Access to all levels and programs for all?

Here is the text of policy being given first read tonight. If I'm reading this right, this is a very broad policy, although the implementation details would matter greatly.

5755.1 Access and Equity
All elementary, middle school, and high school parents/guardians and children in the South
Orange-Maplewood School District shall have access to, and the ability to choose between,
different educational programs in all academic subjects, and at all academic levels.
In furtherance of this Policy, all students shall be provided with age-appropriate academic
supports for access to advanced-level courses, including, by way of example, but not limitation,
readiness programs and courses, in-school and after-school tutoring, Saturday readiness
sessions, and summer institutes. The District shall also engage in a pre-K through 12th grade
curricular alignment, ensuring that all students develop the knowledge and skills fundamental to
successful performance in Advanced Placement and advanced level courses by providing the
highest levels of academic rigor in Pre-K, Elementary, Middle and High School courses.

I am in complete agreement with this proposed policy. If passed, it will be mark a watershed moment for the district.

Having said that, I'm floored that for a change as monumental as this there was no public discussion on it (as far as I know) before the first reading of this proposed policy. It should be an interesting meeting tonight.

I'm also in agreement with it, if sufficient thought has been given to implementation questions -- as you say, this is a monumental change from current procedures. It needs to be done well.

Do we have plans for increasing number of upper level sections as much as needed to meet demand?

Do we have plans (and funding) for increasing capacity of step-up programs, tutoring programs, etc., as needed to meet demand?

Do we have plans to ensure the maintenance of current instructional levels if students are placed in classes that are too hard for them and are not succeeding?

What does it mean to ensure elementary school students access to coursework at all levels? Is this about continuing to improve differentiation or something else?

I could come up with more questions, but am heading out the door....

Welcome to Rockville Centre, the birthplace of the "equity and excellence" catchphrase and the double-digit tax increases to support it. Wait, no. Wrong town, wrong budget mandates. Sorry. Sounds GREAT, though. This simple policy (who knew?)should make the handwringing over the achievement gap and other complaints (formal or not) of academic inequality (racial, gifted and otherwise) go poof. Well done.

Ctrzaska,

I'm not reading it as deleveling (which I think was the Rockville Centre model). I'm reading it as open enrollment to higher level courses.

Planning and support, yes. But if I'm a kid who cannot hope to be successful in a certain class because I lack the necessary foundation, what would induce me to take it?

sprout said:
Ctrzaska,
I'm not reading it as deleveling (which I think was the Rockville Centre model). I'm reading it as open enrollment to higher level courses.

Tomato, tomahto IMO. It's semantics to a large extent when the aim and the endgame are the same-- equal access (equity) to a rigorous curriculum (excellence)-- and the demands on taxpayers, budgets, teachers and students are identical. Call it Rockville Lite then. My concern (for now) is primarily with how shockingly superficial this policy is (as written anyway)and the costs associated with these paltry few pie-in-the-sky paragraphs.

ctrzaska said:

sprout said:
Ctrzaska,
I'm not reading it as deleveling (which I think was the Rockville Centre model). I'm reading it as open enrollment to higher level courses.

Tomato, tomahto IMO. It's semantics to a large extent when the aim and the endgame are the same-- equal access (equity) to a rigorous curriculum (excellence)-- and the demands on taxpayers, budgets, teachers and students are identical. Call it Rockville Lite then.

I don't see them as similar at all.

Deleveling is when all students take the same course levels. (No student choice)

Open access allows for students take different course levels. But instead of having the next course's level be dictated by the teacher (another way to have "no student choice"), the student's now would have a choice of which course to take.

I see this as very similar to college enrollment. In college, one could sign up for any course that is next in the sequence, regardless of the grade one achieved in the previous course in the sequence (as long as it was 'passing').

Unclear what is intended by this policy, especially since it includes elementary schools, where there are not levels to choose from (unless we are going to let parents choose reading groups for their children ).

susan1014 said:
Unclear what is intended by this policy, especially since it includes elementary schools, where there are not levels to choose from (unless we are going to let parents choose reading groups for their children "> ).

Ok -- tru dat.

That said, I do think that students' reading groups in elementary should be made transparent to parents. But throwing 'access' or 'choice' into some of the listed areas seems tricky.

I could see this policy getting split into several pieces, in order to address different types of programming.

As long as students who can't keep up are moved out of the classes in a timely fashion and it doesn't require an increase in the school budget this is great.

I have no problem with open access, and I am sure there will be students who will do well despite expectations. However it is my opinion that there should still be recommendations for levels and if a student is floundering in a class that they were not recommended for but chose to take anyway then the school should not be held liable in any way for form and should not be expected to provide tutors or other support for such students.

If a student decides that the upper-level class is too difficult, will there be a lower-level class available the same period? Or will students have to rearrange their schedules to make a change? And how would that affect students' decisions to make an appropriate change? I know that in Millburn HS, every period with an accelerated math class also has a "college-prep A" (one step down) class during the same period because so many students end up moving down after experiencing the difficulty of the accelerated class. So, for example, every period in which there is an accelerated geometry class also has a CPA geometry class for ease of moving between them. AFAIK, math is the only subject for which this is done because there's not as much movement between the others.

@ MDonoghue, how much tutoring do you understand to be "all of the additional tutoring"? Summer step up sessions are already in place and to my knowledge are working well.

Like @DaveSchmidt, I don't think we are going to be worrying about kids who are not prepared and motivated.

We might be talking about kids like "ZZ" in the ACLU complaint:

"Z.Z. is a sophomore at Columbia High School. She does not have a disability and has been an academically high-performing and civically engaged student throughout her school career in SOMSD. She scored advanced proficient on state math tests in elementary and middle school and earned an A in eighth grade Level 4 “Advanced Honors” Algebra."

And about not having taken the "right" middle school class: "Z.Z. had consistently received excellent standardized test scores and her parents were never aware that an opportunity existed for parents to ask that their children be placed into a more advanced curriculum while in middle school."

jmeusel said:
Another concern is added stress and anxiety for students who are taking classes (possibly more than 1) for which they may not be prepared. Stress and anxiety are serious problems for teenagers these days. Parents may push kids to take classes which may be extraordinarily difficult for them and just expect that they will be successful. I agree that there should still be recommendations. Some will ignore the recommendations, but at least it will be less of a surprise if the student is having difficulty.

This is already an issue for the white majority in upper level and AP classes. Certainly it is something to discuss with *all* students and to be aware of in preparing, advising, and communicating about the options.

I don't see how the policy above would create this problem.

jfburch said:
@ MDonoghue, how much tutoring do you understand to be "all of the additional tutoring"? Summer step up sessions are already in place and to my knowledge are working well.
Like @DaveSchmidt, I don't think we are going to be worrying about kids who are not prepared and motivated.
We might be talking about kids like "ZZ" in the ACLU complaint:
"Z.Z. is a sophomore at Columbia High School. She does not have a disability and has been an academically high-performing and civically engaged student throughout her school career in SOMSD. She scored advanced proficient on state math tests in elementary and middle school and earned an A in eighth grade Level 4 “Advanced Honors” Algebra."
And about not having take the "right" middle school class: "Z.Z. had consistently received excellent standardized test scores and her parents were never aware that an opportunity existed for parents to ask that their children be placed into a more advanced curriculum while in middle school."

Isnt advanced honors algebra in 8th grade level 5 and doesn't the student move into Geometry in 9th grade? This puts z.z on track for calculus as a Senior. The only more advanced track is acceleration in either 6th or 7th grade . There are a lot of A students who score advanced proficient on standardized tests that are in the same trajectory as Z.Z.

Just sayin

And now they and their parents get a choice and that is I think a good thing

(ZZ was not initially placed in Level 5 Geom; parents had to advocate for it. ZZ was then dropped for sophomore year because of 1 weak quarter and it got gnarly.)

Point here not to re-hash ZZ's case, but to point out that the kinds of students who are hindered by the current barriers to entry are likely to be able to succeed with appropriate support -- at school if such is not readily available at home -- and those like ZZ with parental support and advocacy will not need to spend so much energy to gain access to challenging coursework.

... being discussed now.

It all starts with policy. From there, a plan must be put in place to implement. Kudos and thanks to the district for starting the ball rolling.

A note based on the BOE meeting discussion:

I may have latched onto the part that confirms my own thinking, but the starting point after approving this policy (which based on last nights comments from BOE members, seems it will pass easily) is to revise the academic placement regulations by January (before next year's enrollment begins) to align with this new policy. (IIRC, this was stated most clearly by Beth Daugherty).

sprout said:

susan1014 said:
Unclear what is intended by this policy, especially since it includes elementary schools, where there are not levels to choose from (unless we are going to let parents choose reading groups for their children "> ).

Ok -- tru dat.
That said, I do think that students' reading groups in elementary should be made transparent to parents. But throwing 'access' or 'choice' into some of the listed areas seems tricky.
I could see this policy getting split into several pieces, in order to address different types of programming.

This may be referring to access to G&T programs in elementary level.

jfburch said:
@ MDonoghue, how much tutoring do you understand to be "all of the additional tutoring"? Summer step up sessions are already in place and to my knowledge are working well.

I hear that they have started charging parents to have their kids take the summer step up classes. Don't know if it's a sliding scale.

The cynical answer is that it's intended to fend off more lawsuits.

susan1014 said:
Unclear what is intended by this policy, especially since it includes elementary schools, where there are not levels to choose from (unless we are going to let parents choose reading groups for their children " src="//static.wwstf.com/common/plugins/redactor/emoticons/1.0/images/3.gif" unselectable="on"> ).

yahooyahoo said:
The cynical answer is that it's intended to fend off more lawsuits.

Sounds to me like the board is simply striving to offer the community what it has demanded: advanced opportunities that don't get watered down as a consequence of greater inclusion, other high quality options suited to less stratospheric abilities or ambitions, and the right to make one's own choices.

If we then fall into compliance with the law as a matter of course, how is that evidence of cynicism?

Glad to read the policy, and of course implementation details are very important. I haven't read all of the comments, and I have shared our experience before but this is one reason the policy change is important IMO.

We moved to Maine in order to allow our son to take AP English his junior year as he asked to do. He was refused here at Columbia. He was allowed in Falmouth, Maine at one of the state's best public high schools. It is a rigorous high school. He received an A, he passed his AP exam. He should have been allowed to take it here but he was told it was inadvisable to "jump" a level, from level 3 to AP. He was discouraged enough to want to leave the school entirely and requested we move to Maine, which we were just crazy enough to do.

It was absolutely the best thing for him. He was allowed to play in sports rather than working his heart out at practices and playing 3 minutes of a game, and having a coach say to him later, "Hey why were you standing with the kids who don't come to practice? If I'd known you were here (at the game), I would have played you."

One of the ways that the AP system worked in Maine was scheduling. A lower level class was available in the same time slot so if a student didn't feel able to handle the rigor of the AP class, they simply dropped down. A month after beginning an AP class, teachers, parents and students meet if the student seemed overly challenged, and if the student wants to drop down he/she can, but it is in the end the student's decision. There is no extra tutoring for students to be able to handle the AP level, just opportunity and a feeling that the teachers actually want the students to do well.

I am happy we did this for our son. I am pissed off that we had to leave a town we loved in order to give him the right opportunity. Now back to our regularly scheduled debate.

JCSO said:

yahooyahoo said:
The cynical answer is that it's intended to fend off more lawsuits.

Sounds to me like the board is simply striving to offer the community what it has demanded: advanced opportunities that don't get watered down as a consequence of greater inclusion, other high quality options suited to less stratospheric abilities or ambitions, and the right to make one's own choices.
If we then fall into compliance with the law as a matter of course, how is that evidence of cynicism?

I believe that this is not a cynical move (or not primarily a cynical move). We have a brand new superintendent of schools, and I would assume this is one of the first big moves of his administration. I only hope that the Superintendent and Board are putting in the hard thought about implementation, especially at Columbia, where scheduling and course access already seem to be a mess.

I've heard too many stories like lisat's, Z.Z.'s and the many parents struggling with middle school math questions. We need a policy to allow placement-by-choice. We also need parallel scheduling (as discussed above), making it easy for youth to drop back a level if they don't make the step successfully. I'm unclear about how much (if anything) this policy may promise beyond that. I haven't watched the BOE meeting yet, so perhaps have missed some clarification.

I would assume that the inclusion of elementary school in this is a just-in-case move, since we have no leveled programs other than reading groups. If this actually means something more radical, like that anyone could choose to ask for Gillingham-Orton(?) reading pull-outs, or resource room support, there would be more serious capacity implications, but I doubt that is the case.

The one place where I share a bit of yahooyahoo's cynicism is that I do think this policy becomes one more reason why any G&T program that we ever approve will be focused on the fig-leaf of paperwork to assert that our existing differentiation meets all needs (supplemented by addition of some cool academic extracurriculars).

This is a great step forward! Yeah! Too late for my kid, but yeah anyway!

Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average