"Now the real question is, will this BOE who we’ve elected listen to the voices of these families. History shows they simply plow through and keep at their insular agenda. They remain removed from the people..."
Among the many nonsensical things Ms. Sender writes in this essay, this may be the most nonsensical. There was a school board election last year. The candidates who supported the Superintendent's agenda on deleveling won an overwhelming victory. How this can be characterized as "plowing through" an "insular" agenda is beyond me. Seven hundred signatures certainly shows there's a range of opinions on recent and proposed policy changes, as there should be in a district as diverse as ours. And there absolutely should be ample opportunities for airing these voices of dissent. But if Ms. Senders' essay reflects the substance of the dissenters opposition ("many a dining room conversation is taking place as to whether the stay-at-home moms should consider working full time to send their child to private school"--no implied referent there!), then I'm not sure what kind of productive conversation or debate such an opportunity will provide. Teachers don't teach in a "tizzy" and the sky hasn't fallen on deleveled middle-school classes. Fear-mongering may get signatures on a petition, but it won't win over thoughtful citizens to support what has amounted to a discredited and wrong-headed leveled system.

Bravo to you, Lori Sender, for your tenacity on trying to stop this march to mediocrity.

Many thoughtful taxpayers made many thoughtful comments on the petition. Hopefully the BOE reads and considers what a large number of people in the community are telling them. Many people who voted for the incumbents last time based upon a promise that they would consider the data may vote differently next time.

Well said Amy. The last BOE elections were clearly about this issue and those who wanted their voices heard voted.
What I have the hardest time with is the way people opposed to the Superintendent's plans say they represent such huge percentages of groups like high achievers or in this Op-Ed the entirety of high school and middle school students. Lori makes lots of assumptions to arrive at her 15-20%. Looking at the first 100 signatures on the petition and making similarly unscientific assumptions, i.e. deduct the 22% of signatures that are anonymous; deduct the 3% whose spouses signed (considering how many spouses have different last names this is probably higher); and deduct the 5% who I recognized as having kids too young for middle school (considering I don't know everyone this is probably higher too); and the number of MS and HS students represented on the petition gets even smaller.

The anonymous signers are those that didn't want their names made public but did include their name. Why would you deduct spouses? - One Man , One Vote . Do you vote as a couple? Technically those under 18 do not vote but they do have opinions and as such should be heard.

I agree with E. Rohan - many people that did support the incumbants last time around did so believing the promises of carefully considered data. Many of those people may be looking elsewhere this time around.

As Brian Osborne said last night at the forum, we have DECADES of data of the harm done to children under this elaborate tracking system our district has been using. And we now have several years of middle school deleveling to show that things have gone very well in deleveled classrooms, if we are to believe the majority of teachers and the two principals.

Amy the data on tracking is actually somewhat mixed and as for the years of deleveling, since we didn't actually keep any data on the 6th grade deleveling (oops) and we have one year on seventh grade deleveling with data that is ambiguous at best and suggests grade inflation and insufficient supports for struggling learners at worst, don't see how we can agree with the statement that "things have gone very well." To be sure there is anecdotal evidence from within the classrooms that supports both sides of the argument. Teachers that do not think things are going well are not going to stand up and buck their Superintendant. I have talked confidentially with teachers that are aware of the pitfalls of trying to delevel without adequate curricular support and professional development and bemoan that our Middle Schools already are watered down versions where kids are reading literature that was once on our 5th grade lists. Of course our Middle School Principals will also dwell on the bright spots. No one has really talked about class size and how these plans going forward will affect struggling students previously in very small classes which afforded much more 1-1 time. One of our Supervisors last night talked about a level 2 class at the HS with 8 students in it. With even the best trained teachers used to differentiated instruction, how will their experience be in a class of 27 ?

I respect your concerns, Morrisa. The administration is trying to address many of them, from what I can see. The data are ambiguous, as you say, but they way I read it, there was modest improvement. Certainly no harm was done. As Osborne noted also last night, last year's tests were not a good metric, since they were changed, and were significantly harder than in prior years. Even so, we still compared favorably with comparable districts. I disagree with your view of struggling students as better off with tracking. The data are unambiguous on this: Students in lower levels, even with small class size, were stuck there, unable to move up, and not given any preparation for college or higher learning. How can that be better for them? Middle school is much too early to track students in this way. Why limit their life's chances at so young an age? Why ever do it? For a thoughtful summary of why the Superintendent's agenda is the right one for our district, please see the new website, and sign a petition of support, at: http://www.highachievementforall.org/content/what-we-believe.

Since you seem to be the most interested person in town in defending the administration, what do you think the parents of the highest achieving children (as measured by test scores and teacher evaluations) should do when the curriculum does not challenge their children, the district has no "Gifted and Talented Program" and the district is in the process of removing honors level classes?

Amy have you looked at the BOE statistics on the 7th grade 2010-11? In Science, of the 13 Level 2 students placed in Level 4, 39% got D's and F's as final grades. In Language Arts of the 12 Level 2 students placed in Level 4, 42% received D's and F's. And those were the more advanced Level 2 students. The majority (approximately 90 students) of Level 2 students were kept in a separate level. That is ending. I believe Level 2 will be in with the one level in 7th Grade next year . . . all of them. That's a lot of kids failing.

Mr/Ms. Rohan, I doubt I'm the most interested in defending the administration. I do think Mr. Osborne has done a truly remarkable job in the time he's been with us, and I feel very fortunate we have him. It is true that the district has no program for the gifted and talented (2-3 % of the student population), and it could do a better job of identifying them and providing for them. It's absolutely not true that the district is in the process of removing honors level classes. Read the proposal.
Ms. Sender: Yes, I know. If students are offered a demanding curriculum and held to high expectations then, yes, some of them will get bad grades. That's a good thing. I would rather get a D that means something in the world, than a B that means nothing, but spares my feelings. Wouldn't you?? The 6th, 7th, and 8th grades (ages 11, 12, and 13) is just way too early to label, sort, and track kids, thereby confining many of them to an inferior curriculum and educational experience. Yes, in the core subjects except for math, there will be one level--Level 4. Separate is not equal (or just), the goal is high achievement for all, and the pursuit of high achievement for all will harm no one. Indeed, in my view, the "high achievers" (test scores, teacher evaluations, parent's expectations) will significantly benefit as well.

From the proposal:
Social Studies and Science:
Currently eight (sic) grade students are assigned to Level 2, Level 3 or Level 4 classes in both Social Studies and Sicence.
We propose the creation of one heterogeneous course taught at grade level.

What I don't understand about this essay, and many other attacks on the district's plan, is that it seems on it's face to worry a lot about high achieving kids being served up watered down classes. But the data being pointed to is focused on those kids who are failing in the grades where the experiment is going forward. Yet those parents with kids in level 2 and level 3 seem to be strongly among those favoring the plan.

And if I read the plan correctly, there will in fact be two levels in most subjects - grade level and honors. That is precisely the format I grew up with, and I think it actually favors high achieving kids.

Maybe I'm misperceiving the argument and misreading the plan, and I'm open to hearing where my mistakes are. But thus far, I'm not persuaded.

Julia, the point is that if the highest of the level 2 kids are failing, then where do you think the rest of level 2 will fall? That is scary for many parents, just read the comments of 750 people on the petition.

Sean- when the current plan is fully implemented at the middle school with the exception of math there will only be 1 level at each grade 6,7,8. Math will have grade level and honors at 7th grade and grade level, honors and advanced honors at 8th grade. There will continue to be an acceleration option in Math and a new option in ELA for 8th grade. However, and it's a big however - we do not know how rigorous the single level will ultimately be. There are those now that feel the current level 4 which is supposed to be honors is not really operating at an honors level. We are expecting our teachers to differentiate instruction teaching an honors level class in class-sizes up to 30 kids. Our curriculum as it now stands does not adequately support differentiation and we know that in the elementary school differentiation has not been used effectively in most classrooms. As far as challenging our ablest learners our district has mentioned some enrichment options like Model UN, Mock Trial etc but at this time these plans are vague and unfunded.
As for the HS - there will be only 1 main level for Social Studies in grade 9 and 10 in addition to a course level for ELL and a remedial level with emphasis on literacy. Again we are being told that this will be taught at honors level but who knows?
Many people feel that the devil is in the details and it is the details (or lack thereof ) of this implementation that give pause.

Morrisa, thank you for clarifying my understanding of the plan, which I had misread. But I'm still missing part of the argument. Lori seems to be focused on the kids who are failing in the deleveled 7th grade, while others are focused on the classroom rigor for the high achieving kids.

I would rather gave all kids face a more rigorous curriculum, so those kids failing in a class that could put them on a college track is better than passing classes seen as remedial. I'd rather give them assistance to tackle the more challenging work.

The point about whether classes may be too watered down for high achieving kids is worth discussing. Maybe honors level classes for students performing at the very highest level in all core classes makes sense. But if the class is taught at the rigor of level 4 that really shouldn't be an issue because the class is being taught at the same level as before.

Then the conversation appears to be taking a less pleasant turn because it's not really about the academics at all.

Sean, I think we are concerned about rigor for everyone. We were told once upon a time that level 3 was college prep and level 4 honors. When did level 3 become something less than and level 4 as well for that matter. Why did it happen. What was going on at the classroom, curricular, supervisory level to allow that to happen. The superintendent's plan approaches these failings on a policy level only - with a call to delevel. But what will be changing to really address the failings that exist whether levels exist or not. I have not seen good implementation with what has happened so far and the rush to further delevel without addressing the underlying problems does not give me hope of better outcomes. I believe at the middle school , years of a watered down curriculum (at all levels) inconsistent delivery of curriculum and poor oversight have brought us to this point where levels aren't working because so much else is not working. I don't believe deleveling will solve these issues . I believe that the district knows there is a problem that is more granular then just levels or no levels and rather than tackling these head on with a carefully constructed plan they are bringing on IB as if that may be a magic bullet.

I believe that the district, and the principals and teachers at the middle schools, are in fact addressing many "granular" issues in a compelling way. They are tackling what is worth knowing and how it can best be taught. IB is not a magic bullet. No one has said that it is. It does seem to be a good way to provide an exciting and demanding education for all students. Improving the curriculum and instruction is a concern. In my view, overall, the district does a good job now, and it can and will do a better job in the future. What I don't understand in Ms. da Silva's argument is how this concern with the curriculum and teaching practices becomes a reason for preserving a system in which children have drastically different educational opportunities and experiences. I just don't get this. What the high standards and good teaching amounts to is one issue--and I'm skeptical of all of the assertions about the uniformly poor quality of our middle schools--and whether all have access to those high standards and good teaching practices is another issue. Can anyone defend the proposition that the existing system correctly labeled, sorted, and tracked these young children? The levels can't be "fixed," because 11, 12, or 13 yrs. old is too early for making these sorts of judgments.

As I've always asserted, it's curriculum. We need to train our eyes on what matters--the robustness of the curriculum--no matter what we deem the level. We are barely in compliance on Common Core; our literature choices are not fully in balance nor do we offer much in the way of cross-disciplinary thinking; the kinds of questions asked within literature study are not challenging. Under Common Core by 4th grade--yes 4th--65% of what a student is writing should be persuasion and argument. Please tell me if this has happened in any classroom, much less in middle school. That's just a start for those who are skeptical ...