More 6th grade math placement concerns
MichaelParis said:
I spoke with Ms. Beattys recently by phone. I started out determined to make a reasonable request for my 5th grade daughter to placed in Level 4, where she clearly should be placed
In your ideal world
Leveling is a bad thing
Why does this matter?
All kids learn the same
Leveling is injustice
Except for your kid
amyhiger said:
Would it be too much to ask for people posted with their identities? Who are you Coneheads? Hard to read these posts without assuming you are working with, or for, the math supervisor.
Perhaps, most of us
Would prefer our Facebook posts
To remain private
Mr. and Ms. Higer,
In a policy predating Dr. Beattys, made by past Superintendents with oversight by the Board, the District does not return the graded assessments. This is because the District has only one test. There is no "alternate test." In fact, it's highly likely your daughter re-took the exact same test after she was "distracted" when taking it the first time. Her score going from 56 to 100 all-but confirms this.
I feel for Ms. Beane, dealing with the Walter Fields/Amy Higers of our towns. When a child of mine makes a 56, I speak with my child. When Fields/yours does, you scream at staff until the grade is changed. My children are growing up to be fine young adults, free of "Princess Syndrome."
Your anti-excellence agenda is an existential threat to our schools and thus the value of my home.
Yeah, if Michael Paris's daughter gets to be in Level 4 Math home values will plummet and I'll have to make a run for the hills.
And, God forbid, someone in a higher level math class should have to sit next to Michael's daughter. They might not get in to Harvard because of her.
Coneheads,
That doesn't explain why, if these placements are so clearly defined, they can't provide the scores to parents/students (without a phone call), and put the defined cut-offs in the placement policy.
It is also likely that having a 'secret' test create a bias of its own. Teachers may or may not have a sense of what the 10 points contain (10 points which assess a whole year of math knowledge to determine a student knows it well enough to skip a grade?).
It seems suspect that not a single student from Clinton school would 'pass' that section, if this testing is truly finding some elusive and latent 'potential' of students, and there was no instruction/exposure aspect to it.
sprout said:
Coneheads,
That doesn't explain why, if these placements are so clearly defined, they can't provide the scores to parents/students (without a phone call), and put the defined cut-offs in the placement policy.
It is also likely that having a 'secret' test create a bias of its own. Teachers may or may not have a sense of what the 10 points contain (10 points which assess a whole year of math knowledge to determine a student knows it well enough to skip a grade?).
It seems suspect that not a single student from Clinton school would 'pass' that section, if this testing is truly finding some elusive and latent 'potential' of students, and there was no instruction/exposure aspect to it.
I am not Dr. Beattys. It's been explained (somewhere) that the number of classes -> number of students is known in advance and the cut-off scores are set to match this. I don't know. What I do know is none in the Math Department have any incentives except placing students in objective tiers based on demonstrated ability. My children have been moved up and down based on their grades and test scores, both arising in their study skills (or lack thereof) as well.
My son is the only child in his South Mountain second grade class who does not already receive private tutoring in Math in preparation for the 5th grade test - whether they need extra tutoring or not. The private tutors are well aware of the content of the 5th grade placement test. This probably explains why fewer Clinton and Seth Boyden kids make it into the accelerated math program - plain old socio-economics.
God forbid that a substantial number of parents want a more transparent and accountable system - it might mean a more level playing field...
pol100gk said:
My son is the only child in his South Mountain second grade class who does not already receive private tutoring in Math in preparation for the 5th grade test - whether they need extra tutoring or not. The private tutors are well aware of the content of the 5th grade placement test. This probably explains why fewer Clinton and Seth Boyden kids make it into the accelerated math program - plain old socio-economics.
God forbid that a substantial number of parents want a more transparent and accountable system - it might mean a more level playing field...
If this is true, then this is really sad.
Re tutoring as posted above if this is true it says more about the increased levels of helicopter parenting and educational angst perhaps from parents that are so recently coming from the educational trenches of Brooklyn with the anxiety of getting into the right school so prevalent. I have two that were going through thus district - one who was placed in acceleration and one who wasn't. Neither child received tutoring nor do I know of families who were routinely tutoring kids to "ace" the placement test. Less focus on acceleration existed 10 years ago when there was onlyabout 10 or 11 students from each middle school accelerated. It is only since the collapsing of levels in other subjects and the push to include more students in acceleration with step up classes and more sections created that this extra angst has taken hold
The chances of pol100gk's anecdote being precisely true are, to three significant digits, 0.00%. We live on the border with South Mountain zoning and know many families/kids there and none to our knowledge are receiving individual tutoring three years on tailored to the district's 5th-grade test. We certainly know of private weekend enrichment programs (e.g., Children of the Mind) but these are being taught in groups and are "regional" and not tailored to our district or its test. The District cares deeply about all of the kids and the hysteria being fomented by politically ambitious agenda-driven zealots is disgusting.
The same also happened in the class our neighbor's child went to at South Mountain. Their child was one of the few not privately tutored. This is obviously based on information exchanged between the kids. Some teachers at South Mountain also privately acknowledge this.
Regardless, I think it's crystal clear if you use a placement test that uses math not taught in class to identify 'talent', then those who can and do use private tutoring to prepare for the 'unknown math' with tutors in the know have a comparative advantage. While this is the way of the world, it also defeats the purpose of the test as it obviously does not test 'talent'. It only tests talent if nobody can prepare for the test. How, then, can such a test be used as the basis for placement? And, even worse, how can the results not be sent to parents?
Coneheads said:
The chances of pol100gk's anecdote being precisely true are, to three significant digits, 0.00%. We live on the border with South Mountain zoning and know many families/kids there and none to our knowledge are receiving individual tutoring three years on tailored to the district's 5th-grade test. We certainly know of private weekend enrichment programs (e.g., Children of the Mind) but these are being taught in groups and are "regional" and not tailored to our district or its test. The District cares deeply about all of the kids and the hysteria being fomented by politically ambitious agenda-driven zealots is disgusting.
So your anecdote is worth more than mine? What is the evidence you surmise that the district cares deeply about all of the kids when there is such a substantial number of parents presenting 'anecdotes' here to the contrary?
pol, I appreciate your candor in claiming the District does not care about all of the kids. This is a worm-hole I won't go down with you, or the Higers, though. I know where it goes.
My child is finishing third grade at south mountain. He gets no private tutoring, and knows no one who does. In addition, using second graders as a source if information is a little suspect.
An end-of-year anecdote: one of my kids is a varsity athlete at CHS. Unlike Walter Fields, who expects his daughter to get an "A" for undone homework if she is at sports practice, we responsibly assess our son's time on task. So. despite History being his favorite subject, he enrolled in non-AP History. There, he had the joyful experience of learning from what is perhaps the coolest guy at CHS, Steven Fradkin. My son is a better man for knowing Mr. Fradkin, and in the end it is my son's qualities as a man that will define how far he goes in life, not a careful reading of his transcript in Sophomore History.
Coneheads said:
Mr. and Ms. Higer,
In a policy predating Dr. Beattys, made by past Superintendents with oversight by the Board, the District does not return the graded assessments. This is because the District has only one test. There is no "alternate test." In fact, it's highly likely your daughter re-took the exact same test after she was "distracted" when taking it the first time. Her score going from 56 to 100 all-but confirms this.
I feel for Ms. Beane, dealing with the Walter Fields/Amy Higers of our towns. When a child of mine makes a 56, I speak with my child. When Fields/yours does, you scream at staff until the grade is changed. My children are growing up to be fine young adults, free of "Princess Syndrome."
Your anti-excellence agenda is an existential threat to our schools and thus the value of my home.
Nope. Not true. We had to jump through quite a few hoops for our daughter to take a re-test, and Ms. Kim Beane told me that she re-wrote the test herself and actually said she "made it more difficult" because it was a make-up. You seem like a very nasty person, Coneheads. I'm glad I don't know who you are.
amyhiger said:
Coneheads said:Nope. Not true. We had to jump through quite a few hoops for our daughter to take a re-test, and Ms. Kim Beane told me that she re-wrote the test herself and actually said she "made it more difficult" because it was a make-up. You seem like a very nasty person, Coneheads. I'm glad I don't know who you are.
Mr. and Ms. Higer,
In a policy predating Dr. Beattys, made by past Superintendents with oversight by the Board, the District does not return the graded assessments. This is because the District has only one test. There is no "alternate test." In fact, it's highly likely your daughter re-took the exact same test after she was "distracted" when taking it the first time. Her score going from 56 to 100 all-but confirms this.
I feel for Ms. Beane, dealing with the Walter Fields/Amy Higers of our towns. When a child of mine makes a 56, I speak with my child. When Fields/yours does, you scream at staff until the grade is changed. My children are growing up to be fine young adults, free of "Princess Syndrome."
Your anti-excellence agenda is an existential threat to our schools and thus the value of my home.
The District accommodated you at great extra effort. It belies the lie otherwise.
It's beyond "nasty" to accuse good people by name of implementing policies that discriminate against children of color, your accusations a cold political calculus related to your next run for office.
The accommodation is a good demonstration of how tests tend to under-identify students with the potential to succeed.
I believe this bias towards under-identification is what leads people to believe that their children are not 'cared for deeply' by the district.
I am curious about the complaint of under-identification. Is it related to all levels or just acceleration? In my personal experience, kids who are accelerated have increased dramatically in the last 2-3 years. I know that the honors level was shrunk by Osborne during deleveling (in order to make it true honors and reduce bloat that everyone complained about at that time) with the goal of most students doing college prep. So, is the problem with placement in honors or elsewhere?
In a policy predating Dr. Beattys, made by past Superintendents with oversight by the Board, the District does not return the graded assessments.
Coneheads: could you please provide evidence of the existence of this policy? It is clearly the case that "the District does not return the graded assessments" but this only re-states the practice, not the policy. Ms. Beattys has been following this practice this for as long as we have been in the district. Many parents have been asking for this to change. If it is Board policy, then it would be up to the Board to change it. But I would like to know whether it is or not. Can you, or anyone, find this policy?
Nice Haiku, Haiku! However, as I'm sure you know, and I hope you are teaching your children (if you are a parent), Facebook is public and it's permanent. Just like MOL. Whatever we may think of this world, it is the one we live in. We should be under no illusion that any on-line posts will remain "private." And why post something on Facebook like that if you are trying to keep your view "private"? In a district that seems so intent on keeping so many things about its math placement policy "private," including our own children's tests, and steadfastly refuses to provide data about the composition of its math levels, I find this kind of social media "data" from the k-8 math supervisor to be important and relevant.
Coneheads said:
amyhiger said:The District accommodated you at great extra effort. It belies the lie otherwise.
Coneheads said:Nope. Not true. We had to jump through quite a few hoops for our daughter to take a re-test, and Ms. Kim Beane told me that she re-wrote the test herself and actually said she "made it more difficult" because it was a make-up. You seem like a very nasty person, Coneheads. I'm glad I don't know who you are.
Mr. and Ms. Higer,
In a policy predating Dr. Beattys, made by past Superintendents with oversight by the Board, the District does not return the graded assessments. This is because the District has only one test. There is no "alternate test." In fact, it's highly likely your daughter re-took the exact same test after she was "distracted" when taking it the first time. Her score going from 56 to 100 all-but confirms this.
I feel for Ms. Beane, dealing with the Walter Fields/Amy Higers of our towns. When a child of mine makes a 56, I speak with my child. When Fields/yours does, you scream at staff until the grade is changed. My children are growing up to be fine young adults, free of "Princess Syndrome."
Your anti-excellence agenda is an existential threat to our schools and thus the value of my home.
It's beyond "nasty" to accuse good people by name of implementing policies that discriminate against children of color, your accusations a cold political calculus related to your next run for office.
Great effort? Jeez.
I'm not accusing anyone of racism. I accusing them of deliberately withholding important public information I don't know why they are withholding this information.
And could you please stop the personal attacks? I know this is tempting with anonymous name tag. I have no doubt that Beattys and Beane are in good-faith, are decent people, and believe they are doing what they believe is best for our district. I just disagree with their policies and practices. Is that nasty?
It's ironic to me that so many of the parents having a problem with their kids placement are the same ones that lamented how the administration previously was unable to keep the honors level from becoming too bloated.
Damed if you do.....
amyhiger said:
Great effort? Jeez.The District accommodated you at great extra effort. It belies the lie otherwise.
You seem like a very nasty person, Coneheads. I'm glad I don't know who you are.
It's beyond "nasty" to accuse good people by name of implementing policies that discriminate against children of color, your accusations a cold political calculus related to your next run for office.
I'm not accusing anyone of racism. I accusing them of deliberately withholding important public information I don't know why they are withholding this information.
And could you please stop the personal attacks? I know this is tempting with anonymous name tag. I have no doubt that Beattys and Beane are in good-faith, are decent people, and believe they are doing what they believe is best for our district. I just disagree with their policies and practices. Is that nasty?
You are the one attacking personally, Amy. You took a swing, not me.
You accuse people in name of implementing policies that discriminate against children of color.
Here is a quote from your VG piece:
"Another reason we should all be concerned about the district’s testing and tracking policies in middle school math is that they have a racially disparate impact."
Anyway, I'm not going down a worm-hole with you. Your anti-excellence agenda is public knowledge from your last campaign (including your rationalizing bringing work actions into elementary schools, to remind all). I'm sorry Jeff Bennett, who pasted you, is leaving after one term. I'm sure you and Steve Latz have your eye on the seat. I'm hoping there is someone good to write a check to.
dg64 said:
I am curious about the complaint of under-identification. Is it related to all levels or just acceleration?
The use of a single difficult test with a stringent criteria will almost always under-identify students who can meet that criteria. That under-identification error could be reduced by using "or" criteria (e.g., demonstrate potential via test OR grades OR teacher recommendation OR some other measure).
Underidentification likely occurs with most of the level placements, but would be most noticeable with acceleration since:
- acceleration appears to use fewer points of information than some other leveling criteria (other level placements perhaps could be overturned on the basis of high NJ-ASK scores, or a teacher recommendation that vouches for the test not capturing the student's potential -- while acceleration appears to rely solely on secret test scores).
- there appears to be a claim that the acceleration test assesses a set of untaught math concepts or skills (which are undefined), while other tests generally assess a defined set of concepts/skills that are expected to be taught.
- single-subject acceleration at any earlier grade level is assessed using several full assessments (minimally: the full final exam of the grade/course being skipped) and seems to include the child study team, the content supervisor, the principal of the school, teacher input, and the parent. Using a 10 point sub-section of a test for mass determinations of acceleration, and leaving everyone out of the process except the content supervisor seems to be an opposite approach to acceleration within the same district.
ETA: Based on my understanding of how people learn, 6th grade seems like a strange time to be trying to perform mass-grade-skips. Should many of these students have received single-subject (math) accelerations in elementary school, but they were missed for 6 years? Or really, are they seeking students who are able to learn faster, and would do well in a very fast-paced class (which seems to be how Princeton perceives their 'accelerated' group), instead of skipping-a-grade ?
sprout said:
dg64 said:The use of a single difficult test with a stringent criteria will almost always under-identify students who can meet that criteria. That under-identification error could be reduced by using "or" criteria (e.g., demonstrate potential via test OR grades OR teacher recommendation OR some other measure).
I am curious about the complaint of under-identification. Is it related to all levels or just acceleration?
Underidentification likely occurs with most of the level placements, but would be most noticeable with acceleration since:
- acceleration appears to use fewer points of information than some other leveling criteria (other level placements perhaps could be overturned on the basis of high NJ-ASK scores, or a teacher recommendation that vouches for the test not capturing the student's potential -- while acceleration appears to rely solely on secret test scores).
- there appears to be a claim that the acceleration test assesses a set of untaught math concepts or skills (which are undefined), while other tests generally assess a defined set of concepts/skills that are expected to be taught.
- single-subject acceleration at any earlier grade level is assessed using several full assessments (minimally: the full final exam of the grade/course being skipped) and seems to include the child study team, the content supervisor, the principal of the school, teacher input, and the parent. Using a 10 point sub-section of a test for mass determinations of acceleration, and leaving everyone out of the process except the content supervisor seems to be an opposite approach to acceleration within the same district.
ETA: Based on my understanding of how people learn, 6th grade seems like a strange time to be trying to perform mass-grade-skips. Should many of these students have received single-subject (math) accelerations in elementary school, but they were missed for 6 years? Or really, are they seeking students who are able to learn faster, and would do well in a very fast-paced class (which seems to be how Princeton perceives their 'accelerated' group), instead of skipping-a-grade ?
It's odd to me that you contend that under-identification in acceleration. My son's current 7th grade at SOMS has 4 classes of accelerated math kids. These classes also include adv. honors 8th graders. So, I would guess, that there are about 3 classes of accelerated 7th graders times about 25, that's 75 kids per middle school or approx. 150 total across the district. That is a lot given that each grade usually has about 500 kids.
Point 3 is news to me. I only know of one kid who had single subject acceleration in elementary school. The district is very much against such acceleration and I know that Higer/Paris have been up in arms even against the paltry enrichment we had. I know I tried to get single subject acceleration for one of my kids and was completely stone-walled.
With regards to skipping a grade worth of work in 6th or 7th grade - remember that those 2 grades cover pre-algebra. There is a lot of repetition of topics and it is not that hard to skip one of these grades if one's math foundations are strong. Basically, you complete pre-algebra in one year as opposed to two. With my current 7th grader, I noticed in 6th grade, he worked on many Algebra topics and was totally fine. His teacher even told me at the end of the year, that he believed that my kid could have accelerated even more but this was not possible in the class format.
I happen to know Amy Higer quite well. For the record, she informs me that she is not now and will not be a candidate for school board this year.
I too might have voted for Jeff Bennett, were he running again. He served well and demonstrated a willingness to compromise.
Best regards to all,
Michael Paris
And just to clarify, re: Conehead's comments about my daughter and our (I'm married to Amy Higer) lack a gratitude about getting a make-up test. Our daughter was home from school sick on the day of the assessment. When she returned a few days later, she was given the make-up test in a room with a teacher teaching a lesson plan and group work and discussion among the students going on. She had test-taking anxiety to begin with, there was a high level of noise, and she couldn't concentrate. She got a 56. The Seth Boyden teachers acknowledge their error in giving her the test this way, and agreed with us that she should get another make-up text to be taken in a quiet room. A math supervisor wrote a new test, one "of equal or greater difficulty," we were told. She took it in a quiet room, and scored a 100. Draw what lessons you will, but you can't say that our request for another test was unjustified.
dg64 said:
It's odd to me that you contend that under-identification in acceleration. My son's current 7th grade at SOMS has 4 classes of accelerated math kids. These classes also include adv. honors 8th graders. So, I would guess, that there are about 3 classes of accelerated 7th graders times about 25, that's 75 kids per middle school or approx. 150 total across the district. That is a lot given that each grade usually has about 500 kids.
Point 3 is news to me. I only know of one kid who had single subject acceleration in elementary school. The district is very much against such acceleration ..
That's my point. Why be *against* such acceleration in elementary school, and make it an extensive process, but then do a *massive amount* of acceleration at 6th grade using very little information or input?
dg64 said:
With regards to skipping a grade worth of work in 6th or 7th grade - remember that those 2 grades cover pre-algebra. There is a lot of repetition of topics and it is not that hard to skip one of these grades if one's math foundations are strong. Basically, you complete pre-algebra in one year as opposed to two.
So, is skipping a grade really just faster paced, not jumping material?
Again, this sounds like they are trying to use skipping a grade in 6th grade as a way to either solve a curriculum scope/sequence/pacing problem (which would be better solved using a different scope/sequence/paced curriculum), or to solve the problem of not accelerating many students in elementary school (which would be better solved at addressing acceleration needs at the time they are needed).
Actually there is quite a bit of difference between Advanced Honors and Honors. Adv. Honors, in both math and science, explores a topic in much greater depth than Honors. In math, they even have different textbooks.