Resolution Opposing State Receivership for Boston Public Schools. On motion of Councilor Mejia, Rule 12 was invoked to include Councilors Arroyo and Louijeune as co-sponsors. On motion of Councilor Mejia, the rules were suspended; the resolution was adopted; yeas 10, nays 1(Baker), absent 1(Flaherty).
06430643 Council and me here for the following resolution Opposing State Receivership for Boston Public Schools. The Chair recognizes. Councilman here. Councilman, here. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I also like to add Counselor Arroyo as an original co-sponsor, as well as Counselor Lucia. So no objection. Council, Royal and Council Genocide Order. So last month, the Committee on Education held a hearing on Docket 0199 in order for a hearing on state receivership for Boston Public Schools. As you all may remember, I tried to pass this resolution on the floor, and I was encouraged by my colleagues that we needed a hearing and we did just that. The goal of the hearing was to educate the public and the council around what receivership is and how it impacts our school communities. The hearing was insightful because we heard time and time again from the administration advocates, family members, students and members of the community. That receivership is wrong is the wrong move for state receivership is wrong, is the wrong move for Boston for many reasons, not least of which is that D.C. has a miserable track record of improving schools it has taken into receivership. VSC has voted to place three districts in receivership. Lawrence in 2021. Holyoke in 2015, which I opposed back then as a parent advocate and Southbridge in 2016. Southbridge and Holyoke are now the worst performing and second worst performing school districts in the state. According to Ducey's most district ranking. Following an initial uptick, Lawrence has been on the decline, and it's now back on the lowest of 6% of districts. A Boston Globe analysis of test scores, graduation rates, college enrollment and a dozen other metrics Lawrence, Holyoke and Southbridge published on Sunday show that the state has failed to meet almost all of its stated goals for the district. BP's is not without its problems, and we all know that because we sit in these budget hearings every day. But these are problems that can be solved by turning to the community, not by initiating yet another executive leadership retooling. That kind of thinking lacks innovation and intentional. We avoid the core problems a BP is facing. You can swap out the players at the top all you want, but the instability created through that process trickles down to parents, students and teachers. And we're left exactly where we started. Only less engaged and less hopeful for the future. This resolution has been a long time coming. We filed it back in 2021, and there was a desire from the council to learn more about the receivership, which we did, which includes our school community. We followed through on that request and created space for community members and counselors to come forward and learn more. Since then, there have been several articles, op ads, personal testimonies on social media from people across the district urging the city to fight back against any threat of receivership. Receivership is opposed by members of this body and has received opposition from the mayor, even her in her children, who is a former D.C. board member, and came out and said that her vote to place Lawrence under receivership was the wrong choice. It simply does not work well when if we can't risk doing further damage to our school district by handling by handing over it to the board with no clear track record for improvement, it is time that we as the Boston City Council and the representatives of the people listen to their voice and join them in opposing any third of state receivership for Boston Public Schools. And I move and I move that we suspend the rules and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution. I will say, you know, everything is always political theatrics. And, you know, we have an opportunity here as a council to hold the district accountable. And it is our I would say it is in our best interest to make sure that we support this resolution, because it gives us the ability to hold the district more accountable instead of allowing outsiders to tell us what is right for our people. So I encourage our colleagues to rise up and vote in favor of this resolution today. Thank you. Thank you, councilman. Here. The chair recognizes Councilor Arroyo council royal. You have the floor. Thank you. Council President Flynn. And thank you, Counselor Maria, for your leadership. I voice my strongest opposition to taking our Boston Public Schools into receivership. I'm very aware of Desi's track record. I think the Boston Globe recently published that record, but we've heard it from advocates and we've seen it on the ground. They have not done really any commendable work in their turnarounds to date in smaller school districts. At the very beginning of my career, I worked in Lawrence, and so I commuted from Boston to Lawrence, and I got to see firsthand what that takeover did to that community and the parents and the lack of parenting. Isn't in the way in which that community has been fighting since to take back control of their schools so that they can have a voice in the decisions that are being made with their children. And as councilman here has noted, the academic improvements have really gone down. And that initial uptick, frankly, came from injection of resources, a small injection of resources into the actual facilities. If you actually saw the Lawrence facilities, they had put a lot of money into improving them and making them modern and standard. But now, as we sit here today, we've seen repeatedly that Disney does not have the ability or the resources or frankly, the skill level to come in and take these schools over. And so I am voicing my strongest opposition to receivership. I do believe that this is something that we can handle with Boston Public Schools. I do know that there are places where, frankly, we would like to see them do better. But I know adamantly that state receivership is not a solution to those things and that those are the kinds of things that we have better control of , frankly, as a body here with parents engagement with the school committee and with the superintendent. I know that Councilor. Council President Flint is sort of raised up the specter of what receivership is doing to our current efforts to improve by selecting and hiring a new superintendent. And I think the fact of the matter is, having this over our Boston Public Schools heads is actually stopping us from getting and moving forward in a way that is productive. And so I would like to see this this pursue ended or at least the conversation around it ended because we know that they don't have the ability to really do this well. And so with that, I add my voice to this and I hope to see this passed today. Thank you. The chit. Thank you, counsel. The chair recognizes counsel, illusion, counsel, vision. You have the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. And thank you to Catherine here for this resolution. I also rise in very strong opposition to any notion that there should be any state intervention into our schools for a lot of the reasons that have been said. There's no track record of success. We are in a pivotal moment as a city with a largely new city council, a new mayor with a new vision for our schools. A lot of change. We're hiring a new superintendent. So for this to be thrown in as a distraction is unnecessary. And I also just I'm cautious that the state should always be cautious when the state is taking its cues from a free market think tank that really doesn't believe in the public good. Right. We're talking about what we need in our public schools, and that's deeper investment to make up for a lot of intentional policy failures and policy harms that have been done towards our schools. So I think, you know that the state is taking cues from a think tank that believes that the model should always be privatization, should be everything that we need to know about why this is not the right approach for our schools and for our students. I was with a teacher just last evening from the Denver school and the Denver has been in receivership since 2014 with almost nothing to show for that. And so I think we have the tools that we need here to really help transform our schools. The state does not. And so I am in strong support of this resolution, and I am glad that it was filed. Thank you. Thank you. Constitution. The chair recognizes counsel. Clarity. Counsel, clarity. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And obviously thank you to our colleagues, counsel here and the co-sponsors. And I appreciate the spirit by which this is filed. I understand legitimate concerns about total state receivership, and I do not support total state receivership. With that said, I will not be signing on to the resolution but will not stand in the way. Pursuant to Rule 33 to allow the motion to be adopted, i. I just want to be perfectly clear that for me, this has nothing to do with our teachers, our beloved BTU, our students, or the countless individuals who work hard every day on behalf of our students. For me. It has to do with the systemic failures of our central office and the a proven inability to consistently support our schools, our teachers and our school communities. Our school district is consistently failing our most vulnerable students and violating the law, particularly as it pertains to our English language learners and our special education students. For us students that require IEPs, there are many cases where students do not have adequate accommodations or plans in place for our English language learners. There are documented failures to provide students with equitable access to ELA teachers inappropriate support. We also have significant operational issues. Whether it's our transportation system, our data reporting system, our facilities, our safety policies or mechanisms consistently tracking parental and community concerns, we don't have one. We don't have a system that tracks parental community concerns, despite the fact that we're talking about all the investments that we've made over the last several years. Look no further than this past January. 16,000 kids. 16,000 kids were left stranded. Didn't get picked up. That's never happened. I'm here almost 20 years. It's. I've never seen it this bad. You all know, I have been a fierce advocate for public education, a fight to support all of the critical investments in our district. I believe in those investments and I will continue to support them. I also believe that it may be time to talk about a strategic partnership or targeted interventions may be appropriate. Whether that's what the state or frankly, the federal government, if anyone here doesn't think that the Department of Justice is looking at this very issue. You are sadly mistaken. And I would rather come to the table and identify those three or four or five areas and partner or have targeted interventions with the state or the federal government as opposed to having them come in and taking the whole thing over. Which, again, as I referenced in the beginning of this, I do not support that. I think targeted partnerships in these areas where we've failed to consistently make progress year in, year out, year in, year out. Same old, same old. As we continue to do is keep increasing the budget. We continue to give them more money. We're actually educating less kids than we've ever educated in the city. 7000 less than the last couple of years. And I just think that the time has come to call it what it is, which is we need to call out the central office. It's not about calling out our teachers. It's not about the students. There are dedicated professionals, passionate, committed to our children, to making a difference in their lives, to closing those gaps has nothing to do with them. For me, this is about the central office. It's the buck stops with the superintendent in the central office. They are thwarting progress. They are getting in the way of good instruction, good support. And for me, I just think that the time has come that. We call them out. And whether it's a targeted intervention or it's a strategic partnership, I think now is the time between now and Tuesday to negotiate what that is. I understand it's a difficult time because we're trying to attract a new superintendent. This probably isn't the timing on this is horrendous. I know that we've got 31 applicants. I believe in the mail and are planning a visit to turn the schools around. I want to work with the new superintendent, allow him or her to get the legs underneath them to move forward. This may be an opportunity for them as well. We potentially could make an argument that if we allow those three or four critical areas where we've chronically and systemically underperformed, maybe we could negotiate that our new superintendent can be the receiver. What do they think about that idea? And so these are the things that I'm sort of thinking about. But again, I appreciate the efforts of our colleagues to lead sponsor for work on the Education Committee and the hearing that she hosted. And again, as I referenced, I wanted to state my objection for the record and again, state that it has nothing to do with our teachers. This is all about the central office and calling them out. And as I mentioned, Mr. President, I will not stand in the way with Rule 33. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. Clarity. The Chair recognizes Counsel Fernandez Anderson. Counsel Fernandez Enerson. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I strongly support my colleagues. Offer a receivership has been shown to actually not improve quality of schools in the districts that have utilized that approach. And local districts that have gone under receivership are much smaller than Boston, and then in that process is ineffective for them. So that begs the question, like, if this policy cannot work on small district, and why would it work on a district as big or the biggest district in the state? Additionally, receivership is often used to counteract school districts that are struggling for a number of socio economic reasons that often transcend to school themselves, ensure our students need food, housing, language support and mental health counseling and so forth. So how does putting the schools that they attend and receivership into receivership help them actually get the resources and services that they need? The state is really far removed from our youth. They don't see our youth as individuals. They don't know our youth. And so because of this, I heartily endorse this offer from counsel over here and oppose BP schools being placed under receivership. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel Fernandez Anderson, the chair recognizes Counselor Baker. Counsel Baker, do you have the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. If this resolution defends and protects the status quo for a system that can't even keep our students, teachers and staff safe, graduation rates and and academic progress is astoundingly poor. So we want to double down on a system that's failing our children and our families. In a city where enrollment plummets alongside morale, we need fundamental change, and this resolution does the opposite. It's time for the City Council to illuminate the facts of what's going on in our schools, not to cover up the misdeeds and failures. We're pretending as if status quo is okay because it's not. Let's get a range of people in here and have a hearing. Let's get DeSean here. Let's not have the echo chamber that we're used to. Everybody saying we don't want we don't want receivership. Let's get some opposing views. The single sided. The single sided. Hearings don't work. Needs to be true to differing opposing views here, which we are not providing here in this chamber. I agree with counsel. Clarity with with the targeted interventions doesn't need to be a total takeover. Wildly unsafe. Kids unable to read. Buildings failing. Spending. I think it's 160 million. This year on transportation will be another 10 million next year. Another 10 million after that. We spend 40 to 50 million every year. Three times what the police budget is. We're looking to defund the police, but we're looking to double down on something that's failing. I just don't get it. I don't understand it. And you're either. Now it's going to be either receivership or not. There's someplace in the middle there which I think Counsel Clarity spoke to pretty well. So and that's where I am. Do I want the state to come in and take over? No, but I think there's definitely areas where we can be in it being improved. And you know as well as I know that safety is one of them. If we don't have safety in our schools, just like if we don't have safety on our streets, if we don't have safety in our transportation system, we can kiss it all goodbye. The schools are unsafe right now. That's a huge problem. Kids aren't able to read. That's a huge problem. So that's my $0.02. I will be voting no on this. And again, I won't block it if other people don't don't want to. But I think it warrants another hearing, a balanced hearing, if we're able to to do a balanced hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel Baker. The chair recognizes council ora. Council ora. You have the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. First, I want to say that I am in support of this resolution and I am against Massachusetts State Receivership for keeps. I attended the hearing that was chaired by Councilor me here, and I think it really did a good job at illuminating all of the issues that state receivership would cause for our school district. I was only going to vote in support and was not going to rise to speak. But after the show of political theater for my colleagues, I think that it's incredibly important that we really have an honest conversation about what we're talking about here. First, did not show up to the hearing after they were invited. So if through the chair, if my colleague, Councilor Baker, has any connections to get them to come and speak up for themselves, then we would love to have them there. Secondly, Boston Public Schools and DC have been under a memorandum of understanding that outlined what we would do to improve the issue areas that DC identified and what DC would do to support us to meet those areas. Boston Public Schools showed up, talked about all of the work that they have been doing on their side of the memorandum of Understanding. DC did not show up and to my knowledge and everybody that was there to testify could not prove that they had met any of the commitments that they made on the menu to us. Not only that, they sped up the review process so they didn't even give us the necessary time to really reflect back on on the review process and the promises that were made in value, which included supporting all of the issues that were outlined by Council priority and VIPs and DC has done nothing. So even during the process of the MOU, you with BPC and DC, they have been completely unable to provide not only results but any kind of support to us. Does what do Boston Public Schools have issues? Yes, absolutely. And we should be able to talk about those issues earnestly and we should be able to talk about those issues collectively. But it's absolutely no surprise that the State Department wants to come in here when the people of the city of Boston just voted to move to an elected school committee. And we have a mayor that is committed to hiring a superintendent that's really going to transform our schools. We're moving towards more democratic governance. We're moving towards a different vision for us. And now the state wants to come in and try to take over. This is an affront to the voters of the city. It's a slap in the face to the parents who have worked so hard to make sure that they can have a voice in the schooling and what happens in the schools where their students are attending. So the voters are going to tell us that they want one thing and we're going to stand up here and say that we care about students, that we care about teachers, but we're going to tell the voters where they can shove it and that we're going to support the State Department to come in here and tell us what we need to be doing with our schools. When the voters of this city has told it, have told us the opposite. You want to talk about having balanced hearings. The people of this city elected every single one of the councilors that are standing around here. So the people of the city have decided what voice they want here in the city council chambers. And every single one of us here is representing what the voters have asked us to come and represent so we can do one or two things. We can have an honest conversation about peace. We can file the resolution. We can say that, yes, we have problems, that we want to have an opportunity to fix those issues ourselves. We all just got here. The mayor just got here. We have so many problems to fix and we need to be given an opportunity to fix those issues so we can either say, give us a chance to do right by our families or we can say no. Let's let a failed model coming to our city and see if we can roll the dice on our children's education and roll the dice on what the voters of the city have already told us that they want. I, I, I appreciate the fire that i've seen from my colleagues. I get it. You got to stand up. There are people that want them to say what they need to say. But at some point we have to make decisions as the city council of one of the largest 25 cities in this country that are based on fact and that are based on data and not just political rhetoric. And that is why I'm in support of this resolution and I'll be voting yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel The Chair recognizes Councilor Murphy. COUNSEL Murphy, you have the floor. Thank you. President Flynn. So as the only educator on this body. Someone who has dedicated my entire career to teaching and nurturing the children of Boston, I am standing up today to say this is devastating. I was a student in BHP's in 1974. I put my son on a bus in 1992. I've been in the system as a mother. I've been in the system as a student and also as a teacher for over 20 years. Yes, the state in D.C. has a really bad track record. But Boston Public Schools has not shown us much better year after year, decade after decade. Transportation, food services, even basic services like getting our children to school, feeding our children. Never mind that so many special education students and students, which I was both the teacher of. Do not get the proper services they need. So, yes, the state will come in. Yes, the federal government will probably come in. But I'm just standing today to say I'm not standing up because there are voters out there or constituents who want me to say something. I'm standing up to say when asked, Where do I stand on receivership? I will always unapologetically say, I. Stand on the side of the children. We have failed them. And it breaks my heart. I've seen it as a mother who's had to pull her kids out of under-performing schools. I've seen it as a neighbor who listens to parents. It. It burns me that we spend so much money and so many families feel that you either get into a school and that's considered a got me hell . You get the golden ticket. Every child in the city of Boston deserves to get a seat at a quality school. Every child in the city of Boston deserves to get that golden ticket. Not just a few of our families. I also stand in support of our teachers. The teachers. I know I was one of them for 24 years and I have been touring schools since I got here. On the other side now is a city councilor and yes, you will see amazing things. I was blown away by the play at the Warren Prescott. I was at the Elliott this morning. I was at East Boston High last week. Go to any school at any moment and you will see amazing things happening. That is true. But something has to change. And I don't know what the answer is. Is it received Seaver ship or not? But it absolutely has to change. We can't just keep throwing money at a system that is not showing up for our children. So I believe we need to stand together. And just fight for our children. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Murphy. The chair recognizes Councilor Bach. Councilor Bach, you have the floor. Thank you so much, Mr. President. And similarly to Councilor Laura. I wasn't going to speak today, but I just. I wanted to state my support for the resolution. I think that the it is true that we are facing deep challenges and BP's. But the problem is, is that every one of them are things that take deep collaborative partnership work. I mean, when you talk about literacy, like we we have to do like deep literacy curriculum roll out across the district. Like that's something that like it it takes kind of that like line level time. It isn't something that gets better by people's like pounding their fists on the table. And it's I can't see it getting better through the sort of state city theatrics and the same thing, you know, when you think about rolling out pre-K, when you think about reforming special ed, like I think the thing this district needs is an empowered superintendent who is backed by both the mayor and the council to do things that take time, that take longer than one news cycle to actually really dig in. And I think that a path towards receivership is a path into further news cycle governing of the VP's system. And I can't see that. As a as an educator on the on the college side, when I think about what makes good curriculum, when I think about like what really changes, like students experience, I just I can't see it coming through state receivership. And as a number of colleagues have said, there's pretty strong evidence that state receivership is not delivering those results for any school district. So I do think, like I value colleagues point that like there's a lot of places that where we have to say as a body where BP has been is now is not acceptable. Um, but I think when I think about the kind of like slow and complicated and really committed work that we need to be doing, it's work that we need to be doing as a city with partners. And I think that the state can bring resources to the table and private entities can bring resources to the table. Everybody can throw in orange, but but that doesn't require something like receivership. So I just I really feel strongly that this is something where we need a great superintendent and the mayor and the council need to back them. And it is going to take leadership from everyone at the city. But I, I, I don't think desy has the capacity to help through a receivership lens, and I think that it would set us back considerably. And I agree. I think it was council, but it might have been councilor me here who said that in a lot of ways the fact that what we're fighting about is receivership today is a distraction from a lot of the core issues that we need to be focused on. So I just wanted to say, please add my name and I'll be supporting the resolution. Thank you, counsel. But the chair recognizes. Counsel I'm here. Counselor me here. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. And I really do appreciate all of my colleagues who rose up to speak in regards to this issue. I'll just say that I was appointed by DC to be on their accountability task force. And while I was there, I was there to serve the parent voice. And I was one of very few people of color in that space. And the way that Jesse normally measures accountability is by giving themselves a pass in terms of the things that they were supposed to rise up and do. So I really do appreciate counsel, a lot of calling that out because I saw it for myself firsthand as someone who was appointed to one of their committees. I also think that it's really important for us to acknowledge that as a council we are also held responsible. We approve the Boston Public Schools budget every year so we can talk about accountability without seeing the role that we have played. And particularly my council colleague Clarity, who's not here to hear this, but I'm sure he'll watch the tape and rewind. But he's been on this council for 20 years. And year after year we keep having the same conversation and not much changes. And so if we're really serious about leaning into this work, we also need to call ourselves into this process and recognize that in many ways, the council has failed. Boston Public Schools as well. And so this is a call for us to recognize the role that we have played or not in this process. And while I do appreciate my colleagues, you know, comments around the children, I'm a Boston public school graduate and a Boston public school parent who worked in the Boston public school space. And so for me, this is really about an opportunity for us to finally do right by the parents and the students and the educators and bring in someone else from the outside, especially in Boston as well. We're so worried about outsiders. If we're really worried about outsiders, that's what we're doing right now, is allowing outsiders to come into our city and telling us how we should be. So in the interest of protecting our Boston public schools, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution and look forward to continuing the work and holding all of ourselves accountable to ensure that accountability is 3060 and that includes us. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Would anyone else like to have their names? Mr. Clarke. Please add. Councilor. Councilor Braden. Councilor Carter. Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Councilor Alvaro. Councilor Murphy, please. Out the chair. Council on the Council of Rail Consultation. Seek suspension of the rules and adoption of 0643. All those in favor say I oppose any. Doubt the vote. Mr. Clark, could you please call a vote for a vote? Roll call vote on docket number 0643 Council or Oil Gas Council or U.S. Council of Baker. Nay. Council a Baker and No Council The Bar Council of Gas Council. Breedon Council. Breedon years council a Coletta Council letter yes. Council for an end to end? Yes. Council for an end to sense and yes. Council 30. Council of Flint yes. Council of Flint. Yes. Council Borough Council LRA Yes Council Louisiana yes. Council Louisiana yes. Council let me here yes. Council A me here. Yes. Council a murphy. Council a murphy. Yes. Resolution. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The resolution. The resolution has passed. Um, Mr. Clarke, we're going on to talk at 0644.