Photos
Four years ago my husband and I, along with several other local parents, launched a campaign to bring the International Baccalaureate Program to our schools, particularly the Middle Years Program. With a son in middle school, I hold ever more fervently to those same core principles for our children: challenging, interdisciplinary, inquiry-based education that prepares our students for a global future.
I believe we must move our discussion of greater challenge in the middle school out of the deleveling debate. This only obscures the issue, making it a subset of another urgent matter--the achievement gap—thus making it part of a contentious, polarizing conversation. It makes those who are frustrated with even the upper level classes feel slighted and not heard. That’s because the discussion of how to deepen or improve our curriculum doesn’t belong in the deleveling debate. It deserves its own separate discussion and forum.
On December 5, at the first of a series of meetings on the middle school, Superintendent Brian Osborne spoke eloquently and clearly on the need for all students to be exposed to a rigorous curriculum. This accords with all national trends, and I could not agree more. We can ill afford, as a society, to have students who do not possess the critical skills and background to enroll, succeed and finish their college degrees. The days of students coasting on Cs with minimal skills or dawdling through two years of college– in this economy, in this changing world—are over.
Personally, I think the quibbling about numeric shifts in NJASK scores from one year to the next is fruitless, since narrowing the achievement gap is a long, arduous and complex process, particularly when we are analyzing students at the threshold, whose gains are fragile, and, as Board President Beth Daugherty pointed out, can easily drop from one category to another. The attention paid to these numeric fluctuations have become a huge distraction and has narrowed and demeaned the tenor of our conversation. It is time we put this energy into a more fruitful and open dialogue about the content of our curriculum. That is where the real discussion lies. That is where we—as Dr. Osborne so rightly observes—stand to become a national example of a diverse suburban district.
Middle school is a moment of academic and personal take-off for children. It is when they are individuating from their families; when they are putting their foundational skills to work in higher order thinking and learning discipline-based approaches; when they are beginning to wrestle with complex, moral questions, and discovering who they are in their community and in the world. That is why the question of content in middle school is so vital.
Thus far, as the parent of a 6th grader, I have been deeply impressed with the middle school staff and have no doubt that they too hold these core values for middle school education and can launch our students toward such academic and personal heights. My own middle schooler literally skips off every morning and comes back burbling and excited by his teachers.
Yet teachers are not captains of curriculum. The administration is. And it is time our administration communicates more clearly about what they believe constitutes excellence and rigor in our curriculum in the middle school. Does the administration’s idea of challenge accord with what we as parents want? Does it sync with trends nationally—in public and private schools? What are we hearing from our children? What expectations do we as parents, given our own backgrounds and education, bring to the curriculum? Can we do better?
Parents in our district do need to take a step back and realize that for the past four years, behind the scenes, the administration has been hard at work at some very serious reforms and training of teachers in curriculum. And that ultimately, they have been hired to carry forth their vision. However, the administration also needs to hear from the parents themselves about their impressions, their concerns about content and challenge—even at the high end—and the actual delivery of curriculum in the classroom. Instead of piecemeal anecdotes from parents, teachers, and students we need a more collaborative forum where we can trade ideas and thoughts about how best to build on the foundation that is being put in place under Dr. Osborne’s leadership.
The other night was one of the first times that we, as a public, were able to hear some detailed information about the middle school curricular changes and how they are adapting to the new Common Core Standards. We were also fortunate to have one Language Arts teacher explain her method in creating differentiated assignments. Yet the very format of the meeting—an hour-long recitation of Power Point slides—negated the chance to truly have a real conversation with our leaders and professionals about their hard work and our concerns.
I am also reminded of the man who installed the air conditioning in our house a few years ago—a small business owner who admitted to me, “You know, I’m as good as my worst technician.” We all can hold up our shining examples but it’s our less stellar moments that also need scrutiny and redress.
My own concern, as an author of fiction and nonfiction and a professor of English, has been about the level of reading, the nature of the writing assignments, and the question of whether we are fully instilling cultural literacy, global knowledge, and inter-disciplinary thinking in our children. I have been deeply heartened by the improvements to the curriculum and see much greater consistency and alignment. Yet I still believe we underestimate what literature our students can tackle, and what constitutes a well-rounded cultural education.
I have spoken to many parents who would prefer to see a better balance between classical texts and more contemporary titles, and to have our students exposed to more complex, literary language and form. For me, that means introducing students to authors such as Shakespeare beginning in 6th grade, and greater exposure to the classics of world literature. This accords with one of the main goals of the new Common Core standards, which states that students:
“…must grapple with works of that exceptional craft and thought whose range extends across genres, cultures and centuries. Along with high-quality contemporary works, these texts should be chosen from among seminal U.S. documents, the classics of American literature, and the timeless dramas of Shakespeare. Through wide and deep reading of literature and literary nonfiction of steadily increasing sophistication, students gain a reservoir of literary and cultural knowledge, references … and the capacity to surmount the challenges posed by complex texts.”
The new Common Core standards also call for a much greater amount of nonfiction.
This does not mean simply the insertion of a new nonfiction assignment or book, but infusing the curriculum with the kind of analysis and skeptical questioning that the reading of nonfiction demands, in all subjects. It also means more writing assignments that encourage students to conduct original research on primary sources in which they formulate theories and propose interpretations. I, personally, would like to see a greater variety of rhetorical approaches, chances to think across subject areas, and public speaking opportunities. Given the new pressures of these standards, we also need to institute a greater run-up in the elementary grades, where inquiry-based writing and social studies is sorely lacking.
I sometimes get the sense that administrators are exasperated by parents who demand a more rigorous curriculum or claim their gifted children are not being challenged enough.
That’s because talk of gifted children is yet another distraction and misnomer, for it does not get to the core issue of creating deeper, more challenging learning experiences. While we may not be the wealthiest suburb in terms of per capita income, we are one of the wealthier communities in terms of creativity and culture, and thus our children reflect these influences. At a time when many are lamenting the decline of reading and children being zonked out on X-box and videos, I don’t see that happening in this community. I see us as a place that has one of the few independent bookstores in the region. I see parents who read, and so their children read. I see parents coming out of the library towing huge bags of books. I see families who take their children to cultural events. Given this, there is no reason that we can’t have a rich curriculum that reflects our unique strengths. We can do more because our community already does more.
Finally, there is one last, but most important issue: passion. Students have individual passions. It may be something that has been nurtured in their home, or on their own, and they arrive in middle school with a degree of mastery in a subject that exceeds the curriculum. Or it may be dormant and murky, a talent they do not yet know about themselves. We must imagine a middle school system in which passion is not just the luck of an observant teacher or an assertive student, but woven into the curriculum itself.
I believe our greatest opportunity for passion lies right in front of us, in the newly created rotating period. Let us transform that twenty-five percent time into a door opening into passion. It can be used not just as reinforcement of content, but as a chance for students to soar, pursue individual interests and projects that go above and beyond the standard march through curriculum. It can be a venture where students who share the same language and like-minded interests can meet and collaborate.
We need to make sure that passion is not the accident of birth, or having a parent who buys the right books or tutoring, or can advocate for their child. Indeed, as parents who routinely advocate for our children, we need to empower those families who do not realize they can push for their child’s individual talents. Passion is the inherent right of every young adult, who is on the verge of becoming who they will be in this marvelous and daunting new world.
So let’s separate our important discussion of deleveling from our equally urgent talk of greater rigor. Let’s get to the heart of the issue around challenge. It lies in curriculum, in more challenging assignments, and in creating more individual opportunities for student passion. Let’s make use of the extraordinary talent, expertise and creativity that already exists within our two towns and create a separate, collaborative forum, where the administration listens and we, as a community, offer substantive and helpful feedback. Let’s all of us show real leadership in the area of opportunities for greater rigor and challenge—and most importantly passion—at the middle school.
Marina Budhos is a novelist and associate professor of English who teaches adolescent literature, among other subjects. She is the author, most recently, with her husband, Marc Aronson, of the young adult book, Sugar Changed the World: A Story of Magic, Spice, Slavery, Science and Freedom, which was a Los Angeles Times Book Finalist and has just been shortlisted for the YALSA Excellence in Nonfiction Award. She is also the parent of two children in the district and founder of SOMA Parents for IB.
Michael Paris
12:40 pm on Friday, December 16, 2011
Yes, a wonderful piece. Thank you. I don't think we can stop talking about labeling, sorting, and tracking our children at an early age, but I certainly agree that we should not keep talking about that problem without directly confronting the core issues that Ms. Budhos so nicely addresses.
Margaret
8:02 pm on Sunday, March 18, 2012
What a novel. It could have been condensed into 3 paragraphs of simple points. But the point made was great...teacher accountablility... and curriculum changes ! There is not one school in this country that would need to purchase the costly IB programme and it's related costs if the district would step up and analyze the existing curriculum and make necessary changes to prepare the students for higher education..and get rid of the teachers and administrators who do not do thier job in this college preparation starting in first grade.
Andrew Lee
1:06 pm on Friday, December 16, 2011
Thank you for this thoughtful editorial.
Amy Higer
4:35 pm on Friday, December 16, 2011
I fully agree with providing a curriculum that challenges and inspires all students. Well said, Marina. I don't think the deleveling debate is a distraction, however. To my mind it's central to the educational mission of this community. As you say, middle school is a time of great intellectual and creative growth for all children. We must begin by getting rid of a system that serves to thwart or prematurely label so many children's potential.
Marina Budhos
7:17 am on Saturday, December 17, 2011
Thanks, Amy. However, I do think that the narrowness discussion becomes a distraction, particularly when we are talking about data from only one year, rather than talking about the quality of education. Even if leveling were in place, the curriculum still isn't as rich and deep as it should be. Curriculum is not a subset of leveling or deleveling. It's the foundation. I believe it's time we pay more attention to the foundation.
Tara George
6:09 pm on Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Marina,
As someone with only half an eye on what's happening at the Middle School (because my kids are not there yet) I read this with great interest. It was also touching to see the energy and thought you have put into this issue - on behalf of your kids and ours. How lucky we are to have our debates on local school issues worded so eloquently! Thanks!
mark brownstein
9:18 am on Friday, December 23, 2011
Nicely done. They really are two separate conversations, and both are worthy of attention.
John Davenport
5:06 pm on Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Nice piece, Marina,
and I agree that the IB proposal holds promise for our middle schools, if it is done in the right (nationally certified) way. I also agree that curricular improvements in the elementary schools could help close the achievement gap before leveling is an issue, if they are done right.
However, deleveling remains an issue because it is such a huge component of the district's changes to 7th grade, proposed changes to next year's 8th grade, and probably changes to high school courses coming after that. Aside from math, 8th grade core subjects will be totally deleveled, including even Level 2 students in the "leveled up" core classes -- whereas this was not done or studied in 7th grade last year.
The minituae of the data from last year's 7th grade are indeed not enough to decide these large questions. But we have had to focus on them because the district decided to use only one year of data -- data that even their strongest supporters have
John Davenport
5:07 pm on Wednesday, January 11, 2012
admitted is "inconclusive" at best -- as a thin rationalization for massive new deleveling initiatives. It is the administration and the Board that has forced the debate to focus in such detail on only one year of data.
Continued...
So while I am supportive of your IB initiative, I would ask you this: are you totally sure that the IB component (and your support for it) are not being used as a cover to deflect criticism of changes that mainly consist of massive deleveling in the short run? Is there any chance that your proposal is being used to say, look we are trying to address high-achieving students, when really this is the last thing on the minds of those pushing the deleveling of 8th grade?
Finally, it must be emphasized that those of us who have warned about the dangers to students (and to the community, real estate values etc) of such deleveling have not focused solely on the "gifted" students. I agree that truly "gifted" students are rare and have said so. We have been concerned about students who can move faster than the class norm, AND students who are really struggling and getting poor grades in the newly leveled-up classes in middle school.
Michael Paris
6:22 pm on Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Massive deleveling? What an odd thing to say. These changes should have been instituted 10 years ago. The 6th grade was partially leveled up 6 years ago. Was there any harm done to anyone as the result of that? The 7th grade was partially leveled up 2 years ago, and a solid majority of parents have and continue to register their approval. Was anyone harmed as a result of that? The proposal to continue with partially leveling up 8th grade while pursuing middle school reform through an IB program makes great sense.
What Mr. Davenport and his committed, small band of objectors never do is defend the old system of labeling, sorting, and tracking students at a very early age--and thereby offering them significantly different educational experiences and opportunities--on its merits. Mr. Davenport thinks there actually is, and must be, a "bell curve," as he once put it, and this when kids are 11, 12 or 13 years old. There is no evidence that any student able to move ahead at a faster rate has been harmed by leveling up. There is strong evidence that many students have been, and continue to be, harmed by an indefensible tracking system.
Amy Higer
8:07 pm on Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Mr. Davenport--You say you are (also) truly concerned about students who are "really struggling and getting poor grades in the newly leveled-up classes in middle school." Is your solution is to keep them grouped together in classes where they receive "As" or "Bs" for work that would earn them "Ds" and "Fs" in leveled up classes? If so, then I would have to strongly question your commitment to the welfare of these children. How could it be good for them to get grades that have no relevance to the quality of their work? What kind of education and preparation for adulthood is that? Isn't it better to give them the grades they earn and intervene as needed to help them do better? I know I would prefer to get a bona fide grade that reflects my effort and ability, even if this is a poor grade, than to get a grade that is, at the end of the day, meaningless.
John Davenport
12:29 am on Thursday, January 12, 2012
Thanks and I'll try to respond to each briefly.
Marina, that is reassuring -- thanks for the further explanation. There does seem to be a good deal of confusion in the community one on thing: people think IB brings a kind of leveling with it. Several people submitted questions on that tonight. My understanding is that the middle-years IB program is not leveled. Correct?
Amy, no my solution would not be simply to group struggling students together and inflate their grades; that has been a serious problem, and actually the superintendent made that point tonight (though it would have been more like Bs for work that might get a C in a leveled-up class). However, there is a tricky tradeoff here. If a student is totally lost and not able to follow a subject that is being taught too fast for him, that can induce panic and alienation (I've actually been in that situation in a math class when I was mis-placed in sixth grade). I do think some students who are really struggling need a kind of "safe harbor," but I acknowledge your concern about inflating their grades.
Michael, I don't defend the old system because I never thought it should have remained as it was -- and no GOAL member did. You'll remember that my May 2010 proposal included a lot of changes to make that old system more flexible, allow movement between levels, combine most of Levels 3-4 etc. I do call it a extreme to combine Level 2 with Level 4 in 8th grade. We don't know if anyone was hurt -- not enough data.
Marina Budhos
9:29 am on Thursday, January 12, 2012
As Mr. Truppo explained, IB itself does not dictate leveling or not leveling, though as he mentioned, since it is a 'whole school program', the aim is to infuse an entire school with its philosophy and approach, it is not really compatible with a heavily leveled system (that's how I understand it at least--I believe there are others who are a bit more proficient in knowing all the variations that are out there--and it does look different according to the school and its needs) In other words, how MYP is layered on to a school, what structures exist, what curriculum exists, is defined locally. Our administration has begun the process of how they envision coupling the new middle school structures with IB. Thus, while I understand the concern that IB might bring another form of leveling, that isn't my understanding of how the MYP program works.
In the past we had an IBSOMA website with a lot of Q&As, information, research, that is relevant to our community. However, we're just now in the process of revamping and updating the info, so bear with us. I honestly believe it's important for the community to be informed about these choices and I hope we can help.
John Davenport
6:38 pm on Thursday, January 12, 2012
Thanks Marina,
and right, that tallies with my impression, though you know much more about IB for sure. My understanding is that the infusion of IB in middle school grades would not have been compatible with our old four-level system, but would be compatible with our new combined Level 3-4 courses (supposedly all taught at level 4 standards), along with a few students being accelerated a grade, and a few in remediation -- either level 2 if we chose to keep that contra the current BOE proposal, or only with extra programming after school hours, or in lieu of other classes such as art (as per the current proposal).
Michael Paris
1:42 pm on Thursday, January 12, 2012
Fair enough John. I do recall your May 2010 proposal, and I think reasonable people could support it. I can't support any tracking in middle school, and I'm glad that the district is carefully moving away from it.
However, I must confess that, for about five minutes after I read your article back in May 2010, I had a perverse desire to see it enacted as policy. Your "genuine honors program" in the middle schools would have excluded many kids previously labeled as "level 4 kids" under the old system. How delightful it would be, I thought, to witness the reactions of the parents of those children when they were told that their kids no longer made the cut. But then I quickly came to my sense.
John Davenport
6:34 pm on Thursday, January 12, 2012
Thanks Michael,
But actually part of my argument for the "genuine honors program" was precisely the prediction that, with only 8-15% of students in a given subject in it, not to make it into this level would not be seen as a big deal by most -- just the way most people in our district are not up in arms if one of their children does not get accelerated a year in math in middle school. The "must be in top level or die" attitude sets in, I believe, once the top level grows too large. There is really no shame in being with 60-70% of your peers in a solid college-prep middle level. My proposal was that both the genuine honors and the catch-up/remedial level in each subject should be small. This would have entailed combining most level 3 students and most level 4.
Question: do you think we should allow for Acceleration one grade in 7th and 8th grade Science and Social Studies? That's the proposal now on the table as a minor modification to the district's proposed deleveling of 8th grade, and inclusion of level 2 in 7th grade core subjects. Are you willing to back this small compromise in the name of community solidarity?
Michael Paris
7:54 pm on Thursday, January 12, 2012
John, that's a tough question. I'm not pleased with the the "honors" or "accelerated" tier in 8th grade math and language arts in the proposal now. I'm not convinced that any such separation is necessary, or serves any purpose. If a small accelerated tier in all 4 core subjects in 8th grade (and 8th grade only) was the price of having the whole package, then I might be willing to go along with that. However, the proposal seems just fine the way it is--it leaves a lot of tracking in math in place in 6, 7, and 8, and provides for an small honors tier in 8th grade LA. It is already modest and compromising, in my view. But, again, these issues are tough, and reasonable people can disagree. I'm happy that there seems to be a more compromising spirit all around.
Best,
Michael
John Davenport
12:55 am on Friday, January 13, 2012
These are not really "honors" courses or levels -- they are simply giving students the option of accelerating a grade (thus rarely any additional class in the roster). The math acceleration program has been incredibly successful; how could you oppose it? I'm sure this option has been offered in ELA because the supervisor in this dept. is on the ball and has tried to get standards up, move all students forward.
I'm not sure what you mean in saying that a lot of leveling is left; hardly any is left unless you wish to delevel math? That's rare even among ardent delevelers.
As for accepting this small modification I suggest as a compromise, I do hope you will seriously consider it. There's no immediate price; you will win the BOE vote either way. I suppose the only price is, does your side wish to show that it is really trying to come to a settlement here in good faith, or does it wish to aggravate more public hostility by taking a no-compromise line. (A real compromise would have been waiting for three years of real data before pushing forward with more deleveling).
Marina Budhos
8:57 am on Friday, January 13, 2012
Why wouldn't we give a student--any student who is ready--a chance to go further and deeper in a subject once they have mastered grade level? I find it truly disheartening that anyone would suggest otherwise or would seek to inhibit a child from such a reach. That is at the heart of my piece: to see more opportunity for passion and excellence within whatever structure we choose. That's why I applaud the definition of honors offered the other night--which frankly could take place within a heterogeneous setting or could be called anything, challenge, enhancement, etc-- it is about going deeper and into more complex questions in a discipline area. My understanding is that due to scope and sequencing of history and science, it would not be an acceleration (i.e., you can't 'skip' the scope). In literature you can, though I would argue that if the literature offerings in middle school were actually building toward greater cultural and canon literacy (my own beef) that might not be the case.
Marina Budhos
8:58 am on Friday, January 13, 2012
On a personal note, that is precisely what has been discouraging for my middle school son, who has been breathing and talking history since he could read and when he is interested in a nonfiction subject, reads both adult and young adult books alike. (Or, he has a friend who has been assessed at a high school level of understanding certain strands in science because it has been a passion since he was young.) I accept that there is a core curriculum that these children must march to and this is a larger system. For him, the district document-based assessment in social studies was so routine, he decided to give them extra examples to while away his time. The kinds of questions were no longer of interest to him--he wanted to move on to something less simplistic. And yet for many other students it was a hard test. So I do have to advocate for my son and have found the teaching staff extraordinarily receptive.
Marina Budhos
8:58 am on Friday, January 13, 2012
But that is not a solution, nor fair: that he can benefit from vocal, educated parents, or that I have been lucky enough to have generous teachers who do not flinch at the extra work. That is much too random and personalistic and stacks the deck against children without those adult resources. Any student who has such motivation and mastery, should have such opportunities—and it should be built into the structure of the curriculum. I simply cannot fathom any proposal, any perspective, that would seek to squelch this.
Again, as to the interface of IB with levels, or mild levels, I cannot answer in any great detail, simply because MYP does look different in different settings, and it’s not my expertise. But the one thing to remember is its aim is to be infused throughout the school, since it is a whole school program, a broad approach, not a discrete and separate program.
Michael Paris
12:49 pm on Friday, January 13, 2012
Yes, certainly, Marina, that should be available. But it can and should be done within heterogeneous classrooms. There are independent and vitally important values served by doing it that way. My understanding of what John is advocating is not that, but rather a label, which requires an institutionalized process of labeling (which process will be problematic, at best) AND a separate learning envirnment. What I'm objecting to is creating more separate learning environments in the middle schools than the Superintendent's program already allows.
Best,
Michael
Marina Budhos
8:45 pm on Friday, January 13, 2012
Maybe. I do not think calling for accelerated or honors opportunities automatically translates into 'labeling'. That is where we differ. I am largely behind the notion of heterogeneous grouping, I am utterly convinced by the brokenness of our system and the absolute necessity of equity and access, but it's all in the details: show me what the classroom will look like, what the reading and assignments will be, what the teaching approach will be. Explain to me how a social studies classroom will be conducted where there are wide ranges of base knowledge in terms of context. I am not so rigid to say there is only one way to do so. Neither you nor I are experts in differentiated learning and so I think it is important to keep an open mind as to how these curricular opportunities can be optimized.
John Davenport
11:15 pm on Friday, January 13, 2012
Thanks Marina for some very insightful comments, in my view. I don't know you at all, but you may be a person who could really bring our communities together (hope you don't mind such a comment).
Michael, these are legitimate worries, but if I read you right, I think you are assuming that I'm advocating for a separate class for these students who accelerate a grade in a core subject. I was advocating for such a small honors section (and a small remedial section) in May of 2010, but this is different. 6th graders accelerated into 7th grade social studies would be in a heterogenous classroom with 7th graders, even if a number of these 6th graders were together. Same for 7th graders accelerated into 8th grade social studies or science. For 8th graders accelerated into 9th grade, they would be in 9th grade honors level classes -- but that is a function of leveling in 9th grade. You could decide to get rid of that too without opposing my acceleration proposal. Not that I'm encouraging you to advocate to delevel 9th grade... this is just to clarify the issue.
Marina, I believe your comments show why the social studies curriculum needs review in to coordinate better how it prepares for high school classes. Especially if this were done, the acceleration option could work well in social studies. It could also work in science; note that math is also cumulative -- students would just have to be prepared for the jump. The effect would ultimately be more students in more APs in HS.
Annie
8:57 am on Saturday, January 14, 2012
Marina, I just want to thank you for your well-thought-out piece and insightful comments here.
Marina Budhos
5:06 pm on Saturday, January 14, 2012
Thank you John and Annie. I think this should be a time of thinking creatively and generatively, and perhaps that means being flexible, abandoning old notions, as we do re-envision what middle school can be. In terms of the 'separating out' issue or acceleration, I again return to the idea of using our 25% core rotating time. I'm not sure that's fully optimized. Perhaps some students need reinforcement, but perhaps others could be using it to go further and deeper into a content area. I also think creating 'sub-communities' where kids with like minded passions can pursue projects (not just after school) is another possibility.