District Releases Early 7th Grade De-Leveling Results

"There are no structural changes to the 8th grade being proposed tonight."

So said Superintendent of Schools Brian Osborne to the the South Orange-Maplewood Board of Education on Monday, May 16, 2011.

Osborne's comment was meant to answer unequivocably either the fears or expectations of parents gathered to speak on both sides of the issue. Early in the meeting, during the first public comment segment, a number of parents — and one 6th grade student — spoke against combining Levels 3 and 4 in 8th grade English language arts, science and social studies.

7th grade Levels 3 and 4 had been combined or "leveled up" by a vote of the Board of Education last June. This past school year has been the first year where Levels 3 and 4 in 7th grade English language arts, science and social studies had been combined.

Rusty Reeves, the father of four children in the district, questioned the argument that differentiated instruction was providing rigor in the absence of levels. Reeves said that his 4th grader had only had one take-home writing assignment this semester. In a pointed remark to the Superintendent, Reeves asked, "When, if ever, does the superintendent support classes where entry is determinied by achievement?"

Jennifer Meusel said she was happy to hear that no action would be taken to de-level 8th grade immediately. She said that curriculum changes at the middle schools were not working. Meusel said that the promised smaller class sizes had not happened and that teaching teachers to differentiate instruction during the year was not working. "You're pulling teachers out to teach them how to teach. There is no learning going on." Added Meusel, "We all know there is no learning with substitute teachers." Meusel said her son "does nothing" in class and gets As. "This is not leveled up, but de-leveled."

Donna Smith read an excerpt from her college-age son reminiscing about a mixed level English class he took at Columbia High. "The class was somewhat of a joke," read Smith.

6th grader Grant Thieroff said that he realized that leveling was considered "politically incorrect" and "racist," but Thieroff felt that de-leveling was lowering the achievement bar for all students.

Later in the evening, school district CIO Paul Roth presented "very, very preliminary" data from the current 7th grade class. The data were based on report cards for the first three quarters of the year as well as level recommendations for the students for 8th grade placement. The data did not include NJ ASK scores or midterms — nor, of course, finals.

Roth said that for the 6th grade — which had experienced its own curriculum changes this year reinforcing core subject areas — the percentage of students earning As and Bs across all four subjects had increased, while the percentage earning Ds and Fs had decreased. Roth said that the trends showed the same when disaggregated for white and black students.

In grade 7, Roth found 46-52% of those designated at Level 3 — but "leveled up" into a combined Level 3/4 class — were being recommended for 8th grade Level 4 as compared to 17-22% in 2009-2010.

And 10-15% of those recommended for Level 2 in 7th grade were being recommended for Level 4 in 8th grade as compared to 4-5% in 2009-10.

Roth said that all demographic groups improved in general.

In addition, 19% of Level Up students (or those designated as Level 3 but "leveled up" into a combined 3/4) had achieved A's in Level 4. 60% of Level 4 students earned A's. Meanwhile, 38% of Level Up students achieved B's in Level 4, compared to 32% of Level 4 students.

Osborne stressed repeatedly that the data were "very, very preliminary." Board member Lynne Crawford expressed concern about possible grade inflation. Osborne said he shared her concern, but that grade overlap in the two levels countered that possibility: Some of the Level 3 students were scoring better than those who would have been assigned Level 4.

On the positive side, said Osborne, "It's just possible that more kids were capable of more than we thought possible."

He added later, "The grade overlap is the only valid take-away."

New Board member Bill Gaudelli was cautious: "We need full disclosure of what the data points are." Gaudelli thought this would "quell people's fears that we are cooking the books. We need to articulare data points, talk about benchmarks."

Despite the positive results, Board member Sandra Karriem noted that there was still a gap between white and black students.

Wayne Eastman and Mark Gleason noted that the results of the state tests would be critical. "There are value judgments involved in interpretations of data," said Eastman. "The overlap is interesting but we have to be careful of data presentations that could exacerbate disagreements."

Osborne assured all that the conversation about data and 8th grade de-leveling would happen "over a matter of months before we make any decision on structural changes."

Late in the evening, during the second public comment portion of the meeting, 10 parents approached the microphone separately to voice their strong support for de-leveling 8th grade immediately.

Said Jeff Mantis, "My 9th garder missed out on so much by being in classes with people just like her." Mantis said it was weird to "quibble about rigor when there's segregation" in the schools.

Esther Siskind was the most impassioned speaker. Siskind complained that the Board was using "excuses" to say why de-leveling could not happen in the coming school year. "The teachers would be appalled that you are using them as an excuse." Siskind talked of one middle school teacher who said she was ashamed to be teaching civil rights to what she termed a "segregated class." By delaying the decision to de-level 8th grade while waiting for further data, Siskind said, the district had "decided to write off 250 kids."

"If it was your own children," asked Elham Yassim, "would you wait one more year?"