Would you keep the district’s multilevel classroom learning?

Leading up to the November 4 local election, the Newton Beacon asked candidates in competitive elections running for school committee:

Would you keep the district’s multilevel classroom learning?

Mali Brodt, School Committee Candidate, Ward 6: No. Multilevel classes work well at the elementary and middle school levels because classrooms are naturally constructed that way, and teachers are trained to manage diverse learners within the same setting. This structure supports differentiated instruction and meets students where they are. The challenge arises at the high school level, where teachers are content experts but often lack the training and resources needed to effectively run multilevel classes across all subjects. As a result, implementation has been inconsistent. Multilevel classes make more sense in some high school subjects than others, and should be used thoughtfully and selectively. I support maintaining multilevel classes in elementary and middle schools, while ensuring high school multilevel classes are carefully planned, well-supported, and focused where they best serve students.

Christine Fisher, School Committee Candidate, Ward 2: No. Every student deserves to be both challenged and supported. Multilevel classrooms can work when teachers have proper tools, training, and manageable class sizes, but they are not a one-size-fits-all solution. The district must evaluate whether this model truly helps students thrive and listen to feedback from teachers and families. If evidence shows it isn’t working, adjustments should be made. If we return to leveled classes, we must also provide ways for students to move between levels, with supports for acceleration and holistic placement practices. Students learn at different rates, and our policies must reflect that.

Victor Lee, School Committee Candidate, Ward 8: No. As explained on victor4newton.com and in my Boston Globe Letter to the Editor, multilevel is not working well within the current NPS context, and I oppose extension of the practice – especially in math – to lower grades as some have proposed. Post-COVID, we have significant variations in student ability that strain the capability of even strong educators to perform in-class differentiation. Closing achievement gaps is important, but not if it is to be accomplished by lowering the ceiling of expectations. Multilevel classrooms have also not always helped their intended beneficiaries. NPS can explore other approaches — for example, automatic enrollment policies for advanced coursework in which students retain the ability to opt out if they choose — that employ an objective measure of readiness without introducing unintentional biases. Such approaches address equitable access to advanced coursework without compromising the academic standards Newton has been known for.

Jenna Lauter Miara, School Committee Candidate, Ward 5: No. I would not keep NPS’s current multilevel approach in high school because it was not implemented properly and it is not working well for many students and teachers. Although it was intended to give all students access to challenging material and address real and persistent achievement gaps, the current multilevel approach often waters down the rigor and provides less targeted support than some students need. That is not acceptable. I believe we need to level high school courses that require the stacking of skills, such as math, certain science classes, and world languages. If multilevel classes are maintained in other subjects, we must provide strong teacher training and clear standards, collect data and solicit feedback, and make necessary adjustments. I support keeping multilevel learning in elementary and middle school, where diverse learners can generally be well served in the same classroom, although there may be reasons to consider some leveling in courses such as 8th grade math.

Jim Murphy, School Committee Candidate, Ward 8: No. I’d scrap the across-the-board requirement because sweeping change without family and faculty input, training, and support is never a good idea. However, they have had success in some subject areas, which I think should stay. My opponent proposes an “automatic enrollment” scheme that ought to raise eyebrows. It’s used in North Carolina and several other states, but the research on it is thin, and it focuses on standardized testing. My website will more fully explain problems with it; for now I’ll say it’s another top-down initiative, and tone-deaf at best. The broader problem, however, is that we’re too focused on credentialing and not enough on deep learning. This ignores decades of solid research on child-centered teaching, which emphasizes choice, curiosity, and the student-teacher relationship. Instead, we cling to methods derived from factory work, centered on standardization and managerialism. That’s great for consultants and curriculum sales, but not so much for kids.

Arrianna Proia, School Committee Candidate, Ward 1: No. Multilevel classes may have been designed with good intentions, but here in Newton the early data shows they are not working. The students they were meant to help are falling further behind, and advanced students are being limited instead of challenged. We cannot afford to cap the potential of students who are ready to excel. When we implement major policies like this, we must measure whether they are achieving their goals. Right now, the evidence is clear that they are not. Every child in Newton deserves to be supported at their level of excellence, whether that means catching up with strong interventions or accelerating into advanced opportunities. That requires targeted resources, not a one size fits all model. We must be honest about what is happening, listen to families, and adjust course so all students can grow and thrive without unnecessary limits and the proper support needed.

Ben Schlesinger, School Committee Candidate, Ward 5: No. The data says it isn’t working – MCAS scores in these classes are down and achievement gaps are widening. The teachers say it isn’t working – they are writing OpEds in the Globe and signing petitions for change. Most of the students and parents I’ve spoken to say it isn’t working – more advanced students don’t feel challenged and less advanced students feel intimidated. So it is time to move on. Some research says that under certain circumstances (small classes, multiple educators), multi-level classes can be effective. I will always be open-minded to Superintendent Nolin’s initiatives. If she wants to try a new pilot, and she says that NPS is able to provide the right support and measure the outcomes, I would be open to considering it. We do have to create opportunities for students to move between levels – that could be an enrichment program, summer school, tutoring. I’m convinced we can find a way. But we must move on from what we’re doing now.

Linda Swain, School Committee Candidate, Ward 2: No. The multilevel classroom in Newton was created to expand access to higher-level coursework and help close persistent achievement gaps. Unfortunately, those goals have not been fully realized. I believe it’s time to explore other approaches—ones that ensure every student gets the support or acceleration they need while giving educators the tools and flexibility to do their best work. The new Math Pathways program announced by the Superintendent is an important step forward, offering targeted support for students who need more time, opportunities for enrichment and acceleration for those ready to advance, and flexibility to move between pathways based on data and readiness. I understand there are a few places in our high schools where multi-level classes have worked, so I’d be open to the idea only in limited cases. For me, the key is having clear data that shows it helps all students in the classroom without adding undue strain on teachers.