I'm having a hard time following your point. If there's a gap within our district, demographic and social factors are a logical place to start looking for answers (unless you want to look at genetics, on the theory that the achieving races are inherently superior, a loathsome idea). Those factors tend to be expressed in ordinal and intervalic data that's more amenable to objective analysis. It's difficult to objectively measure in-school expectations, and I'm not sure what stereotype threat is, or how it can be objectively measured. From what I've been reading in the Record, the data recently gathered from the district's study on de-leveling has been incomplete and subject to various interpretations. These methodological problems make it difficult to rationally discuss leveling, and in-school expectations (and, perhaps stereotype threat, whatever that might be). these difficulties are compounded because the achievement gap, and leveling as a way of dealing with it, are emotion-laden topics.

I am confused too. First, you're a single parent but you're not (?). I think your point about how there's not much poverty here is like that minor surgery. It's only minor, or there's not much poverty, unless it's happening to you. I understand that Newark has poverty which affects schools, but Newark isn't comparable to Maplewood in terms of schools or anything else in this conversation about deleveling. In fact, Newark has "levels."

I would say that many local discussions of leveling are not rational precisely because they are emotion—and stereotype—laden. And that includes discussions and uses of data.

And, it’s exactly my point that our towns and our schools are very different from those in cities like Newark. Our discussions of de-leveling here could often do more to reflect that.

Thanks to Julie Burch for this insightful piece.

I would add that the debate over labeling, sorting, and tracking students at an early age is not only about race and racial justice. An elaborate tracking system in grades 4-8--that is, the system we used to have but, thankfully, no longer have (except in math)--would be wrong in a district with no racial diversity at all. It is wrong because it unnecessarily harms many students by giving up on them too early (and much research shows that they internalize the message), and it is wrong because it does great damage to the democratic aspirations that should be at the heart of public schooling.

The fact tracking in our community has a disparate impact by race--the fact that, in effect, it excludes and separates by race in a society like ours, given its history, simply makes it all the more troubling. This does not mean that tracking can be easily or causally changed. It does not mean that tracking's proponents don't make some good arguments. It is certainly possible that deleveling could do more harm than good. It does mean that racial justice (and competing conceptions of racial justice) are a necessary part of this broader conversation about what we want and expect from our schools.
Continued in the next comment

It is therefore puzzling that many proponents of tracking maintain that the debate has nothing to do with race. Race is just a fiction, they say (no biological "there" there). Race should have nothing to do with this conversation because it has nothing to do with anything we care about when it comes to public policies. What tracking’s proponents care about is recognizing and rewarding motivation and achievement and maintaining academic rigor. They worry about skill differences, student behaviors, and peer effects. They doubt that all children can be taught well in the same classrooms, given these differences. Moreover, if one points out that racial justice should be part of the conversation, tracking's supporters sometimes get downright indignant. Simply to suggest that racial justice is a valid topic is to “play the race card” by casting them as “racists.” The better view is that racial justice has to be part of the conversation. What Ms. Burch is pointing out is that our differences may not be as great as we sometimes think.

Finally, it is important to realize that the Board of Education and Superintendent Osborne have not framed this conversation primarily in terms of racial justice. They have framed it, quite properly I think, as a broader debate about what constitutes equal educational opportunity and a better education for all students. Test scores, overall and with respect to the achievement gap, are just one form of evidence in this larger conversation.

not sure why you think SOMA is a urban district. it is not. nor why you you insist on comparing us to newark. the entire premise of your piece is puzzling.

Thank you Julie for addressing this issue. I think what you have presented here is valid. I believe the real factor that impacts achievement is opportunity not race. However, the discussion often focuses on race which overshadows institutional practices and policy that lend to the gap. Once we address practices and policy, we can then have a more informed discussion about race and achievement and maybe then we will not need to.

I've proudly called South Orange my home for a dozen years. I might be in the minority, but a large reason for moving here was the Midtown Direct, but the diversity and uniqueness of our two towns is the source of my love and pride for making this home for my daughters.

During my time here, there's been one constant within our schools -- a disturbing, unshakeable achievement gap. Good money says the gap predates me in spades.

And, while we get up in arms about what we are not -- we are not urban, yet we're not suburban; we're not Newark, yet we're not Millburn; we're not affluent, yet we're not struggling; we're Title I, yeah, but mot really.

By now, we have a firm grasp on what we are not. What we don't have is an equally firm understanding of what we are...a universal description of our schools that we all support. Running parallel, we have absolutely no insight into why we (SOMA) have such a stubborn achievement gap.

What we do have is a school district divided by lack of information that would give us such insight. Over the course of my 12 years, not once has the BoE/Super proposed what appears unthinkable by its lack of action: Study the Gap!

(continued below)

The arguments about how best to close the gap are merely subjective. Any piece of research, when it doesn't represent a predefined course of action is thrown out by one group or another as "not representative of SOMA." Even Julia's stated research above can have holes easily punched through it based on the flaws of how she's characterizing its findings and her misinterpretation of what is stated within the research abstract.

So if nothing represents SOMA, because SOMA is so unique, isn't it high time we study our problem ourselves?

What's always frustrated me about the BoE and the Superintendent is their neglect of a fundamental truth: those who hold the information are responsible for directin the conversation. It's time the BoE/Super took ownership of our gap ad our unique situation to apply distinct solutions for closing the gap. No more cookie cutter, previously used, Montgomery County endorsed band aids.

If we truly want to close OUR gap, we first need to understand OUR gap.

I think it's time we drop the obfuscating term "achievement gap" and address the problem our community (any community) should be talking about: "the opportunity gap." Public schools should make sure they are doing everything possible for every child to be given access to the best possible education, and that educational policies do not reinforce existing social cleavages. That means that we should be striving to provide all children with the same educational experiences and opportunities. Until recently, we haven't been doing that. Our district has made some progress recently by de-tracking the middle schools, but whether or not this narrows the "test score gap" (i.e., the achievement gap) shouldn't be the central issue. The issue is equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

Jennifer Payne Parrish also advocated focusing on opportunities opportunities, but you mention an "opportunity gap" and the dangers of policies reinforcing social cleavages. Other than tracking, how have our district's policies reinforced social cleavages? (Our children are grown, and graduated Columbia nine years ago. I'm not as informed as I once was.) How can the district provide the same educational experiences while also providing the same opportunities?

The inherent tension being that the same educational experiences does not amount to the same educational opportunities. Boiled down, it's about student ability and desire. The concept of detracking/deleveling is fundamentally flawed because it ignores this tension.

Every child should get an excellent education within our District. Full stop.

However, if we overplay experiences we compromise opportunities. Much the same if we overplay opportunities we dilute experiences. Did our previous level system manage this tension properly. No. Will the new unleveled system manage this tension properly. Based on my experience living through it with my kids, no.

Prior to deleveling, our balance was out of whack. With deleveling, our balance is out of whack -- just 180 degrees in position. Which means we'll keep discussing this until we start fine-tuning instead of about-facing.

Our district has not gotten rid of tracking; we've only eliminated it in three out of four course subjects in the middle schools. We've left math tracking in place, which limits the opportunities and lowers expectations for the majority of our students who don't score high enough on standardized tests. (Julie Burch's previous blog makes a powerful argument for why math tracking is wrong--can't find the link for some reason). And we continue to have elaborate, and in my view, excessive tracking of students in all subjects in high school. We have not been, and are still not, offering a rigorous curriculum and setting the same high standards for every child. In addition to tracking, we don't do nearly enough to foster a culture of inclusion for students from different class and racial backgrounds. I blogged about this during the campaign: http://maplewood.patch.com/blog_posts/a-problem-with-our-problem-some-thoughts-on-the-racial-achievement-gap. Jerry--the question at the end of your last comment is exactly the right one to ask. The starting point would be to do everything possible, every day, to tell every student that we expect them to succeed, and to make sure that we don't place institutional barriers in the way of their success based on (misguided) stereotypical assumptions about who children are. I think this is the main point of Julie's insightful and informative blog above.

I could not disagree more with Amy Higer's views on education in our district that "we should be striving to provide all children with the same educational experiences and opportunities." I have more than one child in the district and their academic needs and the amount of challenge that they need is different. Some kids NEED more challenge and to deny that in the name of so-called equity is not equitable. Nowhere is that more apparent than in math education.

Ditto to E Rohan's comments above. In creating an equal opportunity for all, is Ms. Higer suggesting that all students should be on the track to take calculus in their junior year and calculus 3 senior year? This would have been a painful experience for me as a high school student, but has been an essential one to my son who was applying to competitive engineering programs. Let's create opportunities for our students and not limit them.

I couldn't disagree more with the cramped and narrow way that Elizabeth Rohan thinks about education. Why does Elizabeth Rohan always assume that offering a better and more challenging education to more children necessarily deprives other children of something? The assumption is false. It is distasteful to me to couch my remarks in such a personal, targeted way. I do it here because Elizabeth Rohan always does it. She should stop doing that.
***************************************************************

Ms. Hammarberg: Yes, as a laudable goal, we should make sure that ALL students have every possible opportunity to be on track to take calculus in the junior year. I don't see why you think that we can't or shouldn't give every student a chance to accomplish this. It can be done. Maybe it would have been painful you once you were in high school, but did you get a fair shot at it? Giving all students a fair chance IS really impossible, however, when you tell kids at a very early age that they are simply not cut out for it, or when a tracking decision in 6th or 7th grade virtually determines the outcome. So I agree: "Let's create opportunities for our students and not limit them."
Best,
Michael Paris

Thank you for the reminder Marcia. I'm usually a big fan of civility. Incivility is occasionally appropriate, but if I feel the need to get personal again I'll post it on Maplewood Online where it belongs.
Best,
Michael

Mr. Paris: In order for students to take calculus by junior year, acceleration needs to begin in middle school (unless they double up math classes or take summer math in high school––an option that is less desirable but still available). Selection for acceleration is not based on a "standardized" test, but by an exam developed by the math department to determine readiness for the material. Every year students have the opportunity to take the exam and potentially accelerate. Apparently there is a strong connection between success on the exam and success in the accelerated class.
While some are ready and NEED the "opportunity" to start that journey in middle school, others will be ready later. And some (myself included, even though i was given every opportunity to do so) will never be interested or ready for that track.

Ms. Hammarberg. Thank you for this thoughtful reply.

Yes, I'm aware of how it works now. I was exaggerating a bit, but just a bit, to make a point. Shouldn't every student have a fair shot at taking calculus in the senior year though? This is an important factor in admission to elite colleges. Our tracking practices in the elementary and middle schools deny that opportunity to too many students now. I am not saying that students will or must take calculus in the junior or senior year, but only that tracking practices should not be structured so as to preclude them from having a fair chance to do so.

We are making improvements in a math program that has been strident in its exclusion of students from opportunities (remember micro-leveling?). There will be enhanced access to higher level content in math for middle school students next year (probably more students will be in the accelerated program), and a reduction in the number of levels in middle school. In addition, the test you discuss used to be an exclusive affair--you had to be invited even to take it, and the invitation itself was based mainly on NJ ASK scores. Next year, all students will take this test, and it will be one of several measures used to place students in levels or acceleration.
Best,
Michael Paris

Micro-leveling was basically educational malpractice. Micro-leveling involved rank ordering every student in the 5th grade, based (I think) on 4th grade NJ ASK scores and the results of 5 district-wide tests given over the course of 5th grade, and then splitting them into separate classrooms (that is, cuts of roughly 25-30), accordingly. The practice must be based on the false assumptions that (a) there is some sort of innate aptitude in math, and (b) these wildly imperfect measures actually measure it. The likelihood of there being any difference between the student ranked at, say, 30th place, and the student ranked at, say, at 90th place, is probably equal to the likelihood of there being no difference at all between these two students, in terms of teaching them together effectively in the same classroom. If the math teachers favored micro-leveling (or if some did), then these math teachers are a big part of the problem. Maybe ideas about education within the math department explain the strange fact that the superintendent and board have not yet leveled up more in math in grades 4 through 8, although there is some modest progress being made on that front. I am not saying that you can teach students who struggle with basic computation and students who are ready for acceleration together in the same classroom. I am saying that we can do a lot better in making opportunities available to all. 
Once again. thanks for the exchange. Much appreciated.

I think fluidity—when students are ready to move forward and up—is so key. I don’t have an opinion on micro-leveling—I’m not sure I fully understood or understand it. But I am concerned about greater mobility within the math sequencing and I don’t know if we lost some of the nuance and targeting that was perhaps the idea behind micro-leveling. For instance, a Level 3 student must now have a perfect A or A- average for the whole year to leverage up to 7th grade Level 4. However, a student with a C average and proficient—not advanced proficient NJASK—math score remains in Level 4. Are there such tremendous differences between them? Doesn’t that make the climb a bit steep and codify an earlier placement and make mobility difficult?

I would bet that many students really fall closer or overlap in the 3-4 mid-range and have more in common than where the barrier got placed. (This is different than those children who get math ‘faster’ and are ready for acceleration and true honors level). I’ve spoken to an educator outside the district who says that is very common—you often have students who fluctuate or hover at the borders of what we call 3 and 4 and could easily form a group that can be eased upward. I suspect that hovering/fluctuation is because students are strong in some units and less strong in others.

There’s another aspect to fluidity and how we can help students: the quizzes are as much meant to be for testing as they are diagnostic. The teachers use the quizzes to figure out what got absorbed, what didn’t. Thus, a student should and could do poorly on a quiz, especially with new material (that’s what learning is—learning from mistakes), figure out what they didn’t understand, and then has that time to master the material for a test. But the quizzes count pretty strongly toward a student’s grade—30%. Thus, you could have a student who initially does very poorly on a unit quiz, then gets help or masters the material, does very well on the unit test, and still has that first quiz drag down his or her average. Isn’t there some way that we can better count effort, pace of improvement, and mastery over the course of a unit?

Perhaps the basic problem here is that, for some reason, our district has relegated math to a "gifted and talented" subject--one that either you get or you don't--rather than a core part of the curriculum that every student must master in order to be prepared for college and the job market. Isn't math the universal language? There are some excellent examples around the country of programs in inner city neighborhoods that are teaching children sophisticated math by changing the way the curriculum is taught. As in other subjects, it's not simply curriculum that matters; it's how we teach the curriculum. If we can't teach basic math skills (prior to higher level math like calculus), then we need to take hard look at our teaching methods. There is a place for "accelerated" math, but every child needs to learn basic (pre-calculus) math. When we have a system that categorizes students below accelerated into three or four "levels," (let alone "micro-levels"--whatever that is) what message are we sending to children? Expectations matter a great deal. Are we stunting children's potential by slotting them unscientifically into academic categories before they even get a chance to apply themselves? Pedagogically (not to mention morally), this seems like an absurd thing to do. I went through middle school math (and every other subject) without any idea how the student sitting next to me did on her/his test. We need good teaching, not better methods of tracking students.

What started as a discussion of stereotypes slid into a debate on leveling. My sense is that the leveling debate is like the revenue/reduce spending debate in our national government: Each side includes clusters of ideological assertions that can't be resolved in an objective way, and may be totally unrelated to the revenue/reduce spending issue. (If you favor reduced spending, you're likely to oppose government regulation[indirectly related] and gay marriage[totally unrelated]. That's why I've been suggesting the study of objective variables. Amy Higer is correct in saying the school's culture and sense of mission, though not measurable, are important, as are discipline issues. But their intangibility makes them vulnerable to partisan manipulation. If you can't accurately and validly measure a school's culture or sense of mission, you'll "find" that those things impede learning among the underachievers, if that was your position all along. On the other hand, if you position was that underachieving individuals or groups are burdened by their own socioeconimic or subcultural deficiencies, you'll "find" that to be true if you examine school culture and sense of mission. Stereotyping is similarly malleable. The objective study of measurable variables won't provide all the answers but, if we're to understand our own district's achievement gap, we have to exhaustively explore objective measures as our first steps. If we don't, everyone will be righteous, but no one will be right.

Because we are talking about people, and many layers of social groups, there are no "neutral" variables.

As I have said elsewhere, data and "objective measures" are only part of the picture. They are always interpreted, thus values, priorities, and individual and group experiences will always also be part of the picture.

And while we can not eliminate stereotypes, we can learn to be mindful of them.
(More on that in a future blog.)

Jerry. I think your last comment is insightful and very important. We all need this reminder (I need it more than most).

However, I'd like to restate the counterpoint. This too has to be kept in mind. As Ms. Burch says, there is no "neutral" and "objective" to be had here. There is no standpoint outside of or above ideology. Ideology is inevitable; it is part of our emotion-ladden and partial reactions to the complexity of the social world. The desire for rational argument based on hard evidence makes perfect sense. However, there are two dangers. One is that measureable results, which are always rough proxies for what we really care about, and not the thing itself, can sometimes obfuscate more than they illuminate. They can take over the mind. This can happen when we forget that value-ladden interpretation is always involved (it is involved in the construction of the measures in the first place). For example, the overreliance on, or misuse of, test scores under No Child Left Behind has had many unintended and perverse consequences. This doesn't mean that some arguments aren't better than others, or that standards and measures are simpy arbitrary. It does mean that those taking up the mantle of objectivity, or posturing as Olympians looking down with scorn on partisan on both right and left, are themselves often simply taking up one among many possible positions in a political debate. If pushed, they have to take and defend positions too.
Best,
Michael