To: Edison Board of Education
Urge Edison Board to reconsider placement criteria for high school
Dear Respected Board of Education Members:
We are parents of middle schoolers, mostly eighth graders, in Edison school district. We want to bring to your attention certain concerns that parents and students have relating to the current placement criteria for incoming 9th graders at J.P. Stevens High School.
We understand that according to the current placement criteria, being placed in Honors level in a given subject is dependent on being in Honors level in a completely different subject. However, we do not believe that this linking of subjects is beneficial to the students' academic progress or emotional well-being.
For example, placement into 9th grade Social Studies Honors is based on a student's English placement. And if a non-Honors student wants to move up to Social Studies AP level in 10th grade, it is again linked to their English grade. Similarly, for a student to be eligible for Science (Bio) Honors in 9th grade, the student must also be eligible for Math Honors as well as English Honors. And there is no possibility for a non-Honors student to move up to Science Honors in 10th and 11th grades, regardless of their score in 9th grade.
As you may appreciate, under these criteria, a student who is proficient at the highest level in a given subject will not be able to pursue it at the highest level simply because the student is not equally proficient at the highest level in one or more different subjects. While all subjects are important and have some relation to one another, the considerations in the practical world are very different. For example, a Social Studies major does not necessarily need English proficiency at the highest level. Likewise, for a Science student who may end up becoming an engineer or a doctor or a scientist, English is not necessarily needed at the highest proficiency level. Similarly, for a Science student who may end up becoming a doctor, Math is not necessarily needed at the highest proficiency level.
Thus, the current criteria appear to be aimed at randomly reducing the Honors class size by preventing deserving students from pursuing the very subject that they are good at in more depth. Other existing criteria, such as the steep-step assessment points calculation for PSAT/Writing and over-used teacher recommendations, only reinforce this. Under the current system, students who did not do well in 7th or 8th grade English and Math are permanently blocked from taking the entire science honors track in high school.
This will not only be a disservice to the students' talents and punishing them for something irrelevant but will also adversely affect the students' emotional health. In the real world, a lot of students in 7th and 8th grade are still not mature enough to know the need to study. And preventing them from making it back to the honors track if they miss the boat in middle school will impact their self-confidence. Their motivation to advance - a critical skill to develop for success in high school and beyond - may also be lost. As one of the leading school districts in the state, we are sure that the Board would like to avoid such unintended consequences. We hope that the high school motivates every kid to excel and provides opportunities to truly develop their talents, wherever those talents may lie. We respectfully request the Board to revisit these placement criteria.
Below are some suggestions we hope the Board will consider:
1. Social Studies placement should only depend on Social Studies grades and not be linked to another subject.
2. Science placement should only depend on Science grades and not be linked to other subjects.
3. Reduce the weight given to PSAT as the cut-off is too restrictive and tapping the cream of the cream. The students in our school district should not be penalized because we have such an overwhelming majority of high-achievers. Besides, the PSAT was administered for the first time this year with virtually no notice.
4. Use a continuous and proportional scale rather than a steep step one for assessment points. Currently, a score of 600 on PSAT gets 25 points in the final rubric while a score of 590 gets only 20 points. Similarly, a score of 93 on Writing Assessment provides 25 points while a score of 92 provides only 20 points. So, a student scoring merely 2 points lower in PSAT and Writing Assessment ends up losing 10 points and likely not making the honors class. This tiny difference is magnified 5 times across all 5 subjects.
5. Use teacher recommendations only to promote students. E.g., eliminate the 10-point recommendations from the rubric, and only put it back to boost the students who just miss the cut-off. Currently, more than 50% of the points (assessments and grades) already come from the teachers. Teacher recommendations are subjective and vary widely across schools and across teachers. A recommendation should not serve to demote any student.
6. Give equal weight to 7th-grade final grade as to the first 3 mark...
We are parents of middle schoolers, mostly eighth graders, in Edison school district. We want to bring to your attention certain concerns that parents and students have relating to the current placement criteria for incoming 9th graders at J.P. Stevens High School.
We understand that according to the current placement criteria, being placed in Honors level in a given subject is dependent on being in Honors level in a completely different subject. However, we do not believe that this linking of subjects is beneficial to the students' academic progress or emotional well-being.
For example, placement into 9th grade Social Studies Honors is based on a student's English placement. And if a non-Honors student wants to move up to Social Studies AP level in 10th grade, it is again linked to their English grade. Similarly, for a student to be eligible for Science (Bio) Honors in 9th grade, the student must also be eligible for Math Honors as well as English Honors. And there is no possibility for a non-Honors student to move up to Science Honors in 10th and 11th grades, regardless of their score in 9th grade.
As you may appreciate, under these criteria, a student who is proficient at the highest level in a given subject will not be able to pursue it at the highest level simply because the student is not equally proficient at the highest level in one or more different subjects. While all subjects are important and have some relation to one another, the considerations in the practical world are very different. For example, a Social Studies major does not necessarily need English proficiency at the highest level. Likewise, for a Science student who may end up becoming an engineer or a doctor or a scientist, English is not necessarily needed at the highest proficiency level. Similarly, for a Science student who may end up becoming a doctor, Math is not necessarily needed at the highest proficiency level.
Thus, the current criteria appear to be aimed at randomly reducing the Honors class size by preventing deserving students from pursuing the very subject that they are good at in more depth. Other existing criteria, such as the steep-step assessment points calculation for PSAT/Writing and over-used teacher recommendations, only reinforce this. Under the current system, students who did not do well in 7th or 8th grade English and Math are permanently blocked from taking the entire science honors track in high school.
This will not only be a disservice to the students' talents and punishing them for something irrelevant but will also adversely affect the students' emotional health. In the real world, a lot of students in 7th and 8th grade are still not mature enough to know the need to study. And preventing them from making it back to the honors track if they miss the boat in middle school will impact their self-confidence. Their motivation to advance - a critical skill to develop for success in high school and beyond - may also be lost. As one of the leading school districts in the state, we are sure that the Board would like to avoid such unintended consequences. We hope that the high school motivates every kid to excel and provides opportunities to truly develop their talents, wherever those talents may lie. We respectfully request the Board to revisit these placement criteria.
Below are some suggestions we hope the Board will consider:
1. Social Studies placement should only depend on Social Studies grades and not be linked to another subject.
2. Science placement should only depend on Science grades and not be linked to other subjects.
3. Reduce the weight given to PSAT as the cut-off is too restrictive and tapping the cream of the cream. The students in our school district should not be penalized because we have such an overwhelming majority of high-achievers. Besides, the PSAT was administered for the first time this year with virtually no notice.
4. Use a continuous and proportional scale rather than a steep step one for assessment points. Currently, a score of 600 on PSAT gets 25 points in the final rubric while a score of 590 gets only 20 points. Similarly, a score of 93 on Writing Assessment provides 25 points while a score of 92 provides only 20 points. So, a student scoring merely 2 points lower in PSAT and Writing Assessment ends up losing 10 points and likely not making the honors class. This tiny difference is magnified 5 times across all 5 subjects.
5. Use teacher recommendations only to promote students. E.g., eliminate the 10-point recommendations from the rubric, and only put it back to boost the students who just miss the cut-off. Currently, more than 50% of the points (assessments and grades) already come from the teachers. Teacher recommendations are subjective and vary widely across schools and across teachers. A recommendation should not serve to demote any student.
6. Give equal weight to 7th-grade final grade as to the first 3 mark...
Why is this important?
Current placement criteria for 9th graders are unduly restrictive