Parents, students press Newington Board over plan to eliminate grade accelerated math

Dozens of parents and students urged the Newington Board of Education on June 11 to halt a plan to eliminate grade-level accelerated math at the middle school level, saying the change removes important challenge and preparation for honors-level high school math.

Speakers at the board's public participation period said the change was rolled out with insufficient data, no evaluation plan and little transparency, and they urged the board to pause the initiative while the district develops clearer criteria and success metrics.

At the meeting Laura Kelliher, a special educator and parent, said the district’s presentation at a May 1 parent forum relied on outdated data and lacked measurable outcomes. “I’m confident in saying that data should be immediately removed from the record in any presentation regarding this proposal,” Kelliher said. She added that follow-up conversations with district staff produced contradictions and “evasions rather than clear evidence supporting this major change.”

Students who currently participate in accelerated classes spoke about the program's impact. Declan Kelliher said accelerated math was “the only class where I have not been bored and disinterested” and that multiple years of acceleration helped prepare him for honors classes in high school. Another student, Lucas Stepensky, described the program as life-changing and said removing it would “strip away the opportunity from other students who are interested in mathematics.” A parent, Martha Carston, who identified herself as a special educator, told the board that the district’s materials mischaracterized acceleration and that “equity does not mean that everyone receives the same thing. That’s equality.”

Several speakers challenged the district’s reliance on the Bowler and Staples study (cited in district materials) and referenced critiques dating to the mid-2000s. Jeffrey Paul said reviewers found the study’s data and conclusions flawed and warned it should not be the foundation for a local curricular change. Other commenters urged the board to ensure a bridge-to-algebra curriculum, rubrics and assessment measures are fully developed before making placement changes that affect students’ long-term pathways.

Board Chair Jessica Weaver acknowledged the remarks and said the district would not respond during the meeting but that Superintendent (Dr.) Bramlett would ensure every speaker receives a reply. There was no formal vote or policy reversal at the meeting; the administration and board did not adopt any immediate changes on the floor.

What was discussed: parent and student testimony, concerns about outdated or incomplete data, requests for measurable success metrics and clarity about how the bridge-to-algebra program will operate and be assessed. What was not decided: the board did not reverse or finalize the curriculum change at the meeting and did not vote to pause implementation.

The public record shows the debate included appeals to equity, questions about selection criteria for accelerated placement, and demands for clearer documentation of proposed learning pathways and evaluation. Board members and administrators present said they will follow up with respondents but did not announce a timetable for next steps.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the public participation section of the June 11 meeting; the board did not take an immediate formal action on the item. The district’s next communications to parents and the board’s next regular meeting will be the likeliest venues for follow-up and clarifications.