City Council - Education Committee Hearing on Docket #1282

September 29, 2025
Watch Video View Transcript
AI Disclaimer: Summaries and transcripts above were created by various AI tools. By their nature, these tools will produce mistakes and inaccuraies. Links to the official meeting recordings are provided for verification. If you find an error, please report it to somervillecivicpulse at gmail dot com.

Podcast Summary

Subscribe to AI-generated podcasts:
RSS Spotify Apple Podcasts

City Council - Education Committee Hearing on Docket #1282

Meeting Date: September 29, 2025 at 02:00 PM Governing Body: Boston City Council - Education Committee Type of Meeting: Hearing Attendees:

  • Councilors: Henry Santana (Chair), John Fitzgerald, Enrique Pepén, Edward Flynn, Julia Mejia, Gabriela Coletta Zapata, Liz Breadon, Brian Worrell, Ruthzee Louijeune (Council President), Benjamin Weber.
  • Boston Public Schools (BPS) Staff: Mary Skipper (Superintendent), Monica Hogan (Chief of Data, Information, and Systems Improvements), Dr. Colin Rose (Senior Advisor for Strategy and Opportunity Gaps).
  • Community Panelists: Sharon Hinton (Educator), Deirdre Manning (Parent), Travis Marshall (Parent), Jilly Santos (Citizens for Juvenile Justice), Ben Starr (Parent), Rufus Falk (Former AWC Student), Thomas McGrath (Taxpayer), Krista Magnuson (BPS Parent, Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance), Roseanne Tong (2021 Exam School Task Force Member, Independent Research Consultant), Peter Alvarez (BPS Alum, Parent).

Executive Summary: The Boston City Council Education Committee convened a hearing on Docket #1282 to discuss proposed changes to the Boston Public Schools' exam school admission policy. The primary recommendations from BPS include removing school-based bonus points, reducing housing-based bonus points from 15 to 10, and implementing a citywide round where the first 20% of seats at each exam school are allocated to the highest-scoring students. The policy also recommends maintaining the current socioeconomic tiering system and a 70% GPA / 30% MAP test score weighting. Councilors and community members expressed concerns regarding the impact of these changes on diversity, equity, and access for historically marginalized student populations, as well as the need for a stable and transparent policy.

Docket #1282: Order for a Hearing Regarding the Boston Public Schools' Exams School's Admission Policy and Proposed Changes

Sponsors: Councilors Enrique Pepén, Ruthzee Louijeune, and Benjamin Weber Referred to Committee: June 25, 2025

Opening Remarks from Councilors

  • Councilor Henry Santana (Chair): Opened the hearing at 2:09 p.m., outlining the agenda, live streaming details, and procedures for public testimony.
  • Councilor Enrique Pepén:
    • Expressed gratitude to co-sponsors, BPS leadership, and community members.
    • Highlighted personal connection as a BPS alumnus and parent.
    • Acknowledged the data-driven analysis behind the recommendations since the 2021 policy changes.
    • Emphasized the need for a conversation to understand recommendations for all students, aiming to level the playing field across socioeconomic backgrounds.
    • Stressed the importance of bringing more attention and resources to all high schools, not just exam schools.
  • Council President Ruthzee Louijeune:
    • Thanked Councilor Pepén for filing the docket and the administration/advocates for testimony.
    • Shared personal experience as a Boston Latin School graduate, emphasizing its transformative impact.
    • Advocated for exam schools to be open and welcoming to students from all neighborhoods and language backgrounds, including English Language Learners.
    • Stressed the dual goal of improving all high schools to reduce pressure on exam schools and preparing BPS students for academic rigor.
    • Expressed pride in BLS but noted the historical underrepresentation of students from Mattapan and other underserved areas.
    • Championed citywide schools for fostering community and neighborhood integration.
  • Councilor Benjamin Weber:
    • Thanked the panel, especially Superintendent Skipper.
    • Referenced the Supreme Court's stance on race-neutral admissions and the First Circuit's acknowledgment of Boston's legitimate interest in diverse schools.
    • Supported focusing on socioeconomic status and location to achieve broader diversity.
    • Expressed frustration with annual policy changes and the lack of predictability for parents.
    • Highlighted the disadvantage faced by families in schools without bonus points (Manning, Kilmer, Linden) and the need for a fair shake for all BPS students.
    • Emphasized the need for a school system that serves all students, not just those focused on exam schools.
  • Councilor John Fitzgerald:
    • Shared experience as an alumnus of Boston Latin Academy and Boston Latin School.
    • Stated that exam school policy is crucial for retaining families in the city.
    • Advocated for ensuring opportunities for students from under-resourced areas while maintaining academic rigor.
  • Councilor Edward Flynn:
    • Supported proposed changes: adding a citywide round for top-performing students and eliminating school bonus points.
    • Cited parent concerns about qualified students being denied based on residency (e.g., "wrong side of K Street").
    • Advocated for an unfunded mandate for an enrichment program for grades 4-6 to prepare more students, especially from underserved communities.
    • Stated that school-based points have not worked as intended and are unfair, with inconsistent application across schools with similar economic disadvantage levels.
  • Councilor Julia Mejia:
    • Proud BPS graduate from a non-exam school, emphasizing her "open enrollment" background.
    • Believes too much energy is spent on exam schools.
    • Praised the 2021 policy changes for creating more equitable opportunities.
    • Expressed concern about access for recent arrivals and English Language Learners.
    • Shared a personal anecdote about her daughter feeling like a "zip code kid" at Boston Latin Academy, highlighting the stigmatization and neighborhood-versus-neighborhood dynamics.
    • Advocated for access and opportunities that do not stigmatize students.
  • Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata:
    • Proud Boston Latin Academy alumna, valuing its diversity and citywide network.
    • Supported the 2020-2021 changes due to prior inequities (e.g., parents needing resources for ISEE tutoring).
    • Generally supportive of proposed changes (four tiers, additional points, grades, MAP test) as they reflect District 1 parent requests.
    • Expressed interest in understanding the impact on protected populations.
  • Councilor Liz Breadon:
    • Shared personal experience from a rural Northern Ireland school with an ideological opposition to selective exams.
    • Emphasized the need to prepare all children, referencing the former "advanced work" program at Jackson Mann.
    • Criticized the disproportionate focus on exam schools when 65% of students attend other schools.
    • Highlighted the need for early literacy skills and enrichment programs for grades 4-6.
    • Stressed the importance of guiding families through the application system to prevent students from missing opportunities.
    • Suggested bilingual testing to make the process more equitable for multilingual students.
    • Advocated for Boston to have the best public school system.
  • Councilor Brian Worrell:
    • Reiterated concerns about year-over-year declines in exam school admissions and policy revisions.
    • Interested in understanding the causes of declines and studying other districts' exam school models.
    • Emphasized the need to ensure all schools are strong.

BPS Presentation on Proposed Changes

Panelists: Superintendent Mary Skipper, Monica Hogan, Dr. Colin Rose

  • Superintendent Skipper:
    • Thanked councilors for the opportunity to discuss recommendations.
    • Stated the district's goal remains creating an equitable and transparent policy for all students to access exam schools (Boston Latin Academy, Boston Latin School, O'Bryant School of Mathematics and Science).
    • Noted the current review is mandated by a five-year review provision in the existing policy.
    • Highlighted community feedback themes: clear/simple policy, high-quality options beyond exam schools, and consistent policy for several years.
    • Stated recommendations aim to keep what works and fix what doesn't, leading to a clearer and more equitable system.
    • Addressed the issue of high-scoring students being denied due to elementary school or neighborhood.
    • Announced the School Committee is scheduled to vote next month, with the policy to remain in effect for three admission cycles if approved.
    • Emphasized the need for a stable policy for families.
    • Committed to exploring increased access for students with disabilities and multilingual learners.
    • Mentioned adjusting residency verification timeline for non-BPS students.
  • Dr. Colin Rose:
    • Provided historical context: 2021 Boston School Committee amended admissions policy for equitable citywide access.
    • Goals of the 2021 task force: expand applicant pool, maintain academic rigor, reflect racial, socioeconomic, and geographic diversity.
    • The 2021 policy considered composite scores (GPA and MAP test), distributed invitations equally across socioeconomic tiers, and assigned additional points for Title I schools, public housing, homelessness, or DCF care.
    • The policy required a full review after five years.
  • Monica Hogan:
    • Current Policy Overview:
      • Divides the city into four socioeconomic tiers based on census data.
      • Students rank exam schools, take MAP test, submit grades.
      • Composite score: 30% test scores, 70% grades.
      • Additional points for Title I schools (40%+ economically disadvantaged) and students experiencing homelessness, in DCF care, or in BHA housing.
      • Invitations distributed to highest-scoring applicants within each tier, with an equal number per tier.
      • If first choice is full, applicant invited to second or third choice.
    • Policy Changes Over Time: Showed a table illustrating annual changes since 2021, noting the 2021 change allowed BPS students to take ISEE during the school day.
    • Review Timeline:
      • Late spring: Presentation on context, changes, and disaggregated enrollment/invitation data.
      • Three simulations presented based on December 2024 study areas: additional points, citywide round, sizing tiers by applicants.
      • Summer: Community engagement (two webinars, feedback form).
      • Fall: Superintendent's recommendations based on feedback and advice.
    • Community Engagement Summary:
      • Two webinars (500+ participants).
      • Feedback form available in major BPS languages, closed September 14th.
      • 326 responses (81% from BPS students/families).
      • Key themes: stable, easy-to-understand policy; strong high school options beyond exam schools; consistent policy for several years.
    • Variables Under Consideration:
      • Additional Points:
        • Current: School-based (Title I schools, 0-10 points) and housing-based (homelessness, BHA, DCF, 15 points).
        • Decision points: Remove school-based? Remove both? Adjust housing-based?
      • Socioeconomic Tiering:
        • Current: Four tiers with equal number of school-age students.
        • Decision point: Keep current tiers or change to tiers reflecting exam school applicants?
      • Citywide Round:
        • Potential for highest composite scores across the city.
        • Two implementation options: 20% of seats at each exam school to highest scorers who selected that school first, OR 20% of seats overall to highest scorers who could choose any school.
        • Decision points: Implement citywide round? If so, which allocation method?
  • Superintendent Skipper (Formal Recommendations):
    • Recommendation 1: Remove all school-based points.
      • Rationale: Hard to explain/justify, change competition within tiers inconsistently, increase tension among BPS schools, impact enrollment decisions, and led to composite scores over 100.
    • Recommendation 2: Reduce housing points from 15 to 10.
      • Rationale: Original 15 points chosen to be higher than school-based points (10). Analysis shows actual composite score difference for housing-qualified students is 10.
    • Recommendation 3: Add a citywide round.
      • First 20% of seats at each school go to highest composite scores (this was part of the 2021 task force consensus).
      • Remaining 80% of seats distributed equally across socioeconomic tiers.
      • Ensures pathway for highest scorers while preserving socioeconomic tier structure.
    • Recommendation 4: Socioeconomic tiers continue to be sized with an equal number of school-aged children.
      • Tiers based on home address and census tract characteristics (poverty, limited English proficiency, owner-occupied households, single-parent households, educational attainment).
    • No changes to eligibility criteria: B or higher GPA, rank at least one exam school, valid MAP Growth Assessment Test score.
    • Composite score remains 30% MAP, 70% GPA.
    • Next Steps:
      • Recommendations presented to School Committee on September 25th.
      • Public commentary continues.
      • Vote scheduled for November 5th School Committee meeting.
      • If approved, policy effective immediately for 2026-27 admissions cycle.
      • Policy to remain consistent for at least three years for stability and predictability.
      • District will explore ways to increase access for students with disabilities and multilingual learners.
      • Adjust timeline for residency verification for non-BPS students.

Councilor Questions (Round 1)

  • Councilor Pepén:
    • Question: Did the 2020-2021 policy achieve its goal of making exam schools more demographically representative?
    • BPS Response: Yes, it led to a "pretty big bump" in Black and Latinx student representation, though not "all the way there."
    • Question: Does the new proposal continue this trend?
    • BPS Response: The latest data showed a "dip back" for Black and Brown students, but it's hard to attribute to specific policy changes due to annual tweaks. The goal of the current recommendations is to create a stable policy that does "no harm" and allows for better analysis over time, shifting focus to improving all high schools.
    • Question: How can BPS proactively ensure equal paths for students from less-resourced backgrounds before exam school applications?
    • BPS Response: This requires addressing issues from preschool onward, as short-term interventions can't close multi-year gaps. BPS is focusing on high-quality instructional materials, equitable literacy, Tier 2/3 interventions (Reading Recovery, advanced math), and expanding the Exam School Initiative (ESI) program to 4th grade. Awareness campaigns for multilingual learners and special education students are also crucial.
  • Council President Louijeune:
    • Comment: Emphasized that awareness campaigns alone are insufficient; systemic changes are needed to address disparities in access and information for underserved families.
    • Question: Requested data on acceptance rates from "transformation schools" to exam schools.
    • BPS Response: Can provide a crosswalk, noting the transformation list changes annually.
    • Question: What has replaced the "advanced work class" (AWC) program, and how is BPS ensuring academic rigor for K-6 students?
    • BPS Response: AWC "slowly died" as it became less relevant with Common Core and was seen as segregating students. The focus shifted to "Excellence for All" – improving core Tier 1 instruction and rigor in all general education classrooms. BPS is adding Tier 2/3 supports, math enrichment, and expanding ESI.
    • Question: Are there concerns about grade inflation, and how is BPS ensuring K-6 students are prepared for exam school rigor?
    • BPS Response: Grade inflation is a concern. The 2021 policy addressed this by treating A+ and A equally in GPA calculations for exam schools. The focus is on improving foundational skills from early grades.
  • Councilor Weber:
    • Comment: Discussed legal context of affirmative action and the potential for socioeconomic status to achieve diversity. Noted racial disparities in exam school demographics even after 2021 changes.
    • Question: Why can't BPS offer bonus points for all BPS schools?
    • BPS Response: Legal counsel advises against it, as it would be using public dollars to give an advantage to BPS students over other Boston taxpayers' children (e.g., charter, private school students).
    • Question: Will removing bonus points benefit students at schools like Linden, Kilmer, and Manning, or will it primarily benefit private school students?
    • BPS Response: Points are currently given to charter and private school students. It's hard to predict specific school impacts due to varying applicant pools. The policy doesn't guarantee seats for any particular school.
    • Question: Has the climate at exam schools, particularly BLS, changed for students of color since the policy changes?
    • BPS Response: BPS conducts climate surveys. No specific issues have been raised by school leaders. Efforts are made to ensure all students feel welcome and supported, and that every student is there "upon merit."
    • Question: Does BPS track how students from different tiers perform at exam schools?
    • BPS Response: Not specifically by tier, but retention rates have improved, and exam schools continue to perform highly on MCAS and national rankings.
  • Councilor Fitzgerald:
    • Question: Will this policy stick for three years, impacting current third graders?
    • BPS Response: The recommendation is for three years, but the School Committee hasn't specified the exact review period.
    • Question: What data supports the 20% citywide round, and why not a higher percentage?
    • BPS Response: The 20% threshold was identified to address the "unfairness" of high-scoring students not getting into their first-choice school. It aligns with the initial 2021 task force recommendation.
    • Question: Are socioeconomic tiers "designed" to have equal numbers of children, or is it coincidental?
    • BPS Response: Tiers are intentionally designed using census data to create roughly equal groupings of school-age children based on socioeconomic characteristics.
    • Question: Will tier boundaries continue to be redrawn annually?
    • BPS Response: Yes, the intention is to recalculate tiers annually using a five-year average of data for stability.
    • Question: Can invitations be based on the number of applications per tier?
    • BPS Response: It could be, but BPS decided against it. This would encourage "gaming" the system by rallying more applicants and would unbalance geographic representation, leading to fewer students from Mattapan, Dorchester, etc.
  • Councilor Flynn:
    • Question: Are there plans to add more seats to exam schools?
    • BPS Response: No, all three schools are physically at maximum capacity.
    • Question: What is BPS doing to support other high schools like Josiah Quincy and Snowden, and how do their academics compare to exam schools?
    • BPS Response: Josiah Quincy and Snowden offer competitive IB curricula and early college programs. BPS is expanding early college across all high schools (from <100 to 1,000 students in three years), increasing AP offerings, and developing career pathways (e.g., EMK with Mass General Brigham). The goal is to build up all high schools and improve communication about these options.
    • Question: How can other high schools be brought up to the academic level of Snowden or JQS?
    • BPS Response: BPS is working to put competitive courses in all schools (e.g., Madison Park's MSBA project, Tech Boston, English, Brighton, East Boston, Boston Green Academy). They are fostering best practice sharing among principals and improving communication to parents about available programs.
    • Question: Requested information on the elimination of the Advanced Work Class (AWC) program.
    • BPS Response: AWC was dwindling and replaced by a focus on improving core Tier 1 instruction in all classrooms. BPS will look into the history of its elimination.
  • Councilor Mejia:
    • Question: To what extent is this proposal driven by educational considerations versus external pressures/politics, and is it a response to lawsuits?
    • BPS Response: Recommendations are not driven by lawsuits. They address issues that arose over the past four years (e.g., high-scoring students denied, school placement impacting points) and aim to create a stable, codified policy after years of micro-changes.
    • Question: What is the projected change in racial, socioeconomic, and geographical distribution of admitted students under the proposed changes (Simulation B)?
    • BPS Response (Monica Hogan):
      • Economically Disadvantaged: Decrease from 39.2% (current) to 35.5% (simulation) for 24-25 applicant pool.
      • Racial (24-25 applicant pool):
        • Asian: 20% (current) to 20% (simulation).
        • Black: 20% (current) to 19% (simulation).
        • Latinx: 25% (current) to 22% (simulation).
        • Multi-race/Other: 6% (current) to 6% (simulation).
        • White: 27% (current) to 31% (simulation).
      • Note: These are based on specific applicant pools and may shift.
    • Question: Why is BPS not looking at the admissions policy for Madison Park with the same scrutiny as exam schools?
    • BPS Response: Madison Park has an admissions policy, but the challenge is converting student interest into actual enrollment. BPS is working to improve recruitment and visits.
  • Councilor Coletta Zapata:
    • Question: How will the 20% citywide round operate, especially with varying first-choice rankings (e.g., BLS vs. BLA)?
    • BPS Response: The first 20% of seats at each school are filled by highest-scoring students who ranked that school first. For example, the top 95 students who ranked BLS first would get seats there. This ensures a spread of high-scoring students across all three schools, rather than concentrating them in one.
    • Question: What are the projections for invitations for the Latinx community in East Boston under the proposed recommendations?
    • BPS Response: The appendix doesn't include neighborhood data for simulations, but BPS can follow up. Maps show the policy has improved geographic representation.
    • Comment: Thanked BPS for removing school-based points, noting it unfairly penalized some families.
    • Question: Was there discussion about rolling over unfulfilled invitations (due to students declining offers) to waitlisted students?
    • BPS Response: BPS tries to invite as many students upfront as possible, predicting yield. High yields in recent years have sometimes led to class size issues. They will pull from waitlists if seats are available and don't exceed class size limits.
    • Comment: Suggested considering Section 8 voucher holders for housing bonus points.
  • Councilor Liz Breadon:
    • Question: Does the presence of high-end luxury housing near Commonwealth housing in Brighton (a public housing area) impact the socioeconomic tier calculation for that census tract?
    • BPS Response: Tiers are based on census tract data, and a five-year average is used for stability. Some census tracts do mix public housing with other types of housing.
    • Question: How do males and females differ in exam school test performance and access?
    • BPS Response: BPS can provide this data. Initial observation suggests BLS and BLA are slightly heavier with females, while O'Bryant is slightly heavier with males.
    • Question: How many non-BPS students apply to exam schools annually, and what percentage of the total applicant pool do they represent?
    • BPS Response: Approximately 300 non-BPS applicants for 7th grade each year, representing about 20% of the total applicant pool (e.g., 300 out of 1,400 total applicants). This number fluctuates.
  • Councilor Brian Worrell:
    • Question: What explains the decline in Black student invitations (from 22-24% to 15% this year), and how does the proposed policy prevent further backsliding?
    • BPS Response: The decline was a surprise and an anomaly. While GPA for Black students was lower this year (grades count for 70%), it's hard to pinpoint a single cause due to annual policy changes and varying applicant pools. The simulation for the proposed policy shows similar outcomes for Black students as the current policy for this year's applicant pool. Dr. Rose noted that the increase in the applicant pool did not come from additional Black students, and their share of the applicant pool was smaller.
    • Question: Did BPS simulate adjusting the 70/30 GPA/MAP test weighting (e.g., 60/40 or 50/50)?
    • BPS Response: The School Committee requested a 50/50 simulation last week, which BPS is currently running.
    • Question: Why don't Section 8 voucher holders receive housing points, and is BPS looking to include them?
    • BPS Response: Currently, BPS lacks a reliable way to identify Section 8 recipients in their data. They are working with the Boston Housing Authority on data sharing agreements. They want to ensure any expansion of points does not cause more harm than good, as these measures can be complex.
    • Question: How does BPS address the fact that Boston's exam schools serve a much larger percentage of the student population (25-27.5%) compared to other districts like New York (5% across 8 schools)?
    • BPS Response: (Not fully answered in this round, but implied by broader discussion on supporting all schools).

Councilor Questions (Round 2)

  • Councilor Pepén:
    • Question: Are there scenarios where exam school seats are not filled, and what happens to them?
    • BPS Response: Schools generally fill to capacity. Unfilled seats are rare and often relate to balancing class sizes, especially for students taking advanced courses out of sequence.
    • Question: How many seats are in each exam school?
    • BPS Response: Roughly 1,000 collective invitations for 7th grade annually. BLS has about 400 seats. O'Bryant takes fewer 7th graders due to physical size but more 9th graders.
    • Question: How do students take the MAP exam (when, where)?
    • BPS Response: Administered twice. BPS students take it during the school day (early June). Non-BPS students take it at a district school on a weekend (early June or early December). The highest reading and math scores from two attempts are used.
    • Question: How can BPS elevate schools like New Mission High School to emulate exam schools, and has BPS studied what makes exam schools successful to implement elsewhere?
    • BPS Response: New Mission is a great example with a strong culture and application process. Many open enrollment schools have assigned students and disproportionate special education/multilingual learner populations. BPS is using regional networks to share best practices among principals and leaders.
  • Council President Louijeune:
    • Comment: Reiterated that awareness campaigns are insufficient to address systemic inequities; information access is tied to social capital. Emphasized the importance of tiers for citywide representation.
    • Question (to Roseanne Tong): What models have you developed to address the "mathematical impossibility" of certain students getting into exam schools?
    • Roseanne Tong Response:
      • Bonus points for all public school students (though potentially legally dubious).
      • Lottery among all eligible applicants (after meeting eligibility criteria).
      • "Top certain percent" from every sending school (similar to Texas's 10% rule), including charters and private schools.
    • Question: Is it still true that Black and Latinx parents choose Latin School less than O'Bryant?
    • BPS Response: BPS will follow up with data on school choice by race.
    • Question: Discussed BLS's cost-effectiveness due to size and strong alumni endowment.
    • BPS Response: Larger schools are more efficient. BLS has less special education and multilingual learner programming, which are higher per-pupil costs. Alumni support provides additional resources.
    • Question: What progress is being made for English Language Learners (ELLs) to access exam schools?
    • BPS Response: ELL Level 4s and 5s do well. BPS is building staffing capacity for multilingual learners at exam schools and expanding bilingual/dual language programs in high schools (e.g., MMA, new programs for low-incident languages). They are also considering offering the MAP test in multiple languages.
  • Councilor Weber:
    • Comment: Noted that under the old system, only 0.5% of ELLs got exam school invitations, which rose to 3.5% under the current policy, but Simulation B would lower it to 2.5%.
    • Question: How has BPS accounted for the potential increase in non-BPS applicants if these changes are made, especially with the 20% set-aside potentially benefiting Tier 4 students?
    • BPS Response: It's hard to predict applicant behavior. The 2021 policy required ranking an exam school and taking the MAP test, which non-BPS students must do.
    • Question: How does the 20% "per school" citywide round work, and does it create a "gaming" opportunity for parents to choose a less competitive first-choice school?
    • BPS Response: The "per school" allocation ensures high-scoring students are spread across all three exam schools, preventing BLS from dominating the citywide round. If it were a general 20% citywide round, a majority would likely pick BLS.
  • Councilor Fitzgerald:
    • Comment: Framed the issue as balancing "setting the culture at an exam school versus opportunity for all." Advocated for a 50% citywide round to maintain academic culture while expanding opportunity.
    • Question: How can BPS ensure all students have access to the same "tutelage" for composite scores, similar to private tutoring? Is there a strategy for students to rank schools to maximize their chances?
    • BPS Response: BPS is implementing high-dosage tutoring and expanding ESI (Exam School Initiative) to 4th grade, including summer programs at BLS. For ranking, students should rank their true first choice, as the system prioritizes student preference.
    • Question: Why were only three simulations provided to the School Committee, rather than more combinations of variables?
    • BPS Response: The simulations were based on specific variables requested by the School Committee in December 2024. Running all combinations would be too time-consuming.
  • Councilor Flynn:
    • Question: Requested more information on the Advanced Work Class (AWC) program and its elimination.
    • BPS Response: BPS will research the history of AWC. Dr. Rose noted that as AWC seats dwindled, diversity in exam schools rose.
  • Councilor Mejia:
    • Question: How many points are allotted for ELL learners or students with IEPs?
    • BPS Response: Currently, no points are allotted for these statuses.
    • Comment: Reiterated concerns about the focus on exam schools versus Madison Park and the perception of "coveted" schools.
    • Question: If data shows a decline in diversity in the first year, will BPS stick to a flawed policy for two more years for consistency?
    • BPS Response: BPS would address issues through other means (e.g., support programs) rather than changing the policy annually, as constant changes are more harmful.
    • Question: Why are these changes happening now?
    • BPS Response: This is the mandated five-year review of the policy.
    • Question: If the goal is to support ELLs and students with special needs, why not recommend increasing their numbers in exam schools through policy?
    • BPS Response: Other districts don't drive this through policy language but through awareness, access, and support. The current recommendations include a commitment to study and build supports for these students.
    • Comment: Expressed concern that not creating pathways for ELLs and IEP students could be perceived as discrimination, similar to narratives about charter schools.
  • Councilor Coletta Zapata:
    • Comment: Advocated for investing in all high schools, praising East Boston High School and the new Barra East.
    • Question: What investments are being made in all high schools?
    • BPS Response: Focus on Mass Core implementation (raising graduation floor), early college, career connections, and career pathways. Charlestown High is a pilot site for a 7th/8th grade innovation pathway.
  • Councilor Liz Breadon:
    • Question: Discussed the "Excellence for All" program and its outcomes.
    • Dr. Colin Rose Response: EFA aimed for culturally responsive, rigorous education and social-emotional learning. It was a pilot with positive evaluations, but its follow-through after his departure from the district is unclear. It aligned with best practices for Tier 1 instruction.
    • Question: How does BPS support gifted students, or do they leave the system?
    • BPS Response: BPS is adding advanced math and STEM opportunities, literary magazines, and expanding before/after school and summer programming (Fifth Quarter) based on student interest. The goal is acceleration and maximizing opportunities.
  • Councilor Brian Worrell:
    • Comment: Advocated for more investment in after-school learning and enrichment until 6 PM.
    • Question: Would BPS be willing to create an annual public dashboard to track exam school data, similar to other districts?
    • BPS Response: BPS currently shares data annually in a memo and can explore a more interactive dashboard format.
    • Comment: Shared personal experience as a METCO student, emphasizing the need for equitable access for all students regardless of learning abilities or language.

Public Testimony

  • Sharon Hinton (Educator, BPS Alum/Parent):
    • Called for a pause in voting on revisions, arguing the changes would revert to a system not designed for Black, Brown, Special Ed, or ELL students.
    • Requested a broader focus on all BPS schools.
    • Questioned the impact of COVID learning losses on data.
    • Raised concerns about the lack of meaningful parental/community engagement (webinars, Q&A format, timing).
    • Questioned the influence of lawsuits on policy tweaks.
    • Asked about the impact of eliminating middle schools on the exam school pipeline.
    • Questioned why Bostonians should trust decisions made without a fully elected school committee and empowered parent council.
    • Stated that a vote is premature without more research and data.
  • Deirdre Manning (Parent, Tier 3/4):
    • Echoed concerns about insufficient community engagement (two Zoom meetings, no back-and-forth).
    • Argued that METCO, charter, and parochial students are part of the community and should not be disadvantaged.
    • Believed the current proposal, while improving some aspects, would suppress enrollment in Tiers 3 and 4.
    • Called bonus points "ridiculous" and suggested allocating them directly to students based on means-tested public benefits.
    • Highlighted that students from former feeder schools (Curley, Murphy, Sarah Roberts) would be disadvantaged.
    • Advocated for allowing non-BPS students to take the MAP test at their own schools to ensure equitable conditions.
    • Criticized the unfair grade point conversion for non-BPS students using standards-based grades.
  • Travis Marshall (Parent, Roslindale):
    • Described exam schools as creating a "caste-based education system" that rations opportunity.
    • Highlighted disparities in resources (foreign language options, AP courses, sports, endowments) between exam schools and others.
    • Stated that the focus on exam schools is due to families seeking opportunities.
    • Argued that simulations show a decrease in invitations for Black, Latinx, economically disadvantaged, and former ELL students, and minimal numbers for multilingual learners and students with disabilities.
    • Believed the BPS proposal implies "we've done enough for these groups."
    • Advocated for a lottery as the "simplest and most legally defensible policy" until all students have comparable resources.
  • Jilly Santos (Citizens for Juvenile Justice):
    • Opposed BPS recommendations, arguing they would decrease low-income student invitations, exacerbate inequities, and resegregate exam schools.
    • Cited the 2021 policy's effectiveness in increasing diversity (Black, Latinx, low-income, multilingual, students with disabilities) and its removal of the 20% set-aside.
    • Criticized the lack of "consequential provision" for students with disabilities and multilingual learners in the new recommendations, only a "vague directive."
    • Expressed concern about the 7% decrease in Black student invitations and the lack of remedy.
    • Called for BPS to include voices of underrepresented students/families through transparent community engagement.
    • Stated that any recommendation reducing opportunities for marginalized groups is a "disappointing reversion and a deliberate disservice."
  • Ben Starr (Parent, Roslindale):
    • Shared personal experience: daughter got into BLS, son didn't due to neighborhood.
    • Argued BLS is "not that great" and functions as an "AP class in suburbia," with its high ranking due to filtering out weaker students.
    • Advocated for the 20% citywide band to prevent "outstanding students who happen to live in high-income neighborhoods" from being excluded.
    • Believed the 20% band solves the problem of well-resourced underperformers getting in while top students are locked out.
  • Rufus Falk (Former AWC Student, Latin Academy Alum):
    • Stood as a product of the Advanced Work Class (AWC) and Latin Academy.
    • Noted that 78% of AWC students went to exam schools, making it BPS's only real pathway.
    • Highlighted that the King Middle School was a pipeline for Roxbury students.
    • Requested the Council and BPS to study past policies and their implications (successes and mistakes) to avoid unintended consequences.
    • Shared personal experience of having to attend Phineas Bates in Roslindale for elementary school due to lack of AWC seats in Roxbury.
  • Thomas McGrath (Taxpayer, Zoom):
    • Questioned why another exam school isn't being considered, given the high demand.
    • Expressed concern that student athletes not getting into exam schools are going to private schools (BC High, CM, Savarians, Thayer), costing taxpayers money.

Councilor Questions (Community Panel)

  • Councilor Pepén: Thanked the panelists for their work and perspective, particularly on inequalities within exam schools.
  • Council President Louijeune:
    • Comment: Acknowledged the personal and educational justice aspects of the debate. Emphasized the need for tiers to counteract systemic failures and ensure citywide representation.
    • Question (to Roseanne Tong): Asked for details on models to address the "mathematical impossibility" of certain students getting into exam schools.
    • Roseanne Tong Response:
      • Bonus points for all public school students (acknowledging potential legal issues).
      • Lottery for all eligible applicants.
      • "Top certain percent" from every sending school (including charters, private, METCO).
    • Question (to Roseanne Tong): Asked about the 30-70 GPA/MAP test weighting and whether 50-50 would be better.
    • Roseanne Tong Response: The task force settled on 30-70 after extensive discussion. MAP is a "seriously flawed test" (formative, not predictive, correlates with family income, disparate impact). Grades are better predictors. Increasing MAP weight to 50% would likely change demographics negatively.
  • Councilor Weber:
    • Question (to Roseanne Tong): Asked about the differentiation of grades versus MAP scores in the composite score.
    • Roseanne Tong Response: MAP scores differentiate more than grades.
    • Question (to Roseanne Tong): Asked about the discussion of the 20% set-aside during the 2021 task force.
    • Roseanne Tong Response: The 20% set-aside was introduced by co-chairs at the last minute, without task force discussion or vote, amidst speculation of "threats" from behind the scenes.
  • Councilor Mejia:
    • Comment: Drew parallels between her experience (bused, Dorchester High) and Council President Louijeune's (BLS, Harvard Law), highlighting the "have and have nots" in BPS.
    • Comment: Stated that the system is "stacked against you just because of who you are and how you grew up."
    • Question: How can we "get this right for all of our students" while centering equity and access for those who don't live in "white picket homes"? How can we "sleep at night" knowing we might be closing opportunities for diverse students?
    • Peter Alvarez Response:
      • Agreed on the need to expand categories for the 10 bonus points (Section 8, MassHealth, SNAP) to reach more low-income students across the city.
      • Argued that students with 100 scores should not be locked out.
      • Emphasized that every school is different, and not all students thrive in exam schools (shared his own experience at Madison Park).
      • Believed the proposed changes, with expanded bonus point categories, would make the system more equitable and potentially increase BPS enrollment.
      • Supported the 20% slots per school as "the right thing to do" and potentially more legally sound.
    • Roseanne Tong Response:
      • Believed in a "fallacy" of meritocracy.
      • Used the "straightening the tree" analogy for justice, arguing that exam schools inherently create a tiered system.
      • Stated that "compromise is not okay" when it reduces access for marginalized students.
    • Councilor Mejia (Concluding Comments):
      • Agreed that exam schools create an "unhealthy relationship" and are not the "end all and be all."
      • Shared her daughter's experience of feeling like a "zip code kid" at BLA.
      • Stated that the current debate is a continuation of the "busing era" in Boston, now focused on exam schools.
      • Expressed concern about the lack of political will to make decisions that truly prioritize equity, especially in the current national climate where DEI is under attack.

The hearing concluded at 5:30 PM.

Last updated: Nov 15, 2025

Back to Meetings