This article, about the Newton Public Schools (NPS) 7th grade math assessment results and their aftermath, follows Part I published on June 23, which analyzed the lead-up and broader curricular context for the April 29 exam.
The results
On May 8th, families of 7th graders received their child’s test results. The district-wide results were contained in an NPS memorandum to the School Committee dated the same day. Out of 898 NPS 7th graders, 36 qualified for Accelerated 8th grade math next year, 742 took the exam but did not qualify, and 120 elected not to take the test.
The small number of students qualifying for 8th grade accelerated math was questioned in the May 18th School Committee meeting (see “Middle school transition” section of this article), though Superintendent Anna Nolin maintained the results were consistent with the test being a skip-year test. Some Committee members hypothesized about expanding the group of accelerated students, though Dr. Nolin stated that would be inconsistent with providing an appropriate curriculum for the students who did qualify.
Did RSM matter?
Current NPS parents are generally familiar with the decision about whether or not to send their child for outside math enrichment, the largest provider of which appears to be the Russian School of Math (“RSM”), which has become a shorthand acronym for any organized supplemental math class. The May 8th memorandum also reported how many students self-identified as having received “outside support” – defined as formal classes, programs, and tutoring facilitated by an adult.
Here, the statistics may be interpreted by the eye of the beholder. Of the 756 students who took the assessment, 33% — or almost 250 — said they received outside help, with another 19% not replying to the question. This means the overwhelming majority of 7th graders getting private math coaching did NOT qualify for accelerated math. However, of the 36 students who did qualify, 88% – or 31 – DID self-report receiving outside help. The correlation vs. causation is difficult to determine from this first year of assessment results. Even assigning some causation, the independent vs. dependent variable is unclear: does outside math coaching create math prodigies, or do natural math prodigies self-select to seek outside enrichment?
Polynera founder Paul Sherman hypothesized to Fig City News some possible reasons for the imperfect correlation between students who receive outside math supplemental instruction and those who qualified for 8th grade acceleration. One hypothesis is that although many outside math programs will label their coursework as being at a particular grade level (for example a 7th grader receiving outside “8th grade-level” instruction), what is considered 8th-grade at NPS may not match an outside instructor who utilizes the more commonplace and traditional algebra-geometry-algebra II (AGA) sequencing because NPS utilizes an integrated curriculum (see Part I of this article).
Another, not mutually exclusive, hypothesis proposed by Mr. Sherman is that since the acceleration test was only 16 questions, “if only one or two are more difficult than intended, that can significantly impact the number of test takers who meet the cutoff threshold.” Mr. Sherman noted that his thoughts are only theories, since he has not seen the test that was given.
Bigelow
After the May 18 School Committee meeting, it became public knowledge that only a single 7th grader from Bigelow Middle School was among the 36 students across the district who qualified for accelerated math. Several Bigelow parents participated in public comment at the subsequent June 1 School Committee meeting to express concern at the perceived uncertainty of how accelerated math will be taught at Bigelow. The parents of the sole Bigelow 7th grader to pass the exam joined these public comments. They conveyed to Fig City News excitement about accelerated math for their son – and their daughter when she reaches middle school – but had assumed that more than one student from Bigelow would have passed the test and suggested that should have caused the district to re-evaluate it.
As of this writing, Bigelow is expected to have an accelerated math classroom for the 2026-2027 school year, though it may be for only one student. Administrators have dampened expectations for meaningful mid-year switching of 8th graders to the accelerated class. While noting there may be particular cases like new student transfers into Newton, generally having mid-year acceleration assessments runs into issues such as consistent selection criteria across middle schools for which students will be asked to re-assess. Further, assigning explicit skip-year work to some Math 8 students (non-accelerated) can be “a slippery slope back to multilevel” classes.
Next year
The School Committee approved the overall Math Pathways curriculum, largely retaining the integrated curriculum framework, during its June 1 meeting, in the context of its curricula review for each school subject. Educators have conveyed on background to Fig City News that math departments were given a half-day of professional development, plus research and articles to consider which new curriculum to implement next year, and that a clear majority voted for Integrated over AGA (the different curriculum are explained in detail in Part I, as well as during the June 1 Committee meeting).
However, the Newton Teachers Association (NTA) gave this statement to Fig City News when asked to comment broadly on the changes planned for next year: “Middle school math educators are deeply skeptical of the decision to revise all three middle school grades simultaneously, rather than stagger the changes in a pedagogically prudent manner. Doing so will fuel instability, create awkward curricular gaps for students moving between grades, and exhaust and demoralize our staff. The situation at Bigelow is emblematic of the poor planning that has plagued the district’s initiatives thus far, and the NTA worries that this will be the first of many problems with next year’s math changes.”
Could both the district leadership and the union leadership be incentivized to magnify the actual change that will be occurring next year for the majority of students and educators — the former to demonstrate responsiveness to requests by families and the School Committee for more rigor, and the latter to emphasize the level of difficulty that teachers will encounter?
Seemingly nobody in this debate has said that only 36 kids and not more getting accelerated instruction is an optimal outcome. This raises philosophical questions over what is meant by “giving every student what they need.” Some may note that students with severe disabilities receive highly personalized instruction, and then ask if the same should hold true for advanced math students. Amara Donovan, parent of a Bigelow 7th grader, expressed skepticism to Fig City News when posed with this question, stating, “Acceleration is a choice. Families who desire that are free to pursue that on their own. A student with severe challenges must receive an education. That is not a choice.”
Steve Lee, parent of a Brown Middle School 7th grader, told Fig City News, “Overall, I am a big proponent of Newton Public Schools working to roll-out and establish more math rigor into our classrooms. It is much needed and is a step in the right direction to endeavor to ensure all of our children have the opportunity to be challenged and meet them where they are academically, especially those that have had to seek [rigor] for their children outside of NPS. With that said, I am disappointed at the placement process – how we landed at an outcome where only a small, outlier group was placed into the accelerated math course. This is certainly not the outcome parents were expecting. A larger cohort would’ve had a broader, positive ripple effect for all children – those moving up, and those in the existing classrooms.”
The test results highlight that change at NPS – many say improvements – can appear different at the institutional level versus the individual level. In hindsight, the district’s communications with NPS families, which contained copious amounts of educational jargon and were being disseminated as events were still unfolding – and subject to significant public comment along the way – may have blurred the connection between system-wide progress and most parents’ starting point for understanding school policy changes: How does this affect my kid? NPS has been consistent in standing by the two pillars of its math improvement plan: this will be a multi-year process, and all students stand to benefit. By this time next year, the community will have a full year to assess these changes across the student population.