"Goal is to get rid of all the levels"

This was in another thread, but certainly deserves its own thread:

At the BOE debate on 10-21, Elissa Malespina stated "Our ultimate goal is to get rid of all the levels", and her 2 running-mates stated they completely agreed with her comments.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/7051801

The full comments can be seen at the 1:48 mark on the full video

With the current BOE voting unanimously on Monday to adopt an access and equity policy, I thought we were finally past the dated debate about delevelling.

Here we go again....

i

What would possibly be the benefit of that?

Where does it start? Do you make the first graders who cant sound out the letter a, read the same books as the kids who read Percy Jackson over the summer read the same stuff?

Access to all levels with parental input is a great innovative thing.

Just dumping all kids in the same level without understanding that the best place to teach children is at the level they are means that the middle gets educated to grade level. The kids behind get nothing. The kids ahead get nothing, and the kids in the middle that everything in geared to doesn't matter, because if they move ahead they get nothing, and if they fall behind they get nothing as well

campbell29 said:
What would possibly be the benefit of that?


Where does it start? Do you make the first graders who cant sound out the letter a, read the same books as the kids who read Percy Jackson over the summer read the same stuff?


Access to all levels with parental input is a great innovative thing.
Just dumping all kids in the same level without understanding that the best place to teach children is at the level they are means that the middle gets educated to grade level. The kids behind get nothing. The kids ahead get nothing, and the kids in the middle that everything in geared to doesn't matter, because if they move ahead they get nothing, and if they fall behind they get nothing as well

Why can't all of the kids in the district read Percy Jackson over the summer? Why does it only have to be a select few? Why do people think that is acceptable?

What would our district be like if every kid (K-12) had equal access to all material? Books, summer classes etc.

No levels means the teacher has to choose between going so slowly as to ensure everyone keeps up, boring advanced learners, or teaching to challenge the more advanced learners while leaving students who need more time to absorb things behind. It doesn't seem like a tenable position.

Harrison Bergeron.

so_newstead said:

campbell29 said:
What would possibly be the benefit of that?


Where does it start? Do you make the first graders who cant sound out the letter a, read the same books as the kids who read Percy Jackson over the summer read the same stuff?


Access to all levels with parental input is a great innovative thing.
Just dumping all kids in the same level without understanding that the best place to teach children is at the level they are means that the middle gets educated to grade level. The kids behind get nothing. The kids ahead get nothing, and the kids in the middle that everything in geared to doesn't matter, because if they move ahead they get nothing, and if they fall behind they get nothing as well

Why can't all of the kids in the district read Percy Jackson over the summer? Why does it only have to be a select few? Why do people think that is acceptable?

What would our district be like if every kid (K-12) had equal access to all material? Books, summer classes etc.

They can go buy the paperback for a couple bucks. Percy Jackson doesn't seem like it would be a class assignment. The point is some kids are going to spend the summer reading, some aren't. Kids are different.

There are 2 buckets that are being filled. One is labeled "Education" and the other is labeled "Things We Do Not Directly Related To Education".

When a slate discusses filling the latter versus the former, take note.

so_newstead said:

Why can't all of the kids in the district read Percy Jackson over the summer? Why does it only have to be a select few? Why do people think that is acceptable?

What would our district be like if every kid (K-12) had equal access to all material? Books, summer classes etc.

You tell us. Those of us with more than one child may have observed that one child is a voracious reader and lover of learning where the other child, though of similar intelligence, is not particularly interested in reading and school. I can assure you that this has nothing to do with levels.

dave said:
No levels means the teacher has to choose between going so slowly as to ensure everyone keeps up, boring advanced learners, or teaching to challenge the more advanced learners while leaving students who need more time to absorb things behind. It doesn't seem like a tenable position.

Exactly!

To clarify, we are not saying that if we elected to the Board of Education levels will be off the table. That's not possible, especially in Math. We understand that removing boundaries to ensure a level playing field will require hard work and long term planning. It will require training for our teachers, administrators, and counselors on how to facilitate differentiated instruction properly and how to provide ongoing support for all. It will also require effective communication to students and parents, so everyone understands their options and the process of taking advantage of those options. Right now we have within-school segregation, due in part to the levels that are in place. We can no longer have that, and we must look for ways to solve that!

When we had our student summit the other night, we asked the students about levels. They told us that at a leadership conference they attended at the Univ of Wisconsin. other school districts were very surprised that our district had so many levels. The students asked us to look for ways to reduce the levels and to move to more personalized project-based learning.

We believe in listening to the students, parents, and educators in the district and finding a way to provide access and equity to all students.

The language at the debate was quite clear:

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/7051801

It was even called out as having been said TWICE by the Village Green:

http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/boe-candidates-debate-overcrowding-achievement-gap-bullying-forum/

"Malespina said that the policy was put in place because of pressure from the Office of Civil Rights and the ACLU complaints, and that the district needs to get to a point where there are “no more levels.”

"The district has not implemented the policies that are already in place, countered Malespina. Her slate’s ultimate goal is to “get rid of all the levels.”

And how do we pay for and implement this philosophy? We couldn't even implement IB in the middle schools. It was a total disaster and wasted a lot of money.

soma2015 said:
To clarify, we are not saying that if we elected to the Board of Education levels will be off the table. That's not possible, especially in Math. We understand that removing boundaries to ensure a level playing field will require hard work and long term planning. It will require training for our teachers, administrators, and counselors on how to facilitate differentiated instruction properly and how to provide ongoing support for all. It will also require effective communication to students and parents, so everyone understands their options and the process of taking advantage of those options. Right now we have within-school segregation, due in part to the levels that are in place. We can no longer have that, and we must look for ways to solve that!

When we had our student summit the other night, we asked the students about levels. They told us that at a leadership conference they attended at the Univ of Wisconsin. other school districts were very surprised that our district had so many levels. The students asked us to look for ways to reduce the levels and to move to more personalized project-based learning.
We believe in listening to the students, parents, and educators in the district and finding a way to provide access and equity to all students.

I know absolutely nothing about "leveling", but I need to start paying attention with my kids getting older.

What I do know is that when I was growing up, if you were performing better than other students in specific class (or all classes) and not being challenged in your year they just bumped you up into the next years class. And if you were performing less than is the norm, you were assigned an upper level person as a tutor (and perhaps in certain instances, a college level tutor. Now, my school was significantly smaller (class sizes of only 200 or less students) and there were probably only five AP courses offered at the time, so times have changed and our district is much larger here.

Perhaps someone could explain (or point me to an online source that can explain, as I'm sure this has probably been covered elsewhere) what the advantages or disadvantages of leveling are for the students (or the teachers), as opposed to some alternative method.

soma2015 said:

We believe in listening to the students, parents, and educators in the district and finding a way to provide access and equity to all students.

So does the existing BOE under the leadership of Eastman and Pai.

Hence the new policy of giving all students choice, and equal access to all classes.

Problem already solved. Thanks.

ArchBroad said:
I know absolutely nothing about "leveling", but I need to start paying attention with my kids getting older.
What I do know is that when I was growing up, if you were performing better than other students in specific class (or all classes) and not being challenged in your year they just bumped you up into the next years class. And if you were performing less than is the norm, you were assigned an upper level person as a tutor (and perhaps in certain instances, a college level tutor. Now, my school was significantly smaller (class sizes of only 200 or less students) and there were probably only five AP courses offered at the time, so times have changed and our district is much larger here.
Perhaps someone could explain (or point me to an online source that can explain, as I'm sure this has probably been covered elsewhere) what the advantages or disadvantages of leveling are for the students (or the teachers), as opposed to some alternative method.

When I went to school, in NYC in the 1970s and 1980s, leveling was done by class. So, in elementary school, you might have three classes on a grade level, a bottom class, a middle class, and a top class (IGC--Intelligently Gifted Children they called it.) There was no leveling within the classes.

When I hit junior high, you were either in SP--Special Progress (i.e. honors)--or not. Again, you would be in SP everything, or SP nothing.

It only changed when I got to high school and you no longer traveled together as a single class, but even then, they tried to group all the AP kids together. There was very little overlap--to be blunt, you were either in the "dumb" classes, or the "smart" classes. I was very good in languages, lit and social studies, not so good in math and science. In my senior year, I had to argue with my guidance counselor to stop taking honors math and science, because I just couldn't handle it. He was very reluctant--"but, you're smart kid, and you do well in English and Social Studies." He couldn't really understand that doing well in those that mean I automatically did well in math and science.

As a parent, my only experiences with leveling have been limited, and not positive. Being new here, this is our first year in the school system, and my six year old has had a bit of regression, which is common for young children after a move. His reading has suffered, and he is the bottom reading group in his class. He is very aware he is in the bottom, and already had a little tuffle with another kid when he tried to join his reading group, and was told he couldn't.

I have no formed opinion yet on leveling, just thought I would throw this out as food for thought, for what its worth.

I believe what Malespina said at the debate. Her slate's goal is to get rid of all levels. My kids, raised the same way in the same household, have very different academic interests, needs and motivation levels. Neither would thrive if forced to take a class taught at the other's pace. Our BOE has unanimously moved us past the delevel/level debate, and I would hate to see us dragged back there by this slate.

+++++++

DianaH said:
I believe what Malespina said at the debate. Her slate's goal is to get rid of all levels. My kids, raised the same way in the same household, have very different academic interests, needs and motivation levels. Neither would thrive if forced to take a class taught at the other's pace. Our BOE has unanimously moved us past the delevel/level debate, and I would hate to see us dragged back there by this slate.

DianaH said:
I believe what Malespina said at the debate. Her slate's goal is to get rid of all levels. My kids, raised the same way in the same household, have very different academic interests, needs and motivation levels. Neither would thrive if forced to take a class taught at the other's pace. Our BOE has unanimously moved us past the delevel/level debate, and I would hate to see us dragged back there by this slate.

Agreed...I have little patience for the idea of completely deleveling everything (perhaps except math) unless the BOE is able to find great quantities of magic money to reduce all of our class sizes dramatically, so that teachers have enough time and energy to differentiate to the extremes.

We continue to face very tough problems with an achievement gap that is likely caused by a great many factors both inside and outside of district control. I'm wary of simplistic solutions that trade one set of problems for another.

But I'll watch the debates and read the platforms before I make any final decisions.

susan1014 said:

Agreed...I have little patience for the idea of completely deleveling everything (perhaps except math) ....

Susan 1014, does this mean you have patience (would like to see) deleveling when it comes to math only?

dave said:
No levels means the teacher has to choose between going so slowly as to ensure everyone keeps up, boring advanced learners, or teaching to challenge the more advanced learners while leaving students who need more time to absorb things behind. It doesn't seem like a tenable position.

You are assuming that the instruction is direct -- just a talking head in front of the room of students. In fact, there is differentiation of instructions and multiple flexible grouping. Every class has a wide range of abilities, even if they are labeled "advanced."

Also, from what I understand, they are not eliminating levels; they are making them accessible to everyone. So, the teacher can mostly direct the learning at a higher level and kids that are unable to keep up or significanly behind (like grade 3 reading level in a high school class) can decide to go to a lower level. The important thing is the opportunity.

I fought for my child to go to higher levels and he often got C's in those classes. I felt it was more important for him to have exposure to those classes then to get better grades. Of course I was never able to do that in math because of the draconian policies there, but the other departments were more welcoming. Freshman year of college, my kid was able to make it through everything but math! Go figure.

I am in a district with no levels in anything until 8th grade (but no demographic issues). I have a child who is high normal IQ but some issues and an indifferent attitude to school. I have to say that we feel the no level environment has not worked for us. We strongly wish there were levels. In a classroom with a lot of students "differentiated" instruction is mostly bunk. That is a lesson learned with experience. So the only choice is getting lost and having self confidence sucked out while floundering in classes moving at the level of the fasted or being in special ed environments that are designed for children that have a whole different set of issues and the classes have little academic content.

Kids in the middle leave in droves in middle school. We always wondered why. Now we know. There is no place in the district for kids in the middle academically.

tbd said:

soma2015 said:

We believe in listening to the students, parents, and educators in the district and finding a way to provide access and equity to all students.

So does the existing BOE under the leadership of Eastman and Pai.
Hence the new policy of giving all students choice, and equal access to all classes.
Problem already solved. Thanks.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Wendy Lauter

bramzzoinks said:
I am in a district with no levels in anything until 8th grade (but no demographic issues). I have a child who is high normal IQ but some issues and an indifferent attitude to school. I have to say that we feel the no level environment has not worked for us. We strongly wish there were levels. In a classroom with a lot of students "differentiated" instruction is mostly bunk. That is a lesson learned with experience. So the only choice is getting lost and having self confidence sucked out while floundering in classes moving at the level of the fasted or being in special ed environments that are designed for children that have a whole different set of issues and the classes have little academic content.
Kids in the middle leave in droves in middle school. We always wondered why. Now we know. There is no place in the district for kids in the middle academically.

It is not bunk in many settings. Teaching without differentiation to most American teachers is like painting with your thumbs.

librarylady said:

susan1014 said:

Agreed...I have little patience for the idea of completely deleveling everything (perhaps except math) ....

Susan 1014, does this mean you have patience (would like to see) deleveling when it comes to math only?

Apologies...sloppy composition. soma2015 talks about math as the hardest to delevel, so I was excepting it from the conversation (rather than suggesting it should be deleveled).

I am not staying they do not try. But at the end of the day the efforts do not make much difference. Kids will either get lost or bored. That is from practical experience. Not PhD theory.

bramzzoinks said:
I am not staying they do not try. But at the end of the day the efforts do not make much difference. Kids will either get lost or bored. That is from practical experience. Not PhD theory.

Do you call teaching from 1975 to the present "Ph.D theory?"

If kids are bored, their teacher has poor classroom management, or classes are too large.

Look, I know inclusion of any kind is a dirty word in many circles. So....do what you need to do.

no levels whatsoever and go gifted and talented program. some district that should be.