Newton Schools history, Part 16: Advanced Challenge and Raising Black Achievement

In September of 1982, a month after he arrived at Newton Public Schools, Superintendent John Strand listed his priorities, beginning with:

1. Reverse Trend towards Private School Enrollment
2. Plan for Grade 7-8 Schools
3. Plan for Grade 9 at Newton North High School
4. Evaluation of Programs for the Gifted and Talented (K-6)
5. Evaluation of Basic Skills Instruction

Newton was still consolidating schools. North and South High Schools had become four-year schools, adding both a freshman class and a math graduation requirement.[1] Bigelow was the last school to close, in 1985 (and it reopened in 1993 as Bigelow Middle School). 

Newton Public Schools (NPS) had just experienced its largest annual drop in enrollment, 6.4%.[2] Enrollment had steadily declined to 85% of the school-age population from 88% in 1973 (several local Catholic schools had closed during the 1960s and 1970s [3]). Based on a survey of families who had left, Dr. Strand believed the Newton Advanced Challenge (NAC) could help reverse the decline.[4] Quality of education was the primary reason given for leaving. Students who left “had significantly higher scores than the average Newton student” on math and reading tests.[5] Newton’s “program for gifted and talented children”[6] was promoted in the City’s Annual Reports from 1980 to 1989.

Newton Advanced Challenge

“The Board of Education, therefore, will encourage the development of processes for schools to develop and implement a mentor program for the gifted and talented.”
— Massachusetts Department of Education, 1979 [7]

The NAC program had begun in 1979 under Superintendent Fink (1969-1982), who, after conducting a staff needs assessment, “came to believe that working within the broad school system policy of ‘providing for differences,’ it was time to focus more attention and energy on the gifted and talented.”[8] NPS received a State grant and hired three staff members to provide “summer curriculum work and work during the school year which involves classroom teachers in a collaborative study of methods and materials intended to meet the needs of the most able students.”[9]

In June of 1979, NAC Project Director Dave Ackerman reported to the School Committee that NAC would emphasize “curriculum rather than student identification.” He continued, “the dominant tone (of school) should not be ‘therapeutic.’ … the concept of challenge ought to take a more central place.” He advocated for challenge “within reach” that leaves a student neither overwhelmed nor bored.[10] A Parents Association for Challenging Education (PACE) was established for “parents interested in helping the schools build more challenging programs.”[11] When the State grant supporting NAC ended in 1983, the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Council, Newton League of Women Voters, PTA presidents, and PACE lobbied for continued funding of NAC.[12]

Initially, NAC staff focused on supporting teachers by creating extension materials for in-class use (differentiated instruction), providing staff training, and assisting with after-school and summer programs. NAC was piloted in seven of the 15 elementary schools:  Bowen, Burr, Hyde, Mason-Rice, Memorial-Spaulding, Peirce, and Underwood. Participation was optional for teachers. Newton maintained “the tradition of building-level autonomy and teacher choice.”[13] Out of 222 elementary school teachers, 109 reported using NAC materials in 1983.[14] Many parents were unaware that NAC existed. 

Superintendent Strand shifted the focus of NAC from training staff to working directly with students recommended by teachers. For example, a NAC science specialist picked up 12 talented fifth- and sixth-graders weekly from five elementary schools for a 90-minute class. In 1987, 229 students from 12 elementary schools were recommended for the program. NAC staff screened and selected 28 for challenge groups, plus an additional 13 girls for a pilot program to encourage girls in math and science. NAC staff also screened 6th-grade students for the junior high schools’ math program and placed five incoming 7th graders in the 8th-grade accelerated math classes. [15]

From the beginning, some School Committee members opposed NAC, believing that NPS would be seen as a school system “for the bright and the needy, not for the child in the middle who needs special attention”[16] or that NAC was supporting parents who were demanding public schools provide a private school education for their children. One School Committee member opposed all grouping by ability through high school on the grounds that it created a “cognitively stratified society.” [17]

In 1989, a new Superintendent, Irwin Blumer, reduced NAC funding.[18] The program returned to its original form of differentiated instruction: “academically gifted students are challenged in a way that enriches rather than accelerates.”[19] Educational philosophy had changed:

“There is little evidence that ability grouping or tracking improves academic achievement, while overwhelming evidence exists that ability grouping retards the academic progress of students in low- and middle-ability groupings…. The instructional advantage afforded to top-level students, then, is the critical factor in the wide gap in differing achievement rates.”
–Massachusetts Board of Education[20]

By 1990, public school enrollment had returned to its pre-1970 norm of roughly 80% of children in Newton.

Improving basic skills

In September of 1983, at the beginning of his second year, Superintendent Strand expressed disappointment with progress on improving basic skills: “the follow-up planning and recommendations and discussions have resulted in the kind of problem that has a lot of different people in the school system who are concerned about it. There has yet to be developed enough urgency and direction to solving it.”[21]

Ninety percent of NPS students passed the State Basic Skills tests (3% of students were exempted as Special Education or Bilingual). An assessment of the test results found that the achievement gap existed for both Black and white students who “entered the system significantly below the level of the average Newton student in the basic skills of reading and mathematics.”[22] Between 55% and 60% of the students who failed were on Individual Educational Plans (IEPs), and the gap grew larger as they moved through grades (from 10 points below average in 4th grade to 17 points in 10th grade).[23]

“Comparing white students with Black students who failed a basic skills test revealed greater similarities than differences in both achievement patterns between grades four and ten and in school attitudes.” School attitudes were “generally negative attitudes toward themselves as learners, toward the school as a place that supports learning, and toward the teaching staff in general.”[24] The report recommended:

1. Contacting families if a student was absent two days in a row or four days in a semester. 
2. Increasing Kindergarten enrollment to boost skills before first grade. 
3. Improving and increasing services for skill-deficient students through after-school and summer programs and teacher training.
4. Closer monitoring of skill-deficient students’ academic progress.
5. Study centers or a school-within-a-school for severely skill-deficient students transitioning to high school.
6. A mentoring program pairing skill-deficient students with older students or volunteers.

Contacting families was challenging. Telephone answering machines were rare (in only 13% of U.S. households in 1985 [25]) and each elementary school had only two phone lines.[26]

Skill-deficient students had almost twice the absence rate of all students. Overall absenteeism in 1983 was 8%. It was higher in the higher grades; Newton North High School had a 15% rate.[27] (Both high schools had open campuses, where students could leave school grounds during open blocks, with restrictions that were unevenly enforced.) Many families were notified of student absences only through report cards at the end of a term.  

Increasing Kindergarten enrollment was also challenging, especially for students on the METCO bus. Kindergarten ended 75 minutes earlier than the rest of elementary school until 1989. 

Similar to the Superintendent’s goal of more consistency in academics between junior high schools, including report cards with comparable quantitative information (grades), Superintendent Strand could form committees to develop recommendations, but schools chose whether or not to adopt them. At Brown Junior High School, report cards remained primarily narrative, leaving parents struggling to understand differences between the schools, especially in math, as they tried to determine which of the two or three different 7th-grade math levels would lead to Honors in high school. [28]

Little was accomplished in improving basic skills until 1986, when “Raising Black Achievement” became a systemwide goal following direction and funding from METCO. 

Raising Black Achievement

A report to the School Committee found that “in every grade the standardized tests are given, the results indicate Black students score significantly lower than white students.”[29] (Students took standardized tests in grades 4, 6, and 8, in addition to the Basic Skills tests.) Newton was not unusual; the Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (METCO) was aware of the achievement gap [30] between host communities and METCO students and debated the issue internally, concerned that publication of academic outcomes could lead to “the possible misuse of student outcome data by opponents of desegregation.” [31]

In 1985, Dr. Jeff Howard, founder of the Efficacy Institute, began meeting with the METCO Directors Association “to discuss ways to improve the academic achievement of African-American students enrolled in the METCO Program.”[32] The Efficacy approach is built on the belief that all children can “get smart” with hard work, mentoring, and achievable goals.  

“Efficacy argues that longstanding rumors of Black intellectual inferiority have been internalized by Black students, lowering their self-confidence. A downward spiral is created, and intellectual development suffers. In an ironic twist, the special and remedial programs designed to help Metco students may have supported their private feelings of inferiority and lowered their self-confidence and willingness to work toward academic success.”[33]

Newton adopted the Efficacy program in the 1986-87 school year with six objectives:

1. Parity in Basic Skills test pass rates between Black and Non-Black students
2. Parity in K-8 achievement in math and reading
3. Parity in Honors and Curriculum I High School Classes 
4. Parity in High School grades by increasing the number of Black students who receive an A, B, or C  
5. Parity in college matriculation rates
6. Parity in suspension and absence rates

Similar to NAC, Newton’s program for raising Black student achievement was opt-in for schools, students, and teachers: “Each school can decide what programs they can initiate and implement for the coming year.”[34] Among the offerings were efficacy trainings for teachers and administrators, mentors in the high schools to “help students set realistic, achievable goals,”[35] a tutoring program at Day Junior High School with volunteers from Boston College, and an afterschool academic support program on early-release Tuesdays and Thursdays that 65% of the eligible METCO students in grades 4, 5, and 6 attended. [36] Only METCO students could join some programs because they were funded by METCO.[37] School Committee members frequently expressed their desire to open the programs to all struggling students, once funds were available. [38]

The Black Achievement Status Report 1986-1990 found that enrollment in high school honors and Curriculum 1 courses and college matriculation rates had increased, but the achievement gap in grades 4 to 8 had also increased. METCO coordinator Bessie Lyman noted, “there are still pockets of resistance to the idea of raising achievement of Black students. Some teachers feel the effort should be left to those on the Black Achievement Committee, that too much time is spent on this effort, thus taking time away from other matters.” [39]

Superintendent Blumer continued [40] and prioritized the Efficacy program, designating a liaison in each school to work “closely with the Director of Black Achievement for purposes of communication, coordination, and implementation of school-based programs and processes.” [41]

Should smoking be allowed in schools?

In September of 1989, a new State law prohibited the use of tobacco products on public school grounds. Although Newton was the first City in Massachusetts to ban smoking [42] in office buildings, stores, and on public transportation, students and staff had been allowed to smoke outside, on the grounds of high schools.

Next: The School Committee asks for a Prop 2 ½ Override vote

Author’s Note: This series is moving into living memory. Please email [email protected] if something should be corrected, modified, or added. Thank you!

_______________

1. Sarah Clayton, Tougher requirements for graduation due soon, Newton Graphic, December 15, 1982, 2.[back]
2. Schools face largest enrollment drop, Newton Graphic, September 1, 1982, 13. [back]
3. Department of Research and Planning, Nonpublic schools: patterns of enrollment and parental opinion, Newton Public Schools, September 1982, i. [back]
4. Strand eyes K-7 priority, Newton Graphic, December 1, 1982, 2. [back]
5. Department of Research and Planning, Newton Public Schools, Nonpublic Schools: Patterns of Enrollment and Parental Opinion, Newton Public School, September 1982, iii. [back]
6. City of Newton Annual Report Fiscal Year 1983, Public Education, Newton, Massachusetts, 1984. [back]
7. Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Bureau of Educational Services, The education of the gifted and talented: a position statement and proposed actions, Massachusetts Department of Education, Boston, Massachusetts, 1979, p. 4. [back]
8. Progress Report on Program for “Gifted and Talented”, Newton School Committee Minutes, September 24, 1979, p. a [back]
9. Progress Report on Program for “Gifted and Talented”, Newton School Committee Minutes, September 24, 1979, p. a [back]
10. Progress Report on Program for “Gifted and Talented”, Newton School Committee Minutes, September 24, 1979, a. [back]
11. Progress Report on Program for “Gifted and Talented;”, Newton School Committee Minutes, September 24, 1979, b. [back]
12. Newton School Committee Minutes, March 21, 1983, A-2 through A-11. [back]
13. Newton School Committee Minutes, April 7, 1986, A-8. [back]
14. Report on Evaluation of Gifted and Talented Programs, Newton School Committee Minutes, June 13, 1983, A-13. [back]
15. Report on the Newton Advanced Challenge Program, Newton School Committee Minutes, January 1, 1988, A-3. [back]
16. Newton School Committee Minutes, March 5, 1983, 5. [back]
17. Susan Silby, Letter, Newton School Committee Minutes, March 2, 1983. [back]
18. Discussion of FY 91 Budget, Teachers Salaries, Newton School Committee Minutes, February 28, 1990 [back]
19. Newton School Committee Minutes, November 13, 1989, 8. [back]
20. The Bureau of Student Development and Health, Structuring schools for success: a focus on ability grouping, Boston: Massachusetts Board of Education, 1990, 3. [back]
21. Newton School Committee Minutes, September 12, 1983, A-6. [back]
22. Report on Basic Skills, School Committee Minutes, May 23, 1983, A-6. [back]
23. Andrew Caffrey, School report reveals gaps in basic skills testing, Newton Graphic, May 25, 1983, 130. [back]
24. Newton School Committee Minutes, May 23, 1983, A-6. [back]
25. Peter Tuckel, A profile of telephone answering machine owners and screeners, Hunter College, New York, 1995, 1158-1162. [back]
26. Newton School Committee Minutes, January 13, 1986, A-6. [back]
27. Charlotte Meryman, Stalking students, Newton Graphic, October 5, 1983, 1. [back]
28. Education Report, Newton School Committee Minutes, April 27, 1981, O. [back]
29. Raising Achievement of Black Students, Newton School Committee Minutes, September 22, 1986, A-9 [back]
30. METCO Coordinator John Modest, Letter to James Case, Associate Commissioner of Curriculum and Instruction, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1983. [back]
31. Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity, Student Outcomes Fact Sheet, METCO, 1980, 3. [back]
32. Initiatives for Developing Equity and Achievement for Students, A Brief History of IDEAS, Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, https://www.massupt.org/ideas-history/ downloaded 8-19-2026. [back]
33. Academic Achievement of Black Children, METCO Program Status Report, Boston, Massachusetts,1989, 5. [back]
34. Newton School Committee Minutes, January 30, 1989, A-4. [back]
35. Black Achievement Plan for 1988-1989, Newton School Committee Minutes, April 25, 1988, A-3. [back]
36. Newton School Committee Minutes, January 30, 1989, A-7. [back]
37. Report on Black achievement, Newton School Committee Minutes, May 22, 1989, 6. [back]
38. Newton School Committee Minutes, October 13, 1987, A-12. [back]
39. Bessie Lyman, Black Achievement Report 1986-1990, Newton Public Schools, May 30, 1990, Attachment D-6. [back]
40. Muriel Cohen, Officials say Metco students suffer an achievement gap, Boston Globe, June 27, 1989, 1. [back]
41. City of Newton Annual Report Fiscal Year 1990, Public Education, Newton, Massachusetts, 1991. [back]
42. Luix Overbea, Newton’s nonsmokers may soon be working in smoke-free rooms, Christian Science Monitor, June 7, 1984. [back]