Parents urge board to clarify accelerated math criteria and curriculum choices; callers question reading materials and math resources
Loading...
Summary
Multiple parents used public comment to press the Newington Board of Education for more transparency about changes to accelerated-math placement and recent curriculum choices for reading and math; commenters asked for written plans for students who just missed qualification thresholds and for clarity on curricular adoption processes.
Three parents addressed the Newington Board of Education Sept. 10 to express concern about recent changes to accelerated‑math offerings and to criticize the district's reading and elementary math curricula.
Dana Havens of 113 Stoddard Avenue said she received a letter from the board chair that parents understood to indicate accelerated math would be offered only in seventh grade for the coming year and said the letter’s distribution suggested it came from the chair alone rather than the full board. Havens said the district’s placement practice — relying on a grade and an SBAC score — left some students who “missed the cut” without upward differentiation. “My son has an IXL score within the high‑school level, missed the SBAC cut by five points and is bored in general seventh grade math,” she said, urging the district to provide a written plan describing enrichment for students who narrowly miss acceleration.
Martha Karsten said she had written to the superintendent and board last month without receiving a reply and accused the administration of avoiding direct answers on class sizes, cut decisions and rationale. Karsten argued that basing placement decisions solely on a grade and a high‑stakes test is poor practice and said many parents she consulted felt cuts were made to keep students out of accelerated math.
Laura Kelleher spoke about reading and math curriculum choices. She said the district moved from a phonics‑based program her older child used (Foundations) to Lucy Calkins and later to Benchmark, which she described as uncommon in Connecticut and “not a science‑based reading curriculum.” Kelleher added concerns about the elementary math resource she identified as “Howard County resources” — a scope and sequence with minimal attached materials — and said teachers are purchasing supplementary resources out of pocket.
Board Chair [name on file] told speakers the district would investigate the questions raised and that the superintendent or a team member would respond. Several board members later said the curriculum committee and policy committee would review placement policies and procedures; board members asked for a curriculum committee meeting to review criteria and data before any final board-level vote. Board members also noted policies on acceleration that require multiple criteria for placement will be reviewed by the policy committee.
No formal board action was taken during public comment; the board requested written follow‑up from district staff and scheduled committee review of curriculum and related policies.
