OP-ED: Fixing What's Broken in Middle School Math

In her , Lori Sender supports the assignment of students into twelve micro-levels in math. South Orange Maplewood United for Academic Excellence (United) finds that this position ignores research arguing against such a problematic approach, which was correctly discontinued in the district. The community, nevertheless, needs to be aware of the issues raised by micro-leveling. Questions that are raised with “micro-leveling” follow:

Micro-levels are based on the results of a relatively limited and isolated assessment conducted during 5th grade and evaluated by one individual, Dr. Beattys. Do we feel comfortable with the future of our children being determined in such a circumscribed way? Isn't understanding a student's mindset, motivation, study strategies and learning style also worth considering? With the overwhelming literature on the multiple factors contributing to test scores, United believes that alternative, more research-based approaches should be considered.

 As “evidence” of the success of micro-leveling, Ms. Sender presents the increase in the number of students skipping a grade in math. In the spirit of “correlation does not equal causation,” this conclusion is a substantial leap in logic and fails to consider a multitude of contributory factors such as expectancy effects, inconsistent instruction across levels, implicit bias, stereotype threat, etc.

Ms. Sender makes the statement that “advanced” students are “bored” but provides no empirical data for this sweeping claim. We encourage Ms. Sender to read about the de-leveling success of the Rockville Center School District, in which the highest achieving students performed even BETTER after detracking, suggesting total engagement.

More importantly, an erroneous association is made between boredom and levels. If boredom is indeed a problem, why wouldn't it be one for all students of all levels? Maybe the experience of boredom, regardless of a student's level, contributes to their performance and, in some cases, erroneous level placement. If this is the case, wouldn't the answer be a challenging curriculum delivered to ALL students, as Rockville Center does?  

The “micro-leveling” approach ignores the “macro” dynamics of human learning revealed by years of research. Hence, we ask residents to consider the following. 

Part of United's mission is to shift the quality of the dialogue about education from personal anecdote or opinion (such as students being “bored”) to one that is supported by research. Indeed, United conducted a two-year study (with 187 participants) revealing discrepancies in treatment, based on race, in the school system.

Additionally, on an ongoing basis United reviews research to address some of the questions faced in equitably delivering a high quality curriculum. Our position is informed by research conducted at Harvard, Stanford and Northwestern Universities, for example. The “Research Links” page of our website provides access to these studies.

We find it interesting that Ms. Sender's opinion piece is subtitled “If it ain't broke, why fix it?” In examining the research, such a statement begs the reply “Not broke for whom?” Decades of studies have supported the fact that students of color (primarily Black and Latino) perform less well on tests and receive lower grades due to factors that have nothing to do with their ability. For these students, it is "broke."

The ample stereotype threat literature (see “Stereotype threat middle childhood” on our website) reveals that students sometimes perform below their ability due to negative stereotypes. The implicit bias research indicates that individuals of color are the target of unconscious bias, even to the point of making judgments about students based on their names (see “Names Expectations Black White Test Score Gap” on our website).

Possibly most importantly, Carol Dweck's research on the “Growth Mindset” clearly argues against leveling in math (and science), particularly during formative ages (for example based on a test administered in 5th grade!) as students can shift their mindset in way which enables them to master such subjects, despite prior beliefs that they just weren't “smart” in these areas.  

If anything, the research argues unequivocally that, as opposed to separating students (frequently based on erroneous assumptions regarding “innate” math ability and “objective” test scores and teacher evaluations), students should be placed in heterogeneous classes with high standards and instructed by teachers who possess an awareness of dynamics such as the benefits of having a “growth mindset” and the reality that many students have been mislabeled due to various forms of subtle bias.

When making decisions affecting the future of a generation, let's make sure that we are as informed as possible about the current research on human learning, and potential, and the psychosocial factors which inhibit it.

— South Orange Maplewood United for Academic Excellence

Executive Committee:  

• Sheila Belt
• Derene Derricotte
• Audrey Rowe
• Dana Kasan Gilbert
• John Devita
• Peter Heinze