Turning Toward Thriving: How the Thrive Act Could Have Helped Dever Elementary — and Why DESE & BPS Missed the Mark
Turning Toward Thriving: How the Thrive Act Could Have Helped Dever Elementary — and Why DESE & BPS Missed the Mark!
On Wednesday, November 12th, I have the privilege of telling the story of Paul A. Dever Elementary School in Dorchester — a story of struggle, rebuilding, and heartache, but also of resilience and community strength.
In Massachusetts, the Dever Elementary story is a vivid example of both promise and pain. For years the school has been under state receivership for “chronic under‑performance.” BostonGlobe.com Now, Boston Public Schools (BPS) has recommended its closure at the end of the 2025–26 school year. BostonGlobe.com At the same time, the Thrive Act—pending in Massachusetts—offers a different model: equity‑centered, community‑driven, student‑focused, and less reliant on punitive measures.
Putting Dever’s journey alongside the Thrive Act’s promise raises two key questions: What might have been different if the Thrive Act had been in place earlier? And in the meantime, where did DESE and BPS miss opportunities — particularly failing to listen to the parents, educators, students and local community leaders?
What the Thrive Act Would Do
The Thrive Act (House H.495 / Senate S.246) presents a vision for school improvement and assessment reform in Massachusetts that places students, communities, and equity at the center. Key provisions include:
Ending the state’s receivership/takeover model for schools and districts.
Replacing high‑stakes testing and punitive accountability with a “comprehensive support and improvement” system, grounded in local plans developed with students, families and educators.
Ensuring funding and support align with student needs—especially historically marginalized populations.
Reforming graduation and assessment policies, for example shifting from purely standardized‑test‑based diplomas to coursework/mastery models.
Embedding community voice in governance, planning, and resource allocation.
In short: the Thrive Act emphasizes thriving (holistic growth, equity, student voice) over just surviving or meeting compliance.
How the Thrive Act Could Have Helped Dever
Here are several ways the Thrive Act framework might have altered Dever’s path:
Root‑cause focus and resource alignment
Dever serves a high‑needs student population: a majority are Black or Latino, many live in low‑income households, many are English learners or have special education needs. BostonGlobe.com
Under the Thrive Act, the school would have had a turnaround plan co‑designed with the community, and funding explicitly tied to those needs rather than relying primarily on governance change.
The existing model at Dever included state receivership, frequent principal changes, and high staff turnover—but resources often did not match the scale of need. BostonGlobe.com
With Thrive’s emphasis on matching funding to real need, the supports for Dever might have been more sustained and deeper.
Community and staff voice embedded
Families at Dever say they learned of the closure proposal late and felt the decision‑making lacked transparency and involvement. WBUR
Under the Thrive Act, school improvement plans must include meaningful input from parents, students and educators—not simply top‑down decisions.
With that model, the Dever community might have had stronger ownership of the turnaround process and more trust in the system.
Focus on inclusive practices and multilingual education
Dever had notable inclusive practices: integrating students with disabilities into mainstream classrooms and working on multilingual supports. WBUR
Thrive emphasizes equity and inclusive, evidence‑based programs. If Dever had been able to stabilize and build on those practices in a Thrive‑type structure, growth might have been more consistent.
Reduced threat of closure as first resort
Dever’s trajectory: from receivership in 2013/14 to now facing closure. BostonGlobe.com
Thrive’s framework aims to make closure a last resort—prioritizing support and long‑term improvement rather than quick shutdowns.
For Dever, this could have meant more time to build momentum, with less anxiety for staff, families and students, and thus more stability.
Assessment reform and student‑centered measurement
Dever’s performance is measured under the current high‑stakes MCAS regime and accountability structures. For example, in Spring 2024 only ~10% of grades 3‑6 at Dever met or exceeded expectations in English, and ~16% in math. BostonGlobe.com
Thrive proposes moving away from punitive testing toward mastery/coursework‑based models.
Under such a regime, morale at Dever might have been higher, staff and students might have felt more supported, and improvement efforts less constrained by test deadlines and fear of classification.
Where DESE and BPS Fell Short at Dever
Even with strong intent, the current system left gaps at Dever that hampered improvement:
They failed to listen to the community
Both the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and BPS repeatedly failed to meaningfully involve the Dever community—including parents, educators, students and local leaders—in decision‑making. The closure decision and process were seen as opaque and disconnected from the school’s lived experience.
High turnover and instability
The receivership at Dever began in 2013/14 and in the early years included multiple principal changes in quick succession. BostonGlobe.com
Frequent leadership and teacher turnover undermined trust, school culture and momentum.
Resources did not match the scale of need
Although Dever has deep needs (large numbers of English learners and students from low‑income families), progress in MCAS scores remained very low. BostonGlobe.com
While leadership changes and improved practices were made (e.g., better staff retention, inclusive practices) the support—especially for underlying structural issues like facility, staffing, wrap‑around supports—still fell short.
Facility and capacity issues
One rationale for closure was Dever’s “fractured” walk zone, lack of neighborhood enrollment, and building under‑utilization. WBUR
School infrastructure and facility investment are fundamental—yet Dever’s building did not appear to receive the level of investment required to match its special‑needs student population and inclusive model.
Over‑emphasis on closure rather than deep turnaround
The fact that Dever, under state receivership, is now slated for closure signals the system defaulting too quickly toward shuttering rather than sustained improvement. BostonGlobe.com
Across the state, receivership models have shown “mixed results” and critics argue state takeovers often fail to provide long‑term success. BostonGlobe.com
What Must Happen Moving Forward
As Dever’s community faces closure and Massachusetts continues to debate the future of school improvement policy, a reckoning emerges of what must change:
Prioritize support over sanction. Schools with high‑needs students require sustained, flexible resources—not just more oversight or threats of closure.
Embed community voice at every stage. Students, families and educators must help design solutions—not just be informed of them.
Invest in equity, inclusion, and multilingual support. Programs for English learners, multilingual learners, and students with disabilities must be central and fully resourced.
Stabilize staffing and leadership. Turnarounds take time. Frequent leadership changes undermine progress.
Redefine success beyond test scores. A model like Thrive’s encourages growth, opportunity, climate and well‑being as part of success metrics.
Address facility and access barriers. A modern building, safe space, inclusive capacity, and neighborhood access matter.
Make closure a true last resort—with clear criteria, genuine community input, and robust transition support.
If the Thrive Act becomes law—or at minimum its principles guide system redesign—schools like Dever and others currently labeled “chronically underperforming” could benefit from a model that values thriving rather than simply surviving.
Final Thought
The story of Dever Elementary is not simply about one building or one neighborhood—it reflects deeper patterns: how we invest (or fail to invest) in our most vulnerable students, how we define success, and how we give (or withhold) voice to those closest to the work. The Thrive Act offers a path forward—one built on equity, voice, and sustainability.
For the Dever, it’s too late to undo years of instability and missed opportunity.But for every school like it, the path forward is clear: turn toward thriving.
I share Dever’s story as a warning—and I pray no other school has to endure the pain and heartache that the Dever community has faced.
Comments
Post a Comment