More 6th grade math placement concerns

At last night's school board meeting, at "public speaks," two parents independently reported that Ms. Beattys informed them that because their 5th grade child had a Section 504 accommodation, or an IEP, and therefore took modified versions of the 5 5th grade assessments and the 6th grade placement test, they were automatically placed, in one case, "in a certain level" (presumably a lower one than the one that this parent thought they should be placed), and, in the second case, in level 3, with an invitation to do the summer school program. This last parent expressed his frustration, noting that he had been asking the child's teacher all along about this child's status and progress. Little did he know, it seems, that the teachers have been entirely cut out of this process.

Does anyone know anything about this special treatment for 6th grade math placements for students with a 504 or an IEP. Is an automatic placement the policy? I've never heard this particular concern before.

One of my kids has a 504 plan. When they were in 5th grade they took the regular unit assessment and acceleration tests.

Wow, that doesn't make any sense. My understanding is that accommodations are there to LEVEL the playing field based on a student's classification. (to use a straightforward example, if someone is visually impaired they should have audio access to written test questions. The audio does not offer an advantage, it eliminates an obvious disadvantage.) The situation you describe above seemingly undermines the whole purpose of an IEP or 504. At least in my view…

There certainly could be more to this that we don't know but still, the word "automatically" seems to negate the idea of "Individual" in the Individualized Education Plan.

I am very concerned about these statements and have already written a letter to the Ms. Beattys and the BOE asking them to explain the placement of my 504 child. It is illegal for an IEP or 504 to be used in determining placement.

It is possible that the parents at the BOE meeting were misreporting (as in misunderstanding) what Ms. Beattys said to them. But it does seem that the community needs a factual answer to this question, with documentation.

As I noted on the other thread, it seems to me that any parent has a right under federal law to inspect all graded tests or assessments used to determine level placements, since these are clearly "educational records" within the meaning of the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act. A written request can be filed with Ms. Cheryl Schneider at Academy Street, the business administrator, who is responsible for processing FERPA and NJ Open Public Record Act (OPRA) requests.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/parents.html

What is an Education Record?

Education records are records that are directly related to a student and that are maintained by an educational agency or institution or a party acting for or on behalf of the agency or institution. These records include but are not limited to grades, transcripts, class lists, student course schedules, health records (at the K-12 level), student financial information (at the postsecondary level), and student discipline files. The information may be recorded in any way, including, but not limited to, handwriting, print, computer media, videotape, audiotape, film, microfilm, microfiche, and e-mail.

Source: 34 CFR § 99.2 “Education Records” and “Record”

Thank you for posting that. It may have to be my next step if Dr. Beattys does not answer my question on how my son was placed and if his 504 factored into it.

I agree that she may not have said it or what she said was misinterpreted. That is why the district must put out a statement with factual documentation.

I've never understood why middle school parents and/or students are not allowed to contract up one level in math. What would be the harm in that? Some would want to, some would not. The way the criteria and placement process work now is very likely to be inaccurate in many cases. The "objectivity" of all the numbers and fine distinctions is illusory, unless the assessments measure what they purport to measure. The assessments and placement tests are rough proxies for knowledge and ability in math, at best. Doesn't that support moving to a system with a lot more flexibility and parental choice, right now, for grades 6-8? I hope that the BOE hears from many parents on this issue at its next meeting on July 20th.

Here is the board policy on academic placement.

http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/cms/lib7/nj01001050/centricity/domain/148/r2314.pdf

There is no Contract for Choice for 6th grade math but there are many opportunities to level up throughout the middle grades. Dr. Beattys can explain those in detail

befmic said:
Here is the board policy on academic placement.
http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/cms/lib7/nj01001050/centricity/domain/148/r2314.pdf



There is no Contract for Choice for 6th grade math but there are many opportunities to level up throughout the middle grades. Dr. Beattys can explain those in detail

You should not have to talk to the supervisor of a program to get basic information.

My child has now graduated, so it's too late for him. I hope something finally gets changed. The math levels are placed on children too young and are too inflexible, and mysterious. My kid never made it out of level 3. In contrast, the other subject areas were more welcoming and he eventually went to level 4 and AP.

nan said:

befmic said:
Here is the board policy on academic placement.
http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/cms/lib7/nj01001050/centricity/domain/148/r2314.pdf



There is no Contract for Choice for 6th grade math but there are many opportunities to level up throughout the middle grades. Dr. Beattys can explain those in detail

You should not have to talk to the supervisor of a program to get basic information.

I think they meant that you could call her if you had any additional questions. Not that everyone needs to call her to have her explain the academic placement.

nan said:

The math levels are placed on children too young and are too inflexible, and mysterious. My kid never made it out of level 3. In contrast, the other subject areas were more welcoming and he eventually went to level 4 and AP.

This reminds me of the parent who spoke recently against the math program. Her complaint was basically that her child was getting straight A's in every subject, except Math...so there must be something wrong with the Math program.

I've got kids in HS as well, and I know that they are not Level 4 students or AP students in all subjects.

MichaelParis said:
I've never understood why middle school parents and/or students are not allowed to contract up one level in math. What would be the harm in that? Some would want to, some would not. The way the criteria and placement process work now is very likely to be inaccurate in many cases. The "objectivity" of all the numbers and fine distinctions is illusory, unless the assessments measure what they purport to measure. The assessments and placement tests are rough proxies for knowledge and ability in math, at best. Doesn't that support moving to a system with a lot more flexibility and parental choice, right now, for grades 6-8? I hope that the BOE hears from many parents on this issue at its next meeting on July 20th.

History is a funny thing.

You know there used to be a academic placement policy where parents and students could "contract up" a level, back when there were levels. Osborne and supporters of the middle school deleveling put and end to that policy.

Many parents arguing against the middle school deleveling pointed to the policy of "contracting up" as a means of ensuring that no student would be "stuck" in a given level.

Welcome to the other side.

The fact that TBD can label a child a "level 4" in any subject student is revealing. These categories become "real" and they affect not only our children's self-perception, but parents and teachers' perceptions as well. I recommend to everyone the new film "Inside-Out." It reminds us how quickly an 11 year old child's world can change and how malleable her/his brains really are. Nan is right: middle school is too early for students to be grouped into aptitude. This is why the change in the other three subjects was made. Let's be honest here: The only reason math remained leveled was because of the outsized power of the math supervisor. Yes, some kids are able to master math concepts more quickly, and we do need to serve them. I have no problem with figuring out a system that does so, albeit opening and effectively. But the rest of the kids also need to learn math, and to get to algebra by 8th grade, and we are not serving them at all with these artificial (but reified) levels. There is no "real" difference between the brain of a "college level" student and that of an "honors" student, except perhaps after we label them such.

For now, however, us middle school parents are stuck advocating for our children in the broken system that exists.

amyhiger said:
Let's be honest here: The only reason math remained leveled was because of the outsized power of the math supervisor.

Thank you for finally being honest.

The problem you have with the math department is that it still has levels.

ETA: I agree that getting more kids to Algebra I by 8th grade is a good goal.

amyhiger said:
Yes, some kids are able to master math concepts more quickly, and we do need to serve them. I have no problem with figuring out a system that does so, albeit opening and effectively. But the rest of the kids also need to learn math, and to get to algebra by 8th grade, and we are not serving them at all with these artificial (but reified) levels.

I am not sure why you seem to link the need for options for kids who master math concepts more quickly with the need for for the rest of the kids to learn math. Are the more proficient kids somehow holding back the rest of the kids or are you saying that they are getting more attention? Both of which would be wrong.

amyhiger said:
The only reason math remained leveled was because of the outsized power of the math supervisor.

Who/what gives the math supervisor outsized power? Do you really believe that she was more powerful that Osborne? That is the most ridiculous proposition I have heard from you. There are many reasons for levels in math, but I am not going to rehash them here. I am sure you have heard them before but choose to ignore them. I would be with you if all you called for was the re-examination and clarification of the criteria for the different levels and more support for kids who are having a difficult time mastering a concept in math.

I don't understand why the math scores are a secret. Why not just reveal the scores to the families so they understand why their child was placed in a particular class. Seems elemental. Then the families can work on the problem areas. Why does a family have to make a formal records request?

Hi tbd. I don't know who you are, but, yes, History. We've been at these sorts of conversations for a long time now. But it does seem to me that everyone is committed to being more moderate and reasonable these days.

I attended and participated in the meetings of the ad hoc "SOMATH" group over the past year. There was a substantial diversity of opinion within the group. Some believed that leveling made more sense in math than in other subjects. They thought that it should be retained, but still objected to many features of the current policy, such as the elaborate and not well defended assessments (4th grade NJ ASK score--really?); the unbelievable rigidity and unchecked power of the math supervisor, which in turn yields a policy of "no contracting up under any circumstances;" the excessive number of levels in the high school (do we need 5 different ones?); or the way acceleration (skipping a grade) can actually harm some great students. Others, like me, believe that we can and should identify the top 10% or so, let them go faster, and then serve everyone else with a demanding program that is determined to make sure all kids learn math well and reach algebra by 8th grade--something like what the Princeton School District seems to do.

But in any event, it seems that fewer and fewer people believe that things are just fine the way they are. More and more people seem to think that we need some significant reforms in math, and that the best place to begin is with the middle school years. I can plausibly support more flexibility (contracting up) as a reform that it is likely to get support from a broad spectrum of people and be less divisive, and still believe that ultimately the best policy would be to get rid of levels in math in middle school, save for a small tier of kids who simply can't be well served unless they advance more quickly. See, no hidden agenda at all. Just normal value conflicts and democratic participation in politics.

Dg64: I do not know WHY they math supervisor has so much power, but she does have it. Perhaps because she has been here longer than any super or assistant super, and she has support of some (I don't know how many) math teachers. Osborne left her alone. I don't know why. She is THE GATEKEEPER of math in this district. Ask any parent who as advocated for their kid to move up a level when they are "one point" away from qualifying.

I don't look at education as a zero-sum game. I think the system we have has been designed to identify very early on a select group of students who will be super math stars. (Many of whom do well, many more require private tutoring, but that's a side story). Math super stars are great. But the fact that so many kids do not get to algebra by 8th grade is indication that the program we have is not well-designed to serve most children well. And a secretive test? That's a problem too. And, yes, 3, and up to 5 levels in math in middle school is also ridiculous. Too many, too young, too arbitrary, too complex, and too much gatekeeping. And for the record, AP courses and honors in high school are wonderful things to have and I'm very glad we have them.

When we had contracting up in middle school, the student needed an A- to contract up, to be moved up automatically they needed an A. We never really had a contract up program.

So what should it have been? B-? B+? Anything that's not an F?

Thank you so much Michael and Amy for providing a history to what is going on. I agree with everything you are saying. Math placement and movement is way to confusing and way to rigid. I wrote to the supervisor on Monday night about my sons placement and have yet to hear anything.

We need to change how level are done in our district especially in Math. The more I am hearing about contract up the more I like the idea. But I am still learning about the process.

MichaelParis said:
Hi tbd. I don't know who you are, but, yes, History. We've been at these sorts of conversations for a long time now. But it does seem to me that everyone is committed to being more moderate and reasonable these days.
I attended and participated in the meetings of the ad hoc "SOMATH" group over the past year. There was a substantial diversity of opinion within the group. Some believed that leveling made more sense in math than in other subjects. They thought that it should be retained, but still objected to many features of the current policy, such as the elaborate and not well defended assessments (4th grade NJ ASK score--really?); the unbelievable rigidity and unchecked power of the math supervisor, which in turn yields a policy of "no contracting up under any circumstances;" the excessive number of levels in the high school (do we need 5 different ones?); or the way acceleration (skipping a grade) can actually harm some great students. Others, like me, believe that we can and should identify the top 10% or so, let them go faster, and then serve everyone else with a demanding program that is determined to make sure all kids learn math well and reach algebra by 8th grade--something like what the Princeton School District seems to do.

But in any event, it seems that fewer and fewer people believe that things are just fine the way they are. More and more people seem to think that we need some significant reforms in math, and that the best place to begin is with the middle school years. I can plausibly support more flexibility (contracting up) as a reform that it is likely to get support from a broad spectrum of people and be less divisive, and still believe that ultimately the best policy would be to get rid of levels in math in middle school, save for a small tier of kids who simply can't be well served unless they advance more quickly. See, no hidden agenda at all. Just normal value conflicts and democratic participation in politics.

Michael I think you missed the point of my post, which was really to point out the irony of you wistfully wonder why there can't be "contracting-up" in Math, while previously supporting the deleveling push which eliminated "contracting up" and levels themselves.

I think it's important (and fair) for you and SOMATH to be accurate as to how/why that policy was eliminated. It had less to do with the "rigidity" of the math supervisor(s) than it did the policy of the previous superintendent.

I've already posted my support for having levels, and allowing students (and parents) contract-up a level if they feel they were put in the wrong level or want to commit to more challenging work. Allowing students and families a choice has always been important to me.

I've also posted that I believe it's a good district goal to get more kids to Algebra I in 8th grade which puts them on the path to Calculus (if they want) by 12th grade.

No hidden agenda here either. (though for the record I never accused you of having one)

ctrzaska said:
So what should it have been? B-? B+? Anything that's not an F?

I think I a B, maybe B-, would be inappropriate.

The least restrictive 'contracting up' would be allowing open enrollment.

My thought is to provide a math level recommendation, but allow open enrollment to other levels.

When allowing the open enrollment, show students/parents how previous students performed in 5th grade (e.g., on the placement test), together with how they ended up performing in the various levels in 6th grade. (i.e., a graph of student scores from the current grade, and the resulting final grade the following year).

In other words, teach students how to make data-informed decisions.

sprout said:
The least restrictive 'contracting up' would be allowing open enrollment.
My thought is to provide a math level recommendation, but allow open enrollment to other levels.
When allowing the open enrollment, show students/parents how students performed in 5th grade (e.g., on the placement test), together with how they ended up performing in the various levels in 6th grade. (i.e., a graph of student scores from the current grade, and the resulting final grade the following year).
In other words, teach students how to make data-informed decisions.

+1

I do not know if this is still true, but in the past the best (and often only) way to contact Dr. Beatys was by phone. I hope she answers email now, but it was general experience less than four years ago that she did not.

I've heard the Math Supervisor is very rigid and it's her way or the highway.

max_weisenfeld said:
I do not know if this is still true, but in the past the best (and often only) way to contact Dr. Beatys was by phone. I hope she answers email now, but it was general experience less than four years ago that she did not.

I believe this is still true.

amyhiger said:
Dg64: I do not know WHY they math supervisor has so much power, but she does have it. Perhaps because she has been here longer than any super or assistant super, and she has support of some (I don't know how many) math teachers. Osborne left her alone. I don't know why. She is THE GATEKEEPER of math in this district. Ask any parent who as advocated for their kid to move up a level when they are "one point" away from qualifying.
I don't look at education as a zero-sum game. I think the system we have has been designed to identify very early on a select group of students who will be super math stars. (Many of whom do well, many more require private tutoring, but that's a side story). Math super stars are great. But the fact that so many kids do not get to algebra by 8th grade is indication that the program we have is not well-designed to serve most children well. And a secretive test? That's a problem too. And, yes, 3, and up to 5 levels in math in middle school is also ridiculous. Too many, too young, too arbitrary, too complex, and too much gatekeeping. And for the record, AP courses and honors in high school are wonderful things to have and I'm very glad we have them.

I don't think Osborne left her alone because she had more power than him. It may have been because he agreed to some extent that levels in math are appropriate. I remember corresponding with him about what would happen with math levels and he was quite supportive of having levels in math.

I agree with you that most kids should be able to get to Algebra 1 by 8th grade. However, the fact that the current system is not getting them there is not solely a function of levels. The curriculum is structured in a way that spends 2 full years on Pre-algebra and 2 full years on Algebra 1. I believe that these 4 years could most likely be condensed into 3 years, but it will require changes to the curriculum as well as teacher training.

I also agree that the PT6 test results should be available to parents along with a chart that explains what it means. As far as I know, there are at most 4 levels in middle school math. What's the 5th one?