Gatekeeping Honors, Forcing Physics: The Contradictions of Academic Placement in Berkeley Heights

Berkeley Heights School District touts the number of students in our district who take AP Classes. It also takes pride in its inclusion of special education students. These paths, however, are not always smooth. There have been multitudes of articles about differentiation in teaching, with the focus typically being on how to teach students with varied abilities in a single class.  There is an alternative, though, which was pushed to the wayside a few years ago, but may be making a resurgence: ability grouping or tracking. This applies very much to all students, and it’s important for parents to stay aware of proposed changes in academic opportunities, at both the highest academic levels, and for those students who need extra help. 

When we first moved to Berkeley Heights in 2015, my oldest child was starting sixth grade.  She was placed in a regular math class, despite having been in the Gifted and Talented program in NYC, and having had ‘accelerated’ math and English.  I was told there was no way to have her placed in a higher-level class because the district didn’t have test scores or teacher recommendation for placement, but I was assured she could “move up later” (which ended up not being completely accurate.)  This was our first experience with what I’ve come to label “gatekeeping academic honors”.

Fast forward to the spring of 2019.  My second child and I were notified by our case manager at Columbia Middle School that our district would be implementing something called the Collaborative Consultative Model (CCM).  She wasn’t able to give us many specifics, we were just told that all students (aside from those in self-contained classrooms) would be placed in the general education setting with a special education teacher in addition to the gen ed teacher.  What happened next was a complete mess and two-year battle on my end.

At the same time, my daughter, now at Governor Livingston, was being restricted from advanced classes by the teacher recommendation process yet again, and we were about to be involved in our first experience with the waiver process.  These separate issues, on opposite ends of the spectrum, serve to illustrate the point that academic progress can vary, and that students are best served when there is the opportunity to tailor educational needs.

Going back to the Collaborative Consultative Model, what ended up happening (and which is still happening) is that students with IEPs and 504s are placed in the gen ed classroom where a special education teacher is generally present for half of the class period, splitting their time between two classes. There may be times where the teacher stays in one class the entire period, leaving the other class without a special education teacher.  That’s only one of the problems with this model, however.  The second problem arises when the differentiated learning (mentioned above) is inadequate, or when students don’t seek (or want) help so that they don’t stand out from their gen ed peers.  

My child had gone from having a dedicated special education teacher in a small remedial/resource room class, to completely floundering in a faster-paced class where help was severely limited.  The beginning of the fight was just in seeking materials that would enable us to understand the ideology behind the move, what the goals were, and where the theory differed from actual practice… and this took months, with our former superintendent becoming frustrated with my requests and declaring my emails would no longer be answered.  I was invited to sit down with the department supervisor instead.  Long story short, all the talking went nowhere until I smartened up, pointed out how the CCM violated parts of the IEP, and stated I would be getting in touch with an advocate (the magic word).  It took two full years, but ultimately the resource room class was reinstated.  Unfortunately, the damage had been done; loss of learning, loss of confidence, and a refusal on my child’s part to take math senior year.

Forward again to the opportunity for accelerated learning for another child.  The ‘move up’ didn’t happen until we went from the middle school to the high school, due to the fact that if students don’t start on the accelerated track in sixth grade, there is no making it up.  The move was that daughter had been recommended by her eighth-grade teacher for honors at GL.  (I wish I had been aware that there is a test that she could have taken, but there’s that gatekeeping again.)   Anyway, this time, despite having an ‘A’ in her math class, she was not recommended for honors by her teacher (who has since retired).  Why?  She had missed two homework assignments and was told she “didn’t show the hallmarks of an honors student”.

Fortunately, I had been made aware by a friend that there was a waiver process that would allow her to still take honors the next year – probably.  She was told to talk to her current teacher and the department supervisor; the same supervisor I had been fighting with over remedial classes.  This was going to be fun!!  I explained the situation with the teacher, and informed the supervisor that she would not be talking to the teacher, but that based on her grades I expected him to sign the waiver and place her in the appropriate level class.  At this point, although we received an approved waiver, we were told there were no guarantees of placement if the scheduling didn’t allow it.  We were also repeatedly warned that if the class proved “too hard”, that there would be no changes allowed.

Over the course of our eight years at Governor Livingston, all three kids have gone through the waiver process for various classes.  Three of the four times we asked, the district made it clear that although this route exists, they don’t exactly appreciate it when it’s used.

Of note, all three ended up succeeding in these classes.  

There are two reasons for writing about this now.  First, I have been made aware that the waiver process has been changed to be more onerous.  The student must meet with their guidance counselor during the scheduling process to discuss their interest in being placed in a higher-level class than what they were recommended for.  They must speak to the teacher about why they were not recommended, and to receive feedback about their performance.  They must speak to the teacher of the class they wish to be placed into to understand the requirements of the course. They then have to summarize these conversations in writing for the department supervisor.  Upon reviewing the written summary, the supervisor will then decide whether or not to grant the waiver.  As noted above, the waiver does not guarantee placement. 

Second, I have also been made aware that the district is now requiring all students to take Physics.  Students used to be able to choose an alternative to Physics.  As a heavily math-based class, and with the CCM in place, this new “requirement” is going to place a burden on students who previously could substitute a class like Environmental Science, which many students did, including my own.  

These two different issues are at odds: students being kept out of higher-level classes and students being pushed into classes that are above their abilities.  If the district can justify eliminating resource room classes and pushing all students to take Physics, how can they – at the same time – make it very difficult for students who wish to challenge themselves?

For the parents of elementary school children, you need to pay attention to these issues because change takes time.  Your fourth-grader will be doing the testing next year that will determine their math trajectory.  I’ll be writing more on the new math progression (which is a smart move by the district, for reasons mentioned in this article), later.  To the parents of middle school children, you need to pay attention to these issues, because not only does change take time, but when the district receives no feedback or pushback (and sometimes even if they do), they don’t like to change what they have put in place. 

Students are not one-size-fits-all learners.  This is well-recognized by academia.  Differentiated learning is possible but it is quite difficult for even the best teachers, and that is coming directly from some of our teachers.  It’s not conjecture.  Let’s enable choice as much as possible through the framework and budget we have, not make things more difficult than needed.  Remember our motto is not only “Include”, it’s “Indspire” and “Empower”.