARA Safety 8t Training 
Personnel 



Bus Coordinator 



Building Administrator/ 
Principal 



Connunity Superintendent ^ ; 



CGTMEKTS: 



PLEASE RETURN CDMPLZTED FXFM5 TO YOUR PEaNdPAL/COi-lUNrrY SUPERINnNDENT CH CR 
BEFORE FEBRUARY 13, 1985. 



447 



STUDENT TKANSPORTATION SAFETY PRCQIAM qUESTIONNAIRE 
September, 1984 — January, 1985 

Dear School Connunity Member, 

Please conplete the following questionnaire in order to assist in the 
evaluation of tt« Transportation Safety Program. 

Thank you. 

Joseph M. McDonough 
Deputy Superintendent 
MISCELLANEOUS School Operations 

Please put a check next to the \^rd that best responds to each question. 

1. Has the assignment of a Transportation Attendant been an effective way to 
maintain order and safety on school buses? 

f ifV Yes /J- No ^ Sane cJ,,f I don't know 

2. Have incidents on school buses with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

. t^ Yes /^ No 2_ Same V/ I don't know 

3. Have complaints/concerns expressed by parents whose children ride buses 
with Transportation Attendants decreased? 

ctf Yes " /^; No /O Same 3^ ^ don't know 

4 Has support from the following agencies improved in resolving/addressing 
transportation issues: 

a. Transportation Unit 

(j 7 Yes /^ No 2. Saoe "^(1 I don't know 

b. Department of Safety Services 

J.^ Yes /O No 2_ Same Vfjl l don't know 

c. ARA Transportation 

J/^ Yes Jr^ No ^ Same V9 1 don't know 

d. SchDol Principal/Building Administrator 

J 3 Yes ^ No .f Same ^d ^ don't know 

5. Is the amount of time spent by School Principal/Building Administrators 
less on buses with Transportation Attendants than on those without 
Transportation Attendants? 

JjJ Yes /\X No L Sane /^<^ I don't Itnow 

/148 



STUDENT TEANSroRTAttON SAftH PROQUH QUESriCJNNAJRE 



- 2 - 



6. Ar6 Transportation AcCeidnnts appropriately assigned to service a 

school's more difficult runs? 



. ^(^ Yes 



^ 



No 



-^ Same 



-V^' ' I don ' t know 



7. Are Transportation Attendants receiving adequate training? 

^/ Yes /V No ^ Same V^ I don't know 

8. Are Transportation Attendants necessary for all full sized buses 
whlchservB your school? 



^7^ Yes 



_2_No 



^ Same 



cJ^\ don't know 



With which school (s) are you associated? 



10. Please indicate your position (s) in the school cocununity. 
Parent Teacher 



Transportation Attendant 
Driver 



ARA Safety Sc Training 
Personnel 



Bus Coordinator 



Building Administrator/ 
Princ ipa 1 



Community Superintendent_ 



CCMIEMS: 



PLEASE RETURN CCMPLETED FCRMS TO YOUR PRINCIPAL/aXtlUNTIY SUPHRHiniTOENr ON CR 
BEFORE FEBRUARY 13. 1985. 



149 



To: Lucille Koch, Executive Director 

From: Jerrolyn Simpson, Field Specialist, District II 

Re: Monitoring Bus Attending Training 



lUS ATTENDANTS TRAINING - AUGUST 27, 1984 
MONITORING REPORT 



The bus attendents training was presented by the School Dept. and ARA. 
The training consisted of film strips, oral presentations, 
dialogue between attendants and presentors. Included also 
where handout on various aspect of incidents reports, 
first aid, rules and regulations for bus attendants. 

1. Questions arose about teachers leaving their post when bus 
arrives late at a pickup point. This teacher felt his responsi- 
bility was to the classroom. Arthur Gilbert said something needed 
to be worked out as he felt the "teacher attendant" should stay 

at the stop with the children and not leave them there un- 
attended . 

2. Dual messages were given out by the school department and by 
the E.M.T. on going for help if there was no phone on a particular 
bus . 

School Department - Bus driver should stay with the bus. 

E.M.T.- The teacher is in charge. The bus driver should go for help. 

3. I questioned what support mechanism was set up for teachers or 
arents who might be having difficulty with a particular bus run. The 
response was that it depends on the principal to back the attendant 
up and that a strong principal would be able to handle all problems. 
In addition, In-service Meetings could also be used. 

4. There was little clarity about parents riding bus to get to 
school since E.T.L's and teachers make appointment with parents, 
and the principal may not be aware of this. so, parents who are 
non-english speaking may also attempt to ride the bus. 

5. Questions were raised about the School Dept.'s decision to i 
have the bus attendant pick up and dropped off at the list bus stop. I 
If stop if2 is a troubled stop, then attendant may be allowed (with 
negotiation) to board at that stop. School Dept. is also trying 

to be cognizant of attendants boarding the bus in "undesirable 
neighborhoods" . 



6. Exclusion of students from the bus came up as well as the 
iscussion of the Code of Disciple by John Sisco. 

7. The School Deparment is to provide two bus evacuation drills in 
school each year for bus riders. 



4 50 



J 



CHANGES IN TTW^PORTATION ATTDTOAOTS - November 9, 1984 

DRISnCT I 

2 Teachers quit - they were late for schjol socaetiines and could not 

keep stiidents after school 
1 Quit - could not get to bus stop on time 
1 Quit - could not find parking space at bus stop 



DISTRICT II 




1 Quit - 
1 Fired 


no reason given 
- poor attendance 


DISTRICT III 









DISTRICT W 




1 Quit - 


car vandalized at bus stop 


DISTRICT V 





1 Quit - could not do the PM run 
DISTRICT VI 


DISTRICT VII 

1 Teacher quit - it was inconvenient 
DISTRICT VIII 


DISTRICT IX 

1 Quit - bus stop too far from hone 

2 Aides quit - transferred schools 

3 Fired for not showing up regularly 

4 Never started 

1 Quit - got home too late in afternoon 

1 Quit - dropped off at inconvenient location 

21 Changes since Septenber 6, 1984 



451 




City wide Parents Council 

"^QTemplePlace Boston,Mass. 02111 (617)426-2450 



SURVEY RESULTS 



3S9 Src Executive Cnmnrittee Menbers 



TOTAL ME>BERSHrP apprcac. 1,000 
39X of total menbershlp surveyed 



This svirvey vaa originally conducted during the months of October k Nbvenber, 
1984. It has been updated as of February 7, 1985. 

Last year the Citywlde Parents Council, with the support of all parents, aided 
in the reinstatement of School Bus Monitors on apprcodmately 1/2 of the 
Elen«ntary and Middle School Buses. Vfe are, presently, in the process of 
evaluating the effectiveness of the present "Bus Monitor Model. ^' It would be 
moat helpful if you could share your perceptions with us by answering the 
fdllowing questions: 



1. Does your child ride the bus' 



Yes 269 No ^20 389 

59.15% 30.25% 



2. Is there a bus monitor on tte bus? Yes ^0 ^ 15S 248 

36.29% 63.71% 



3. Where do you feel bus monitors are most needed? 



Elementary 

97 
19.76% 



Middle 

73 
14.S7% 



High Schjol 

14 
2.03% 



4. Your observations of bus transportation are: 



All. 

307 
52.52' 



491 



More orderly 

76 
21.96% 



Safer 

74 
21.39% 



196 
No Change 5 5.65 %Worse 
113 83 

32.66% 23.99! 



346 



This survey was condxjcted by Elizabeth Wood, Monitoring Desegregation Advocate 

452 ' 

A multi«ctifajral Barents organization monitorin g qualty. des«gregatode<kJcation 




City wide Parents Counci 

59TemptePlace Boston.Mass. 02111 (617)426-2450 



PARENT COMMENTS - BUS MONITORS 



Mr. D. at the Perkins 

"Bus drivers do not report accidents" 

Mrs. L. at Murphy 

"Driver speaks no English. Her son (SPED) has no way to 
communicate his needs nor the mother when he is not planning to 
attend school." 

Mrs. M. at Murphy 

"I voluntarily ride the bus because my daughter was missing 
for one and half hours due to an irresponsible driver" 

Mrs. F. at Holmes & Murphy 

"Angry about bus accident involving 8 year old boy; monitors 
are needed to aid children crossing and signalling etc. 

"Stick to one bus driver" 

Mrs. R. at Conley 

"Seat belts needed" 

Mrs. C. at Conley 

Monitors on all buses; substitute drivers needed" 

Mrs. J. at 

"Standing, pushing, shoving requires monitors" 

Mrs. P. 

"Bus driver threatens to remove child from bus due to behavior; 
monitor needed" 

Mrs. G. at Winthrop 

"Kids dropped off too early! No supervision at school. Van 
#6" 

Mrs A. at Murphy 

"Child dropped off at wrong bus stop. Driver spoke no English" 



453' 
A muttt-cultural parents organizatioo monitoring quaity. desegregated educatton 




City wide Parents Counci 

59TemplePlace Boston,Mass. 02111 (617)426-2450 



Parent Comments - Bus Monitors 
Page 2 



Mrs. W at Trotter 

"Third bus monitor since September" 

Mrs. W. at Wheatley 

"No monitor until end of November-Route too long-Monitors need 
method of compensation according to length (time) of route" 

Mrs V at Blackstone and Mackey 

"No change - need parent bus monitors" 

Mrs. A and F. at Winthrop 

"Late pick up - late delivery. Loss of instructional time!" 

Ms. C. from Hennigan 

"Child missing for two hours Mother frantic and upset" 

Murphy S.P.C. (8 parents) 

"Three to a seat is too many, what about handicapped bused 
children" 

Ms. F. at Dickerman 

"Children standing - leaning against windows - arms out of 
windows- Monitors needed" 

Mrs. L. at Jackson/Mann 

"Daughter physically attacked and bruised, too many children 
hanging out windows. Buses are atrocious!" 

Mrs.B at Clap 

"Bus drivers should be interviewed" 

Mrs. M. at Gavin 

"Children treated inappropriately by bus driver; need for 
monitor" 



Mrs. M. at Mason 

"Child waited over a month for transportation; then bused to 
wrong school; extremely disruptive" 

Mrs. I at Tobin 

"Mission Park children desperately need a bus; crossing dangerous 

Amutti-cuttural parents organization monHorii.i^J-Jty. desegregatededucation 




City wide Parents Counci 

59TemplePlace Boston,Mass. 02111 (617)426-2450 



Parent Comments 
Page 3 



Bus Monitors 



Ms. W. at Ohrenberger, a parent /bus monitor 

"98% of children respond positively to my presence" 

Ms. J. at Kenny, also a Bus Monitor concurs" 

Mrs. A. at Channing 

"Make sure substitute driver is available and informed of 
route " 

Ms. K. at Channing 

"Buses in some instances go too fast for the road condition; 
also concern around subs." 

Ms. I. at Gardner said 

"Newcomer to Boston, feels that there is great need to 
improve efficiency in transportation. 

Mr. G. at Brighton High 

"There have been too many problems, late buses, missed stops 
and no shows . " 

Mrs. T. at Farragut 

"Bus pick up too late at school; children arrive home late 
and cause parents to worry." 

Mrs. M. 

"We feel driver is incompetant, no order on bus since beginning 
of year - children screaming and misbehaved - Needs monitor" 

Mrs. A. at Mc Kinley 

"Job in jeopardy due to inconsistant pick up and return" 



455 



AmuW-culturalparents organization monitoring qualty. dwegragatedeAicatton 



Standards for school bus drivers 



Bus and van service for Boston schoolchil- 
dren has been abysmal. There have been late 
pickups, missed runs, accidents, drunken 
driving and drug dealing by drivers. For these 
reasons, the Boston School Committee was 
right in voting against guaranteed job security 
and seniority for drivers if a new company 
takes over the school transportation contract 
ne.xt September. 

The committee's action provides an oppor- 
lunity to weed out those who should not be 
driving school buses and vans. Since there is a 
shortage of competent and responsible driv- 
ers, most of the current drivers will be hired 
by whatever company is chosen to manage 
transportation for the coming school year. It 
would have been irresponsible for the School 
Committee to lock a contractor into hiring or 
retaining the few unfit drivers who are giving 
all drivers a bad reputation. 

In the past month three drivers were ar- 
rested for drunken driving, including two who 
had been in accidents. One driver was arrest- 



ed for dealing drugs from his school van. 
About five \vc-eks ago, a driver wiih a bus full 
of children m.n into a guardrail, crushing a 
small car. On tne other sjde of the rail was a 
precipice. A catastrophe was averted by 
inches. 

A report last fall shovvcd that halt ihe driv- 
ers have criminal records, although the major- 
ity were for minor offenses. 

The primary concern of the School Com- 
mittee must be the safety of the 27.000 chil- 
dren transported to and from school each day. 
The 7-5 vote shows that a majority on the 
committee has the right priority. 

The committee has scheduled a public 
hearing for next Thursday to talk about trans- 
portation-related issues, including the role of 
the School Department's transportation of- 
fice. The drivers' union; which had threatened 
to strike if the committee refused its demands 
for job security, would do better to work with 
the committee and help set acceptable stan- 
dards. 




456 



PARENT AND STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 



457 



PARENT AND STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 



PARENT ORGANIZATIONS 



I. 



ORDER 



Memorandum and Orders Establishing Racial 
Ethnic Councils, October 4, 1974. 



SUMMARY 



FINDINGS 



In this order the Court mandated the 
establishment of a three-tiered structure 
of citizen participation in the 
desegregation process. Racial Ethnic 
Parent Councils process. Racial Ethnic 
Parent Councils (REPCs), Community 
District Advisory Councils (CDACs), and a 
Citywide Parents Advisory Council (CPAC) 
were organized at local schools, in each 
of the city's nine school districts, and 
citywide respectively. The Court defined 
the purposes of these councils as to 
insure adequate and impartial 
investigation and responsible 
recommendations on racially and 
ethnically oriented problems arising in 
the school; to create a means of 
communication among parents, students and 
school personnel regarding the solution 
of such problems; and to promote an 
environment of understanding among the 
various elements of the community. In 
addition, the Court outlined specific 
guidelines for the composition of the 
councils, elections of members, vacancies 
in membership, meetings' schedules and 
agendas, the incurrence and reimbursement 
of expenses, and the training and 
assistance of council members. 

Partial Compliance 

As stated in Report No. 4, further 
modifications in the structure and 
purposes of the councils are necessary to 
insure more and meaningful parent 
participation on the school level, to 
redefine the councils' desegregation 
monitoring responsibilities and to 
guarantee parent participation in 
meaningful decision-making and planning 
with the school department. Three 
recommendations were made regarding this 
need for further modifications in the 
original order: (1) the election process 



458 



SUMMARY 



and the length of membership term to SPCs 
should be reviewed and modified to 
increase the level of parent 
participation; (2) the monitoring 
responsibilities of CPC and SPCs should 
be reviewed and modified to concentrate 
on areas of pressing need; and (3) the 
Court-ordered parent organizations' 
relationship with other parent 
organizations in the schools should be 
reviewed and clarified. 

Although there is general agreement among 
school department representatives and 
representatives from the CPC with the 
findings of monitoring for report No. 4, 
there has been no substantial response to 
the three recommendations. 



II. 



ORDER 



Student Desegregation Plan, May 10, 1975, 
pages 86-100. 



Ill, 



FINDINGS 
ORDER 



In this order the Court mandated the 
establishment of a Citywide Coordinating 
Council (CCC) with approximately 40 
members appointed by the court. The 
purpose of the CCC was defined by the 
Court as to foster public awareness of 
and involvement in the process of 
implementation of the Court's 
desegregation orders, with the primary 
responsibility for monitoring 
implementation on behalf of the court. 
The order outlined the organizational 
structure of the CCC, meetings' schedules 
and agendas, and the powers and authority 
of the council. In addition, it mandated 
the continuation of the REPCs, CDACs and 
CPAC as well as defined the relationship 
among the CCC and the other court-ordered 
parent organizations. 

Compliance 

Supplemental Order to August 24 Order 
Regarding Citizen Participation Groups, 
November 8, 1976. 



SUMMARY 



All functions of the District Council 
Liaison Committee of the CCC, especially 
those enumerated in the Court's order of 



459 



August 24, 1976, were transferred to the 
CPAC and CDACs. This supplemental order 
addressed a question raised regarding the 
role of the School Committee in the 
selection and appointment of CDAC 
coordinators. The order limited the 
School Committee's role to compensating 
coordinators selected by the various 
CDACs. Accordingly, the Court ordered 
that those persons whose names were 
submitted for districts 3 and 5 
coordinators be approved by the School 
Committee. 

FINDINGS Compliance 

IV. ORDER Memorandum and Further Orders as to 

Citizen Participation Groups, 
September 1, 1977. 



SUMMARY 



These orders and memorandum respond to 
recommendations for modifications in the 
court-ordered parent organizations filed 
jointly by CPAC and the CDACs. Two of 
the joint recommendations were emphasized 
as "critical" and these Court orders 
adopted both by (1) establishing a formal 
link between CPAC and CDACs and (2) 
decentralizing the support and assistance 
to the REPCs from CPAC to the CDACs, 
except the CPAC would continue to 
supervise elections. A third 
recommendation was for increased staff, 
and the Court made now new rulings in 
this area. Also, other recommendations 
that the word "Advisory" be dropped from 
the titles of CPAC and the CDACs and that 
the Court specify 14 rights of REPCs were 
rejected. 



FINDINGS 



Compliance 



460 



ORDER 



Memorandum and Further Orders as to 
Citizen Participation Coups (III), 
September 15, 1978. 



SUMMARY 



These orders and memorandum regarding the 
functions and responsibilities of citizen 
participation groups at the school, 
district and citywide levels are based 
for the most part on a joint motion filed 
by the plaintiffs and school defendants 
on March 13, 1978. Essentially, these 
orders clarified the distinction among 
CPACF, CDACs and REPCs responsibilities 
as well as the procedure for evaluating 
the performance of members of the staffs 
of the various councils and for 
terminating staff members whose 
performance is unsatisfactory. 



VI, 



FINDINGS Compliance 

ORDER Order as to Monitoring Guidelines, May 8, 

1980. 



SUMMARY 

Generally, this ruling approved and 
adopted as orders of the Court with minor 
modification, the Procedural Guidelines 
for Monitoring filed by the school 
defendants on March 17, 1980. 

FINDINGS Partial Compliance 

Both school department representatives 
and representatives from the CPC agree 
that, after the monitoring 
responsibilities of the CPC and SPCs have 
been reviewed and modified, as 
recommended in Report No. 4, the 
procedural Guidelines should also be 
reviewed and modified. Until that time 
the current Procedural Guidelines should 
be retained. 



i 



461 



VII, 



ORDER 



Memorandum and Semi-Final Orders on the 
Structure of Citizen Participation in the 
Desegregation Process, July 20, 1982. 



SUMMARY 



FINDINGS 



In the preparation for the termination of 
its direct supervision of the 
desegregation process, the Court entered 
these orders and memorandum to insure the 
continued vitality of the parent 
councils. They constitute the Court's 
preliminary rulings on the merits of 
CPACs Self-Evaluation Task Force's 
recommendations for modifications in the 
form or structure of the parent councils. 
The orders are designed to: (1) increase 
the level of parent councils; (2) enhance 
the effectiveness of the parent councils 
by directing their main attention to 
those levels of school department 
operations at which decisions affecting 
the quality and equality of education in 
Boston are most often made; (3) encourage 
those most often made; (3) encourage the 
most efficient use of limited staff and 
financial resources available to the 
parent councils; and (4) simplify the 
structure of parent councils, restricting 
membership to parents of students 
currently enrolled. 

Essentially, these orders change the old 
REPC/CDAC/CPAC structure of parent and 
community participation established 
pursuant to prior orders to the new 
SPC/DPC/CPC structure. The original 
purpose and basic structure of the parent 
councils are not changed by these orders. 
In addition, these orders established a 
transition from the old structure to the 
new one. 

Partial Compliance 

Three major problems with the present 
structure and functions of the parent 
councils were findings of Report No. 4: 
(1) low levels of parent participation in 
the SPCs; (2) tensions between the CPC 
and the school department; and (3) a 
history of organizational problems with 
the CPC. Over the past six months there 
has been considerable improvement in all 
three areas. Due mainly to an increase 



462 



VIII. ORDER 



of parent participation in the planning 
of Chapter 636 programs, there is a 
noticeable increase in parent involvement 
on the local school level. Communica- 
tions and working relationships between 
the school department and the CPC have 
improved greatly, due to the efforts of 
the Executive Director of the CPC and the 
Executive Assistant to the Superinten- 
dent. Also, the CPC continues to 
experience a period of relative 
stability. 

Memorandum and Further Orders as to 
Parent Councils, August 25, 1982. 



SUMMARY 



FINDINGS 



These Orders reaffirmed the Court's semi- 
final orders on the structure of citizen 
participation in the desegregation 
process withminor modifications. Also, 
they: transferred the responsibility for 
monitoring implementation of the student 
desegregation plan at the local school 
level from the CDACs to the SPCs; made 
the CDACs advisory committees to 
community superintendents; delegated to 
the CPC the responsibility for 
coordinating and assisting the SPCs in 
their monitoring efforts; and gave the 
parent councils the right to participate 
in the screening of applicants for 
administrative positions in the Boston 
Public Schools. In addition, these 
orders allocated an annual budget of 
approximately $500,000 for parent 
councils' operations, and directed the 
CPC to hire and train staff. 

Partial Compliance 

(1) Fragmented monitoring by the parent 
councils; (2) lack of parent 
participation in the screening of 
applicants for administrative position; 
and (3) and the lack of adequate staff 
development and training for parents by 
the CPC were findings of Report No. 4. 
Although there is still the need for the 
CPCs monitoring responsibilities to be 
reviewed and modified, the parent 
councils' monitoring activities this year 
are more focused than in past years. The 
issue of parent participation in the 



463 



screening of applicants for 
administrative positions has been 
resolved via the successful negotiation 
among all parties to the lawsuit as well 
as the CPC and the State. 

In addition, staff development and 
training for parents by the CPC has 
improved considerably over the past six 
months (See appendix, page ). 



CONCLUS IONS/ RECOMMENDAT I ONS 



There have been some improvements in the 
CPC's internal operations as well as its 
working relations with the School 
Department. Both the Executive Director 
of the CPC and the Executive Assistant tc> 
the Superintendent are commended for 
their efforts to alleviate the tension 
between the School Department and the 
Court-ordered parent organizations cited 
in earlier reports. However, the 
following issues remain: 

(1) Strong efforts still need to be made 
to develop effective, functioning School 
Parent Councils at several schools as 
mandated by Court Order. Low parent 
turn-out for meetings and the absence of 
elected officers at meetings still impede 
the effective functioning of these 
councils. Parents acting as 
representatives on the CPC should have a 
minimum of one year's service on their 
local SPC and a strong background of 
involvement in SPC activities. 

(2) Provisions should be made to retain 
the parent councils as independent of the 
School Department, and Boston should make 
it clear to all concerned parties that 
the CPC-SPC is the only legitimate parent 
organization responsible for parent 
involvement in the implementation of 
Federal Court Orders, Federal and State 
law and/or collective bargaining. 
However, other parent groups may continue 
to provide some school-based activities, 
and the CPC should work with other parent 
organizations (Home and School, Special 
Needs Parents Organizations and Bilingual 
Parents organizations) for the benefit of 
all students. 



464 



(3) To strengthen the CPC ' s monitoring 
effort, the parent councils' monitoring 
responsibilities should concentrate on 
areas of pressing need. Perhaps the 
parent councils' monitoring 
responsibility should be limited to the 
areas of transportation, screening and 
rating of staff, collective bargaining, 
maintenance of buildings, and student 
recruitment efforts in special 
desegregation schools and/or schools 
named in special Court Orders. 

(4) Boston and the CPC should agree to a 
procedure for determining future funding 
levels for the CPC. 

(5) All monitoring reports and other 
findings of the CPC should be available 
to all parties in the Boston 
desegregation case as well as all parents 
in the system. It has been suggested 
that perhaps the CPC should publish an 
annual report on all of its activities. 

While the Board is pleased with efforts 
to improve the functioning of the CPC, 
recent reports of growing discord within 
that organization are cause for 
concern. Strong efforts must continue in 
order to create a stable and effective 
parent organization which is 
organizationally able to handle internal 
disputes without disrupting the important 
functions of the organization as a whole. 



465 



466 



STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS 

The following orders cover student organizations in the 
Boston Public Schools. 

RACIAL-ETHNIC STUDENT COUNCILS 



ORDERS 



Memoranda and Order Establishing Racial-Ethnic 
Councils, October 4, 1974 



SUMMARY Every middle and high school shall 
elect a Racial-Ethnic Student 
Council that is composed of students 
from all racial and ethnic groups 
represented in the school. This 
body shall meet not less than once a 
month during the school year with 
the expressed purposes of 
"investigating Racially and 
ethnically oriented problems arising 
at the school and creating a means 
of communication between parents, 
student, teachers and 
administrators. " 

FINDINGS Non-Compliance 

Monitors in Report No. 4 cited that only one 
middle or high school, Thompson Middle, had a 
functioning Racial-Ethnic Student Council 
(RESC) and that little support had been 
provided by the school department to these 
councils. The school department had suggested 
replacing the RESC's with Communication Boards 
in all high schools. These Boards would serve 
to mediate resolutions to school grievances 
and improve school-wide communication, school 
climate and racial harmony. However, monitors 
also reported that the school department was 
moving very slowly in initiating such a 
modification; therefore, it was recommended 
that Boston decide to establish either RESC's 
or Communication Boards in all middle and high 
schools for the 1985-1986 school year. 



I 



467 



In Superintendent Spillane's response to 
Report No. 4, he noted that the Headmaster's 
Association voted to table a recommendation to 
establish Communication Boards in all high 
schools. Although a pilot Communication Board 
was established at Charlestown High in 1984 
and is still in operation, it must be noted 
that little, if any, ongoing support has been 
provided to this program by the Student 
Affairs Office. Further, no additional plans 
have been developed by the School Department 
to come into compliance with this Order. 

Boston's response to Report No. 4 stated that 
students will have representation on proposed 
high school School Site Councils beginning in 
1985-1986. The purpose of these Councils 
would be to " coordinate the development of 
school improvement and management plans." 
Although this plan is commendable, it does not 
adequately address the original student 
governance Orders. Further, no information 
was submitted to demonstrate that the 
structure of and numbers of student 
representatives to these councils would insure 
meaningful and desegregated student 
representation. 



II. 



STUDENT GOVERNMENT 



ORDERS Amalgamation Plan 

SUMiyiARY This plan establishes the school 
system's student government 
organizations, all of which are to 
be racially representative. It 
orders the formation of student 
councils and Racial-Ethnic Student 
Council subcommittees in all middle 
and high schools, the elections of 
students from each high school to 
serve on a city-wide student 
organization (Boston Student 
Advisory Council), the formation of 
a BSAC Executive Committee, and 
student representation on all high 
school School Parent Councils. 



468 



FINDINGS Partial Compliance 



In Report No. 4, monitors reported that Boston 
had employed uniform student council election 
procedures for the past two years and that all 
schools submitting election data had racially 
representative councils. However, 13 schools 
did not submit timely election data to the 
Student Affairs Office this school year, and, 
at the time of this report, no additional 
student council data on these schools had been 
received by the monitors. (See Monitoring 
Report No. 4, Volume II, pages 486-493.) 
Additionally, no data has been sumbitted on 
the election of RESC's. 

The Boston Student Advisory Council (BSAC) and 
BSAC Executive Committee continue to be 
racially representative and to meet regularly. 

Monitors also reported in Report No. 4 that no 
data had been submitted this school year on 
student representatives to School Parent 
Councils. No further data has been received 
by the monitors. 



CONCLUS I ONS/ RECOMMENDAT I ONS 



Boston continues to have operating and 
racially representative student councils in 
most middle and high schools and a functioning 
city-wide student organization. However, no 
progress has been made to establish RESC's or 
Communication Boards in all middle and high 
schools or to insure student representation to 
all high school School Parent Councils. 
Despite requests by the monitors, no 
supporting documentation on the progress of 
student organizations was submitted during 
this monitoring period. As a result, monitors 
can only question Boston's claim that " The 
School Department remains highly supportive of 
student involvement and will continue to work 
to develop school level support for effective 
forums for student involvement in goverance." 

Before the Board can recommend that the Court 



469 



disengage from this area, Boston should 
demonstrate progress in the following areas: 

1. Boston must decide whether to support the 
implementation of RESC's in all high 
schools or initiate a modification to 
replace the RESC's with Communication 
Boards in all high schools. 

2. A procedure, timeline and funding for 
training for the implementation of 
Communication Boards or RESC's must be 
identified. 

3. All middle and high schools must submit 
yearly election data on student councils 
by November 1 of each school year. 

4. The structure of and numbers of student 
representatives on the high school School 
Site Councils should demonstrate that 
meaningful student participation is both 
encouraged and insured. 



470 



Parent and Student Oraganizations - Attachments 

1. Letter from Elizabeth Wood, CPC 

2. Monitoring Proposal - CPC 

3. Training Staff for year-round organizing (4 pages) 



I 



471 




City wide Parents Council 

59TemplePlace Boston,Mass. 02111 (617)426-2450 



March 



1985 



Dear 

The Cltywlde Parents Council Is planning to conduct a sxirvey of school 
administrators at the middle and high school level, as well as W strict Five, 
regarding the Inp lamentation of the "Promotional Policy." As those charged 
with implementing this policy you will be the most reliable source of 
information. The content and format for this survey has received the siqjport 
of Deputy Superintendents Joseph McDonoygh and William Dandridge. 

During the second v«ek of March you will be ccxitacted by a "Parent 
Assistant to set up an appointment for an Interview which will take 
approximately 15 minutes. 

Enclosed with this letter are three questions which will involve a more 
detailed response. It is my hope, that you will take the time, prior to the 
Interview, to answer these questions in essay form and return it to the 
"Parent Assistant" at the time of your Interview. 



I will be coordinating this endeavor, 
contact me if you have any questions. 



centrally, from the CPC and you m^ 



Sincerely, 



Elizabeth Wood 

Desegr^atlon Education Advocate 

/jv 

cc: Lucille Koch, CPC 
Claire Crayton, CPC 
William Marcblcxie, School Couinlttee 
William Dandridge, Curriculum 8c Instruction 
Joseph McDonoMgh, School Operations 
Robert Hayden, Superintendent's Office 

472 

AmuKi-cultural parents organization monitoring quality, desegregated education 







City wide Parents Council 

S9TemplePlace Boston,Mass. 02111 (617)426-2450 



MONITORING PROPOSAL 



RATIONALE: The purpose of this proposal is to evaluate the first plase of tte 
implementation of the Promotional Policy affecting all Boston Public Sclrol 
students . 

METHOD: To conduct interviews of Principal/Headmasters by "Parent 
Assistants." As those charged with implementing this policy, 
principals/headmasters will be the most effective and reliable source of 
information. 

PROCESS: 

External: To n^otlate with the Deputy Siperintendent of School Operations 
and the Dq)uty Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction to allow tte 
Interviews to take place. The questions, form letter of notification and all 
other relevant materials will be shared with all parties prior to this 
project's commencement. 

Internal: To recruit parents via the CPC "Indqjth"; to conduct a mandatory 
training session for all "Parent Assistants." 

TARGET POPULATICN: Every Middle and High School Principal and Headmasters 
(41) and (12) District Five Elementary Schools. TOTAL: 54. 

TIMELINE: Advertisement for "Parent Assistants" will begin the first week in 
Fdjruary via the CPC "Indepth." Once assistants are identified, mandatory 
training will take place in late Fdiruary. "Parent Assistants" are e3q)ected 
to begin interviews the first or second week in March. 

LOGISTICS: Each Principal/Headmaster will reel eve a letter of intent to 
interview which will contain three essay questions. 12 "Parent Assistants" 
(each would interview approximately 5 Principals/Headmasters) will make 
contact to set up interview times. 

ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We intend to have a better idea of the nunber of 
stixients affected by the Promotional Policy; more specifically thDse in 
jeopardy of non-pranotion. We intend to have a better sense of the 
ranediation mechanisms and number of review teams in place to serve those 
students in need. We intend to make a budgetary assessment of resources 
necessary to provide remediation to students in the future. We intend to 
evaluation the school to hone coamuni cation mechanisms and their inpact. 

CCNTINGENCY CLAUSE: This proposal can not effectively go forth unless their 
is absolute assurtince thdt "Parent /^sistuiits" can be paid out of CPC's Petty 
Cash fund - we must avert the School Dp^-^^-^-^ent Invoice process and pay 
parents "14) front." 473 




City wide Parents Counci 

59TemplePlace Boston,Mass. 02111 (617)426-2450 



DEPARTMENT OF FIELD SPECIALISTS 



TRAINING STAFF FOR YEAR ROUND ORGANIZING 



Developed and Prepared by Mattleen Harris-Wright 
Technical Assistance by Elizabeth Wood 



474 



Amulti-cultural parents organization m onitoring quaity. deaagrogalad education 






Proposal for Training Staff £or Year Round Organizing 

Statement of Purpose 

It is imperitive that the Department of Field Specialists have the skills 
needed to educate and assist the SPC Executive Committee members entrusted 
to them in their assigned districts. 

We cannot leave to chance that all staff will 'pick-up' the knowledge 
little by little. We must insure that each staff member has received 
The Field Specialist receive a general Orientation which runs a month 
and deals with the how to's of the organization in terms of general 
operations, and we also get each staff member started on the same 
level of work, such as the initial letter to the principal, the first 
visit to meet the principal, meeting with the co-chairs, setting up 
the first meeting, forms to be used, etc. 

Some of the proposed training will be primarily by inhouse staff. We 
have the skills to assist and teach each other. Other training, some 
of the more sensitive training will be from outside resources. All 
Departments have been asked to assist in the training, and will 
develop materials that will be of assistance to the Field Staff when 
they go out and use what they have learned here. 

This proposal can be modified as we see the need, or if other issues 
arise that take precidence over what is planned, but the training 
will generally take place the second and fourth Tuesday of each 
month commencing in October of 1984, and ending in February. After 
that, we will review any of the areas of concentration that staff 
feel we needed more time to allow for indepth instruction. Overall, 
this should give us a Department of well-heeled Specialist-Trainers. 

Other departments can, of course, attend any session. 



BUDGET 

Inkind contributions for copying and materials 
Outside trainers for 2 workshops at 150.00 dollars per day 
Requested resource materials that may need to be 
ordered for 22 staff members estimated: 





.00 


300. 


.00 


200, 


.00 


$500, 


.00 



475 



PROPOSAL CONTENT 

October 9th, L984 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

"OPENING THE DOOR" Betty Wood, Facilitator 

What to look for when doing your school site visit, how to show your 

SPC members: 

-what to ask. 

-what to observe 

-making appointments with administrators 

-t.tVio to bring, and what to bring 

-what to ask 

-making the principal your ally 

October 23rd 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

"Co-chair Training, What works, what doesn't" Geraldine David, Sandy'McClea 

"Treasurer Training Carol Ng, Facilitator 
"Training Your SPC Executive Committee 

Secretary" Mattleen Harr is-Wr ight-Fac ili 



November 13th 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

"Monitoring our Schools" 

-Data Packs 

-Promotional Policy 

-How to Monitor a School-The 12 cycles Betty Wood-Facilitator 

November 27th 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

"Monitoring our Schools" 

-Chapter 636 

-Screening Committees 

-Longrange Plan Betty Wood-Facilitator 



December 11th 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

"CONFLICT RESOLUTION" 

-Racial conflict resolution 

-Class Distinctions-bridging the gap 

-"You're on my turf-sharing space and tasks on the SPC 

-Crossing lines of conflict to insure progressive councils 

Debroah Cox, Facilitator 



4 76 



^raiaiag rToposa. 



December 13th 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (tent) 

"TIME MANAGEMENT, So you're already feeling the burnout?" 

Facilitator to be announ <i^d 
-How to manage your time to avoid the 
usual burnout that occurs in Public Service 
Jobs 

-How to train parents to use their personal 

time they devote to the SPC wisely, and productively 

(Particularly council officers) 



January 8th 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

"DEVELOPING THOSE PERSONAL SKILLS THAT POLISH YOUR ORGANIZING ABILITIES" 

-Working effectively with teachers Betty Wood, Claire Crayton 

-Dealing with one issue councils, parents Betty Wood, Facilitator 
-Making Referrals-avoiding becoming 
a 'case worker' Betty Wood, Facilitator 



January 22nd 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

"THE MEDIA" 

-Designing a newsletter that helps parents organize councils 

-Tips on writing copy, for newspapers 

-Giving and interview on T.V., Radio, Newspapers 

-Sending general correspondence to the outside community 

(what goes on paper, what shouldn't) 
-Other information 
-Developing Resources in your district: 

Computer workshops for parents. Proposals, where to write for funds, 
-Accessing Community Cable Service Janine Vecchia, Facilitator 

February 14th 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

"MONITORING-WHAT TO OBSERVE AT:" 

-School Committee Meetings 
-City Council Meetings 
-Council of Principals 
-Open Houses 



I 



477 



478 



DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS 



79 



480 



DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS 

Only one dispute reached the level of request for State 
Board mediation described at section V{D)(1) of the Orders of 
Disengagement. This dispute concerned permanent appointments for 
certain members of the Department of Implementation, and was 
resolved informally between the Boston Teachers Union and the 
School Department prior to the actual commencement of the 
mediation process. 

Complaints raised by Plaintif f-intervenors, which had 
previously been the subject of Dispute Resolution at the School 
Department level, continued to be addressed by the concerned 
parties without a request for State Board mediation. At a 
hearing held on May 13, 1985, counsel for El Comite informed the 
Court that School Defendants had promised a response on these 
outstanding issues within the week. 



481 



482 



MODIFICATIONS 



L 



483 



484 



MODIFICATIONS 



Extensive negotiations among the parties were conducted 
during this monitoring period, relating to a variety of Court 
Orders. The State Board, through its counsel and the Associate 
Commissioner for Occupational Education, initiated a series of 
discussions regarding revision of the Unified plan for Vocational 
and Occupational Education. As of June 1, these discussions were 
still being conducted, though the State Board hoped to be able to 
present its recommendations to the Court in June. The State 
Board also authorized counsel to begin a series of negotiations 
regarding various modifications of student assignment orders. 
The first four meetings in this series of negotiations were held 
on May 8, May 13, May 23, and May 31, and covered School 
Defendants' proposed consolidation of Districts III and IV, and 
Plaintiffs' request for modification of orders relating to the 
Examination Schools. 

In addition to the above negotiations, which have been 
conducted in accordance with Section Vi of the Orders of 
Disengagement, School Defendants, City Defendants and the State 
Board held lengthy negotiations prior to the joint filing of the 
Unified Facilities Plan. 



485