Parents and educators press Holliston on transparency, teacher input for middle‑school placement

A retired Holliston educator urged the school committee on March 26 to provide clearer placement criteria and restore meaningful teacher input into accelerated math and science placements for middle‑school students.

"When a third grade math problem is written as a fifth grade reading level, it stops being a math problem," said Anne Kenoni, who identified herself as a retired educator at Holliston High School and gave her address. Kenoni said parents and teachers have not been given clear placement criteria, described frustration about a "fluid" model at the middle school where students could switch in or out of classes in the fall, and proposed two changes: a teacher‑input score (0–3) added to the existing placement rubric or an average of term grades be incorporated into the placement calculation.

Administrators explained the practical constraints driving course offerings and showed modeling that tied course structure to the current cohort’s composition. The administration said the current eighth‑grade cohort has an unusually high share of students with IEPs (about 29% in one integrated‑pathway model) and that adding or removing honors sections can push inclusion‑section IEP concentrations higher (the presentation cited 39% in one scenario and indicated some scheduling scenarios could reach or exceed 50%, which would raise compliance concerns under IDEA/DESE guidance). A presenter summarized the legal risk: when an IEP population makes up a majority of a class, the class may be classified as substantially separate rather than an inclusion class, which could prompt PRS complaints and corrective actions.

Committee members and administrators acknowledged parents’ frustration and committed to clearer communications. Several members proposed steps to help: post placement criteria and rubrics earlier, hold a community forum, use back‑to‑school events and multiple communication channels, and explore creative supports (for example, placing high‑school interns in labs to support instruction). The administration said it would follow up with more detailed communications and continue the conversation in future meetings.

The committee did not adopt an immediate policy change at the meeting; the discussion was framed as ongoing as the administration and committee refine schedule options and communications.