A proposal to eliminate the sole advanced mathematics class in sixth grade next school year evoked an intense philosophical discussion at last week’s School Committee meeting.
After a lengthy discussion, everyone agreed to delay a decision until at least the next committee meeting. Unlike high school changes, School Committee approval is not required.
John Glenn Middle School Principal Jonathan Hartunian, Patrick Morrissey, the middle and high school math program administrator, and Anne Pumphrey, Lane School math coordinator, explained why they favor “unleveling” the section.
Morrissey said that currently, the teacher engages students with “very challenging tasks, going in great depth in the curriculum.” There is “an assumed mastery of past math content, he said, although “from unit to unit, students take pretests to qualify to stay in the class.”
Pumphrey pointed out that through the grades at Lane School math classes are heterogeneous, although only for the past two years for grade 5. “When you are saying to a nine-year-old, ‘You are not advanced in math,’ that’s a hard message to send.” She said the message teachers try to deliver is: “You’re not good at this – yet.”
There have been “ongoing conversations the entire year with teachers and district leadership” about the sixth-grade change, Morrissey continued. The rationale is similar to Pumphrey’s example: “it’s too early to label an 11-year-old.” The “deleveling” would ease the transition to middle school, he said.
In the heterogeneous sections, he explained, “all students will receive a differentiated classroom experience in sixth-grade math, allowing all students access to advanced math,” Morrissey said. He stressed, “We fully understand it’s going to take time to do, but it’s in the best interests of our students.”
He continued, “Within these differentiated classroom environments our highest achieving students are going to have regular opportunities in class to be challenged by mathematical tasks.” It also connects to the goal of diversity, equity, and inclusion by bringing together “students with their diverse peers. Kids who lack confidence in math can meet others who do.”
The change is “not going to prevent students from taking our most challenging courses,” he maintained. “If the research is correct, all student achievement should improve when you delevel and provide challenging math curriculum.”
Ann Guay was the first of several committee members to question the proposal; her concerns were about lost opportunities for advanced work. Morrissey said administrators will be “making sure the sixth-grade teachers have the classroom tasks ready to go to challenge the highest-level students. We know that is going to have to be done, and it is going to take time.” Hartunian added, “We need to surround some of our neediest learners by models.”
“I’m struggling to understand this,” Guay said. “What does it do for the high-performing students?” Hartunian said there is a focus on understanding the processes, so students can explain their thinking. “Kids strong in class sometimes burn through the material and can’t even explain it.”
Guay wanted to know if the same approach will be used for grades 7 and 8. Morrissey wouldn’t rule it out; “we are going to track the progress, and it’s about every class.” Hartunian said, “We owe it to our kids to look at everything we do. We came to the conclusion that this is the best decision.”
Asked by member Sheila Mehta-Green how the middle school math teachers feel about the proposal, Hartunian replied, “We have been having these conversations since July. They support the decision because they are involved since day one and they’re ready to do the work.”
“How do you handle such a wide variety in the classroom equally. I find it hard to believe,” Mehta-Green said. Morrissey pointed to summer curriculum work, such as a differentiation course, and other teacher support. “We’ve done this kind of thing before.”
“If teachers can’t support everyone, the middle and lower tiers may not get the attention they need,” Mehta-Green said. “I’d like some additional measurable fail-safes,” including abandoning the change if it’s not working. Hartunian pushed back: “You’ve got to see it through to the end; you can’t say halfway through a year you give up on it.”
“This is not easy work – we think it’s important work, having a kid say, ‘I’m not academically advanced’ as a mindset. We’re trying to open up opportunities for more kids to do pre-algebra and other academically advanced courses. We want all students to start on an even playing field. It doesn’t feel right to say as soon as they walk through the door, ‘Well, you’re here, and you’re there.’ That feels wrong.”
Mehta-Green wondered why every student needs to feel capable of advanced math. “Everybody in that class should feel challenged – that’s the goal,” Hartunian said. The existence of the advanced class means many mainstream students “think their math is easy – and they can’t do it.”
Member Dan Brosgol commented, “This committee has resisted at times taking things away from achieving high-academic students. Certain kids hang their hats on high achievement, even in sixth grade. I’m just not sure about this right now. I just don’t know if I believe it philosophically.”
His colleague Brad Morrison said, “I think the theory of taking levels away and allowing them to learn by becoming good teachers is well-grounded. The opportunity for an outstanding teacher to manage a heterogenous classroom with lots of differentiation is theoretically quite reasonable. The devil is in the practice.
“I don’t understand how advanced kids who cluster together will benefit the others. It’s all about what happens inside the classroom not how we organize the levels,” he continued. “How will students manage classroom time with more divergence of math capability? I hate the idea of taking a student in sixth grade and giving them a fixed mindset.” He tried to envision “a teacher’s lesson plan for a week to see how three or four groups would thrive in that environment.”
Hartunian offered, “You might start with a few exponent problems just to get yourself warmed up – you’re going to have a variety of answers. Not every kid who gets it right knows why it’s right. There’s your teaching opportunity – not to prove you don’t know as much as you think, but to get them to understand that there’s more to it than just getting the right answer. If you spend time on really important concepts, I think you get buy-in.”
“There’s still going to be opportunities for formative learning activities in small groups,” Morrissey added. “I don’t want it to seem like the solution to this issue is that high-achieving students are going to work together.”
He reminded the committee that the focus is just on a single sixth-grade section. “I didn’t think this proposal would have as many concerns as you brought up.”
Committee Chair Sarah Scoville pointed out that the teaching transition shouldn’t be an issue because most of the grade 6 math sections already are heterogeneous. She added that “I know there’s a community of people that are going to be concerned about the proposal.”
Mike Rosenberg can be reached at [email protected], or 781-983-1763
Loading ...
Don’t people know that most towns are eliminating leveling at the middle school level? It fosters inequalities.
Really stupid move. That is why some kids do not do well in school. They are bored. No challenge for them.