    
AGD4
Citizen
Username: Agd4
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 9:25 pm: |     |
The following letter, composed by members of Levels Can Work, will run in this week's News Record "Point of View" Column
January 16, 2004
Dr. Peter P. Horoschak
Superintendent
South Orange Maplewood Public Schools
525 Academy Street
Maplewood, NJ 07040
Dear Dr. Horoschak:
On October 13, 2003, the South Orange Maplewood Board of Education (BOE) approved the amended 6th Grade Reorganization Proposal put forth by your administration, several staff members, and a consultant. Since that date, Levels Can Work (LCW) has carefully considered its response to the Administration’s “Final” Proposal and to the Board of Education’s “action.”
Although we are disheartened by the BOE’s decision to approve the Reorganization Proposal as written (even in its amended form), we feel that several positive changes were brought about as a direct result of the efforts of LCW. In addition, we feel strongly that additional changes to the Program may need to take place in order for effective implementation in September 2004.
In point:
1. LCW brought the proposal to the public fore via letters to the News-Record, Internet discussion, and community discussion.
2. Our 8 page “Position Paper” provided a point-by-point critique of the Administration’s January 2003 draft proposal. This document was mailed to the SOMBOE and Administration and was available on line for public review.
3. As a direct result, community dialogue began and the administration appropriately responded with two community Q&A meetings at both Middle Schools.
4. Although the structure of the Middle School meetings was questionable (small group discussion and a limitation of 2 questions submitted per 10 person group), the meetings did provide a forum for a few responses from the administration. Most questions, however, were tabled for summer review and it was promised that by September all of the questions would be answered.
5. So many questions and concerns were raised by the public and also by BOE members, that the BOE asked the Administration to postpone the formal presentation of the 6th Grade Reorganization until September of the following school year (now the current school year).
6. Following the final proposal’s presentation and amendments, it is clear today that the original reorganization proposal which was touted as “ready for implementation in September 2003” was, indeed, not. Comments and questions directed by the community (Spring Middle School Meetings and September proposal presentation meeting) clearly brought out that there were holes in the proposal as it stood, thereby proving that implementation during the 2003-2004 school year would have been premature.
7. In addition, programming for “exceptionally able learners” was appended to the 6th grade program at the October BOE Meeting, after the initial presentation.
Points 1 through 7 clearly indicate positive outcomes as a direct result of LCW’s lobbying and advocacy.
Please consider the following:
a. As LCW has stated before, we want the South Orange Maplewood Public School District to strive for excellence for ALL students.
b. It is our understanding that at present, levels 3 and 4 are taught the same curriculum. Nevertheless, level 4 classes are expected to delve deeper into the material; may move at a faster pace; or may be expected to produce more in-depth essays, test responses, etc. There needs to be assurance that this current depth of study in Level 4 will still be available in the newly reorganized 6th Grade. In other words, in the mixed ability groupings of the 6th Grades for 2004, all students should be taught to the standards of the current Level 4.
c. Although the Administration states that staff development in the area of Differentiated Instruction has already taken place, we contend that what has taken place thus far is only a beginning. Running a classroom truly based on the philosophy of “differentiated” instruction is critical to the success of mixed ability level classes. Our school district staff require intensive training, support, and mentoring. Teachers need to have the opportunity to provide feedback to supervisors and administrators as to whether differentiated instruction is really working.
d. Before the 6th Grade Reorganization is implemented in September 2004, LCW wants assurance that measurable standards will be in place to assess the success of the program.
e. In addition, there needs to be strict adherence to the proposed class-size goals in 6th grade district-wide. The numbers in each class should not creep up from year to year.
f. Furthermore, it is debatable whether differentiated instruction is practicable in even a reduced class size of 22-25 students. With current budget constraints and staffing reductions, how will the District guarantee a class size of 22-25 or less?
g. If the current 6th Grade Reorganization was truly born from “issues” or “problems” with the current leveling system, LCW wants assurance that measures will be taken to correct these same issues in the existing Levels for Grade 7 and 8.
h. It has already been implied by the Administration, that if the 6th Grade Program is considered to be “successful,” a proposal to remove leveling throughout the Middle School years will take place. Nevertheless, at least one administrator (former Maplewood Middle School Principal Dr. James Corino) stated publicly that he believes levels in grades 7 and 8 are necessary to prepare students for high school. LCW concurs. We urge you to FIX THE CURRENT LEVELING system for grades 7 and 8. As it stands for the 6th grade, it is clear that the current reorganization which will go into effect in September 2004, did not include any ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO FIX LEVELS as they stand in Language Arts, Social Studies and Science. The advent of the 6th grade reorganization is the ideal time to look into such alternatives.
i. We continue to be concerned that one of the major “issues” with the current leveling system has to do with scheduling. As such, the current system is not truly working in a departmentalized fashion (i.e., most students are placed in Science and Social Studies classes based on their levels recommendations for Math and Language Arts and, once in a level it is difficult for students to move from Level 3 to Level 4). Additionally, more flexible scheduling options could help to achieve the goal of greater diversity in all levels.
j. We suggest that current criteria for levels may need to be redefined in order for the leveling system to work appropriately.
j-1. This redefinition needs to take into account that cultural bias exists in many standardized tests. Please explore other ways to assess how children are placed in levels and to insure diversity in all levels.
j-2. The criteria redefinition should prevent overloading of students into one level (i.e., the current situation where 40-50% of a grade level’s population is in Level 4 is unacceptable to students, teachers, and parents alike).
j-3. Moreover, a key to any leveling program is the flexibility of moving from level to level by subject area, as determined by the student’s academic achievement.
k. As the current proposal stands, the implementation of state mandates in the areas of Special Education and Gifted & Talented Education should be refined.
k-1. The In-Class Support Model described in the original draft proposal did not provide staffing duration of each class period. No discussion as to how special education needs were to be addressed took place in regard to the plan approved in October.
k-2. Gifted & Talented Programming for the “exceptionally able learner” needs further definition as well.
k-2.1 How often/long will the groups meet?
k-2.2 Will it be limited to Language Arts?
k-2.3 How will the student progress be graded/evaluated?
k-2.4 What percentage of students will be eligible for the program? LCW believes it should be the top 10 to 15% of the grade level (20% at most).
k-2.5 How will students be chosen for this enrichment? LCW suggests that “the slate should be wiped clean.” In other words, placement of students might be based upon a variety of qualifying dimensions including, but not limited to: 5th grade teacher recommendations, standardized test results, grades, peer nominations, student self-nominations (to take into account motivation), and perhaps a district-administered Writing, Language Arts or other subject area assessment of enrichment, if expanded beyond the scope of Math and Language Arts.
k-2.6 Finally, LCW suggests that the enrichment program should not begin until mid-October. This would give students a chance to settle into the Middle School setting and for 6th grade teachers to assess student needs.
We look forward to continued community dialogue and academic excellence district-wide. In the end, we are all working toward the same goal: an outstanding education and educational environment which will enhance all of our children’s potential to work to their fullest abilities.
Sincerely,
Concerned Parents of Levels Can Work
Katherine E. Abrams
Christine Baker
Shawn Grain Carter
Marisa Case
John Brown-Christenson
Patty Brown-Christenson
Stacey Cohen
Ted Cohen
Jennifer Crohn
Amy Dahn
Bill Dahn
Robert Donald
Carol Dranove
Joel Dranove
Janet Duvvuri
Sarah Ehinger
Judy Epstein
Karen Erdos
Lisa Fedder
Pamela Friedman
Jeremy S. Garber
Mary Beth Goff
Carol Gordon
Jim Gordon
Paula Green
Doug Green
Deborah Greene
Sabine Hack
Karen Hartshorn Hilton
Jeff Langsam
Michelle Langsam
Wendy Lauter
Cindy Lewis
Judy Malamed
Andrea Marino
Lisa Nolet
Lisa Goldberg Ozer
Rusty Reeves
Donna Smith
Roy Smith
Ed Srebrenick
Maura Walsh
Jill Zimmer
Richard Zimmer
Cc:
Board of Education Members:}
Mila Jasey, President
Nancy Gagnier, First Vice President
Steve Latz, Second Vice President
Greg Betheil
Jerry Clifford
Rogers Campbell
David Frazer
Brian O’Leary
Shelly Slafkes
Kirk Smith, SOMS Principal
Kristopher Harrison, MMS Principal
The News-Record of Maplewood South Orange
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page