SREE

Point by Point Response to Dr. Starr's Reckless Op Ed

 

In his opening paragraph, setting the tone for this piece, Starr says: "Alan Stockman and a small group of Stamford residents known as SREE seek to maintain the status quo." This contains two misstatements in one sentence:

  • First, while he may wish it to be so, SREE is not in fact a "small group." SREE has hundreds of members who have spoken up at board meetings, via petitions, and at forums, and they in turn represent the concerns of thousands of families throughout the city. Many have become disenchanted because the Board of Education and the administration have consistently turned a deaf ear, and it has become unproductive to continue showing up to speak at board meeting after board meeting. However, we do expect you will hear from SREE in the election process, which will permanently change the board dynamic. See "why this election matters"
  • Second, as Dr. Starr absolutely knows, and anyone who has been following the discussion on MSR knows, SREE does not wish to "maintain the status quo." Our position is unambiguous -- both regarding the reform overall, and on the particular topic of tracking. Both Starr and SREE advocate for change. We favor many of Starr's changes. However, with regard to grouping in math and language arts, we advocate for flexible grouping as opposed to heterogeneous grouping. Neither are tracking. However flexible grouping has had vastly superior results and can work within the budgets and conditions present in Stamford.

He continues that "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."

  • Starr knows SREE's position. It has been presented to him many times. He knows that we do not support tracking in any way. We support flexible grouping, in the way that schools like Westover and Rogers do it to achieve success for all levels, which he has publicly stated is not tracking.
  • Starr intentionally misrepresents SREE's position to try to create a straw man opponent (a fictitious, pro-tracking group), for him to attack.
  • This is not a slip - he's been doing this for 18 months. See this report on his handling of the public forum at Rogers School in January, in which he accused audience members of being pro-tracking then abruptly cut off Q&A when they tried to clarify. And see this report about Starr calling parents in Stamford liars, then allegedly trying to cover it up by threatening a reporter with legal action.

Starr's apples to oranges data analysis vs. SREE's analysis of 6th grade:

  • SREE's analysis of the performance data looks at the progress of last year's sixth graders on reaching goal relative to where they were when they entered sixth grade, and does so in comparison to the progress of a large benchmark group (the state) in sixth grade, in accordance with state guidelines for such analysis. See analysis. This analysis specifically isolates the performance of last year's sixth grade program in getting students to reach goal.
  • Starr instead has cited data looking at last year's sixth grade compared to the prior year's sixth grade at hitting goal. This is apples to oranges though. It's measuring the performance of two different classes, and it shows essentially how they've done from K thru 6th combined, not their progress in 6th grade, because it doesn't consider where they came into sixth grade. It's a valid piece of data for looking at where each class was after six years combined, but it's just not particularly focused on the discussion of middle school reform's results last year.
  • Bottom line is that SREE's measure is far more relevant to understanding how much progress the students made in sixth grade alone, relative to a large control group, at reaching goal. And the outcome is concerning, both overall, in every subgroup, and in terms of the achievement gap growing.

Starr acknowledges that "we expected an 'implementation dip,' which typically happens when introducing a new program"

  • This is a key point that SREE and Mr. Stockman have brought up as a concern.
  • One year of a dip is one thing. But the Class of 2016 will be "triple dipped" as the first year guinea pigs for MSR three years in a row.

The MSR Math Mess:

  • Buried in a paragraph Starr refers to as a "nuanced story" he acknowledges that both Blacks and Whites lost ground in math last year relative to the prior class. That's one of our main points - math is one of only two subjects for which SREE contends the MSR 2-group system is not a good fit, at least not at this time when their are massive differences among students entering. Starr own data that confirms this.
  • He leaves out of his op ed the most significant finding in the vertical score analysis though -- the almost incredible fact that 5th graders, when flexibly grouped for math into many levels -- are able to outperform the entire 6th grade under MSR's 2-group system.

Starr characterizes what Mr. Stockman has written as "his unfounded belief that raising expectations for all students and mixing students together somehow does a disservice to our children"

  • SREE has commended MSR for it's commitment to high standards for all in the first bullet of SREE's position
  • Reference to "mixing students together" (meaning by race in this context) is strongly supported by SREE. SREE members choose to live in Stamford in part because of its racial diversity, and the ability for children to experience that diversity. Starr's repeated references to their being a hidden agenda of segregation is absurd and insulting to everyone in this community.
  • SREE further supports Starr's 2-group, largely heterogeneous grouping strategy in four out of six periods per day - social studies, science, ae/as/language, and art/music/gym (no groups).
  • SREE's position is that the flexible grouping based on students' skill levels, used to great success in places like Rogers and Westover, would be more successful for math and language arts. And that classroom performance, not just standardized test scores, can be the basis of moving children up and down. That's about it. It's unclear how this can be characterized as not wanting to "mix students together" or "raise expectations." This strategy SREE recommends is focused on not just raising expectations, but putting the conditions in place to allow students to actually hit those raised expectations!
  • Starr has repeatedly, for nearly two years now, painted this position in terms that it is not. It is not a return to tracking. It is largely heterogeneous most of the day, just like his plan. And it is not the failed tracking method used in the past. It is the highly successful method used in highly successful schools in Stamford.

Starr states (in his longer piece): "Mr. Stockman also claims that Rockville Center is not an appropriate comparison for Stamford. There are no perfect comparisons to Stamford, nor do their need to be.... Curiously, many of those who fault our reference of Rockville Center simultaneously compare the performance of our students to students in other Fairfield county districts – districts whose comparative wealth and demographics are more similar to Rockville Center than to ours."

  • SREE's analysis of performance data uses the entire state as a control group, since that is by definition the largest sample set of children taking the CMT's. At no time in this or any other analysis has SREE tried to draw comparisons to other towns in Fairfield County.
  • Mr. Stockman's piece did not make any comparison to Fairfield County either.
  • Again, Starr appears interested in creating a straw man against whom to have his imaginary argument.

Starr continues: "Should we only use the experience of other districts when trying to prove a narrow point? Perhaps Mr. Stockman would prefer a lawsuit, such as the one that the NAACP of South Orange Maplewood, NJ is considering against that district because of their student placement practices."

  • Starr has some history threatening lawsuits.
  • We would be surprised, however, to hear of anyone wanting to sue Westover and Rogers schools to modify their practices. This is where a lawsuit of the type Dr. Starr is apparently wishing upon Stamford would have to begin. After all, that's where the practices SREE is recommending for middle school students (in two of six periods a day) are used today. They have shown tremendous benefit for students at all levels and all races.
  • In addition SREE has suggested that extra support should go to the lower groups, such as the description put forward of Howard County's model at the Stamford Achieves forum. Starr has opposed this approach.

He continues, "If I had taken Mr. Stockman’s suggestion [that Rockville Centre started their process of preparing students to be in just two groups in K vs. 6th grade] back when I first became Superintendent, to change instruction for one grade at a time starting in Kindergarten, we would only be up to the 5th grade this year."

  • Again, this is a misrepresentation of the point. The point is that we favor most of MSR. But until you put the conditions in place for the two-group system to work in math and language arts, use flexible grouping in those two subjects.
  • SREE does not suggest delaying MSR and making changes only one year at a time. We suggest using a realistic strategy for grouping, when you have students who are many grade levels apart coming in. Once the range is tighter, reconsider.
  • Furthermore, SREE agrees that two groups makes sense for some subjects right now - such as science and social studies.
  • Two groups does not make sense for math and language arts, when some students need to work on their one-digit multiplication tables and others are ready for algebra.

Starr says: "Perhaps SREE verified their computations with the State Department of Education, however, to claim the State’s imprimatur to suggest that they support SREE’s analysis and recommendations is disingenuous and misleading."

  • SREE confirmed its methodology with the state, to ensure that the analysis was statistically valid. SREE did not seek comment about whether the state commissioner liked what the data said, nor did we claim to. SREE's Methodology Notes (last page of the slide deck) says: "SREE members also spoke directly with consultants at the CT Department of Education to confirm the methodology used." We did so to avoid reporting incorrectly analyzed data.
  • "Disingenuous and misleading" is an interesting choice of terms from someone who has consistently created false straw men to argue against and misrepresented the positions of those who question any aspect of his position.

Starr continues: "The suggestion of the SREE group that we revert to four or five flexible groups is a veiled attempt to return to the status quo, and, more harmfully, to the detriment of too many Stamford students."

  • It is not a veiled attempt to do anything. It's a direct and open and clear attempt to have four flexible groups in two subjects, which is not a return to the old middle school status quo. It supports the vast majority of the changes in MSR (see position), and it makes a dramatic change to the old "tracking" strategy.
  • Perhaps it is a different change than the one Starr so desperately wants to have on his resume. But it is not status quo. It is a dramatic change from past practice - and one proven to work here.
  • If there were a secret agenda among SREE to unwind MSR, would we be publicly favoring the vast majority of its strategies and tactics? That seems to be an unwise approach.
  • If we secretly wanted our children to be in segregated classrooms, would we favor Starr's grouping methodology for four of six periods per day? And would we be living in Stamford in the first place?
  • Finally, if we wanted to keep the bottom groups down and siphon resources just for the top, would we be suggesting that the lower groups get more resources, which is the case in the SREE-supported model? And would SREE have large numbers of members who are not in the top group?

Starr says that "after I met with one of their leaders [SREE] retracted their analysis." The implication that there was a causal relationship between the two, as if he had demonstrated that the data were somehow defective, is consistent with Starr's curious relationship with the truth:

  • What he leaves out is that after meeting with a SREE leader to review the analysis, Starr offered to meet with an extended team of SREE to seriously discuss changes to MSR. He demanded, as a negotiated pre-condition to that meeting, that SREE withdraw it's analysis that it had sent to the BOE in August.
  • SREE agreed to that somewhat odd demand by Starr. If Starr were willing to make some of the tactical modifications that SREE was recommending, that was far more important than making an issue of the failure of the first year of MSR.
  • Unfortunately, it proved to be little more than an attempt by Starr to stall. He met with SREE leaders for 45 minutes and did not follow up on any of the recommendations. Nearly two months after first presenting Starr and the BOE with the analysis, SREE finally felt it had no choice but to release the data and allow it to be part of the public dialog on MSR.

Starr also says "I invited them to participate in our Middle School Advisory Council meeting on October 25th to review the full data set from the first year of Middle School Transformation."

  • Several SREE members did participate in the 10/25 meeting. It unfortunately raised more questions about the MSR process than it answered.
  • First, the MSAC did not review a full data set. They reviewed the same partial, apples to oranges dataset that Starr bases his Op Ed on. They did not review the performance level data of last year's 6th graders compared to their entry point. And they did not review the fact that fifth graders, when flexibly grouped, outperformed the sixth graders under MSR.
  • Second, the structure of the meeting was extremely revealing. One SREE member was struck by a comment from a long time MSAC member who is planning to resign soon, that "it's pretty much a waste of time, since you don't get to discuss the real issues with the full group." Upon participating in the meeting SREE members know what she means! Breakout groups are taken through a set agenda with specific questions to address and share with the group - in the case of the 10/25 meeting each group got to comment on what 3 specific data slides told them.
  • Meanwhile, in a side discussion, a SREE member brought up among a table of participants that it seems that math needs more groups and the placement mechanism shouldn't be so heavily focused on standardized tests. The table participants agreed! Yet, since that wasn't the agenda, it was not a group discussion point.
  • While the MSAC is filled with a good group of committed school system staff and community members, any attempt to position it as having brought the voice of the community into the MSR process appears to be an overstatement.

In four pages of detailed commentary and 1200 words of op ed space, what's most noticeable is what isn't there: There is no mention of the indisputable fact that flexibly grouped 5th graders outperformed the entire sixth grade last year in math - both in terms of their growth and their finish point. Is that what we want from middle school math - something that leaves Stamford 6th graders behind 5th graders?