Stem realignment

can someone please

Explain exactly what this means?


It means the ridiculous number of levels in Math and other subjects were reduced.  Math previously had 5 levels (numbered 2-6). Now Levels 2 & 3 were removed, leaving levels 4, 5, and 6 (where 6 is AP).

I assume this reduction of levels will help with scheduling, in addition to the other impacts reducing the number of leveled paths available are intended to have. 

------------------------------------------------------------------

From the BOE Update:

Superintendent’s Monthly Update: STEM Realignment

Interim Superintendent, Dr. Thomas Ficarra, and Acting Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, Dr. Donna Rando, presented recommendations for STEM Realignment with an in-depth PowerPoint presentation.

Dr. Ficarra began with a macro view of why the realignment is necessary, and why this is the right time to make the change. He shared data showing that the current program prevents students from learning a standards based curriculum before they finish high school. According to PARCC testing results, 69% of CHS students who take Algebra 1 and 61% of CHS students who take Geometry do not meet state expectations. This is even more troubling given the fact that 65% of all African American students enrolled in Geometry are in Level 2 or 3 classes, and none of the students in Level 2 or 3 Geometry met or exceeded expectations. 

[Sprout note: If no students in Level 2 or 3 Geometry were able to 'meet standards' on the PARCC Geometry test-- this suggests that the rigor of these courses was insufficient. Graduating from HS has some requirements on PARCC Algebra 1, PARCC Geometry, or PARCC Algebra 2. Interestingly, while students currently need to "meet or exceed expectations" on Algebra 1, they can score a performance level below that ("approaching expectations") on Geometry to fulfill part of their graduation requirements. (The Geometry PARCC option will disappear by the class of 2021, leaving only Algebra 1 and Grade 10 ELA as graduation requirements). =>  http://www.state.nj.us/education/assessment/parents/GradReq.pdf ]

Dr. Ficarra declared that SOMSD must stop finding reasons to delay making changes which we know are necessary. He committed to ensuring that SOMSD implements best practices which also result in integration, are based in research, and enhance instruction. Dr. Ficarra explained how the budget process for 2018-2019 will ensure that the district allocates the resources necessary to fully support these changes, including providing teachers with professional development and building appropriate student supports into the schedule for next year.

Dr. Rando then gave a micro view of the proposed changes. Dr. Rando shared charts explaining the current levels in the Math and Science departments, and explained new charts showing the proposed realignment, with the reduction of 11 levels in math (2 in grades 6-8 and 9 in grades 9-12) and 4 levels in science (2 levels in Physics and 2 levels in Chemistry).

When asked if the district is sacrificing rigor to reduce levels, Dr. Rando assured the Board and the community that the realignment maintains the most rigorous courses SOMSD currently offers in math and science. She explained that the changes will not reduce rigor; they will just ensure that all students received the standards-based curriculum, skills and knowledge that NJ requires for high school graduation.

The Superintendent's full presentation on STEM Realignment is available here: 

http://files.constantcontact.com/9f574e8c601/f3b73fcc-1c35-4afb-b1c0-b43a26591c9b.pdf



If you go to the presentation link, you can see the new proposed levels and course paths. It chops off the bottom levels in Math and Science. At a minimum, there is still a 'grade level' and an 'honors' option remaining for each course.


My curiosity is how they will articulate the Grade 5 math into the Grade 6 / Pre-Algebra Gr. 6. Previously, there was a gap in the curriculum between Grade 5 Math and the accelerated Grade 7 Honors (pre-Algebra) course. This necessitated taking the Summer step-up course to fill in the gap.


It used to be that level 3 was "grade level" and met the standards for grade level curriculum and level 4 was "honors" . Level 2 was for kids who needed remedial work and extra help.  So now will there be no more grade level or remedial classes.  Will every class be an "honors" class working at a faster pace with a more challenging curriculum.  Or, did they downgrade "honors" to grade level"   What happens to the students ?  Are they pushing low performing students into honors classes?   If so, what happens to those level 2 and 3 kids who are at or below grade level and not up to "honors" work who are now in "honors" classes.   Do they get left behind.  Do the teachers slow down the rest of the class to accommodate them.  Or are the teachers with 26 kids in each class expected to take time away from the grade level or honors students to teach the ones who are behind and need a lot of extra help.  And what happens to the "honors" students who are capable of a faster more challenging curriculum?  While similar students at every other high school in America are challenged up to their capablilities, the honors students in SOMa will be in classes that are simplified and slowed  down to accomodate remedial students. Either way, someone loses.  My daughter was briefly in level 3 classes for both math and english.   Her experience was that In math the kids were so disruptive that the class was basically a free for all.  She felt in level 3 there were 2 groups, kids who were working hard but were behind and  needed extra help, and kids who didnt do the work.   How are they better served by putting them in an "honors" class.  It seems to me that the Board of Ed is more concerned with politics than with what is best for the kids.  I understand that there are accusations that the current system is racist and we must do everything we can to change that, but why not let students and parents, with the advice of their teachers and guidance choose the level they feel is most appropriate for them them.  Of course that would require the guidance department to actually do their jobs.   And that could still result in a racial imbalance but if everyone has access to the education they want isnt that best for everyone.



great. Thanks for your comments. I agree with you sarahzm. I am looking to move my child to private school. This is so ridiculous.  I became a tutor in order to help the achievement gap. I am tutoring a student who continues

To fail because they JUST DO NOT DO THE WORK!!!! It is unbelievable and frustrating. Minimal effort every time. So of course

They will fail.  So sick of blaming the schools.  It is the students parents and society’s fault. Not the schools.



sarahzm said:

It used to be that level 3 was "grade level" and met the standards for grade level curriculum

If that was the case, then those who took Level 3 Geometry should have been able to "Meet Standards" on the PARCC Geometry test. Which none did.


Excellent comment.

safetyfirst said:

great. Thanks for your comments. I agree with you sarahzm. I am looking to move my child to private school. This is so ridiculous.  I became a tutor in order to help the achievement gap. I am tutoring a student who continues

To fail because they JUST DO NOT DO THE WORK!!!! It is unbelievable and frustrating. Minimal effort every time. So of course

They will fail.  So sick of blaming the schools.  It is the students parents and society’s fault. Not the schools.



This is the continued watering down of our schools in the name of political correctness.  There will always be kids that need a greater challenge and there will always be kids that need more help (or don’t want to work).  Lumping them together will be a race to the bottom by teaching to the lowest common denominator.  


Calling it “realignment” is simply masking that this is the next iteration of delevelling that has been rolled out over the past number of years. 



tjohn said:

Excellent comment.
safetyfirst said:

great. Thanks for your comments. I agree with you sarahzm. I am looking to move my child to private school. This is so ridiculous.  I became a tutor in order to help the achievement gap. I am tutoring a student who continues

To fail because they JUST DO NOT DO THE WORK!!!! It is unbelievable and frustrating. Minimal effort every time. So of course

They will fail.  So sick of blaming the schools.  It is the students parents and society’s fault. Not the schools.

I wouldn't exclude the schools from the equation. Our district's curriculum and implementation was pointed out as having multiple issues in the QSAC report two years ago. It'll be interesting to see what happens after Ficarra is done pulling the weeds.



michaelgoldberg said:

Calling it “realignment” is simply masking that this is the next iteration of delevelling that has been rolled out over the past number of years. 

I'm not a deleveler, but I'm guessing that keeping 2-4 levels/options per content area would not really be seen as 'deleveling' from their perspective.

It's like you guys didn't even look at the proposed course programming in slides #17-20 from the link above.



sprout said:


tjohn said:

Excellent comment.
safetyfirst said:
To fail because they JUST DO NOT DO THE WORK!!!! It is unbelievable and frustrating. Minimal effort every time. So of course they will fail.  So sick of blaming the schools.  It is the students parents and society’s fault. Not the schools.
I wouldn't exclude the schools from the equation. Our district's curriculum and implementation was pointed out as having multiple issues in the QSAC report two years ago. It'll be interesting to see what happens after Ficarra is done pulling the weeds.

Complicated problems have primary causes and secondary causes.    Safetyfirst cited a primary cause.  Address that and a lot of causes in the form of fine tuning the curriculum go away.  Don't address that and you are just rearranging the deck chairs.


Does anyone know if there is a goal in mind and what this goal is? Has there been an analysis of the data with the changes so far? Did deleveling the middle school, except for the math produce desired results? Is there a belief that once the students are delivered a different curriculum that they will succeed? 


so I would like to amend my statement.  Yes I agree the schools are responsible to some extent.  For example

My daughter is in 8th grade.  She is in accelerated math. She literally has received mostly A+ and some A’s for her entire time in middle school. And guess what. I am not impressed.   My daughter is smart and she works hard but all A+?  What does that mean???? The grade has little significance because I have to say she is under challenged. So little reading and writing. So little teaching in social studies!!! No feaching!!! They teach themselves. In math much of the time kids correcting teacher. Really??????   This is nuts!!!! So we send her to Newark academy every summer to be challenged!!! I can’t stand it!!!   Really I need to. I’ve to millburn or send her to private school. So frustrating. 



tjohn said:



sprout said:



tjohn said:

Excellent comment.
safetyfirst said:
To fail because they JUST DO NOT DO THE WORK!!!! It is unbelievable and frustrating. Minimal effort every time. So of course they will fail.  So sick of blaming the schools.  It is the students parents and society’s fault. Not the schools.
I wouldn't exclude the schools from the equation. Our district's curriculum and implementation was pointed out as having multiple issues in the QSAC report two years ago. It'll be interesting to see what happens after Ficarra is done pulling the weeds.

Complicated problems have primary causes and secondary causes.    Safetyfirst cited a primary cause.  Address that and a lot of causes in the form of fine tuning the curriculum go away.  Don't address that and you are just rearranging the deck chairs.

As someone familiar with how the district screwed over a number of kids because of the previous gatekeeping policies, curriculum mis-alignments, scheduling snafus, and lack of response to concerns, I respectfully disagree with your assessment.


according to my daughter math deleveling resulted in less advanced math instruction But perhaps it was the poor teacher. She says now at this point in the year she feels like the teaching has picked up maybe because the kids are getting it now. Who knows. 


Math hasn't been deleveled yet. The reduction in number of levels starts next year.


safetyfirst said:

according to my daughter math deleveling resulted in less advanced math instruction But perhaps it was the poor teacher. She says now at this point in the year she feels like the teaching has picked up maybe because the kids are getting it now. Who knows. 

I realized you may be critiquing the Access & Equity policy that allows students to select the course level they wish to take, rather than have gatekeeping policies. 

This may not be the Math course your daughter was in, but I would take issue more with the school implementation, than blame the student and parent in this situation:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/new-chs-guidance-director-uses-access-equity-plan-to-force-my-daughter-to-stay-in-ap-class


yes sorry I misspoke.  The math class was the result of students being allowed to choose their own math class and not deleveling. And also I really don’t like my choice of the word “fault” when referring to students parents and society. Responsibility is a better choice.  And yes the schools ought to be held accountable.  I am speaking from my experience as a parent, a volunteer tutor and a concerned citizen.  Not sure that deleveling is the answer but time will tell. I wonder-was the curriculum in the lower levels not covering the subject matter needed to succeed on PARCC or did the students simply not do well?  Does anyone know?


SF-Would you consider editing the part of your post where you criticize your Achieve student? It definitely sounds like the program is not working for you, but I wonder about the underlying issues the student faces at home and/or with undiagnosed learning issues etc. Not everyone can be an A student, even with a tutor.



sprout said:



sarahzm said:

It used to be that level 3 was "grade level" and met the standards for grade level curriculum

If that was the case, then those who took Level 3 Geometry should have been able to "Meet Standards" on the PARCC Geometry test. Which none did.

Is there any possibility that the issue might be with the PARCC test itself?


so no, Berkeley. I will not edit what I said about the student that I work with. Minimal effort is minimal effort. So when I ask have you read the text or gone over your notes and every time the answer is no, then that is minimal effort. And the program is working just fine for me  thanks.   I am committed to helping and work for hours every week on lessons to help the student.  So no. Editing is not called for in this case. 



safetyfirst said:

so no, Berkeley. I will not edit what I said about the student that I work with. Minimal effort is minimal effort. So when I ask have you read the text or gone over your notes and every time the answer is no, then that is minimal effort. And the program is working just fine for me  thanks.   I am committed to helping and work for hours every week on lessons to help the student.  So no. Editing is not called for in this case.  And I am talking about effort here which even students with learning disabilities are able to exhibit.  And this student has success when they put in some effort.  And I do not believe that everyone needs or is capable of being an A student.  This student asked for tutoring in order to improve on their performance but it means they need to try!!!!! Which means some work. And so therefore when the student doesn’t do well for lack of effort it is frustrating.  Especially when I dedicate my time
to try and help them.   So this is one reason why some students , not all but some, do not succeed
in school.  Criticism especially when constructive should
not be shied  away from. itnisnhow we improve. And by the way this frustration is never communicated with the student.  I enjoy our time together and do the best that I can in the time that we have. These are
merely my observations that I wanted to share as part of a conversation.




spontaneous said:

sprout said:

sarahzm said:

It used to be that level 3 was "grade level" and met the standards for grade level curriculum

If that was the case, then those who took Level 3 Geometry should have been able to "Meet Standards" on the PARCC Geometry test. Which none did.

Is there any possibility that the issue might be with the PARCC test itself?

Sure, it's possible.  But having not a single student who is taking High School Level 3 Geometry (misleadingly called the "College Prep" level) either "Meet" or "Exceed" expectations on the PARCC Geometry test seems like an indicator that there is a problem somewhere other than just the test. 

Note that 97% of 8th graders from MMS and 98% at SOMS who were taking Geometry were able to "Meet" or "Exceed" expectations on the very same test:

(https://rc.doe.state.nj.us/report.aspx?type=school&lang=english&county=13&district=4900&school=040&SY=1617&schoolyear=2016-2017#P86ee0c7fd0a2482b886dda8b3e0944da_2_866iS3T3R0x4) (https://rc.doe.state.nj.us/report.aspx?type=school&lang=english&county=13&district=4900&school=050&SY=1617&schoolyear=2016-2017#Pf27a996256094333adebc804ca5bee9b_2_866iS3T3R0x4)


The devil is in the details. Our district has a terrible track record of implementing any significant curriculum changes.  This could be a disaster or it could be great.  I wish I had some confidence in the outcome.


Stem realignment is necessary when your handlebars don't point straight. Your bars should be perpendicular to your front wheel.

[...]

Oh, that's different.

Never mind.



sprout said:



spontaneous said:

sprout said:

sarahzm said:

It used to be that level 3 was "grade level" and met the standards for grade level curriculum

If that was the case, then those who took Level 3 Geometry should have been able to "Meet Standards" on the PARCC Geometry test. Which none did.

Is there any possibility that the issue might be with the PARCC test itself?

Sure, it's possible.  But having not a single student who is taking High School Level 3 Geometry (misleadingly called the "College Prep" level) either "Meet" or "Exceed" expectations on the PARCC Geometry test seems like an indicator that there is a problem somewhere other than just the test. 

Note that 97% of 8th graders from MMS and 98% at SOMS who were taking Geometry were able to "Meet" or "Exceed" expectations on the very same test:

(https://rc.doe.state.nj.us/report.aspx?type=school&lang=english&county=13&district=4900&school=040&SY=1617&schoolyear=2016-2017#P86ee0c7fd0a2482b886dda8b3e0944da_2_866iS3T3R0x4) (https://rc.doe.state.nj.us/report.aspx?type=school&lang=english&county=13&district=4900&school=050&SY=1617&schoolyear=2016-2017#Pf27a996256094333adebc804ca5bee9b_2_866iS3T3R0x4)

The Middle School students taking geometry (normally a freshman honors or sophomore grade-level course) are the accelerated students who are on track to take calculus in their junior year of HS.  I am not surprised that a high percentage of them met/exceeded expectations, given that these are the "cream of the crop" math students in the district. In fact, I'm surprised that ANY of them did not.  Whatever they did does not prove much of anything about the legitimacy of the test.



sac said:

The Middle School students taking geometry (normally a freshman honors or sophomore grade-level course) are the accelerated students who are on track to take calculus in their junior year of HS.  I am not surprised that a high percentage of them met/exceeded expectations, given that these are the "cream of the crop" math students in the district. In fact, I'm surprised that ANY of them did not.  Whatever they did does not prove much of anything about the legitimacy of the test.

It shows that the geometry test appears to test geometry. Despite the accelerated students' talents, it's unlikely that many kids could meet/exceed expectations if the curriculum didn't teach the standards tested on the geometry PARCC test.

What it may also demonstrate is that it's more passable when you have "cream-of-the-crop" teachers who are strong in teaching the material and in familiarity with the standards. 

I don't know if it is part of the purpose (or possible) here, but I heard about this being done in another state/district: When weaker teachers were teaching specific courses, their positions were eliminated by eliminating the courses they taught. This got around lengthier processes of dismissal that must otherwise be followed. Can this be done by eliminating just the level of the course they teach? Not sure.


Governor Murphy has said he intends to get rid of PARCC. So consideration of the test in planning is no longer relevant. 


ska said:

Governor Murphy has said he intends to get rid of PARCC. So consideration of the test in planning is no longer relevant. 

While me may go the route of using other tests, as other states are doing (such as SAT/ACT for graduation reqs), that will still include 'passing' a test that assesses geometry.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.