Stem realignment

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?

when my daughter was at Columbia all level 5 classes were AP classes.  If that is still the case then yes.  That level 5 class , whether taken by a 10th grader or a 12th grader is a college level class.  An  A would earn a 5 on the GPA and if the student scores a 4 or a 5 on the AP test they would likely get credit for the class at most US universities. 

sarahzm said:

when my daughter was at Columbia all level 5 classes were AP classes.  If that is still the case then yes.  That level 5 class , whether taken by a 10th grader or a 12th grader is a college level class.  An  A would earn a 5 on the GPA and if the student scores a 4 or a 5 on the AP test they would likely get credit for the class at most US universities. 

If that was true at one time, it is no longer the case, and wasn’t during my current college freshman’s years at CHS. AP is Level 6. See the chart that sprout posted yesterday.

DaveSchmidt said:

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.

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

This realignment was put together very quickly and without substantial input from teachers or parents. I think a lot of details still need to be filled in.

sprout,

I have a college freshman and a current junior who both took L5 Physics in 10th grade.  Math was not the only difference between L4 and L5, the pace and depth of material was greater.

Let's not get too hung-up on what the website says about courses considering Peter Horoshack is still reference any number of times on the website, and he was superintendent before we came to the district, 16 years ago!

sprout said:

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. 

chalmers said:

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.

It's a shame that members of the BOE & the District is looking to reduce educational opportunities for students.  

What I particularly find offensive is the lie that we've got (had) too many levels, or that levels are not "best practice".  West Orange and Montclair, both similarly ethnically diverse districts have similar levels in their Math Programs.

West Orange is actually looking to increase the number of levels (pathways) and Math offerings for next year (honors & regular), and Montclair is able to keep L5 (high honors) as well as "jump up" opportunities during the school year.

With only 1 Algebra 1 offering in 9th grade, WE here at MAPSO are the outliers! 

tbd said:

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)

By pushing higher-level students into what is essentially Level 3 (possibly 3.5) the district can boast that they've eliminated a level with zero percent passage and improved it to 50 percent or thereabouts.

sarahzm 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?

when my daughter was at Columbia all level 5 classes were AP classes.  If that is still the case then yes.  That level 5 class , whether taken by a 10th grader or a 12th grader is a college level class.  An  A would earn a 5 on the GPA and if the student scores a 4 or a 5 on the AP test they would likely get credit for the class at most US universities. 

In the period when my kids (CHS '09 and '13) were there, AP classes got an extra GPA "bump" above level 5.  I think that was shown in the GPA chart someone posted earlier in this thread.  (And the course numbers had a 6 in them so I guess that means that AP was "level 6" in some sense.)

As a parent I would not be worried about the impact on GPA of this realignment at all.  (See my post above about what the colleges do with the information.)  

What I would be worried about is the loss of the content and rigor that was in the level 5 classes for those students who don't take AP instead or in the lower grades (starting in 8th grade math and adding in Physics 1 sophomore year) where there is no AP alternative for the course they are taking.  IF honors classes will now be taught at the same level that was formerly level 5, then great!  But I don't know how the teachers will be able to do that unless there will be significant reductions in class size and I haven't heard that to be part of the plan.

I absolutely believe that we need to address whatever barriers exist that keep some students from being able to take these classes, but I don't see how taking a whole set of high-content/high-rigor courses out of the curriculum solves the problem.

sac said:

What I would be worried about is the loss of the content and rigor that was in the level 5 classes for those students who don't take AP instead or in the lower grades (starting in 8th grade math and adding in Physics 1 sophomore year) where there is no AP alternative for the course they are taking.  IF honors classes will now be taught at the same level that was formerly level 5, then great!  But I don't know how the teachers will be able to do that unless there will be significant reductions in class size and I haven't heard that to be part of the plan.

If I’m reading the slides right, the Level 5 sections that are being eliminated are in ninth-grade geometry, 10th-grade physics and algebra II, and 11th-grade chemistry and precalculus. The most advanced math students are unaffected, because they’re taking geometry, algebra II and precalc a year earlier than those grades. I speculated about physics in a previous post. If I correctly recall past comments by Mr. Tumolillo (CHS science teacher), Level 5 chemistry and AP chemistry follow the same or a very similar curriculum, the difference being the pace because AP chemistry needs to cover the material in time for the May exam.

So the issue appears to be combining Levels 4 and 5 in non-advanced geometry, algebra II and precalc and in physics, with the question being: How wide are the gaps in rigor and content between those levels?

sac said:

sarahzm said:

when my daughter was at Columbia all level 5 classes were AP classes.  

In the period when my kids (CHS '09 and '13) were there, AP classes got an extra GPA "bump" above level 5.  I think that was shown in the GPA chart someone posted earlier in this thread.  (And the course numbers had a 6 in them so I guess that means that AP was "level 6" in some sense.)

Sarahzm’s daughter, then, must have attended before 2006.

It seems like a lot of levels.  My child did Honors Algebra 1 in 8th grade in Geometry in 9th, which was level 5 then.  The rest of the students did Algebra 1 in both 8th and 9th grade, or took Geometry as 8th graders. There was also a Level 3 2 year Algebra course, but I have no idea how that differed from the Level 4 2 year Algebra class. As for teachers, I haven't found that the worst teachers were assigned to lower level classes.  In a different district, My kid originally opted to not take AP Calc in her senior year, but the teacher was horrible- she was new, knew nothing about Calc and was failing all the students because she was re-using tests, but had not taught the concepts.  I had my kid tutored by the head of the math department, and she (the tutor) told us to transfer to AP Calc.  Kid did and was fine.  In the regular Calc, all the kids ended up getting tutors because the teacher was so bad.  Parents were freaking out because their kids were getting C's and D's and that would ruin their transcripts.  She didn't take the AP test, but ended up placing in Engineering Calc at her university.

In Middle school, we have 3 levels for Math - regular, enriched and Accelerated.  LA only has regular and enriched (honors).  The difference to me is that when my kid was in unleveled classes at SOMS, she learned little, wasn't challenged and allowed to coast.  Here, there are pretty strict standards to be in Honors.  85 avg and above to stay in Honors or AP, 90 or above if you are trying to move up.  The difference for me, is that my son, who will probably not be in Honors classes, except possibly math or science, is still going to get a good education.  At SOMS the non-leveled classes were hit or miss (mostly miss) but the teachers seemed to not care too much about how the kids did, and there were several classes where it was just out of control discipline wise (or maybe in honors classes, the kids and parents were more proactive).  

I don't know if the PARCC has made a difference, but the things my average 7th grader is learning in his average classes are way beyond what my daughter was learning in her Honors level classes.  So, the difference might not be the teachers, or the curriculum, but possibly that the PARCC is much more challenging than the NJASK, and some kids who might need that extra time to understand a concept haven't covered all the material  they need to do well on the PARCC, or that the teacher is trying to cover all the subject matter, but the kids aren't able to absorb the quicker pace and don't get the concepts.

As to colleges, they will look at the school profile and restate it to be equivalent.  For example, we have no + grades.  80-84 is a B-, 85-89 in a B.  they also will weight however they want.  Some universities might put an AP A as a 6.0, others might weight differently.  They also look at what classes you took vs what classes are available.

DaveSchmidt said:

sac said:

What I would be worried about is the loss of the content and rigor that was in the level 5 classes for those students who don't take AP instead or in the lower grades (starting in 8th grade math and adding in Physics 1 sophomore year) where there is no AP alternative for the course they are taking.  IF honors classes will now be taught at the same level that was formerly level 5, then great!  But I don't know how the teachers will be able to do that unless there will be significant reductions in class size and I haven't heard that to be part of the plan.

If I’m reading the slides right, the Level 5 sections that are being eliminated are in ninth-grade geometry, 10th-grade physics and algebra II, and 11th-grade chemistry and precalculus. The most advanced math students are unaffected, because they’re taking geometry, algebra II and precalc a year earlier than those grades. I speculated about physics in a previous post. If I correctly recall past comments by Mr. Tumolillo (CHS science teacher), Level 5 chemistry and AP chemistry follow the same or a very similar curriculum, the difference being the pace because AP chemistry needs to cover the material in time for the May exam.

So the issue appears to be combining Levels 4 and 5 in non-advanced geometry, algebra II and precalc and in physics, with the question being: How wide are the gaps in rigor and content between those levels?

My child is disappointed by the elimination of Level 5 chemistry.  Kid is acing Level 5 physics but already has 3 APs planned for 11th grade so will probably do Level 4.  He also thinks fewer options does not help students.

Does anyone know when parents will have a chance to address this proposed change/ask questions?  Apparently it was not addressed (except to say what it is) at the freshman online registration meeting.

chalmers said:

My child is disappointed by the elimination of Level 5 chemistry.  Kid is acing Level 5 physics but already has 3 APs planned for 11th grade so will probably do Level 4.  He also thinks fewer options does not help students.

What do his fellow sophomores in Level 2 and Level 3 classes think?

DaveSchmidt said:

chalmers said:

My child is disappointed by the elimination of Level 5 chemistry.  Kid is acing Level 5 physics but already has 3 APs planned for 11th grade so will probably do Level 4.  He also thinks fewer options does not help students.

What do his fellow sophomores in Level 2 and Level 3 classes think?

With the Access and Equity policy, they could choose any level.  

chalmers said:

DaveSchmidt 

What do his fellow sophomores in Level 2 and Level 3 classes think?

With the Access and Equity policy, they could choose any level.  

I asked what they thought. Your kid’s opinion was worth sharing. They might have a different one about who is helped.

DaveSchmidt said:

chalmers said:

DaveSchmidt 

What do his fellow sophomores in Level 2 and Level 3 classes think?

With the Access and Equity policy, they could choose any level.  

I asked what they thought. Your kid’s opinion was worth sharing. They might have a different one about who is helped.

Maybe someone who has a child in Level 2 or 3 science can chime in but I don't see how taking away academically challenging classes helps kids who don't choose those classes.

the Board has  approved these changes. Too late to express our opinions. Guess what?  We all need to attend the Board of  Ed meetings!

Today, February 27, 2018, the Black Parents Workshop filed a federal lawsuit (Docket 2:18-cv-02726) in U.S. District Court in the District of New Jersey in Newark against the South Orange-Maplewood School District alleging violations of multiple federal and state laws as a result of discriminatory policies and practices harming African-American students. Black Parents Workshop v. The South Orange-Maplewood School District targets the tracking of African-American students intolower-level and less rigorous courses, the disproportionate punishment African-American students receive through the disciplinary process, the district’s failure to provide legally prescribed supports and services to students with disabilities, and its maintenance of de facto segregated K-5 elementary schools. The lawsuit is the result of the district’s failure to comply with a U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Resolution Agreement, and the resulting harm done African-American students during the period 2014-2018 as result of the district’s failure, and the long-term impact of the district’s discriminatory policies and practices on African-American students enrolled in all schools in the South Orange-Maplewood School District. https://www.facebook.com/SOMABlackParentsWorkshop/posts/1520886058038402

#14 merge our district with a neighboring urban school district.

They want Principal Aaron fired. And the principal of Seth Boyden. They want $5M for tutors for AA kids, $2M to recruit AA teachers, $2M for disabled kids.

The topics are related, but FWIW, I created a separate thread on the lawsuit:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/black-parents-workshop-lawsuit

how about a few

Million to serve the gifted kids in our district. There is a law saying that NJ needs to serve these kids too and there is no gifted program. Black and white and Hispanic and Asian gifted kids

safetyfirst said:

how about a few

Million to serve the gifted kids in our district. There is a law saying that NJ needs to serve these kids too and there is no gifted program. Black and white and Hispanic and Asian gifted kids

If you believe this is a serious deficiency, the SOMA Black Parents Workshop has given you one model for holding the district’s feet to the fire over a period of years to address it.

safetyfirst said:

how about a few

Million to serve the gifted kids in our district. There is a law saying that NJ needs to serve these kids too and there is no gifted program. Black and white and Hispanic and Asian gifted kids

From the January BOE meeting (and linked in the updates the district sends out after each meeting):

Superintendent’s Report:
District Goals 2017-18
January 22, 2018
Dr. Thomas Ficarra | Interim Superintendent of Schools

https://somsd.schoolboard.net/sites/nj.somsd.schoolboard.net/files/B.%20Superintendent%27s%20Report%20to%20Board%2C%20January%2022%2C%202018.pdf

(see slide 16)

Goal 3
Preparation for, and Successful Completion of, the District’s QSAC Review for 2017-2018 school year
●Oct. 2017 - Feb. 2018: Update and revise 143 curricula
●Oct. 2017 - Mar. 2018: Identify and update mandatory policies
●Oct. 2017 - Mar. 2018: Ensure compliance with all Special Education code
●Jan. - June 2018: Implement State-compliant Gifted & Talented programming
●Mar. 2018: Board approve all updated mandatory policies

ah. Thanks for pointing that out!

DaveSchmidt said:

sac said:

What I would be worried about is the loss of the content and rigor that was in the level 5 classes for those students who don't take AP instead or in the lower grades (starting in 8th grade math and adding in Physics 1 sophomore year) where there is no AP alternative for the course they are taking.  IF honors classes will now be taught at the same level that was formerly level 5, then great!  But I don't know how the teachers will be able to do that unless there will be significant reductions in class size and I haven't heard that to be part of the plan.

If I’m reading the slides right, the Level 5 sections that are being eliminated are in ninth-grade geometry, 10th-grade physics and algebra II, and 11th-grade chemistry and precalculus. The most advanced math students are unaffected, because they’re taking geometry, algebra II and precalc a year earlier than those grades. I speculated about physics in a previous post. If I correctly recall past comments by Mr. Tumolillo (CHS science teacher), Level 5 chemistry and AP chemistry follow the same or a very similar curriculum, the difference being the pace because AP chemistry needs to cover the material in time for the May exam.

So the issue appears to be combining Levels 4 and 5 in non-advanced geometry, algebra II and precalc and in physics, with the question being: How wide are the gaps in rigor and content between those levels?

There used to be level 5 in Algebra I also (the 8th graders who were level 5 plus the 7th graders who were accelerated.)  And the accelerated students starting in 8th grade were taking level 5 classes at CHS in Geometry (8th grade), Algebra 2 (9th grade) and Pre-calc (10th grade), often with students one grade ahead of them who were accelerated by one year rather than two.  So ... do those accelerated students still have those level 5-equivalent classes to take?  And, if so, why shouldn't students a year older have the option to take them if they didn't accelerate in middle school but are capable of that level of course rigor?

I will freely admit that I no longer have students in the schools (and haven't for 5 years), so I may well have missed some pieces of the puzzle here.  Just trying to understand what has been taken away and what remains for our students.  As a math geek myself as well as having seen the quality of courses my children were able to take in our schools, I care very much about maintaining the high quality math curriculum here.  I ALSO care very much that ALL students have access to it.

sac said:

There used to be level 5 in Algebra I also (the 8th graders who were level 5 plus the 7th graders who were accelerated.)  And the accelerated students starting in 8th grade were taking level 5 classes at CHS in Geometry (8th grade), Algebra 2 (9th grade) and Pre-calc (10th grade), often with students one grade ahead of them who were accelerated by one year rather than two.  So ... do those accelerated students still have those level 5-equivalent classes to take?  And, if so, why shouldn't students a year older have the option to take them if they didn't accelerate in middle school but are capable of that level of course rigor?

I don’t know if Algebra I in the middle schools is still currently Level 5, but, yes, the current eighth-grade geometry is listed as Level 5, so my statement that “the most advanced math studenta are unaffected” was incorrect in that regard. They’ll remain a year advanced, but in honors instead of Level 5.

ETA: To the last question, my own answer would be that public education has greater priorities than ensuring that students get the rigor they are capable of, which may involve choices geared toward other students instead.

DaveSchmidt said:


ETA: To the last question, my own answer would be that public education has greater priorities than ensuring that students get the rigor they are capable of, which may involve choices geared toward other students instead.

Well, that may be, but we HAD that kind of rigor and it sounds like now we are taking it away to solve a segregation problem.  I would have prefered that we kept the rigor and figured out how to make it available to ALL students.

well taking away opportunities for kids that are accelerating is a problem. Eventually people will not choose to live in this district if their kids are not offered quality education. As much as I love the town and the parks and the picturesque homes I am really not happy with the school system.  The schools ought to be able to figure out how to serve children of all abilities. God knows we are paying enough in taxes.  I have a coworkerbWho chose millburn over Maplewood for the schools.  The problems facing students who lag behind are complex

And multiple and started long before they entered high school. It will be interesting to see how kids fair on the PARCC without the leveling.  Teachers need to continue to teach the curriculum of the class. If kids don’t belong in the class they need to move out of it instead of teaching “down”. Not fair and doesn’t serve anyone at all.

What greater priority is there than ensuring kids get the rigor that they are capable of?!!!!   That doesn’t make any sense at all!!! What then is education?????!????

safetyfirst said:

What greater priority is there than ensuring kids get the rigor that they are capable of?!!!!   That doesn’t make any sense at all!!! What then is education?????!????

Actually, after some Facebook conversations with some people who know more about it than I do, I have come to the conclusion that the new pattern likely does (or at least can) have at least as much rigor, without some of the "confusion" of the old system, so I think I will give it a chance to prove out before questioning it further.

you have a good attitude. But it will not work