The opinions expressed are the author’s alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Village Green or its editors.
An Open Letter to Incoming Superintendent Ramos:
“If we want to provide the best education for our children, the focus in elementary school should be to ‘draw in’ not ‘weed out’ and to create an atmosphere of collaboration, not competition.”
—Principles to Action: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2014.
Dear Dr. Ramos,
I attended your meeting with the SOMA community in early April in the Columbia High School Library. I was impressed with your thoughtful and thought-provoking answers to many difficult questions from the audience. The one that resonated most with me was your answer to a question from a parent in the audience, who happened also to be a public school teacher, about your view of standardized tests. You said that you “had a problem” with these tests. The problem, you said, occurs when “the educational apparatus starts to be organized around the tests” because, among other things, this “takes the joy out of learning.” From the loud applause, it seemed that many in the audience whole-heartedly agreed with you. In light of your concerns about the effects of excessive testing, I would urge you to take a hard look at our own math program. I would suggest that you start with what goes on in our 5th grade classrooms. Let me tell you why.
I have a daughter who is about to graduate from 5th grade at Seth Boyden. She has a dedicated, caring teacher who works very hard to teach the 5th grade math curriculum. This math curriculum is all about the tests:
- Five high-stakes, district-wide assessments, whose scores “count” for 6th grade middle school math placement;
- A one-day, three-hour test in the spring, on topics 5th graders have learned and topics they have not yet learned (which the district uses to determine whether a 5th grade student is eligible for “acceleration”—essentially skipping 6th grade math);
- A regular series of “chapter” tests; and
- The mandated PARCC tests, which are administered twice during the school year.
Some might think relentless testing of 11 year-olds is a function of an educationally rigorous curriculum. It is not. Fifth grade students learn from the very start of the school year that they will be taking many math tests, and that several of these tests will determine their academic placement in middle school. Because this message is sent loudly and clearly, many students, including my own daughter, begin the school year with some dread and anxiety. Many students also experience dread and anxiety on or before test days, especially on those days when the tests “count.”
I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that students in my daughter’s 5th grade year are hyper-aware about the impending ranking they will be given at the end of 5th grade, which will determine where they will be placed in 6th grade math. As such, I think it is accurate to say that the 5th grade math curriculum is entirely oriented around high-stakes tests.
Admittedly, tests are important. Every child in our district needs to learn how to take tests and how to do well on them. But I agree with you, Dr. Ramos. When the entire curriculum is oriented around tests, we have a problem. We have lost sight of what education is. This is the first year my daughter ever said that she hates school. And who could blame her? Math instruction takes up an enormous amount of time every day, and math instruction is essentially “test-prep.” There is no joy in learning math. Children are not taught why they are learning what they are learning, or how math is meaningful to their lives. Neither is there an effort — as far as I can ascertain — to teach children how math relates to the world around them, nor to show them how math is connected to other subjects.
In fact, there is very little time or effort to teach other subjects. As you may have already discovered, Social Studies and Science are hardly taught in 4th and 5th grades, because there are just not enough minutes in the day for subjects that are not under the federal mandate to be tested. You said in your remarks that you believed that “if you teach quality, the tests will take care of themselves.” This also got a big round of applause from the audience, because most adults know this to be true. But I would like to know how there can there be quality elementary school education when so little time and attention is given to Science and Social Studies? How many students are we failing to engage and educate because we don’t have time to teach these subjects every day, and because the curriculum the district does offer in these subjects is incredibly weak?
Tests can also be important diagnostic tools. Used judiciously, test scores provide valuable information about a child’s progress in grasping new concepts, and about the effectiveness of a teacher’s strategies for conveying these concepts. If the series of 5th grade tests were being used in this way—to help identify gaps in student learning and show teachers which concepts students have failed to master, for example—then perhaps one could justify their prominence in “the educational apparatus.” But that is not the purpose of 5th grade math tests. If it were, teachers would not move on immediately to the next topic, as they do now, regardless of how poorly or how well children have done. The sole purpose of these 5th grade tests is to label and sort these very young children into different tracks in 6th grade.
Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether it is necessary or wise to divide 6th graders in this way, we might first question whether scores on a series of high-stakes tests are appropriate tools for academic placement.
Consider one anecdotal example: Because of an absence on one of the test days that “counted” for 6th grade placement, our daughter had to take a make-up test. The make-up was given in a noisy classroom, and she was distracted. She scored a 56. We wouldn’t have cared about this one grade except for the fact that we knew the district’s policy would hold it against her. So we requested a re-test with different questions of equal difficulty to be administered in a quiet room. We were granted this request, and she took the test again. This time, she scored 100. It is obvious that test scores for the same child can vary wildly, depending on many, many factors, aside from knowledge and ability. For the district, however, this does not seem to matter. What matters to the district first and foremost is whether it can claim to have “objective” data points through which it can sort 5th grade students into an “appropriate” track in 6th grade math.
I would like to know what you, as superintendent, think it is possible to tell from test scores about a child’s potential for learning math? What are we missing when we reduce a child’s educational achievement and experience solely—and I mean solely, as per district policy—to a series of high-stakes tests? What do these numbers tell us about the quality of instruction or about a student’s experience of that instruction?
I have cut and pasted below, for your convenience, the grid the district uses to divide students into three math “levels” in 6th grade: “College Prep”; “Honors”; and “Accelerated.” This elaborate rulebook purports to explain the criteria used to place children in levels for 6th grade math. It is based on many minute distinctions—aggregates and averages of test scores—used to categorize 5th graders. There’s certainly a lot of precision. But does any serious person think that these fine gradations are meaningful or real? The entire enterprise strikes me as absurd, like something out of Lewis Carroll, or worse, Franz Kafka.
Another reason we should all be concerned about the district’s testing and tracking policies in middle school math is that they have a racially disparate impact. I would like to be able to give you exact numbers here, but unfortunately I can’t because the district does not share that information with the public. (I recall that you also spoke about the need for more transparency.)
In addition, the district has also not provided sufficient information to 5th grade parents about the effects of leveling on the content of the 6th grade math curriculum, or its broad implications for their child’s overall education. Specifically, it does not explain the difference between “college prep” and “honors” math. (See specific questions below.) It also does not inform parents that children who are placed in College Prep and do not “move up” a level over the course of their middle school years have little chance of getting to Calculus by 12th grade. “College Prep” almost seems a cruel euphemism for parents and children who have hopes of being considered for top tier colleges. Parents are also not informed that children who remain in the College Prep math track are barred from taking some of the advanced science courses at the high school, because they won’t have the requisite math to do so.
I submitted these and other questions to the district a few months ago but I have not yet received any answers. I am posting these questions below.
What I did receive in the mail on Friday was a letter from the district “inviting” my daughter to participate in a summer math “step-up” program. This invitation is apparently sent to 5th grade parents whose child or children just miss the cut off for honors or accelerated math. We are asked to respond to the district within five days. Should I pull my daughter out of a wonderful science program she is planning to take in July, or her theater arts camp that she has been looking forward to all year, in order to have the opportunity (without a guarantee) of being placed in honors math next year? What would you do, Mr. Ramos? How do you think she will respond to the “good news” that she is being offered the “opportunity” to sit through more drill and kill in math, from 9 to 1 every day for the entire month of July, and asked to sit for yet another math test, in order to be considered for honors?
Fifth grade is almost over for my daughter. Math instruction for her has been a process of weeding out, not drawing in, a wrenching competition for select spots in 6th grade math. We can only hope her math instruction next year gives her some reason to re-engage with the subject. We can only hope also that you will take a close look at the excessive testing regime and strict gatekeeping process we have in place for math and bring your experience and judgment to bear to help us make some improvements.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Amy J. Higer
Amy Higer is the parent of two children in the Maplewood-South Orange School district. She teaches in the Political Science Department at Rutgers-Newark.
Here are the questions that the district has not answered:
Nine Questions Submitted to the District, mid- April 2015
- Could you explain the relevance of the 4th grade NJASK test score to a student’s academic placement in 6th grade math? As I’m sure you know, this test is not designed for the purpose for which you are using it. I suspect that this test has a racially disparate impact. It would be inappropriate to use such a test for this purpose even if it did not have this impact, but given this, what is the justification for using 4th grade NJASK scores for 6th grade math placement?
- How many students are placed in accelerated math each year, on average? Are there roughly an equal number of students from each of the five elementary schools placed in acceleration? More generally, can the district articulate the purpose of accelerated math for 6th graders?
- What is or are the difference(s) between “college prep” and “honors” math, in terms of content and pacing? Do students learn the same things? Do they learn at a different pace? Are class sizes different? Are the requirements different? Are the grading criteria different? If the content and/or pacing of these levels are different, does this make it difficult for a student to move “up” or “down” a level?
- How many students placed in 6th grade “college prep” math get to algebra by 8th grade? How many get to calculus by 12th grade? In high school, how many students are unable to take the science classes they desire because they do not have the necessary math classes to do so?
- Does the district have qualitative data on how a child’s math placement in 6th grade affects her/his motivation to learn, and/or understanding of him or herself as a competent learner? If it does not, should it develop such data, given the importance during these formative years of identity formation, self-image, and peer-relationships?
- Regarding the step-up summer program: why is it necessary? Why is a child who is motivated to be in a higher math level not simply invited to try that level? If the justification for this program is “to expand access to higher levels,” why is access being denied to 6th grade children in the first place? How many children, on average, participate in this program and do not earn access to a higher level? Finally, how much money does the district spend on this program, and could this money be better spent, say on additional math instruction for children who are struggling during the school year, or in the early years of elementary school?
- What is the racial breakdown of the three levels in math in 6th grade over the past two years in each middle school? What about the percentage of children eligible for a free- or reduced-price lunch, for each middle school for the past two years? What is the racial breakdown and percentage of students who qualify for free- and reduced-priced lunch in the accelerated math program, compared to the 5th grade as a whole? Are Seth Boyden and Clinton—the district elementary schools that have higher percentages of racial minorities and free-and reduced-priced lunch students—placing a comparable number of students in accelerated and honors math as are the other elementary schools?
- Regarding the chart attached to the district email that purports to explain the criteria used to place children in levels for 6th grade math (copied below): it raises so many questions it is difficult to know where to start. But in fact the only one that matters is this: Why create such an elaborate rulebook, with so many minute mathematical distinctions, to categorize and sort 11 year-old children? Where do these numbers come from and what do they mean?
- Finally, your letter says nothing about why the policy of academic placement for 6th grade math exists in the first place. Is it really necessary to create three separate math tracks for incoming 6th graders? Why is it necessary? The district long ago eliminated such divisions in 6th grade for the other three core subjects. Why and how is math fundamentally different than Language Arts, Social Studies, or Science? What does the most recent educational research show about teaching and learning math, and does this research provide support for this early tracking? What does it say about doing so in a district as racially and economically diverse as ours? And what evidence does the district have to show that this policy is effective in achieving the goal of teaching every child the math he or she needs to know to get into top colleges or the college of her/his choice, and for entering the job market?
Here are the criteria for level placement in 6th grade math:
District Criteria for Middle School Math Placement
Criteria for student identification for Acceleration in order to skip grade 6 math
o A 93% average on CA-5, a 93% subset score on CA-5, score of 250+ on NJASK4*, and PT-6 score of 90% with 7 points on acceleration items. OR
o A 90% average on CA-5, a 90% subset score on CA-5, score of 240+ on NJASK4*, and PT-6 score of 90% with 8 points on acceleration items. OR
o An 88% average on CA-5, an 88% subset score on CA-5, score of 235+ on NJASK4*, PT-6 of 80% with 10 points on acceleration items and participation and successful performance (B average) in summer program. OR
o New students with a minimum PT-6 score of 90% with 8 points on acceleration items
Criteria for student identification for Honors
o An 83% average on CA-5, an 83% subset score on CA-5, score of 250+ on NJASK4*, and PT-6 score of 70%. OR
o An a 83% average on CA-5, an 83% subset score on CA-5, score of 220+ on NJ ASK-4*, and PT-6 score of 85%. OR
o An 80% average on CA-5, an 80% subset score on CA-5, score of 215+ on NJASK4*, and PT-6 score of 65% with 5 points on DAT items and participation and successful performance (B average) in the Summer Program. OR
o New students with a minimum PT-6 score of 85%
*= Weight influenced by teacher recommendation.
