Committee Softens Permit Policy Changes, Parents say by Not Enough

This is part 1 of a 2 part story. For more comments from parents, click HERE.

Parents of students with permits to attend an elementary school other than their local one have an extra year before their children might lose their permits and switch schools after the School Committee last night approved an amended version of the controversial permit policy.

The revision softens the blow of the permit policy changes and incorporates new provisions that phase out the granting of permits over a three-year period.

The previous version of the policy was approved by the committee last week in a 4-3 vote after more than an hour of testimony by upset parents terrified of their children getting forcibly moved out of their current school. That version made permits all but impossible to get for any student without an IEP, 504, medical requirement or legal reason — effectively moving hundreds of students with permits out of their current schools and into their local school starting next year.

The new policy, which was developed over the last week in response to parent concerns, leaves everyone with a permit alone for next year and gradually eliminates permits starting next year. Students in grades 5 and 6 next year will be left alone entirely.

In the 2013-2014 school year, students in grades K to 1 must meet new criteria to get a permit — medical, IEP or legal reasons — and submit documentation to support the request every year. Students with permits in grades 2 to 12 can get a permit for the following year to stay in their preferred school for any reason as long as they have good attendance and grades.

In the 2014 to 2015 school year, the requirements for permits are expanded to grades K to 4. Grades 5-12 can get permits to continue where they are with good attendance and grades. The following year, no permit will be issued to any student without the above-mentioned requirements.

At first, parents at last night's meeting greeted the amendment with some relief, especially since they won't have to make plans to send their children to a new school next year. But as School Committee members Trent Colford and Jeff Gale began asking questions about revised policy, it became clear that not everyone was happy with the revision at all.

Under the new guidelines, a student entering third grade next year would end up losing their permit in 2014-2015 since the requirements expand to grades K-4. The same would happen to a second grader (first grader this past school year). That means that parents hoping to get their children grandfathered into the system will be facing upheaval next year.

School Committee Member Janice Ruggieri said she spent hours working with Assistant Superintendent Jeannine Nota-Masse last week to craft the revised policy as they looked at the exact number of permitted students in each school and how many students have permits district-wide. She said she understands the system is flawed and in the past, "it became more commonplace to just approve everything that came in" but things need to change.

"We are now at an administrative standpoint that this needs to be addressed," Ruggieri said, noting that people would be mistaken to think that the policy doesn't affect her personally.

School Commitee member Stephanie Culhane said she, too, has a personal stake in the permit issue and didn't take her decisions on the issue lightly. Committee members worked long and hard to come up with a plan that resolved the issue and at least bought many families extra time.

"We did not just come here tonight to appease everyone," Culhane said. "Not everyone is going to be happy, but it works and we have the numbers to support it."

Colford proposed amending the policy by essentially eliminating the phase in. Under his proposal, any student with a permit in any grade would be able to renew it annually until sixth grade.

"We've allowed this to go on and get out of hand," Colford acknowledged. "But the right thing to do for these children is to allow them to continue to permit out through the same school."

Subtracting the fifth and sixth graders that are already grandfathered, Colford noted that just about 130 students would be affected by the phase-in over the three year period. He said it didn't seem like such an administrative nightmare, especially since the district has been dealing with hundreds of permits every year for decades.

Gale echoed that sentiment, noting the district already knows how to deal with permitted students and placements as they come in and classrooms fill up. 

"Next year you're down to 79 kids, then 48 kids, then 27 kids," Gale said. "I don't see why this is such a burden to the school department to do those."

But School Committee Chairwoman Andrea Iannazzi pointed out that the policy has a provision to let clustered students, or students bumped from their local school because of permitted students taking up spots, either stay at their existing school or go back to their home school.

What if a lot of clustered students choose to go back to their home school and there's still no room because of grandfathering? Iannazzi asked. And she pressed Colford to explain whether the sibling exception, which grants a younger student the right to go to the same school as their permitted older student, would apply. In theory, a family with several children spaced out over the years could cling to a permit until 2025.

Iannazzi, Ruggieri and Culhane insisted that the numbers might seem small, but Gale and Colford's push to grandfather all students could pose unintended consequences and administrative problems. And Superintendent Judith Lundsten said she is concerned about four or five school off the top of her head that are already running close to the cap and grandfathering could create problems — the same problems the new policy is supposed to avoid.

Colford's amendment managed to get a 4-3 vote, earning the votes of School Committee members Michael Traficante and Paula McFarland who sided with parents on the issue. But it was pulled back after the discussion about the sibling exception and Traficante and McFarland switched gears, stating they didn't intend to support the exception — just the grandfathering of existing students.

"What happens if the Duggars move into town?" Culhane asked. 

It was then that McFarland said she thought the committee should drop Colford's amendment, approve the policy and spend the next year looking at the policy in more detail. The audience groaned. Colford's amendment then died and the committee went to the full vote. It passed 5-2.

The committee plans to hold a work session in August to look at the policy and hear from parents once again.

See attached photos for full text of permit policy. Check back later today for comments from parents about the permits.