Impact of Reconfiguration & School Transitions on Students and the BHPSNJ Decline

May 22, 20237 Comments

My third email to the Berkeley Heights Board of Education on Possible Reasons Behind the BHPSNJ Decline

What should have been a thoughtful and considered process on the reconfiguration of our schools turned into an obsessive, rushed campaign that sought to get FDK approved at all costs with no consideration for the future. There was already a predetermined path with no room for discussion.

The research generally supports broader grade configurations. It also demonstrates that the more transitions a child goes through, the more significant the detriment to their academic achievement.

Despite this, Dr. Varley persistently and stubbornly misinformed the public in advocating for and succeeding in keeping our configurations narrow while adding more school transitions to some of our youngest learners.

Dr. Varley would not even acknowledge the overwhelming research that contradicted her positions.

During the reconfiguration debate, when pressed for evidence, Dr. Varley produced one study (which wasn’t a study) from a remote Alaskan District to support her grade configuration. If I remember correctly, some children from that District took boats to school. Yet, for some odd reason, Dr. Varley never referenced the volumes of research against such a configuration conducted in school districts throughout the country – many of them completed by school districts who took the time to do it right and commissioned studies before making the decision. Some examples of research the public was able to find and share with the Superintendent including:

….. most studies in this report showed that when students transition to another school, they experience a significant drop in academic related outcomes. Overall, the literature appears to favors a K-8 model over a middle school or a junior high school model. (source)
Gordon, Molly, Kristin Peterson, Julie Gdula, and Dave Klingbeil. “Review of Literature on Grade Configuration and School Transitions,” 2011.

The authors estimate the impact of grade span paths on eighth-grade performance, controlling for school and student characteristics and correcting for attrition bias and quality of original school. They find that students moving from K-4 to 5-8 schools or in K-8 schools outperform students on other paths. (source )
Schwartz, Amy Ellen, Leanna Stiefel, Ross Rubenstein, and Jeffrey Zabel. “The Path Not Taken: How Does School Organization Affect Eighth-Grade Achievement?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 33, no. 3 (September 1, 2011): 293–317. doi:10.3102/0162373711407062.

There are far more studies that look at configurations supporting the same conclusions from different angles (primarily middle school) – but essentially the majority of evidence points to exactly the opposite of what Dr. Varley claimed as best practice or supported by experts.

Dr. Foregger worked on such a study during his career and advised the Board of Education of his findings when he advocated for students and families in urging the BOE to pause the process and reconsider their options. Of course, he was ignored, as was the rest of the community.

The research is clear – more school transitions lead to lower student achievement and more problematic behavior. The former appears evidenced by the most recent school performance reports from the DOE, and the latter became immediately apparent in our elementary schools.

The other fact is a survey conducted not too long before the reconfiguration demonstrated FDK was not a priority for the town’s residents. Parents did not appear to be bothered by having to pay private entities for the service or helping children with their educations at home. While I disagree with this position firmly, as full-day kindergarten is highly evidenced to benefit academics and pro-social behaviors (if implemented correctly) and is an incredible benefit to working-class and middle-class families -it would have been better to educate the public on the benefits of FDK while at the same time developing and presenting a low-impact phase in leading to a successful referendum – getting buy-in using an evidence-based approach that respected the community and did not treat their children like cattle.

New Providence and Cranford both took very different approaches to this issue than Berkeley Heights, they viewed residents and parents as partners not adversaries. The Cranford approach, which offered 10 options to the public, was provided to Dr. Varley by several resident but was again, ignored. Apparently she used their “re-imagining” brand but not the substance of their approach:

As you know, we started the conversation with the community approximately seven months ago and it has been a collaborative process, shaped largely by the community [Cranford], as it should be. We have held several meetings, provided many presentations, and engaged in dialogue about what we as a community may want to do to enhance the school district. This initial conversation culminated in a survey which ended last week. I am glad this is the pathway we took…. (source)

So it was more than just a missed opportunity to rethink the number of transitions our students went through and their impact on student achievement (even at that time struggling). The decision to reconfigure added even more changes to several grades of children and the disenfranchisement of parents.

After children were thrown into different schools, instead of taking a studied approach to family concerns in closely monitoring and supporting those students impacted by the reconfiguration, Dr. Varley decided to conduct what many considered an opportunistic and self-serving survey excluding the families affected by the reconfiguration negatively as a means of trying to market the reconfiguration as a huge success based on a sampling of those who most benefitted from it. The only value to that survey was to sell what was an obvious train wreck to everyone as a huge success. When I wrote an article attempting to point this out, Ms. Stanley tried to take the article down.

Of course this can’t all fall on Dr. Varley. Those of you on the BOE during that time all sat silently as Dr. Varley and the former President put on a horse and pony show for the town. Ms. Young and Mr. Cianculli voted no (to their credit). Still, their arguments against it were anemic and divorced from the community concerns – and they went on to support other aspects of the process instead of using the opportunities available to stop it. Instead of guiding and helping her, you all enabled her. That’s what makes this so difficult to repair- the majority of you were in some way complicit and cannot admit to the damage you caused.

In writing this email, I tried to think very hard about how I could make what I am conveying palatable to those of you who voted for this, but there isn’t any other way to describe what happened but in the harshest terms because it was a callous decision disingenuously wrapped in and conflated with false virtue. It reeked of bureaucratic sociopathy. While I support FDK, the reality is that the reconfiguration of schools was unnecessary and harmful to the very children the District said they were trying to help – but the messaging was necessary so that those in power appeared virtuous while those with concerns were spun as uncaring.

My suggestion in connection to this factor would be for the District to pay closer attention to the students impacted by the reconfiguration and assess where they are now in Math and ELA compared to where they were before the reconfiguration. Based on individual assessments, provide additional after-school and in-school support in Math, ELA, and Science where needed. I can’t go into more detail than that as the District does not appear to have made any effort to look at this comparison specifically or at least share it with the public – without actual data, more specific interventions are hard to come by.

This brings me to my next suggestion – the BOE should begin to take its oversight role seriously. Much time is spent securing photo ops with the Superintendent – perhaps some of that time could be used in having an actual conversation about the job she is doing.

My last suggestion (for now) can start with asking the Superintendent to provide the District with an explanation and plan surrounding our declining proficiencies at the next BOE meeting and to take questions from the public. Her reasons during the meeting were COVID and that our students do not take the tests seriously. These are reasons any school can use and they do not explain why we had the largest decline, lowest ratings and highest per pupil cost when compared to other schools in the area. I would ask you to consider that the reasons I’ve provided thus far along with others I will write to you about have a far more evidenced basis.

I believe two more factors connect to our decline, which I’ll share later this week.

I then sent a follow up email later that day:

I meant to attach this document, a letter from Dr. Foregger about his concerns connected to the reconfiguration. While he is not as good looking, eloquent or humble as I am – he does an okay job in going step by step on the plan. Though not completely connected to the arguments I make in my email to you earlier today, it demonstrates, or rather, exposes the complete lack of research and diligence connected to the reconfiguration – I won’t get too into why this is important right now as it will be part of a larger possible explanation for our decline in my next email.

As an aside and If possible, I would also appreciate any emails or documents Dr. Varley provided to you with data and her support of our declines being connected to COVID and AP students not caring. As I am making an effort in working with you and in assisting the BOE with this, some help in understanding her reasoning in coming to these conclusions would be greatly appreciated and reasonable. It might help me better understand her perspective. Email from Dr. Foregger to the BOE on 4/21 re: the Berkeley Heights Plan to Reconfigure Schools

Thank You