If you see news on this subject that we should include here, or see "silly stuff" in the paper or elsewhere that we need to reply to, please email it with your response to admin@keepgrouping.org

Jackie Heftman and Julia Wade to Seek Superintendent Who Will Institute Full Heterogeneous Grouping at All Levels

SREE Supports Gary Klein, Pam Scott and Mara Siladi for Democratic BOE Endorsement

Critical Vote for the Future of the Stamford School System is Slated for Thursday July 21.

Three seats, currently held by Wade, Heftman and Steve Polo, are up for election this year. Polo has already announced that he is not seeking re-election.

SREE urges Heftman and Wade to join Polo in retiring from the BOE. They are extremists (far more so than even the departing administration), and have publicly stated that they will attempt to steer the superintendent selection in an extreme direction, including seeking a superintendent who will institute full heterogeneous grouping at all levels and go much further in the direction of the initial MSR grouping approach.

Klein, Scott and Siladi, by contrast, are open-minded, reasonable candidates who will seek to understand the facts before jumping blindly to such an ideologically extreme position:

• Klein has been strongly involved in SREE and a strong proponent of our positions since SREE's founding.
• The incumbent BOE members who support SREE's positions favor Klein, Scott and Siladi and are confident the working relationship will be positive
• By contrast Heftman and Wade have pushed for full heterogeneous grouping in the Stamford schools, a position far more radical than even the outgoing administration took.
• Heftman stated that she would base her superintendent hiring decision on this position.
• Both Heftman and Wade have proven to be rigid and inflexible in dealing with the rest of the BOE, and an obstacle to making improvements in Middle School Reform.

Why this matters now, on July 21:

Although July seems early to be focusing on BOE seats, the endorsement on 7/21 is essential to the eventual composition of the school board for the next two years. As a Democratic majority town, Stamford tends to elect the Democratic slate in an off-year local election. And while an unendorsed candidate could primary to get onto the ballot or run as an Independent, both are long-shot approaches.

So ultimately, the candidates nominated by the 40 DCC members on 7/21 have a very good chance of being elected to 3-year terms in November. With the board still closely divided philosophically, and bitterly divided in their interactions, it is critical that reasonable members get endorsed.

How can you help

• Call or email the city committee members
• Attend the 7/21 meeting at 7pm at Gov Center

Gary Klein

• Born and raised in Stamford.  Attended Springdale, Davenport Ridge, Turn of River, Stamford High School.  Children attend Cloonan and Westhill.
• Partner, Stamford law firm of Sandak Hennessey & Greco, LLP
• Former member, Stamford Democratic City Committee
• Former member, Stamford Environmental Protection Board
• Member, Middle School Advisory Council
• Former member, Stamford Partnership (including executive committee)
• Former member and counsel, Stamford Public Education Foundation
• Judge and Coach, High School Mock Trial Competition
• Coach and sponsor, Stamford Youth Soccer and National Leone Little League
• Adjunct professor, legal studies, Fairfield University

Pam Scott

• Born and raised in Stamford. Attended Roxbury, TOR, Wright Tech. Children attended Stark, Hart, Dolan, SHS.
• Chair, Stamford Federal Credit Union Board of Directors
• Board Member, Horizons Student Enrichment Program
• Parent Leadership Training Institute
• Member of Connecticut Alliance for Basic Human Needs
• Board Member, Student Health Services
• Worked in Stamford's health department, finance department, tax department and social services department

Mara Siladi

• Stamford resident for 40 years
• Knows SPS inside out: Worked in Stamford Public Schools since 1980; retiring as Asst. Superintendent for Programs, Grants and Partnerships. Roles included special ed teacher, extraordinary learners program facilitator, math facilitator, grants.
• Former Trustee of Inter-district Academy of the Arts
• Former Chair of ALTA-Advisory Council
• Former Chair of Sped Task Force
• Former Board of Directors of Girls Club Inc.
• BA UConn, MS in Special Ed U Kansas.

SREE Applauds DCC Nomination of Gary Klein, Pam Scott and Mara Siladi!
DCC Votes Against Wade/Heftman!

7/14/11: The Democratic City Committee's Nominating Committee nominated three outstanding candidates for Board of Education.

Heftman and Wade Announce Support for Full Heterogeneous Grouping in All Grades

May 10, 2011

At the Curriculum Committee meeting of the BOE tonight, Jackie Heftman said she is in favor of a move to fully heterogeneous grouping at all levels, and would base her decision about hiring a new superintendent on the candidate's support for that position.

Julia Wade said we needed to go further in the direction that Middle School Reform had begun.

The voters have spoken decisively on this issues. Their position is 0 for 6 over the last two elections.

ELECTION 2010: MESSAGE SENT... AGAIN!!!

Winners: Alswanger, Leydon, Lyons. Mandate is Clear.

2010

• #1 DEMOCRAT: ALSWANGER (SREE-Endorsed)
• #1 REPUBLICAN: LEYDON (SREE-Endorsed)
• Bottom Dem and Bottom Overall: not SREE endorsed

2009

• #1 DEMOCRAT: RAUH (SREE-Endorsed)
• #1 REPUBLICAN: PIA (SREE-Endorsed)
• Bottom Dem and Bottom Rep (bottom two overall): not SREE endorsed

There will undoubtedly be attempts to re-write history, just like there have been this past year after SREE-endorsed candidates swept in 2009. People on the other side will keep trying to say, for instance, that the Middle School Advisory Council (made up of a few dozen hand-picked members who must stick to a rigid agenda each month) represents the community's feedback, and that the community does not really agree with SREE's position. We certainly saw this type of angle in a number of silly claims made in the run up to the election:

• Josh Starr said in his 10/28 Op Ed that SREE is a "small group of Stamford residents" (and went on at great length to misstate SREE's position in fairly offensive terms).
• Marty Levine, former board member, in a 10/29 letter in the Advocate pushed for the administration's current approach to grouping (and implied that those who preferred the more successful Westover/Rogers model didn't take closing the achievement gap seriously... what?!). He then urged those who share his view to vote for King and Lorenti.
• Wendy Lecker and Cindy Grafstein said on 10/22 in the paper that they were "curious about the claim" that there is "widespread concern about the grouping practices in middle school"... and went on to disprove (in their view) that "curious claim"

Curiosity resolved. On election day, the voters spoke very clearly. Again.

Let's be clear on just how resounding a statement has been made:

• In two election cycles, SREE has endorsed the six candidates who have been most aligned with our position (Rauh, Pia, Olson, Alswanger, Leydon, Limone). That position largely supports MSR and is fairly moderate if you actually read it (rather than reading how it is portrayed by those who just want it 100% their way at all costs). These candidates, however, faced a barrage of negative attacks from entrenched interests who have access to a far larger megaphone than SREE has. Nevertheless...
• Five of Six SREE-Endorsed Candidates Have Won! And the sixth seat was won by a SREE "honorable mention" Rich Lyons, who we expect will be an excellent BOE member (Carmine Limone, the sixth endorsed candidate, came up short partly due to Democratic coat-tails, and partly due to negative attacks against him based on his missing meetings during budget season - a point unrelated to MSR)*
• In two election cycles, SREE has opposed (that is, not endorsed and not given honorable mention to) four candidates -- the same four candidates that the proponents of full heterogeneous grouping throughout the school system have strenuously backed and supported. Three of the four have been the three bottom vote getters in the last two election cycles. The fourth was the bottom Dem vote getter this year, but not bottom overall.**
• So again: two elections cycles. Five of six endorsed candidates, from both parties, have won. One honorable mention has won. And four of four candidates supported by the other side have lost (and three, badly).

If this is not a resounding call for action from the voters, it's hard to picture what would be. The changes SREE and these candidates have supported during their campaigns are fairly modest. No one wants to roll back MSR and return to tracking. But it's time for the administration and the remaining three BOE members who are up for election next year to stop mischaracterizing this position and start taking action to address these small but important concerns. ALL of the children of Stamford would benefit from their finally hearing the message.

The election is over, and there is now a majority in place who are inclined to fix this. We must continue to speak up, the battle is not yet over. But now, finally, we can expect our voices will be heard!

*SREE would like to thank Carmine Limone for his dedicated service to the Stamford schools for 37 years, and his service on the BOE this past year. His voice at BOE meetings will truly be missed. We hope he will seek a seat on the BOE again next year, when, without a 6000 vote coat-tail effect at the top of the ticket, he will without doubt regain his seat. Please help SREE draft Carmine back into service next year!

**The fourth (King) was the bottom Democratic vote getter this year, but due to the coat-tail effect of an overwhelming Democratic victory at the top of the ticket and Bob's well-deserved good reputation for a long record of service to the city, he beat the Republican candidates.

To the many visitors from Montgomery County seeking comment on your new Superintendent:

Congratulations on a GREAT hire!

(No need to read further, especially before the ink dries on that contract.)

Starr reverses course and announces a third math group in middle school!
Speakers and Data: "It's Not Working in Math"

Significant news from the Curriculum Committee presentation

May 10, 2011

Buried amid hours of fluff about things everyone already agrees with (tracking is bad; different groups in different subjects; curriculum is good), Josh Starr buried the lead of tonight's curriculum committee meeting. After two years of denial, he acknowledged that the two-group strategy in math has failed. He plans to add an Algebra 1 class for 7th grade math and a web-based program in 8th.

Open questions remain:

• If three groups makes sense in 7th and 8th, why not 6th?
• Why are we just helping out the top kids? What about the struggling kids at the bottom in math who need a pull-out class to succeed? His own administration presented data showing that 38% of kids who are entering 6th grade with 1s or 2s on their CMTs are getting Ds or Fs in CP math. They desperately need a pull out program with extra support. It can be the Westover model, or the Howard County model. But let's please stop punishing these kids on behalf of building Dr. Starr's resume. He's already gotten his next job.
• And of course it needs to be asked - Why did he wait two years, when this was obvious from the outset to anyone who read the literature? (A. didn't look as good on his resume?)

The meeting was staged as a lovefest for MSR. But even amid that, the comments and data that it's not working for math (which has always been the point) kept coming out. Here's a sampling:

• Claps (Cloonan): "math is the hardest to do this with"; "we really need to start it in K to get there"
• Starr: CMT's in math went down for 6th grade Hispanics from 2009 to 2010; and vertical scores went down in math for Blacks. (What he didn't include is the analysis showing the achievement gap widening for all subgroups when you look at the same class going from 5th to 6th grade... but even using his cherry picked data, he couldn't make the case that this is working in math)
• Judy Singer (who does the number crunching for Starr): 38% of kids who entered with 1s or 2s on CMTs in math are getting Ds or Fs in CP math (Of course!!! They need extra help in a pull out class... we've been saying this all along)
• Claps: AE/AS is needed to make it work (yes! been saying this since the outset - how could they have jumped in without having the key pieces in place? clearly Starr was eager to get this onto his resume, and jumped into an incomplete program, without doing a pilot test, never mind the damage to the first few classes through)
• Judy Singer: "math is the area that is more difficult than the others"
• Starr's summary: "biggest challenge is math" and the weak results in math are "not surprising"

Stamford Taxpayers Salute Montgomery County!

Thanks for saving us the $200,000 severance payment!

We owe you one!

Hey, Jack Bryant and GE: Sue Westover!

April 30, 2011

Jack Bryant of the NAACP threatened to sue the Stamford Public Schools over potential grouping changes (article).

If Mr. Bryant feels so strongly, and if he is following the facts of the discussion (rather than Starr's and GE's mischaracterization of the facts) the NAACP should not to hesitate on this. After all, if he feel strongly about what Mr. Leydon and others are suggesting (namely flexible grouping in math and reading), he should immediately initiate a lawsuit AGAINST WESTOVER SCHOOL, which has been doing this for decades.

Westover of course is the district's highest performing school, has a brilliant track record of raising performance levels of minority and non-minority students alike, has many times more applications than it has spots, and is the place where our failing schools have gotten to send their most under performing students (mostly minority) under NCLB after they can't help them. Westover's 5th graders out perform Stamford's 6th graders in math (apples to apples comparison of vertical scores). And the achievement gap is much tighter there than under the 2-track system of middle school reform (which actually saw a growth in achievement gap last year for the first class through -- comparing where they entered to where they exited... not the apples to oranges of two different classes that Starr uses).

Westover's model of flexible grouping in math and reading (which for two periods a day gives struggling students more support and gives students ready to move more quickly the ability to do so) has produced enviable results and should have been the model used for grouping under middle school reform in the first place (rather than the two-track system in all four subjects). But it did not fit the narrative that Dr. Starr wished to create for his resume. His decision to once again mischaracterize the suggestion by many that Stamford should use flexible grouping in math and reading as an attempt to return to tracking, his characterization of those who suggest it as being segregationists (never mind the other 4 periods a day), and his decision to incite the NAACP into a potential suit (which Starr threatened last year - so this is no surprise and this is no accident), is his final goodbye and legacy for Stamford.

Regardless of Starr's clear hand in this, the fact remains, if Bryant opposes Leydon, then he opposes Westover too, because the proposed approach is one in the same. So he should get on with his lawsuit against Westover. And GE, should hold a press conference right in front of our city's finest school announcing that it requires Westover to change its approach immediately or it will take its money back.

Middle School Reform: Position and Recommendations

SREE supports the stated intent of, and the majority of the tactics for Middle School Reform in Stamford as positive and necessary, including:

• Commitment to high standards for all, and closing the achievement gap while raising the bar for everyone
• Consistent curriculum across the district
• Improved science curriculum
• Commitment to staff development
• Flexibility in group placement, allowing students to be in one group for one subject and another group for another subject
• And the movement of students among groups over time to match their level and needs

However, it is essential to provide more than two groups in certain core subjects, primarily math and language arts, for several reasons:

• It is extremely difficult to truly meet the individual needs of a large group of students who span many grade levels in ability in a single classroom in rigorous subjects like math and language arts. Perhaps a small group of master differentiators can do so, and even they could likely make even more progress with a group that was ready to learn at the same level. But we are no where near having a staff full of master differentiators (which takes years and years) and our spread of incoming levels in 6th grade is massive relative to "model districts."
• The conditions that allow two-group strategies to work in other districts, including "model districts" that the administration benchmarked like Rockville Centre, are not in place in Stamford (such as small support groups of 6 to 8 students, and processes that started in 1st grade to allow for a tighter range among students entering the two-group system).
• Academic support and academic enrichment are not yet well developed. AE doesn't even exist for 7th grade (despite what the handbook distributed by the administration says).
• Our highest performing models within Stamford use flexible ability grouping in math and language arts, with great success (see CMT result analysis below)
• Research used to promote the changes was misleading (at best) and the first year of Stamford's own results with MSR (see CMT result analysis) contradict claims of the panacea heterogeneous grouping.

Continuing down the current path without modification may be highly damaging to the "guinea pig" classes:

• There is an expected performance dip for the first classes going through a dramatically new approach, as the teachers get used to the curriculum and teaching methods and administrators work out the kinks.
• This dip is clear in the CMT result analysis.
• Why inflict a "triple dip" on the Classes of 2016 and 2017? There’s no reason for it since you can get to the same end point of two groups over time with a phased-in approach - doing everything else in MSR, while putting in place the conditions for two groups to at least potentially succeed.

Although the majority of the reform strategy is positive, this tactical point is significant enough to undermine the broader strategy and render the reform ineffective overall, as the results show.

Specific recommendations:

• Do not use two groups in math and language arts until the conditions are in place for two groups to succeed - including small academic support classes; greater parity of performance entering 6th grade; academic support and academic enrichment curriculum in place; etc.
• Use flexible grouping in math and language arts, at least, until that is in place.
  • We are not recommending a major overhaul of MSR or of the grouping strategy.
  • We recommend that 1/3 of the day (2 periods of 6) remains fully heterogeneous as it is, and that another 1/3 of the day (science and social studies) remains largely heterogeneous in two groups, as it is.
  • The immediate (and potentially temporary) change we recommend is in two of six periods, that there should be four rather than two groups in math and language arts.
• This is not logistically complex:
  • For math and language arts, split honors into two parts, with the small upper tail of the bell curve who are able to move more quickly and deeply in these subjects, in an accelerated group. For instance, the top ~10-15% (one classroom full) of students in math may be ready for algebra 1 in seventh grade, so why hold them back?
  • Also for math and language arts, split CP into two parts, with the ~25% or so of students who are struggling the most placed in a class with additional resources, following the model, for instance, of Howard County, which places two teachers in the room for these classes, or alternatively using the Westover School model of providing smaller class sizes for these struggling students.
• Continue in the two-group structure for science and social studies. Note, however, that the grouping for these subjects should not be based on math and reading scores, but instead, for instance, on teacher input. While math skills may correlate with future performance in AP Physics, there is very little math in the middle school science curriculum.
• Movement up and down, in subjects with more groups, can now truly be flexible as advertised, with children moved over time to the class that suits them. While standardized tests may be part of the initial placement process, students' actual classroom performance and capability to perform as judged by teachers should play a much larger role in ongoing placement decisions.

To address some myths about SREE's position, these recommendations:

• Fully value the diversity of Stamford's student body. For those who argue that part of the beauty of Stamford is it's diversity and part of the benefit of going to school in Stamford is getting to interact and share classes with different children from different backgrounds, WE AGREE. We hope this will be all day long as children from all backgrounds qualify for the various class levels in math and language arts, but either way, it will be the case two-thirds of the day under our recommendations.
• Do not undermine MSR, they enhance MSR and help MSR succeed.
• Address the fact that CP has a massive range of students - from high 4s to low 1s, perhaps a 5 grade-level spread in ability. It is extremely difficult to meaningfully teach math and LA to children at either end of that range simultaneously, in a large classroom.
• Address the fact that even honors has too large a range, including students who are ready to take on the next grade-level curriculum. Why hold them back?
• Would give additional resources to those struggling the most
• Are not turning back - they are moving forward in a prudent way that minimizes "collateral damage" and "dips" for students who are in the initial classes going through MSR, while we head to the goal.
• Only change the grouping strategy in 2 of 6 periods per day.
• Can be implemented overnight - it is not a major overhaul. This is class reshuffling consistent with what should be happening under the regrouping strategy.

SREE REPLIES to Silly Season: Small contingent is running a smear campaign to try to elect ineffective fringe candidates and protect their own self-interests

SREE has endorsed the three candidates who are by far the most qualified to serve - with a combination of decades of experience in the school system, families who have served the school system in some cases for generations, and a combined half-dozen kids in the schools! Their voices, and more importantly their collective ability and willingness to listen to the community, make them an extraordinary trio of candidates. Stamford will be truly fortunate to have them on the Board of Education.

These dedicated public servants are being strenuously opposed by a tiny minority with extreme views, loud voices, and personal self-interests at stake, who are willing to mischaracterize the candidates' (and SREE's) positions in the paper, and even smear parents in the effort. We have seen some very silly things these last couple weeks in the paper, from people who (in 3 out of 4 cases) know better. It would take many pages to respond to all the silliness. Here are some highlights:

• A letter to the editor from former BOE member Marty Levine stated that five candidates (including all three SREE-endorsed candidates) "expressed little or no interest" in closing the achievement gap. This is, of course, completely absurd. The candidates are all highly focused on closing the gap - both SREE and non-SREE endorsed candidates are. Some would do it differently than others. Clearly, Marty doesn't like that the way in which the SREE-endorsed candidates (as well as some of the others) would focus on closing the gap is more akin to what the most successful schools in Stamford do -- use flexible grouping and give children the attention they need in certain core subjects -- than the way he would like it done, namely by throwing kids at widely different skill levels into the same classroom and hoping it all works out (which the data suggests it doesn't). Marty, just because they disagree with your solution doesn't mean they're not focused on the problem. And by the way, having presided over a widening of the gap while you were in office is not an impressive qualification for telling others how to fix it.
• A letter to the editor from Cindy Grafstein and Wendy Lecker, PTC leaders known for their fringe view that we should go to complete heterogeneous grouping in Stamford right now, sought to disprove the notion that there are "widespread complaints from the community regarding Middle School Transformation." To prove that parents were indeed completely happy with MSR, they did the obvious. They called the middle school principals, who are quite aware that staff under the Starr regime get fired for publicly airing any dissenting views (what ever happened to Linda Bruno?). Surprise surprise, the principals allegedly told them the complaints were few. Pretty scientific methodology!
• A variant is the talking point used by the current (and soon to be former) President of the BOE - that the lack of attendance at the forums and speakers at the BOE meetings signals that all agree with what they're doing. Jackie - people are tired of hitting their heads against the wall talking to the current do-nothing board. They're waiting for a new board composition. Listening doesn't mean just sitting through 3 minutes of people telling you things. It means actually processing it and taking it in. You should try it - you might even learn something (and you might get people showing up to speak again).
• One blogger has commented that SREE must have a niche point of view, because it is at odds with what the Middle School Advisory Council wants. For instance, he writes, "There is a Middle School Advisory Council that is made up of parents and administrators who are responsible for shepherding these changes in a controlled and rational manner, discussing the necessary changes and making the modifications. Course corrections need to be the mantra here, not a complete reversal to the old system." In fairness, this blogger has young kids, knows nothing about middle school, and doesn't actually have a clue what happens at MSAC meetings so he (unlike some of the others) is probably not being intentionally deceptive. Let's clarify though. The MSAC is a bit of a joke. The structure of the meetings does not invite conversation about the real issues - it is highly constrained to Starr's agenda. Parents on the MSAC don't feel their voices are heard (first hand feedback). Administrators know to keep their mouths shut if it goes against Starr's vision. One SREE member, invited to one meeting, asked his breakout group what they thought of more groups in math -- and ALL AGREED! This is one of the essential SREE points and MSAC members saw the need, but it was not allowed to be discussed. MSAC is not a deliberative and corrective body overseeing MSR. It is a show piece for Starr and the BOE to use to say their is broad community involvement. It is a farce. And, for what it's worth, blogger, SREE also favors "course corrections... not a complete reversal to the old system." You should maybe have a look at our position (rather than Starr's characterization of it), before writing about it as if you understand it.
• And of course, there's Dr. Starr's rant, which would deserve it's own place in the Silly Season Hall of Fame if it were not so sad to be coming from a public figure in his position. Much like a child who doesn't like to be told he's wrong about something, Starr threw a fit, blasted out emails to smear a parent who raised concerns, and included a significant number of "untruths" and race-baiting commentary. This response gets it's own section plus some follow on pages to go through the point by point issues.

Response to Dr. Starr's Op Ed

This is in response to Dr. Starr's reckless Op Ed in the Advocate and his longer 4-page article covering the same topic, sent out via email to the Stamford Public Schools email list, in which Starr responds to Alan Stockman's op ed about middle school reform (and personally attacks Alan).

Alan also wrote this heartfelt response to Starr's personal attack.

Summary

We are delighted that Dr. Starr has brought so much attention to SREE's work. However, we are disappointed that he chose again to go down a path of creating divisions in the community and of using selected and misleading data to justify sticking with the two-group plan in all subjects, rather than consider modest tactical improvements that could make MSR successful for all children in Stamford.

• Starr writes, "SREE is opposed to our efforts to eliminate the vestiges of tracking that has kept generations of students of color in Stamford from attaining a high quality education." What???
• Starr knows SREE's position very well - it's been presented to him many times. He knows that we do not support tracking in any way. We support flexible grouping in math and reading, in the way that schools like Westover and Rogers do it to achieve great success for all levels and subgroups. Starr has even publicly stated for the record that this is not tracking. However, since he cannot credibly find fault with SREE's actual position, he has instead created an imaginary pro-tracking, pro-status-quo straw man to argue against, in a cynical attempt to create a wedge in the community that need not exist.
• If Starr were serious about addressing the community's concerns and making MSR work for Stamford (instead of for his resume), he would not try to squelch debate. If he were serious, he might try to discuss the incredible success of using flexible grouping in math and reading for all levels and subgroups, right here in Stamford, instead of trying to attack supporters of the Westover/Rogers approach as racists.
• Regarding his analysis of performance data, Starr has done an apples-to-oranges analysis of two different classes and compares where they were at the end of sixth grade, without regard to where they entered sixth grade. This essentially combines the progress made from K to 6th and compares that between two unmatched groups of students. It's interesting, but not particularly relevant to assessing the effect of MSR's first year last year.
• SREE's analysis isolates the sixth grade program by looking at the progress of last year's sixth graders on reaching goal relative to where they were when they entered sixth grade. SREE's measure is far more relevant to understanding the effects of MSR. And the outcome is concerning, both overall, in every subgroup, and in terms of the achievement gap growing.
• In the midst of citing a large number of mostly irrelevant data points, Starr acknowledges as a "nuanced story" that in math, both Blacks and Whites lost ground relative to the prior year's class on vertical scores. This is exactly SREE's point, which makes one wonder what all the arguing is about. MSR math, in two groups, is not working and should be fixed.
• What may be most interesting about Starr's thousands of words across two articles is what he didn't find space to address. There is no refuting the indisputable fact that flexibly grouped fifth graders outperformed the entire sixth grade last year in math - both in terms of their growth and their finish point. There is also no mention about the fact that the achievement gap actually grew for the Class of 2016 from 5th to 6th grade in all subjects - see data
• Starr acknowledges that "we expected an 'implementation dip'" in the first year. SREE has raised concerns, which have not been addressed, of the "triple dip." Current 7th graders (and 6th graders) will be the first guinea pigs for the unpiloted MSR in each grade, three years in a row. The current Board of Education, unfortunately, does not allow that catastrophic situation to be discussed, and just let's the planned triple-dipping to continue, now into it's second year.

While his arguments are off base and are intended to divide the community, even that's not the biggest problem with his articles. The biggest concern of all is Starr's decision to use his position, and the school system's email list, to blast out a political hatchet job of a concerned parent, who raised legitimate and reasonable concerns about the administration's math and reading grouping strategy. This parent did not attack Starr - he merely raised a series of important issues that the administration has not wanted to address openly and honestly. For this, he was personally attacked. Starr's actions were a gross misuse of his authority and of the intended purpose of the email system, and it appears calculated to try to intimidate those who would question his approach.

The real conclusion, though, from reading Starr's piece is quite clear. With five BOE members blindly supporting him, Starr feels free to use misleading data, implement unpiloted programs, not consider local best practices, and personally attack parents who raise concerns. If, however, at least two of the three SREE endorsed candidates win seats on the BOE, a serious discussion can finally begin.

See detailed point-by-point response to Starr's articles

back to top

CMT Results for the First Year of Middle School Reform Reveal Problems and Setbacks

• Stamford's Class of 2016 (the first to complete 6th grade under MSR) lost ground in math and reading last year - overall and in every subgroup
• Despite efforts to close the achievement gap, the achievement gap actually increased for the Class of 2016 in every subject
• Stamford students started ahead of their statewide peers entering 6th grade and finished behind.
• Stamford and statewide 6th graders both entered 6th grade last year with precisely the same average Vertical Scale Score in math, indicating that Stamford and statewide elementary schools prepared their Classes of 2016 to an equal level in math on average. However, in 6th grade, statewide middle school students had a 60% greater jump in math than Stamford middle school students (24 vs. 15 points). For Black students, the difference was a whopping 144% deficit in Stamford (9 vs. 22 points).
• The fifth grade class at one school in Stamford that uses flexible ability grouping outgrew and outperformed the entire 6th grade of Stamford in math (see which in the slide deck)
• See the full analysis, conducted with guidance from state department of education experts, here: CMT result analysis

Why this election matters

The two-group strategy is failing. Flexible grouping works and it does not represent a step backward and it does not unwind MSR as some would claim. It is a way to make MSR successful under current conditions and budget constraints.

The Class of 2016 is slated to move through middle school as the MSR “guinea pigs” for two more years (and the Class of 2017 is to follow right behind under the same broken model). One year of being subjected to an unsuccessful experiment might be a recoverable dip. Inflicting three straight years of this on the same group of students (while also rolling it out further) is unconscionable.

Unfortunately, admitting a misstep is particularly difficult in government - even when something as important as the future of our children is on the line. We sadly expect our call for refinements to be met with more stalling, inaction and more of the outrageous countercharges that were present in the initial debate.

As a result, change will likely have to come through the election process, with at least one more pro-change candidate being added to the Board of Education. For that reason, this November’s election will be critically important.

See SREE Endorsement >

How You Can Help:

• Tell your friends, and encourage them to sign up for SREE (top left of this page): this will let us keep them informed, and the size of the SREE list also sends an important message to BOE members of just how important an issue this is.
• Donate to SREE - even small donations help fund this website and the ongoing analysis presented above (note: SREE is an all volunteer organization with no paid staff). Donate here
• Attend BOE forums so you can be better informed about the candidates and their various positions
• Vote! And tell your friends to vote! Check back soon for SREE's BOE endorsements.
• Get involved more with SREE - contact us at admin@stamfordree.org if you'd like to be more involved, performing analysis, writing articles, researching, attending BOE meetings, or even running for office.