SOMSD Changes

Why does every reactionary discussion about leveling throw in “G&T”, as though there is this huge concentration of gifted and talented students in SOMA, whose parents are apparently regulars on MOL. Here’s a few tips: merely getting good grades isn’t giftedness, truly gifted kids are rare, your kid isn’t one of them.

flimbro-

I agree 100% that the district can do better and have had a very negative experience with the special services dept. However, I saw Aaron as someone who was working hard in the area of programs and communication to families of families with fewer resources.

Do you really think that getting rid of her will make a positive difference? We all know the achievement gap is deeply rooted and complex, and it was not substantially reduced under her predecessor, Dr. Lilly, who is African American.

 The district needs to improve its support of disadvantaged children at the elementary school level.This unwarranted removal of Ms. Aaron is a distraction from the real issues and solutions.

And she's removed in favor of a place-holder? As if there were some ongoing egregious conduct on Aaron's part that needed to be interrupted.  If the temp replacement is better for CHS than Aaron was, why not really hire her and really make her accountable. 

brealer said:
And she's removed in favor of a place-holder? As if there were some ongoing egregious conduct on Aaron's part that needed to be interrupted.

 I don't know if this is related or not, but when I saw this:

https://villagegreennj.com/towns/maplewood/somsd-to-hire-consultant-to-review-chs-credit-recovery-grading-policy-and-procedures/

...and then saw the changes at the high school, a possible relationship between the two crossed my mind.

Osborne is a Superintendent.  Aaron is a building principal in a district in administrative chaos. If there are "credit recovery" issues at CHS, and I have no idea f there are, shouldn't the Suoerintendent fall on his sword? Not really buying that problems in that area alone would justify sidelining a veteran principal when our district is in such disarray. 

As far as I know that’s more of a policy issue than one of oversight.

As to the district being “unsuccessful at making progress”, I confess I’ve no idea what that statement is based on, but would love to take a look at the data behind it. 

annielou said:
Why does every reactionary discussion about leveling throw in “G&T”, as though there is this huge concentration of gifted and talented students in SOMA, whose parents are apparently regulars on MOL. Here’s a few tips: merely getting good grades isn’t giftedness, truly gifted kids are rare, your kid isn’t one of them.

 There are kids in the district who are academically gifted and talented and who have gone out of district to receive academic challenges. Unfortunately, in this district their needs are met with indifference at best and hostility at worst.  The kids whose parents can't afford the out of district programs are really out of luck.  But snark and belittling, like this comment, are all some people know how to do.  

brealer said:
Osborne is a Superintendent.  Aaron is a building principal in a district in administrative chaos. If there are "credit recovery" issues at CHS, and I have no idea f there are, shouldn't the Suoerintendent fall on his sword? Not really buying that problems in that area alone would justify sidelining a veteran principal when our district is in such disarray. 

 Ficarra is the interim superintendent.  Osborne has already been fired by his next gig.

FilmCarp said:

 Ficarra is the interim superintendent.  Osborne has already been fired by his next gig.

Brealer is alluding to that next gig, New Rochelle, which is having its own credit recovery issues and which Osborne will leave after the remaining year on his contract (if I recall correctly).

chalmers said:

But snark and belittling, like this comment, are all some people know how to do.  

I wouldn’t underestimate annielou’s myriad ways of contributing to a discussion. Nor the full range of attytood on both sides of these debates.

DaveSchmidt said:

chalmers said:

But snark and belittling, like this comment, are all some people know how to do.  

I wouldn’t underestimate annielou’s myriad ways of contributing to a discussion. Nor the full range of attytood on both sides of these debates.

How in the world annielou can tell Campbell their child is not gifted without knowing anything about the child is incredibly obnoxious.  Some parents actually know something about gifted children and others do not and just make ignorant and disparaging statements about other people's children.

chalmers said:

DaveSchmidt said:

chalmers said:

But snark and belittling, like this comment, are all some people know how to do.  

I wouldn’t underestimate annielou’s myriad ways of contributing to a discussion. Nor the full range of attytood on both sides of these debates.

How in the world annielou can tell Campbell their child is not gifted without knowing anything about the child is incredibly obnoxious.  Some parents actually know something about gifted children and others do not and just make ignorant and disparaging statements about other people's children.

 My snark level has nothing to do with Campbell. It is directed to the overall sentiment that leveling equates to dumbing down the curriculum at the expense of gifted and talented students, of whom there are very few. Have a discussion about serving the needs of students you will find in every classroom: high academic achievers (not to be confused with “giftedness”), average on grade level students, and struggling students. Lastly, a few posters seem to persistently conflate disadvantage with African American students. That’s kind of nervy and does not serve an intelligent position.

chalmers said:

How in the world annielou can tell Campbell their child is not gifted without knowing anything about the child is incredibly obnoxious.

I see. Since annielou opened by invoking “every reactionary discussion about leveling,” I took it as a general “your kid,” not anyone’s specifically.

ETA: Cross-posted.

There has been a reduction in academic challenge and academic achievement recognitions in the district in the past few years, most recently the STEM "realignment" and the recent MMS graduation with zero recognitions for any academic achievement which is a change from a few years ago.  I do not think eliminating higher level classes serves students or the district well.  The disadvantaged students in our district are typically measured by "free and reduced lunch."  There is a higher percentage of those students at Seth Boyden than South Mountain, as has been noted at the BOE meetings.

Thanks.

White struggling students help narrow the achievement gap.  

My point is that we have to be careful about assuming students are either  gifted or disadvantaged based on external factors like household income, free lunch, race etc. In my experience with children, these assumptions do not hold water. There are very specific identifiers of giftedness and G/T kids pop up in every ethnic and economic group. God I’m so exhausted by this.

Annie-I thought the whole point of the achievement gap is that minority children are inherently disadvantaged due to deep rooted historical factors. That in no way is the same as saying that all minority children will be underachievers.

berkeley said:
Annie-I thought the whole point of the achievement gap is that minority children are inherently disadvantaged due to deep rooted historical factors. That in no way is the same as saying that all minority children will be underachievers.

By all research accounts, although the racial educational achievement gap has been narrowing over the past 20 years or so, it remains a very real, persistent, and complex problem.  In my opinion, debates on the racial achievement gap too often tend to be based on anecdotal reports, assumptions, and subjective experiences...as well as "fuzzy statistics".    That, at least to me, reduces the integrity of the argument and undermines efforts to address the problem.

The Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA) at Stanford University conducts research on educational policy and related issues from an interdisciplinary perspective.  A goal is to produce meaningful data rather than relying on anecdotal information or subjective assumptions.  The Center's website with info on the racial achievement gap is available at:     http://cepa.stanford.edu/educational-opportunity-monitoring-project/achievement-gaps/race/#fifth 

A quote from the Center's webpage:

"One potential explanation for racial achievement gaps is that they are largely due to socioeconomic disparities between white, black, and Hispanic families. Black and Hispanic children’s parents typically have lower incomes and lower levels of educational attainment than white children’s parents. Because higher-income and more-educated families typically can provide more educational opportunities for their children, family socioeconomic resources are strongly related to educational outcomes. If racial socioeconomic disparities are the primary explanation for racial achievement gaps, we would expect achievement gaps to be largest in places where racial socioeconomic disparities are largest, and we would expect them to be zero in places where there is no racial socioeconomic inequality.....Nonetheless, even in states where the racial socioeconomic disparities are near zero (typically states with small black or Hispanic populations), achievement gaps are still present. This suggests that socioeconomic disparities are not the sole cause of racial achievement gaps."

One example of other potential factors at work is the presence of classroom bias (unconscious or conscious). The Center's research on this dynamic (conducted in an online class) is at: https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/wp18-03-201803.pdf.  Research on affirmative action in college admissions is at: https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/wp15-04-v201712.pdf   And, papers on other variables can be found at:  https://cepa.stanford.edu/research-areas/poverty-and-inequality 

A caveat:  I do believe that a weakness in the Center's efforts are that the statistical comparisons typically ignore Asian Americans...they tend to be white vs. black and hispanic comparisons.

Since my son graduated from Columbia in 2014, I have not been following changes at the school much.  So, I was surprised to see this lawsuit based on the harmful tracking practice that I thought would have been eliminated by now. Before 2014, they had removed levels from some classes and I thought they were more flexible about allowing students to change levels, except for math.  Math still had a ridgid, unfair and damaging structure.  But I thought even that was on the way out.  How is this, in 2018, still a thing?  They had a clear mission to change things so what happened?  

And by now, shouldn't there be data about whether the changes improve educational outcomes for low-performing students?

Seems like someone dropped the ball.  

Nan, I'm not sure if that is at all accurate.  Like you, I don't currently have a child at the school.  Like you, I'm not getting any information from the district as to why they wanted to sideline the principal.  I don't think such a complex issue has a simple answer.  It could be that real effort has been made, and the results are not there yet.  Or it could be better, and you and I don't know it.

FilmCarp said:
Nan, I'm not sure if that is at all accurate.  Like you, I don't currently have a child at the school.  Like you, I'm not getting any information from the district as to why they wanted to sideline the principal.  I don't think such a complex issue has a simple answer.  It could be that real effort has been made, and the results are not there yet.  Or it could be better, and you and I don't know it.

 FilmCarp,   I agree and I am trying to hold off until I have more information.  But, I was reading some of the lawsuit and it said there were assigned levels. That's why I expressed outrage about that.  I'd be glad to hear I was wrong, since I thought that the school was getting rid of those.  I had a lot of experience with that and I'm still angry. I'm OK with having varied levels, but I don't like when students are assigned to one and unable to change or have some elaborate means of changing.  I don't know anything about why the principal was removed.  I had a favorable impression of her, based on her seeming enthusiastic, dedicated and caring.  I don't know anything about what she did or did not do related to the lawsuit.  It just seems that things should not have gotten to a point where a group needs to bring a huge lawsuit.  Seems it was laid out very clearly what was supposed to be done and they had years to do it. 

The fact that no reason has been given for Principal Aaron's removal from CHS is troubling.  It looks like she is being used as a scapegoat for the district's issues.  A principal does not make policy, the Board does.

Does anyone else think that the timing of this action is questionable?  I looked up when she became principal, July 1 2014.  If I understand the law correctly (4 years and a day) she would have earned tenure as principal on July 2 2018.  Her tenure might be negated by moving her to an administrative position.

Harriet, you may have hit the nail on the head.

Upon further review, she already has tenure.  That's why she is being reassigned instead of just fired.

nan said:But, I was reading some of the lawsuit and it said there were assigned levels. That's why I expressed outrage about that.  I'd be glad to hear I was wrong, since I thought that the school was getting rid of those.  I had a lot of experience with that and I'm still angry. I'm OK with having varied levels, but I don't like when students are assigned to one and unable to change or have some elaborate means of changing.  

When the Access and Equity policy was first enacted they sent students a "recommendation" based on previous performance and test scores.  It was a starting point for students to decide (and discuss) where, when and if they wanted to challenge themselves to more difficult curriculum.  They were free to bypass the recommendation and choose the level (most of these levels are now gone) they wanted. 

Harriet said:
The fact that no reason has been given for Principal Aaron's removal from CHS is troubling.

The district is limited by law about what they can disclose about personnel matters.

campbell29 said:

Nobody is going to argue that systemic racism doesn’t exist.  But we can argue that the best way to better educational outcomes for all is better addressed by providing extra support for disadvantaged students than doing away with opportunities that allow all children to get the best education. 

Here is what many of you don't understand - this is not a only a "disadvantaged" student issue; its a racial bias issue.  Its easy to say give support to disadvantaged students...but what is the solution when black children from high-income, well educated families are not excelling?  The Walter Fields family is highly educated (he is a journalist with a law degree), they moved here before having children, so their daughter has always attended SOMA schools.  Yet their daughter experienced biases at the high school that resulted in a lawsuit and the district admitting to wrong doing.  And they are not the only ones; I've heard stories from SOMA black families with similar backgrounds who have opted to educate their kids privately.