My reference is to what appears to be a rigidity of thought regarding “heterogeneous classrooms and differentiated instruction” regardless of circumstances. There are, in my view, at least two unanswered and significant questions:

1) What will happen when the difference in ability in a classroom becomes so great as to make instruction impractical?

2) Does everyone actually believe that by offering enough “professional development” to teachers they will all become masters of “heterogeneous classrooms and differentiated instruction” and that this will work for all students in those classrooms?

Personally, I have no opinion on whether the ISP should be maintained. Ideally, I would like to see any and all good aspects of that program made system-wide. Optimistically, I hope this becomes the case and I want to believe that the proposed plan has this as a goal. I do, however, remain skeptical. So much of the rhetoric that I’ve heard on this topic is philosophical/ideological, i.e. that it is “wrong” to separate students according to ability. What I have not heard addressed are the practical aspects of how a classroom actually operates.

Just a little history – I once taught in a mathematics program for entering freshman at Boston University that grouped students of all mathematical abilities into one class (SAT Math Scores ranging from 320 to 720, some students unable to understand fractions and other students having already seen some calculus). The task was impossible, but it was also unfair to the students. Some students were guaranteed to fail while others were bored. I spoke out against this structure and it cost me my (tenure track) job. Within a year, the program was such a failure that it was discontinued. Students now take mathematics classes at their appropriate level.

I strongly recommended that, before you make any move to building a separate middle school, you google those three words: “separate middle school.” You will find that most of the US that is making any changes in this area are moving away from separate middle schools and back to the k-8 configuration you now have. Google separate middle school and see what is happening. I found one other school district in the U.S. considering building a middle school, but you both are the small minority. Finland has no separate middle schools. I think that is a large contributing factor to their having the best student performance in the world.

I had the pleasure of serving with some of those individuals during my tenure as a Student School Committee member and have asked several of them questions about the policy and made my opinions known. That said there are two issues at play and they are sometimes at odds. The first is the issue of equity and in my subjective view, a gross number of incoming CRLS freshmen during my time there were completely unprepared for high school work, the rigor and discipline of a large campus environment, nor for the MCAS and eventual graduation. Compared to the schools I’ve tutored in here on the South Side of Chicago and even the suburban midwestern schools my friends attended, CRLS has ample and great resources to match the needs of any student, as does the CPS in general, where we falter most is the crucial middle years. We need to have a program that filters the diverse body of students from our 11 schools with distinct cultures into one that successfully transitions them into the high school. Doing this would allow us to keep many students, and plenty of my ISP friends ended up leaving for other systems and private and parochial schools for the fear of CRLS and these middle schools should reduce that fear, along with the existing record of recent excellence at CRLS. It will also ensure far more students are ready and capable of the work and rigor the new CRLS will expect of them. As the idiom goes a rising tide lifts all boats and the entire system would be better served by students in the middle of the pack and below ascending to proficiency and even exceeding that. Most importantly it is my sincere belief that every student should enter CRLS on the same page.

That said the question of excellence is just as important and I would argue that heterogeneous groupings are only successful with the right kind of model and the Young plan has the benefit of being gradually implemented and to replicate best practices for that model in the new middle schools. I must also add that the core strength of ISP was that it was a traditional middle school in the sense that most kids came from different k-6 programs to a single upper school where there were new, unique, and more rigorous expectations and that kids that remained in the standard track were taught by the same great teachers and did just as well as the ISP students did on most metrics and tests, the only real difference was how fast and how deep we went through certain subjects compared to them and that ISP students were more likely to be participatory and self directing in their education. But if we could mimic even the standard track at the old Longfellow across the entire district we would have much better results, but the plan can only work if we recruit teachers and principles that have track records of excellence at the middle school level and bring existing faculty and staff up to speed. Cambridge has too often in the past tried to reinvent the wheel with new programs and ideas and this program is really a back to basics approach that is time tested and backed by data. Very few districts have k-8 these days and separate middle schools will be a lot better than most existing 6-8 grade programs in our schools. But I do encourage you and others to be vocal about preserving the need for preserving excellence, in today’s society, especially with NCLB and MCAS, the focus is far too often on the under performing and it is the gifted students that will not only be the face of our schools but will eventually give back to them.

-Shannon

Fortunately by my junior year I could finally take AP classes and had a great experience. In the heterogeneous classes I also had great teachers, and by my sophomore year honors classes finally came into the fold. But heterogeneous classes do not work if you do not have excellent teachers experienced with teaching to advanced and remedial students both and if this middle school model really hopes to succeed it should avoid the Evans trap of valuing equity over excellence as CRLS did my first two years. I felt stigmatized for wanting to achieve and be advanced not only by my fellow students but by the system itself which made it seem criminal to be advanced when there were so many less fortunate students who needed help and attention more than me. The new system should avoid that entirely since it will lead to the same exodus of families that we saw at CRLS when it lost accreditation.

Young’s plan when I first saw it and wrote that article looked to me like using ISP as a model and expanding it for all the middle school programs. ISP remember was like a middle school to me, I went from my local mediocre neighborhood school (the good ole Fightin’ Fitzy) to a new school downtown where all the kids were just as motivated as me. The motivation was the key, and there was never an admission exam or grade point qualification, rather the recommendation of your current teacher that you were motivated and a randomized lottery determined who got in. All the kids, even those that weren’t traditionally ‘smart’ were motivated to succeed. I would say isolating the motivated students from the remedial ones is vitally necessary for both cohorts. The remedial kids can get the extra help and assistance they need to pass the MCAS and graduate, perhaps modeling the successful Extension School onto a middle school would be a great way to start. Using ISP or a slightly more broad form of it for the other two would also work. That way we can close the gap and achieve equity without losing excellence.

I’d like to know what some of the teachers think about this plan. Do they understand it? Does it make sense to them? Were any of them part of the planning process?

How about asking some of the high school math students, particularly the top ones what they think? Are they inspired? Would they like to have had these opportunities?

When are the principals and the teachers going to be chosen for the new schools? How is team building of the staff going to work and when will it be done? And the requisite professional development. When will that be done?

I’m still looking over the appendices that give additional detail about the mathematics options. So much of this plan is dressed up in edu-speak that you have to work to figure out what’s actually being proposed.