Short Version

Our main focus is middle school reform. We do not want to stop the reform program; much of it is excellent. However several key problems with the hastily implemented reform threaten to undermine it and cause more damage than good:

1. Much of middle school reform is positive and broadly supported - elimination of tracking, flexibility in grouping, rich curriculum, staff development, accountability, etc.
2. However, more than two flexible ability groups are needed, especially in core rigorous subjects like math and language arts, in order to meet the needs of students who are five, six or more grade levels apart in those subjects.
3. Many of the conditions that allow heterogeneous grouping to work in other districts (to the extent that it actually does work) are simply not in place in Stamford - such as 6-8 student support classes.
4. The administration should be looking at best practices within the city - namely the effective use of flexible ability grouping to meet the needs of students at every level at many of our top performing schools - rather than seeking all their solutions from vastly dissimilar, homogenous school districts that have much larger per-pupil budgets allowing small support classes, and that started in grade 1 not 6.
5. The administration should be piloting changes, rather than rushing them out citywide.

This is a critical time to speak up about these issues, before all ability grouping is gone citywide:

• The administration is mounting a major PR campaign, complete with hand-picked committees to represent "community opinion," characterization of valid concerns (like ours) as being pro-tracking and anti-reform, and memos with "feedback" from administrators and teachers, who are not comfortable speaking freely out of career concerns.
• The real feedback from the community was resoundingly delivered in the November elections, with a clean sweep by the three school board candidates we endorsed for sharing the views above.
• The real feedback from teachers and administrators, when they can speak freely, was well summarized in this op ed by Dr. Georgiana White, also in line with the views above.

Now is the time that your view must be heard! See why and see how.

Mission and Focus

Stamford Residents for Excellence in Education (SREE) is a Political Action Committee, formed with a mission of helping to ensure that all children in Stamford receive an excellent education, and are challenged to reach their full potential.

Our initial (but not exclusive) focus has been the Middle School Reform process. Much of the reform we favor and applaud, but parts of it we feel have been misguided and recklessly implemented without proper piloting, and have been supported with misleading data.

To be clear on one point that comes up frequently: we do not want to stop the reform program and we do not support rigid tracking (we feel it should be abolished anywhere it exists). We support flexible ability grouping in core subjects as used in some of our top performing schools in Stamford.

Middle School Reform Reactions

Positives: many aspects of the Middle School Reform are positive.

• Switch to flexible grouping - where students can be in one group for math and another group for language arts for instance.
• Improved, rich curriculum that challenges children at every level.
• Commitment to staff development.
• Elimination of any rigid tracking, defined as: placing kids into groups based on elementary school testing, at one level for all subjects, and keeping them in those groups regardless of future performance and ability.
• Stated goal by the administration of focusing on accountability for all levels.

Problems: despite a mostly positive reform effort, three fatal flaws threaten to turn it into a negative overall.

• Moving to just two groups in certain core, rigorous subjects - notably math and language arts. We believe every child should be challenged in an appropriately grouped class, moving at the pace and depth that is right for him/her in that subject. Having a 6 grade-level span of ability in the same class means either some will be left behind or some will be under-challenged, particularly in a subject like math.
• Failure to put in place the conditions necessary for the hugely diverse ability group in CP to succeed - This failure has moved us in the direction of the 19th century one room schoolhouse, with 5, 6, or more grade levels in the classroom, instead of the 21st century model programs that the administration wants to emulate. (E.g., a "model" school system the administration wishes to emulate uses 6-8 student support classes and started their process with first graders rather than jumping in at sixth).
• Failure to pilot before rolling out city-wide - There are some problems in any new implementation, or "growing pains" as Dr. Starr calls them (lack of AS/AE-core course coordination; lack of a plan for handling overcrowding classes as new honors students test in while none are moved out; lack of resources for small support classes; etc.). Some problems are to be expected. But if they are expected wouldn't it be best to uncover them in a pilot and get it right for roll out? And why should the Class of 2016 have to go through the growing pains each year - spread the wealth.

Failure to use internal best practices:

• Far greater emphasis should have been placed on understanding and replicating best practices from within our own system. We have flexible ability grouping models at Westover, Rogers and other unique high-performing programs that are already proven successful right here, within our own budget constraints and our diverse demographics.
• However, the administration prefers to pretend to emulate places like Rockville Centre, despite not having the budget to do it that way (such as provide 6- to 8-child support classes) and not putting in place the conditions that Rockville and other systems have to make their programs successful.

Misinformation: the administration has used deceptive practices to support its case and misrepresent the intentions of anyone who questions it:

• They cited one side of a highly contentious research debate and stated it was the full story, apparently hoping no one would notice or call them on it. We did - see the analysis
• They cite no clear success stories of the model being pursued in a community as socioeconomically diverse as Stamford – only for communities that are socioeconomically homogeneous to begin with (and even some of those studies have been considered suspicious and been disproven, such as Boaler - see analysis).
• Administration tactic of painting anyone who raises legitimate questions about any component of the reform as pro-tracking. See our mission statement above for clarity.
• Dr. Starr frequently uses the non sequitur argument that tracking is bad (agreed!), so therefore we should not use ability grouping (huh?). This is done despite the fact that flexible ability grouping methods used in our most successful schools have nothing to do with tracking. Dr. Starr knows this, but it is an inconvenient truth.
• Another favorite non sequitur of Dr. Starr's is that past performance has been inadequate (agreed!), so therefore any aspect of past practice is fair game to change without discussion or debate because it has failed. By that logic, we should probably teach the classes in French, since English hasn't been working. Aburd? No more absurd than throwing out the baby of flexible ability grouping with the bathwater of rigid tracking.
• For more informatoin on deceptive tactics see: Klein op ed

Solutions/Fixes

If the administration were serious about long-term results (as opposed to short-term PR and resume-building material prior to moving on), it would make the following changes:

1. Add a 3rd group. Nearly all of the 100+ kids getting top grades in CP failed to place into honors. The desire to move up and out of the overly broad CP group is clearly there (they all applied to take the test). Conversely, the bottom quarter to third of the honors class is in over their heads and holding back those classes, particularly in more complex subjects like math. The solution is clearly a 3rd group in the middle. Call it "Honors 2" to avoid any stigmas.
2. Stop "piloting" the changes city-wide and do smaller scale testing instead to get things right. And stop implementing every untested change on the backs of the class of 2016. They don't get a do over on middle school.

Why NOW is the time to speak up

While there are many good parts to MSR, unfortunately, in the area of grouping, the administration has seemed more interested in pursuing radical approaches with a shaky research foundation and questionable applicability to Stamford, rather than doing the hard and effective (but less glamorous) work of replicating best practices. The former makes for better press. The latter makes for better schools.

Implementing two groups in 6th grade is just the first step in what is clearly intended to be a long journey. Without opposition, it is reasonable to expect that there will be no ability grouping at all within a few years.  The writing is on the wall - here are just a few datapoints:

• Dr. Starr was publicly considering "two or three" groups for sixth grade for months, and even in the face of strong public objections, he opted for two groups at the last minute - putting roughly 75% of sixth grade students into heterogeneous groups.
• Beyond that, however, the administration’s mindset and ultimate goals were made clear from the one-sided “research” it presented in the Spring that, on the whole, advocated an extreme and controversial view of heterogeneous grouping. While the first step had two groups, the "research" informing the current efforts is far more radical than that.
• This is also evident in the message being sent to school principals, who are in some cases taking proactive steps to eliminate grouping ahead of mandates they expect to come later.
• There is a vocal group of well-meaning outsiders who feel passionately about what should be done with our schools, but meanwhile send their own children to private school or schools in other districts, insulating themselves from this "experiment." We all want to do away with rigid tracking and we all agree with its flaws. But it is ivory tower logic at its worst that would have us throw the baby of flexible grouping out with the bath water of rigid tracking.
• The issue of "tracking" and "grouping" are consistently being mixed up, in speeches, articles, editorials, etc., in a way that clearly appears to be intentional. The argument in a nutshell basically goes: tracking is badly flawed on many levels (agreed), so therefore we need to get rid of grouping. We'll just call grouping "tracking" and hope no one notices. Make sense? Well, no. Only if you're trying to pull a fast one on those who don't understand the difference.
• And there is a “spin” machine that mischaracterizes how things are going so far.

What's worse is that Dr. Starr has said publicly that the feedback he receives might force him to go further toward heterogeneous grouping -- and then the administration goes out and manufactures the feedback!

• Teachers and school administrators don't want to go on record with the other side of the story out of understandable career concerns.
• Feedback committees are hand-picked.

Aspects of the sixth grade efforts are not positive, but they are being spun as positive:

• Anecdotal feedback from children at the upper end of the large “college prep” group (the group encompassing roughly 75% of students) shows signs of students not being challenged already, and finding the class slowing down to its least common denominator, as expected.
• Teachers report frustration with trying to teach a 6-grade-level span of ability in the same classroom. This is far beyond any reasonable expectation for what a successful heterogeneous grouping system does, even when all the proper support mechanisms are put in place, like integration with small support classes.
• Teachers and school administrators privately acknowledge that this. However, aware of the politics of promotion, they will state what they are supposed to for the record. See Dr. White's op ed as an example of what someone who no longer fears for her job says about it.

This is part of why SREE exists. To help let the real voices, as opposed to the manufactured feedback, get out. The message of the last election was clear, with a clean sweep by candidates we endorsed. That was the first piece of objective feedback to the administration.

NOW is the time to make our voices heard once more, to ensure that the problems with the reform are addressed and the changes that are needed to make it successful get attention. If we are quiet now, the administration will take that to mean consent to its current path. And instead of movement toward flexible ability grouping in core subjects, the administration will sieze on their manufactured "evidence" and there will be one large heterogeneous group soon.

Here's how to speak up:

• Attend forums that ask for public feedback (see upcoming ones on the home page)
• Email Board of Education members with your thoughts
• Write letters to the editor (if you copy admin AT stamfordree.org we will post a copy here)
• Attend the monthly Regular BOE meetings and speak up (you can address the board for 3 minutes) if you sign in.
• Join and/or donate to SREE (see home page - left side)

Parents need to be vocal now and make sure that flexible ability grouping and proper piloting are part of the mix to ensure that all students in the system reach their full potential.

See Position - back to top >

Paid for by Stamford Residents for Excellence in Education, Nicole Zussman, Treasurer.