Newington School District administrators on Wednesday laid out a planned restructuring of middle‑school math that eliminates a standalone seventh‑grade accelerated math course, places Algebra I in eighth grade and adds an optional “Bridge to Algebra” enrichment program to prepare students for high‑school math.

The change, presented at a special meeting of the Newington Board of Education, is intended to deepen students’ conceptual understanding under the Common Core sequence and to reduce the number of students who later struggle in high‑school algebra and Algebra II, district officials said. “If we keep doing something that we know is harmful to a group of students, that’s malpractice,” Superintendent Dr. Brummett said, summarizing the administration’s rationale.

District staff told the board they reviewed 10 years of local course pathways and statewide guidance and found the middle‑school acceleration model condensed multiple years of learning into too few years, leaving gaps. Kristen Freeman, assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction, said the district will place Algebra I in eighth grade so students who develop later still can access high‑level math and will offer the bridge program to strengthen missed foundational standards. “This program is intended to give students the opportunity to go much deeper with their learning on those standards that they weren’t otherwise developing a really deep understanding of,” Freeman said.

Math coordinator Michelle Kellogg told the board that the district’s definition of rigor focuses on depth of understanding rather than speed or covering more topics. Kellogg shared preliminary internal results for grade‑6 students after a year of heterogeneous grouping: she said the cohort’s average percent of their individual ESSA (Smarter Balanced) growth targets rose from roughly 40.5% in grade 5 to about 50.65% in grade 6. Kellogg also reported higher average percent‑of‑target figures for students scoring at the higher performance levels year‑over‑year (district figures presented: level‑3 average growth from about 58.7% to ~73.3%; level‑4 from ~66.2% to ~97.96%).

Administrators stressed the bridge course is optional and that placement policies at the high‑school level include open enrollment where families can request placement. “By policy, we cannot say no. [If] the parent and the student believe they don’t need the bridge program and they just want to go to algebra, they can go to it,” Freeman said. The bridge offering will include a March–June window of teacher‑supported and independent options, plus a two‑week summer effort, district staff said.

The presentation prompted more than two hours of public comment. Dozens of parents, students and teachers spoke, several urging the board to retain seventh‑grade accelerated math or to offer a robust, in‑school accelerated option. Students described boredom and frequent expectations to teach classmates when finishing assignments early. “When I would finish my papers, I would have to help others around me or work on IXL,” said Skyler Miller, a rising seventh grader.

Parents and several teachers questioned transparency and timeline. Public commenters asked whether the curriculum subcommittee had formally voted on the change and whether state guidance actually endorses the district’s approach. Resident Dana Havens told the board she could not locate state support for discontinuing accelerated middle‑school math and asked the board to post a formal vote if required. The administration said it consulted Connecticut Department of Education staff and a state position statement on mathematics when drafting the plan but acknowledged some families had not received early communications; district leaders expanded distribution after earlier meetings.

Several parents and teachers proposed alternatives—maintaining seventh‑ and eighth‑grade accelerated sections, strengthening early elementary math interventions, piloting the bridge program with a voluntary cohort, or using multi‑criteria identification for acceleration—rather than fully removing the seventh‑grade accelerated option. Board members said they had heard strong public feeling and would review the input before deciding next steps. “We will review what was brought up tonight and come up with a plan moving forward,” Board Chair Perotti said; she and other board members asked administration to return with clearer timelines and specific implementation and accountability measures.

No formal board vote was recorded at the special meeting. The board set a target to respond to parents and to provide follow‑up information before the start of the school year, and members asked the district to publish clearer details about bridge programming, assessment options and how the district will monitor whether the new pathway improves students’ long‑term success in high‑school math.