Stem realignment

sprout said:



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.

Well,

  My son is in accelerated math with an excellent and experienced teacher.  I know she also teaches other non accelerated classes, however, so I don't think specific teachers can be targeted.  

sprout said:

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. 

are you aware that in most cases you don't have one teacher teaching just lower level classes and another teaching higher level class.   THE SAME TEACHER  will teach a subject at a variety of levels.  So, one teacher will teach a level 3 Geometry class one period and a level 5 geometry class the next period. 

sarahzm said:
are you aware that in most cases you don't have one teacher teaching just lower level classes and another teaching higher level class.   THE SAME TEACHER  will teach a subject at a variety of levels.  So, one teacher will teach a level 3 Geometry class one period and a level 5 geometry class the next period. 

Yes. What I've seen in some other schools is that a strong teacher will be given a variety of levels of courses to teach, but that a teacher who is not perceived as very strong, or is teaching outside of their certificated content area, will not be given any honors or AP classes to teach.

sprout said:

sarahzm said:
are you aware that in most cases you don't have one teacher teaching just lower level classes and another teaching higher level class.   THE SAME TEACHER  will teach a subject at a variety of levels.  So, one teacher will teach a level 3 Geometry class one period and a level 5 geometry class the next period. 

Yes. What I've seen in some other schools is that a strong teacher will be given a variety of levels of courses to teach, but that a teacher who is not perceived as very strong, or is teaching outside of their certificated content area, will not be given any honors or AP classes to teach.

well,  when you posted this in reference to the fact that level 3 geometry students failed to meet the standards of the PARCC test, but 7th and 8th grade geometry students succeeded - 

"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."

you seemed to say otherwise. So if you were aware that at CHS "cream of the crop" teachers do not just teach the top levels, then your post was purposely misleading. 

Also, in another post you say that level 3 classes are "honors" level classes.   As far as I know that has never been the case.   Level 5 is true honors - AP level and accelerated students, mostly "A" students.   Level 4 was called "honors' but in reality was students with B and A averages who did not make it into AP classes but were college bound.   Level 3 was basically students maintaining C averages and below.   Level 3 met basic grade level requirements but was never considered "honors".     Have things changed ??

It also chops off the top level of 10th grade Science.  What is the "educational best practice" reason for removing a fast paced Level 5 Physics class for which there is most definitely a cohort for?  

Sorry future scientists and engineers, suffer in Honors Physics.

sprout said:

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 question is how are they going to handle the advanced students who have IEPs and need support (2E).  Right now, there is no SpEd teacher added to AP classes so the highest your child can go is honors (if they need the support a SpEd teacher provides).  If the classes are "de-leveled" or actually merged, odds are, the honors class is not going to teach to the level it does now.  Will a SpEd teacher be added to AP or will our kids end up bored and therefore distracted (which leads to not learning because they no longer pay attention) because they aren't being challenged. 

Personally, I'd like to see a separate track that is taught like Dr. Stornetta's Algebra 1 class my daughter took last year.  They used Khan Academy which allowed the kids to pace themselves and were broken into groups based on their ability and progress.  There were also leads in each group who assisted in the learning process.  Plus they were tested on old sections as well as new so it really ensured the kids new their stuff inside and out.  Perhaps this is the answer for motivated kids.  Mine finished Algebra 1 about 2/3 of the way through the year.  It would have been great if she could have advanced to the next year's work.  We were told (with a few other kids/parents) that our kids should take geometry over the summer as they were ready to advance a grade.  Unfortunately, my kid was not able to as she had another summer commitment. 

Bottom line, there needs to be more thought and perhaps it is just communication, on how the de-leveling is going to work to best educate our children.  The answer is not that 1 teacher will be able to properly teach multiple levels in 1 classroom. That is appropriate for elementary school, not the upper grades.

sarahzm said:

well,  when you posted this in reference to the fact that level 3 geometry students failed to meet the standards of the PARCC test, but 7th and 8th grade geometry students succeeded - 

"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."

you seemed to say otherwise. So if you were aware that at CHS "cream of the crop" teachers do not just teach the top levels, then your post was purposely misleading.

Having top educators teach some lower levels still leaves room for some lower levels to be taught by not-top educators who teach only lower levels. That’s all I took from sprout’s comment. No advocacy beyond a simple acknowledgment, and certainly no intent to deceive.

Also, in another post you say that level 3 classes are "honors" level classes. 

I must have missed that.

tbd said:

It also chops off the top level of 10th grade Science.  What is the "educational best practice" reason for removing a fast paced Level 5 Physics class for which there is most definitely a cohort for?  

Sorry future scientists and engineers, suffer in Honors Physics.

Maybe they can salve their wounds in AP Physics two years later.

From what I’ve heard from teachers, no two classes are the same, even within levels. One Level X class will move faster or slower than another Level X class in any given year, just as one AP X class will move faster or slower than AP X classes in previous years. In other words, the differences between Level 5 and Level 4 physics classes are probably variable anyway, and whatever suffering those differences are causing may be little affected by eliminating one of the two levels.

That or those two levels are filled with kids who don't like Math and don't intend to persue careers in that direction, but have one more year of mandatory Math, they might be students who are new or relatively new to the district who's Math skills are way behind where they should be.  Unless you know for sure, it may not be a level or teacher thing at all. 

When L2 & L3 Geometry is combined with L4 Geometry in 10th grade, and there still are the same number of failures, what then?

Will teachers now be responsible for INSURING that all their students pass?  (why not, that's just like the real world)

sprout said:

[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. 

That tells me a lot.  Do you really think that's fair?

DaveSchmidt said:

Maybe they can salve their wounds in AP Physics two years later.

tbd said:

That tells me a lot.  Do you really think that's fair?

DaveSchmidt said:

Maybe they can salve their wounds in AP Physics two years later.

I think it’s fair that the future scientists and engineers you mentioned have AP Physics to look forward to. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that the difference between Level 4 and Level 5 10th-grade physics will damage their aspirations.

That's exactly what this high school has become; a waiting game until AP classes.

DaveSchmidt said:

I think it’s fair that the future scientists and engineers you mentioned have AP Physics to look forward to. 

tbd said:

That's exactly what this high school has become; a waiting game for AP classes.

That tells me a lot. Do you really think that’s fair?

tbd said:

That's exactly what this high school has become; a waiting game until AP classes.

DaveSchmidt said:

I think it’s fair that the future scientists and engineers you mentioned have AP Physics to look forward to. 

That's quite far from the truth.  My youngest has, despite not particularly enjoying school and homework, learned quite a bit in L4 and L5 classes.  

Could these classes be better?  Probably.  Almost anything can be improved.

But the situation is not nearly as dire as discussions about education make it seem.

tjohn said:

tbd said:

That's exactly what this high school has become; a waiting game until AP classes.

That's quite far from the truth.  My youngest has, despite not particularly enjoying school and homework, learned quite a bit in L4 and L5 classes.  

Could these classes be better?  Probably.  Almost anything can be improved.

But the situation is not nearly as dire as discussions about education make it seem.

Agreed, but maybe tbd’s CHS experience has been different.

I have no doubt that your student learned in Level 5 (advanced Honors) classes, mine as well.

Level 5 classes are being eliminated.

tjohn said:

tbd said:

That's exactly what this high school has become; a waiting game until AP classes.

DaveSchmidt said:

I think it’s fair that the future scientists and engineers you mentioned have AP Physics to look forward to. 

That's quite far from the truth.  My youngest has, despite not particularly enjoying school and homework, learned quite a bit in L4 and L5 classes.  

Could these classes be better?  Probably.  Almost anything can be improved.

But the situation is not nearly as dire as discussions about education make it seem.

Ah, now I understand your concern.

tbd said:

I have no doubt that your student learned in Level 5 (advanced Honors) classes, mine as well.

Level 5 classes are being eliminated.

tjohn said:

tbd said:

That's exactly what this high school has become; a waiting game until AP classes.

DaveSchmidt said:

I think it’s fair that the future scientists and engineers you mentioned have AP Physics to look forward to. 

That's quite far from the truth.  My youngest has, despite not particularly enjoying school and homework, learned quite a bit in L4 and L5 classes.  

Could these classes be better?  Probably.  Almost anything can be improved.

But the situation is not nearly as dire as discussions about education make it seem.

So zero percent of the students in level L2 or L3 passed the at grade level PARCC. I think it would be worth considering that L2 & L3 classes are not teaching the content required to meet grade level requirements. I mean, I would assume that at least some of the students in these two levels are doing their homework and getting good grades in the class. 

DaveSchmidt said:




 In other words, the differences between Level 5 and Level 4 physics classes are probably variable anyway, and whatever suffering those differences are causing may be little affected by eliminating one of the two levels.

NOPE - TOTALLY WRONG.    Level 5 is AP or COLLEGE LEVEL -  students who score  a 5 or a 4 on the AP test actually get college credit.   Level 5 classes have a very specific curriculum that is geared toward the AP test.    Level 4 is "honors" physics.   It's high school physics - thats all.  The curriculum is not at all the same. 

Level 4 or "honors" classes are weighted differently in one's GPA.     A student earning an "A" in a level 4 class will be credited with a "4"  in their GPA.   A student earning an A in an AP class will be credited with a "5" on their GPA.    That is how students are able to have GPAs higher than 4 which would be a straight A Score. 

I get that you may think that depending on the teacher and the class itself, some level 4 classes might move faster or slower than others, but If you think the differences between level 4 and level 5 physics are variable, then have your kid try applying to a top college with no level 5 classes.   You wont like the result. 

sarahzm said:

Level 4 or "honors" classes are weighted differently in one's GPA.     A student earning an "A" in a level 4 class will be credited with a "4"  in their GPA.   A student earning an A in an AP class will be credited with a "5" on their GPA.    That is how students are able to have GPAs higher than 4 which would be a straight A Score. 

I had no idea. Do kids in Level 5 10th-grade physics also get an extra point above kids in Level 4?

tbd said:

It also chops off the top level of 10th grade Science.  What is the "educational best practice" reason for removing a fast paced Level 5 Physics class for which there is most definitely a cohort for?  

Sorry future scientists and engineers, suffer in Honors Physics.

sprout said:

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.

FWIW: From the 2017-18 Course guide:

https://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/cms/lib/NJ01001050/Centricity/Domain/94/Course%20Offering%20Guide%20as%20of%20Nov%2028.pdf

Physics
Year, 6.0 credits, Levels: 2, 3, 4, 5
Grade 10
This is a course for all sophomores presenting Physics as a fundamental science. The curriculum is organized into units focusing on discovery of: Motion, Force, Gravitation, Circular Motion, Momentum, Energy, Heat, Electricity, Magnetism, Waves and Electromagnetic Radiation. Laboratory experiences are used extensively. Students at all levels are expected to understand each of the fundamental concepts. Level differentiation is based on the complexity of the mathematics involved. 

sprout said:

sarahzm said:
are you aware that in most cases you don't have one teacher teaching just lower level classes and another teaching higher level class.   THE SAME TEACHER  will teach a subject at a variety of levels.  So, one teacher will teach a level 3 Geometry class one period and a level 5 geometry class the next period. 

Yes. What I've seen in some other schools is that a strong teacher will be given a variety of levels of courses to teach, but that a teacher who is not perceived as very strong, or is teaching outside of their certificated content area, will not be given any honors or AP classes to teach.

One of my daughters was in the accelerated math group and had the same teacher all four years at CHS.  That teacher was excellent!  He also taught the lowest level math students (level 2 I think) in addition to several of the advanced honors and AP classes.

sarahzm said:

you seemed to say otherwise. So if you were aware that at CHS "cream of the crop" teachers do not just teach the top levels, then your post was purposely misleading. 

I do not specifically know the quality of the Level 2 or Level 3 Geometry teachers at CHS. What I related is what I have observed in other schools (as I indicated with the words " What I've seen in some other schools", which you actually quoted). 

Also, I am coming up with hypotheses here, so my use of the word "may" was intended to indicate a possibility, not an absolute.

DaveSchmidt said:

sarahzm said:

Level 4 or "honors" classes are weighted differently in one's GPA.     A student earning an "A" in a level 4 class will be credited with a "4"  in their GPA.   A student earning an A in an AP class will be credited with a "5" on their GPA.    That is how students are able to have GPAs higher than 4 which would be a straight A Score. 

I had no idea. Do kids in Level 5 10th-grade physics also get an extra point above kids in Level 4?

FWIW: The weighted GPA is listed here (Levels 5 & 6 were weighted the same):

https://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/Page/3595

sprout said:

DaveSchmidt said:

sarahzm said:

Level 4 or "honors" classes are weighted differently in one's GPA.     A student earning an "A" in a level 4 class will be credited with a "4"  in their GPA.   A student earning an A in an AP class will be credited with a "5" on their GPA.    That is how students are able to have GPAs higher than 4 which would be a straight A Score. 

I had no idea. Do kids in Level 5 10th-grade physics also get an extra point above kids in Level 4?

FWIW: The weighted GPA is listed here:

https://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/Page/3595

College admissions offices tend not to use the weighted GPAs provided on high school transcripts because different schools calculate their GPAs differently.  My understanding is that most colleges look at the transcripts and recalculated the GPAs according to their own "formula" for consistency.

sprout said:

DaveSchmidt said:

sarahzm said:

Level 4 or "honors" classes are weighted differently in one's GPA.     A student earning an "A" in a level 4 class will be credited with a "4"  in their GPA.   A student earning an A in an AP class will be credited with a "5" on their GPA.    That is how students are able to have GPAs higher than 4 which would be a straight A Score. 

I had no idea. Do kids in Level 5 10th-grade physics also get an extra point above kids in Level 4?

FWIW: The weighted GPA is listed here (Levels 5 & 6 were weighted the same):

https://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/Page/3595

Thanks. So losing Level 5 physics risks costing a student 0.33 points for one class.

sarahzm said:

Also, in another post you say that level 3 classes are "honors" level classes.   As far as I know that has never been the case.   

Um, actually I said

 "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. "

The fact that you thought I said "Honors" when I said "College Prep" illustrates my point of how the name could be misleading. 

And if you look at the table above, you'll see it's actually L2 AND L3 that are called "College Prep".

sac said:

College admissions offices tend not to use the weighted GPAs provided on high school transcripts because different schools calculate their GPAs differently.  My understanding is that most colleges look at the transcripts and recalculated the GPAs according to their own "formula" for consistency.

Thanks for this, too.

Back to the OP's question about what the STEM realignment means, it means the majority of current 8th grade students who take 8th grade math are cheated out of taking honor's level math next year because the district eliminated any honors level of Algebra 1 for 9th graders.  I don't see how having fewer options helps students.

dk50b said:

My question is how are they going to handle the advanced students who have IEPs and need support (2E).  Right now, there is no SpEd teacher added to AP classes so the highest your child can go is honors (if they need the support a SpEd teacher provides).  If the classes are "de-leveled" or actually merged, odds are, the honors class is not going to teach to the level it does now.  Will a SpEd teacher be added to AP or will our kids end up bored and therefore distracted (which leads to not learning because they no longer pay attention) because they aren't being challenged. 

Personally, I'd like to see a separate track that is taught like Dr. Stornetta's Algebra 1 class my daughter took last year.  They used Khan Academy which allowed the kids to pace themselves and were broken into groups based on their ability and progress.  There were also leads in each group who assisted in the learning process.  Plus they were tested on old sections as well as new so it really ensured the kids new their stuff inside and out.  Perhaps this is the answer for motivated kids.  Mine finished Algebra 1 about 2/3 of the way through the year.  It would have been great if she could have advanced to the next year's work.  We were told (with a few other kids/parents) that our kids should take geometry over the summer as they were ready to advance a grade.  Unfortunately, my kid was not able to as she had another summer commitment. 

Bottom line, there needs to be more thought and perhaps it is just communication, on how the de-leveling is going to work to best educate our children.  The answer is not that 1 teacher will be able to properly teach multiple levels in 1 classroom. That is appropriate for elementary school, not the upper grades.

This remains a good question, if anyone can shed light on how the district expects this to work.