Access to all levels and programs for all?

[I posted this on the other thread about the BOE election but realized this is where the post should go. Sorry in advance for the double post.]

Everyone seems to focus on the open access element of the proposed policy (to which my initial reaction was one of relief and hope.) But as Ctrzaska suggested above, I'm now a little leery of this being just a lip service for several reasons. The district already has a similar policy in the books that says "It is the policy of the Board of Education to ensure equal and barrier-free access for all students to school facilities, courses, programs, activities, and services, regardless of race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, level of English proficiency, socio-economic status, or disability." So why this new policy and why now? And what does it say about the district's level of commitment to this proposed policy? And what is the meaning of other elements in the language?

The proposed policy brings three new elements to this existing one: 1. students' right to have access to every academic program/class/levels; and 2. after-school support for students (the district already has other kinds of support listed in the propose policy); 3. a realignment of K-12 curriculum. ALL of these elements are either target or center around a successful completion of AP at Columbia.
My concerns that this is lip service more than anything else are based on the following:
1. The lack of specificity in how this will be implemented (see all the dodging by the Board in the Village Green article Mod posted earlier: http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/will-access-equity-policy-move-s-o-maplewood-schools-good-great/ ). How this policy will be implemented given the overwhelming budgetary constraints?
2. The legal context (the ACLU lawsuit and the DOJ OCR resolution) and the critical need to meet these external imperatives. Is this the raison d'être?
3. A curious inclusion of a reference to a "mutual accountability" for the families and the district. ("While this Policy does not guarantee success for student achievement, it nevertheless greatly empowers students, as it is informed by mutual accountability for educational success amongst students, parents and guardians, and the South Orange and Maplewood School District.) I have my suspicions as to why this language was included in the proposed policy (see my concern #2 above).
If in the end this is not just a lip service, if there really is a deep commitment to its implementation, I worry about the proposed realignment of curriculum that sees AP as the holy grail of K-12 education. If embraced fully, I don't see how this won't narrow the educational experience of many students and perhaps even narrow the curriculum itself (which is why some schools around the country are dropping their AP program).

I would be happy to be proven wrong but this is where my current thinking is.

The policy change isn't lip service and will benefit some students, but it also is not a solution to the larger problem where the district is being sued for racial disparities in educational outcomes.

tjohn said:
The policy change ...... also is not a solution to the larger problem where the district is being sued for racial disparities in educational outcomes.

To have outcomes that actually and accurately reflect the work that is being graded, I would suggest that written work gets handed in typed and with name of student obscured (via a code of sorts? or invisible ink?) This way, a teacher cannot pre-determine a grade...any inherent bias would melt away.

I would also be curious to see how this is going to be implemented. My daughter tells me that only the top 125 9th grade honors history students will be able to get into the 10th grade honors (or AP?) class. Would this mean others could just opt in? I think they might need more teachers.

As well, she was told that she needs to have a 90 or above in Algebra 1 to be allowed to take the summer geometry course (which puts her on track to have completed calculus her senior year). Would this mean that the 90 is no longer a requisite?

This will be great for the kids who are borderline and have the drive to work at higher levels.

I find it fascinating that no one has the same reason for why the conference period was eliminated. We were told that it was because the PE period did not meet either state or federal guidelines. So the district needed to increase the amount of PE. And of course, the only way they could do so was to reduce the conference period.

I will add this was heavily used by little db and we are concerned how this will affect this year.

I found the Montclair High School open access "Message from Guidance" on their website, and thought I would post it here:

http://www.montclair.k12.nj.us/WebPage.aspx?Id=1

"Whether you are now in eighth grade choosing courses for high school for the first time, or an 11th grader choosing courses for your final year of high school, there is one important thing to keep in mind: the final decision about what courses to take in high school should be yours. You should seek the advice of your teachers, counselor and parents, but it is necessary to take ownership of your final choices for your future.

It is necessary to balance your goals, your skills and your commitment when choosing courses. It is desirable that you continue study in all academic areas throughout high school (science, mathematics, social studies, world languages, and English) as well as exploring other areas of interest in the fine, performing and practical arts, computers, technology and business. It is also preferable to take the most demanding courses available if you are capable of earning a grade of B or better.

For all students planning to attend college, it is important to consider a few relevant issues regarding scheduling. Most colleges treat the strength of a student’s schedule, particularly the senior year schedule, as a very important criterion in the college admission process. Thus we recommend that you continue a rigorous and consistently demanding curriculum throughout all four years of high school, while taking courses in which you will find the most success.

At Montclair High School, every student is given a prescheduled appointment each year to discuss his/her schedule for the next year. At that meeting, you should discuss your personal and career goals and your counselor will help you work out a schedule to best meet these goals. Your guidance counselor is the professional who has been assigned to help you grow and develop during your years in high school. Your counselor’s major role is to guide you through graduation after a high school experience that has been academically and personally rewarding. In the spring of your junior year, you and your parent/guardian will meet with your counselor to provisionally map out your path to college and your career. The following fall, we follow-up that meeting as we begin to formalize the college and career selection process. We are there for you throughout the process!"

mcgoey said:
I would also be curious to see how this is going to be implemented. My daughter tells me that only the top 125 9th grade honors history students will be able to get into the 10th grade honors (or AP?) class. Would this mean others could just opt in? I think they might need more teachers.
As well, she was told that she needs to have a 90 or above in Algebra 1 to be allowed to take the summer geometry course (which puts her on track to have completed calculus her senior year). Would this mean that the 90 is no longer a requisite?
This will be great for the kids who are borderline and have the drive to work at higher levels.

3 years ago, at AP Night, my impression was the opposite -- that CHS wanted to err on the side of having more students enrolled in APUS. In our over 11 years in SOMSD, I have never heard any mention of a fixed number of "slots" for a class.

The 90 in Algebra I cutoff, on the other hand, IMHO, is more likely to stay. The math grid has been fairly fixed in the past 7 years that I've known of it. However, I do know that a student who ends up with an 89 can still get in if the teacher is impressed with the student's interest and aptitude. (I have no idea about an 88 -- inthe cases I'm personally aware of the grade was 89).

Note, the district justified the grade cutoffs at least in part so that parental "lobbying" is avoided. Taking parental lobbying out of the picture was thought to make the process more racially neutral.

BaseballMom said:

3 years ago, at AP Night, my impression was the opposite -- that CHS wanted to err on the side of having more students enrolled in APUS. In our over 11 years in SOMSD, I have never heard any mention of a fixed number of "slots" for a class.

The 90 in Algebra I cutoff, on the other hand, IMHO, is more likely to stay. The math grid has been fairly fixed in the past 7 years that I've known of it. However, I do know that a student who ends up with an 89 can still get in if the teacher is impressed with the student's interest and aptitude. (I have no idea about an 88 -- inthe cases I'm personally aware of the grade was 89).
Note, the district justified the grade cutoffs at least in part so that parental "lobbying" is avoided. Taking parental lobbying out of the picture was thought to make the process more racially neutral.

Interesting. I've had the opposite impression.

1. I went to AP night last spring, and the message from the content supervisor's presentation on APUSH seemed to be "Don't bother to apply unless you can fully commit to being tortured by us for two years, with no way out." (Students had to sign a contract that they would not drop the class after the first year). The supervisor even said that the class was so demanding, that some students wrote their college essays about how difficult it was. Which said to me that this was a class for students that didn't have any real-life challenges to deal with, if the hardest thing some of his students have had to overcome was this class.

2. And I know there has been successful lobbying for the math step-up classes. As the supervisor informs people of their slots in the summer class at the last minute, there are going to be students who turn it down at the last minute. So, it's probably easier to give those last-minute openings to parents who have been lobbying for it, and will almost definitely take the spot, rather than to contact new people even though they are really next on the list (because then you'd have to play more waiting game to see if the new person will take the opening).

BaseballMom said:

The 90 in Algebra I cutoff, on the other hand, IMHO, is more likely to stay. The math grid has been fairly fixed in the past 7 years that I've known of it. However, I do know that a student who ends up with an 89 can still get in if the teacher is impressed with the student's interest and aptitude. (I have no idea about an 88 -- inthe cases I'm personally aware of the grade was 89).

Not according to Ramos, who is quoted in the Village Green article as saying "Open access means just that, open." I don't know how having a cutoff score to take a class would jive with Ramos' pronouncement.

Does this mean open acces to AP classes

ffof said:

tjohn said:
The policy change ...... also is not a solution to the larger problem where the district is being sued for racial disparities in educational outcomes.

To have outcomes that actually and accurately reflect the work that is being graded, I would suggest that written work gets handed in typed and with name of student obscured (via a code of sorts? or invisible ink?) This way, a teacher cannot pre-determine a grade...any inherent bias would melt away.

Great idea on paper, but would not work for real teaching where you need to see how particular students are doing.

APUS has always been more open, although they do try to scare you a bit because the course is so popular.

On the other hand, I am sure they will require a crowbar to open the math AP courses, and I would not be surprised if the supervisor retires soon if she loses the battle to retain control of access.

max_weisenfeld said:
APUS has always been more open, although they do try to scare you a bit because the course is so popular.
On the other hand, I am sure they will require a crowbar to open the math AP courses, and I would not be surprised if the supervisor retires soon if she loses the battle to retain control of access.

Thank you, Max, for saying what I was trying to say in a concise and coherent fashion.

so fast forward ten years when outcomes will not have changed one iota, who's gonna get sued?

Robert_Casotto said:
so fast forward ten years when outcomes will not have changed one iota, who's gonna get sued?

Is that an attempt to critique the new proposed policy, or just a pessimistic view of SOMSD & community?

sprout said:

Robert_Casotto said:
so fast forward ten years when outcomes will not have changed one iota, who's gonna get sued?

Is that an attempt to critique the new proposed policy, or just a pessimistic view of SOMSD & community?

It's just drive-by snark, devoid of substance.

sprout said:

Robert_Casotto said:
so fast forward ten years when outcomes will not have changed one iota, who's gonna get sued?

Is that an attempt to critique the new proposed policy, or just a pessimistic view of SOMSD & community?

I think of it more as a realistic view that since the major determinants of educational outcomes are beyond the control of the school district, equal access to levels won't make much difference.

I'd fullyagree with that.

tjohn said:

sprout said:

Robert_Casotto said:
so fast forward ten years when outcomes will not have changed one iota, who's gonna get sued?

Is that an attempt to critique the new proposed policy, or just a pessimistic view of SOMSD & community?

I think of it more as a realistic view that since the major determinants of educational outcomes are beyond the control of the school district, equal access to levels won't make much difference.

Are you saying it won't make much of a difference to those students who would otherwise be denied access, but WISH to take the more rigorous course?

Students in Level 2 who get an "A" in their Level 2 course at CHS at each quarter are pushed up to Level 3... but weeks to months later in the year. So, you have a cohort of students who may have wanted to take Level 3, but were initially denied the opportunity. After getting an "A" in Level 2, the district says "Oops, sorry we didn't let you into Level 3 before, you can go there now". Then the students enter the Level 3 course less prepared than those who have been in that class since day 1 of the school year. That likely deflates the grades of those who are shifted mid-year compared to the grades they could have achieved if they started with everyone else.

We've also heard of students who were denied access to AP here, and then moved elsewhere to take it and were ultimately highly successful.

My own sister was denied access to the accelerated Math track in 6th grade when we were kids, fought the placement, won, and sustained an "A" average in the accelerated math track for many years after that.

But, you still think we should keep the old way, and not allow motivated students to take courses at a higher-than-recommended level because it might not make much visible difference in, what, PARCC outcomes?

You have an impressive ability to read more into statements than is there. I think open access will help some students. I don't think it will have any impact at all on overall educational outcomes. I am not opposed to the policy change since it seems that some will benefit and the downsides are limited.

tjohn said:
You have an impressive ability to read more into statements than is there. I think open access will help some students. I don't think it will have any impact at all on overall educational outcomes. I am not opposed to the policy change since it seems that some will benefit and the downsides are limited.

Enlighten me please. Why wouldn't exposure to a more rigorous curriculum have an impact on educational outcomes?

flimbro said:

tjohn said:
You have an impressive ability to read more into statements than is there. I think open access will help some students. I don't think it will have any impact at all on overall educational outcomes. I am not opposed to the policy change since it seems that some will benefit and the downsides are limited.

Enlighten me please. Why wouldn't exposure to a more rigorous curriculum have an impact on educational outcomes?

I don't think it is going to have any impact whatsoever on disparate outcomes that correlate with socio-economic factors (in the vernacular, the achievement gap). I can't prove that one way or the other.

It seems to me that the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the College Prep designation for some courses that really isn't. Open access doesn't address this.

It might depend on how you define and measure "outcome".

Outcomes for students in their development and lifetime opportunities? Outcomes in their educational achievement? Or outcomes as measured by national aggregate test scores or graduation rates?

There's plenty of evidence that disadvantaged students given rich and rigorous education, with support and sometimes "acculturation" do very well.

There's plenty of evidence that less advantaged kids who attend middle class schools do better than their peers at high poverty schools. (We generally don't test the effect of high poverty schools on privileged kids.)

If you only mean outcomes on national aggregate measures, then you may be right that we won't see significant change until and unless we eliminate the national aggregate socio-economic differences.

Right. And all we are talking about here is open access to upper levels which will certainly help the very small number of students who cannot currently get into a higher level due to the entry criteria.

tjohn said:

flimbro said:

tjohn said:
You have an impressive ability to read more into statements than is there. I think open access will help some students. I don't think it will have any impact at all on overall educational outcomes. I am not opposed to the policy change since it seems that some will benefit and the downsides are limited.

Enlighten me please. Why wouldn't exposure to a more rigorous curriculum have an impact on educational outcomes?

I don't think it is going to have any impact whatsoever on disparate outcomes that correlate with socio-economic factors (in the vernacular, the achievement gap). I can't prove that one way or the other.
It seems to me that the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the College Prep designation for some courses that really isn't. Open access doesn't address this.

I know that some posting here in an effort to maintain the status quo rely on the idea that households with lower than average incomes can't possibly produce engaged, successful students. Unfortunately some people use this belief to deny access to any student who falls within this group they've identified. The problem with this idea is that it perpetuates a two tiered system- which as we all know is illegal. If we believe that certain children simply cannot flourish because their parents cannot afford tutors and then, based on this belief automatically restrict their access to more challenging classwork, we are actually creating the problem we should be solving.

If, as you correctly intimate, college prep is a dead end educational track and we routinely set students on this track starting in elementary school and keep this up for decades- why would we be surprised that these students have difficulty keeping up in high school and then as a result become working parents with lower than average incomes who cannot afford tutors for their children? Additionally, why would we be surprised (as @Sprout indicates) that even those students who make the transition to honors late, have difficulty keeping up? We've spent years creating students who have a diminished chance of succeeding and then we blame them for being unsuccessful.

I'm in my fifties. I attended high school here in NJ in the seventies and AP courses in my high school were restricted- populated by white students only. I was a jock and my grades were slightly above average. My parents, who were both educators (and therefore underpaid and overworked and most assuredly without the funds to pay for "tutoring") lobbied for and eventually got me into those AP classes and I did well. Now, forty years later married to a woman with a similar background and almost identical experience, I have to do the very same lobbying for my child who like myself was automatically relegated to a low expectation curriculum.

Forty years ago my parents pushed back against an institutionalized system of low expectations based on perceived "socioeconomic" realities and as a result my wife and I have the money to pay for tutors and the time to look at her homework every single night and have done so since pre school. But, we still had to lobby for entrance into the summer step up program and then lobby to get her out of college prep and we expect this requirement for vigilance to continue.

I know that it's easy to throw up your hands and blame what you reference as the "achievement gap" on unwieldy "socioeconomic" factors but the reality is that by lowering expectations and then restricting access to challenging course loads because of those lowered expectations we assure failure and maintain an "achievement gap". The situation we've created in this district is decades in the making and it won't be solved overnight. My daughter may see some of the benefits of this open access- current high school students may not. This is a fix that will need years to bear fruit. In the meantime I think we have to understand that improving a student's chances to succeed beginning in middle school will have a direct effect on "socioeconomic factors" ten years down the line.

Filmbro, I don't get the lobbying to get out of college prep. How are her grades? What is her performance?

Our district offers free tutoring to middle school students. Often in the past, kids did not show up for it. Maybe motivation needs to be examined as a factor in student performance instead of blaming an inability to pay for tutors.

h4daniel said:
Filmbro, I don't get the lobbying to get out of college prep. How are her grades? What is her performance?

FWIW: From work I have done with school data, past grades may not correlate with future grades, even within the same content area. Many factors change between two courses (e.g., the teachers, the topics covered, the students themselves, and the priorities everyone in the system has), resulting in some very inconsistent trends.

Agreed.

Flimbro,

I am fine with the open access change. I can imagine circumstances where my kids might benefit. However, while individual kids will most certainly benefit, I am speculating that the aggregate impact will be minimal.

Does anybody know how open access has benefited students at Montclair H.S.?