Does Size Matter?

We've had a lot of discussion about issues of "size" at School Committee meetings this year -- school size (largely focused on whether eliminating Marks Meadow, the small of our elementary schools, is a bad pedagogical idea) and class size (largely focused on how many kids we should try to target per class in the middle school and high school). Thus, during this week of school vacation, and hence no School Committee to report on, I thought I would do a blog posting on both of these issues of size.

First, in terms of issues of an ideal school size, it is hard to draw very conclusive findings. There are many studies, but the findings are very hard to interpret because children are (obviously) not randomly assigned to attend a small or large school. And because large schools tend to be located in urban areas, and small schools tend to be located in rural areas, any differences between outcomes seen in large/urban schools and those in small/rural schools could be due to location and/or type of student instead of size of school. This is the classic research issue of determining whether a study shows causation -- meaning whether size of school CAUSED the difference in achievement -- or correlation -- meaning whether two variables are associated, but it isn't clear whether one variable (such as school size) CAUSED the other variable (such as ACHIEVEMENT).

Most research on school size acknowledges, however, that school districts need to consider cost efficiencies in making decisions about school size. Thus, recommendations tend to focus on the balance of having small schools and the cost-efficiencies inherent in large ones. The most common conclusion I've read describes schools of 300-500 as “moderately” sized, and those that “balance economies of size with the negative effects of large schools." (http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/efap/Publications/Revisiting_Economies.pdf). Similarly, the 2005 Master Plan for the District of Columbia (http://www,k12.dc.us/mater/MEP.final.pef) gives a "recommended elementary school size of between 300 and 500 students." This plan also notes that "One way schools have continued to operate with lower enrollments has been to eliminate educational offerings; for example, elementary schools have cut staff for art, music, physical education and libraries." In other words, schools that drop below this 300 number are often forced to cut other offerings to pay for their small size. Sound familiar?

I find this research encouraging -- because if Marks Meadow is closed, we'll have 1300 students to educate in 3 buildings, which should mean 3 schools of between 300 and 500 in each (closer to 300 in Crocker Farm, and closer to 500 in Fort River and Wildwood). Sounds like a good way to balance the importance of small learning communities with the realities of always scarce school budgets.

Second, in terms of class size, there is quite a lot of research on this issue (and thanks for my fellow Amherst blogger Gavin Andresen (http://gavinthink.blogspot.com/) for sending along a lot of good information on this topic. This research suggests that small class sizes can be beneficial, especially in the early years (see http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ReducingClass/Class_size.html AND http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1533647/k.3B7C/Class_size_and_student_achievement.htm for good reviews). In particular, this research suggests that:

• Smaller classes in the early grades (K-3) can boost student academic achievement


• A class size of no more than 18 students per teacher is required to produce the greatest benefits;


• A program spanning grades K-3 will produce more benefits than a program that reaches students in only one or two of the primary grades;


• Minority and low-income students show even greater gains when placed in small classes in the primary grades.

In sum, the research on class size suggests that class size should be very low in kindergarten and first grade (ideally 13 to 17 in a class), and that class sizes of this level are especially beneficial for low income and minority students. However, there is less evidence supporting the positive effects of class size reduction in 4th through 12th grades. Thus, I believe the schools (including the Superintendent and the School Committee) should consider decreasing our class size averages at the very youngest grades (certainly K and 1st grade, and ideally 2nd and 3rd grade as well), and then increasing the class size average targets 5th through 12th. This seems like a good way of allocating limited resources (teachers, classrooms) in a way that is in line with current research findings about when you "get the most bang for your buck" in terms of class size.

So, one question becomes how do you pay for so many teachers (to allow for small classes)? The answer in part would be to increase class sizes in the later grades (which of course is easier to implement in a K to 12 district than in the Amherst district in which the elementary K to 5 budget is separate from the regional 7 to 12 budget). However, there is another possibility: the research I've read suggests one way is to move intervention teachers to regular classroom teachers: "Extra teachers in a school who do not have regular class assignments are costly and may not have the same positive impact on achievement as shrinking class size." (www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Research_Points/RP_Fall03.pdf). This raises a very important point for me -- should we be reducing support staff in our schools (e.g., intervention teachers) and increasing the number of class room teachers? We currently have 11 intervention teachers in the four elementary schools. That would mean we could gain 2 to 4 classroom teachers at each of the schools if we were to move intervention teachers to classroom teachers -- and that could mean an extra class at 2 or 3 or even 4 grade levels in a building (which would have a dramatic increase on class size for all the kids at that grade in a given building). I don't know the costs of doing this (e.g., are there kids who particularly need pull out intervention support), but this idea of reallocating staff to different roles in a building strikes me as one that should at least be seriously considered.

The Tier 3 Choice: 4 Schools or 3 Schools

Given that by all estimates, we appear to be looking at Tier 3, a number of people -- parents AND teachers -- have contacted me to say why are we not now looking seriously at closing Marks Meadow at the end of this calendar year. And in fact, when the superintendent recommended (on March 3rd) not closing Marks Meadow at the end of this year, she even said that was her recommendation IF we were at Tier 1 or Tier 2, but that if we were at Tier 3, "all bets are off." So, we do appear to be at Tier 3 ... which means I think we need to take a VERY serious look at whether Marks Meadow should stay open next year. Let's look at what the options are.

The estimate is that closing Marks Meadow would save $700,000 a year -- but "only" $406,000 in the first year (although significantly more IF you don't move the portables at the cost of $140,000). So, let's say we are at Tier 3 (which all indications suggest is accurate), and we have a choice of having four schools next year (our current system) or having three schools next year (if Marks Meadow closes). Here is what we lose, as suggested by our superintendent at the March 3rd Amherst Meeting, if we keep four schools at Tier 3:

• 6 classroom teachers (somewhat larger class sizes in the upper grades at probably all schools, because I assume these six would basically come from losing a teacher or two in the 4th through 6th grades across the district) - $324,000
• 3.2 instrumental music teachers (the loss of ALL instrumental music) - $172,800
• 9.2 intervention teachers (math, English Language Arts, ELL) - $496,800
• 1.8 computer teachers - $101,000
• Science coordinator - $54,000 (this means no science coordinator for K to 6 at all)
• Librarian - $54,000 (I believe two schools would then share a librarian)

These cuts total $1,202,600.

What could we gain by closing Marks Meadow THIS YEAR (and thus have an extra $406,000 -- which is a conservative estimate, because you do NOT have to move the portables)? Here's how I'd use this money:

• First, I'd save instrumental music -- this is a rich part of the Amherst curriculum, and it is an important feeder to the MS and HS music programs, and it is a way for us to realize our social justice mission (because wealthier kids can pay for private lessons, but disadvantaged kids can't) -- that costs $172,800.
• Second, I'd save the science coordinator -- that costs $54,000 (and we do so little science K to 6 that not having that person seems like a really costly choice).
• Third, I'd save 3.5 intervention teachers (who work with kids who are having trouble on the MCAS in english and math and who work with ELL students) -- that costs $189,000 (3.5 X $54,000).

That leaves $6,200, meaning I've basically spent the savings (although again, if we don't move the portables, we could in fact have another $140,000 to spend - meaning we could add back another intervention teacher or two, or have smaller class sizes, or get back a librarian, etc.).

So, this is how I'd allocate the money --others may have different priorities, and those priorities may well include differences in managing the money between three schools (e.g., maybe going immediately to save classroom teachers and reducing class size instead of saving instrumental music and intervention teachers), OR between four schools (e.g., saying that keeping Marks Meadow open for next year is worth losing all instrumental music and increasing some class sizes). Those are choices we all may see and rank differently, and that's fine. But let's be clear -- there is a finite amount of money, so making one choice (e.g., having four schools) inherently does mean we are not able to make a different choice (e.g., having instrumental music). All I'm doing is telling you the choices that I'd make.

STATEMENT FROM AMHERST REGIONAL SCHOOL COMMITTEE ON THE NEW SUPERINTENDENT CONTRACT

April 15, 2009 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

We are looking forward to the arrival of our new Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Alberto Rodriguez on July 1, and we are pleased that contract negotiations with him are settled. Dr. Rodriguez’s FY10 salary will be $158,000.

The School Committee is aware that the superintendent's salary is a matter of great interest and potential controversy, particularly in tight budget times. Unfortunately, we cannot wish away the laws of supply and demand and ignore the realities of the labor market. This is a challenging time in which to hire a superintendent. The pool is limited, and there are many districts seeking leadership – over 50 in Massachusetts alone this year. And our district, while having many positive attributes, also offers challenges that many others do not. All of this means that it’s a “seller’s market” – it’s more difficult and more costly than it used to be to hire a superintendent for our schools, and for most others.


It does not make sense to compare former superintendent Hochman’s FY08 salary to the one negotiated with Dr. Rodriguez two years later – especially since Dr. Hochman did not accept raises during two of the five years he worked in Amherst. While this was a nice gesture, and this is in no way a criticism of Dr. Hochman, it did mean that we faced some “sticker shock” when we went back out into the open market for superintendents. Dr. Hochman was making $135,000 when he left – but he left for a position paying $262,000.

We are actually three distinct districts. In addition to our regional middle and high school district, our superintendent also manages two other, separate districts: Amherst elementary schools and Pelham. So that's three school committees, three budgets to prepare, three accounting systems (fifty eight district employees have their pay divided among two or three separate paychecks because they work for two or three of the districts), four town meetings, and so on. Regional districts take more work, so it is not unusual for their superintendent salaries to be higher: e.g., Acton-Boxboro $175,000, Hamilton-Wenham $175,000, Hampden-Wilbraham $148,000, Hampshire Regional $150,000, Mendon-Upton $151,000, Pentucket $171,000, Whitman-Hanson $158,000. Our academic peer districts pay even more: Brookline pays $198,000, Newton pays $248,000.

When the Committee first met with the search consultant, Jacqueline Roy, she informed us that based on the market, our district needed to plan for a salary of at least $150,000. This amount was reflected in our initial FY10 budget documentation, apportioned as follows: 50% Region, 47% Amherst, 3% Pelham.

In addition to the base salary, an additional benefits package is given to 80% of Massachusetts superintendents (according to MA Superintendents’ Association data); Dr. Rodriguez will have a housing and a travel allowance totaling $15,000, allowances that are not provided beyond FY11. This is about the same dollar amount that Dr. Hochman received in additional benefits, and is significantly lower than packages paid by many other high-achieving districts.

Are we happy about paying this amount of money for a superintendent? No. Are we convinced, based on the pay scales in comparable districts and the specific challenges offered by ours, that this is a fair salary in the current labor market? Yes.


Our district needs leadership to move forward. By all reports from those who have worked with him, Dr. Rodriguez has the skills and temperament to provide it. He will have a great deal of work to do and high expectations to meet when he arrives, and the school committee will work with him to ensure that our schools are continuously improving and in sync with community expectations. We hope the community will join us in welcoming Dr. Rodriguez and working for his – and hence the districts’ – success going forward.



Michael Hussin, Chair, Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee
hussinm@arps.org

Andy Churchill, Chair, Amherst School Committee
churchilla@arps.org

Kathryn Mazur, HR Director, Amherst-Pelham Regional Schools
mazurk@arps.org

Amherst Meeting, April 14, 2009

Tonight was a long and very productive meeting -- the first Amherst meeting with our new School Committee members Irv and Steve. Here is my best summary:

1. We held elections for officers (because it was the first meeting with the new board). I nominated Andy for chair, Steve seconded it, and he was unanimously elected. Andy then nominated me for vice-chair, Steve seconded, then Kathleen nominated Irv, who seconded his own nomination. We voted, and I won -- with votes from me, Andy, and Steve.

2. We had public comment - this largely consisted of Marks Meadow parents discussing the school and the reasons to keep it open. There was also a preview of the new "Amherstopoly" game (created jointly by the elementary school PGOs and on sale now!) and a plea to maintain the Cambodian culture class afterschool at Fort River.

3. We then turned to the superintendent's update, which included mention of several awards/prizes/plays by various Amherst kids, generous community donations to AEF, and an upcoming announcement of the selection of the 6th grade math curriculum (she's leaning towards Impact 1 -- the first book in the three-book series, and Impact 2 and 3 are now used in 7th and 8th -- but will make a decision soon about whether to go with this book versus our current curriculum, which is a combination of CMP and Scott Foresman; she hopes to announce the decision on April 28th).

4. Rob Detweiler then presented a very depressing budget update ... which basically says that (a) the economy is even worse than anticipated, and (b) the economic stimulus money from the federal government isn't going to come through for this year. The reality is, that means we are very likely at Level 3 budgets -- and potentially something even worse than Level 3. This is very, very depressing news, as you can imagine. The governor's budget is released tomorrow (April 15th), which will tell more, but no one is expecting that the news will be good.

The committee then discussed this news a bit -- in particular, I asked whether this poor economic climate was likely to be very brief (answer was no -- we should anticipate a recession at least for a few years) and whether the level of impact on our schools at Level 3 would merit closing Marks Meadow at the end of this year (answer was pretty uncertain ... I think we will know more in 2 weeks). Andy then noted that the chairs of various town departments are meeting this Friday to work on creating a 3-year plan to meet the expected budget short-falls based on projected revenues.

5. We then heard an update from interim superintendent Maria Geryk on the planned forums regarding my motion to close Marks Meadow and redistrict into three equitable schools. She is preparing the following information: current and projected enrollments, class sizes under a three-school model, percentage of kids in various groups under a three-school model (e.g., on free/reduced lunch, of color, limited English proficient, special ed, etc.), number of students impacted, and financial implications. She also will prepare answers to "frequently asked questions" (so send those to her: GerykM@arps.org). The School Committee and principals will see a draft of the presentation later this week, and it should be posted on the web early next week (more than a week before the first presentations). There will also be opportunities at each of the forums to provide feedback about the plan.

I will again encourage everyone to attend one of the forums (it doesn't matter which one you go to -- they will all present the same information): Monday, April 27th, 5 pm (Marks Meadow); Wednesday, April 29th, noon (Wildwood); Wednesday, April 29th, 5 pm (Fort River); Thursday, April 30th, 5 pm (Crocker Farm); Tuesday, May 5th, 7 pm (Middle School auditorium). Again, you can also look at the information on the web and provide feedback to School Committee members based on that information.

We then had a long discussion about the types of information committee members wanted to have included in the presentation. Irv was interested in having a line by line budget for all the schools (and/or per pupil costs by each school), but that information is not readily available (it is not how the budget office currently keeps track of expenditures), nor did other committee members share his interest in having this information. I expressed my interest in having information on not just how the schools would look like if Marks Meadow CLOSED, but also how all the schools would look if we continued to have four schools (because again, we'd still have to cut staff -- meaning class sizes would increase and other things would be cut, such as instrumental music). The vote on whether to close Marks Meadow at the end of the 2009-2010 school year, and to redistrict into three equitable schools, will take place at the May 19th Amherst School Committee meeting.

6. We then turned to a few lingering issues, including school committee goals (to be discussed at a future meeting), subcommittee assignments (to be discussed at a future meeting), calendar review (we will meet in two weeks from 6:30 to 7:30 for the budget review), and items for upcoming agendas. Irv then expressed his view that he'd like more input in terms of issues that appear on the agenda. I echoed this view, and expressed the belief that we could perhaps spend 10 minutes or so at the end of meetings discussing items for future meetings, and to make sure items that the board cared about were included in subsequent agendas. Andy agreed that this made sense. Steve noted that he'd like on a future meeting agenda the topic of teacher evaluation pre-tenure. I noted that I'd like on a future meeting agenda the topic of when School Committee meetings are scheduled (since both Steve and I have conflicts on the first and third Tuesday of each month for Amherst College Faculty Meetings -- which are required). And then we adjorned.

It was a long meeting (we got out at 9:30), but I feel it was a very productive meeting, and Andy did a great job facilitating a number of tricky conversations/ issues. Interim superintendent Maria Geryk continues to do a very thorough and responsive job in preparing for leading her portion of the meetings. It does feel like an important and exciting time for the Amherst schools, and I'm really pleased with our present leadership and direction.

Public Forums Set Regarding Potential Redistricting of Amherst Public Schools

At their March 17th meeting, the Amherst School Committee made a motion to close Marks Meadow Elementary School at the end of the 2009-2010 school year and redistrict to create three elementary schools with proportionate numbers of children on free/reduced lunch for the start of the 2010-2011 school year. The following public meetings are scheduled to provide the community with opportunities to hear more about the educational and budgetary impact of redistricting, as well as to ask questions and provide feedback:

• Wednesday, April 29th at 12:00 Noon: Wildwood PGO/Wildwood Community (location TBA)
• Wednesday, April 29th at 5:00 p.m.: Fort River PGO/FR Community (location TBA)
• Thursday, April 30th at 5:00 p.m.: Crocker Farm PGO/CF Community (CF library)
• To be determined: Marks Meadow PGO/MM Community date is still being finalized. It will be posted ASAP.
• Tuesday, May 5th at 7:00 p.m.: Community-Wide Forum (Middle School auditorium)

The Amherst School Committee plans to take a vote on the redistricting motion at their regular meeting on Tuesday, May 19th. Redistricting is not an agenda topic for the regular School Committee meeting on Tuesday, April 14th.

April 7, 2009 Regional Meeting

This was our first meeting with our newest School Committee members, Irv Rhodes and Steve Rivkin, and I thought it was one of our best meetings. First, we heard public comments from a few parents -- these included a question about the superintendent's salary (apparently this information will be released in just about a week), and expression of support for world language.

We then turned to the superintendent's update. This included information on several awards won by Amherst student groups, as well as the announcement that she is planning to use some of the IDEA federal stimulus money to hire an outside consultant to review our special education program. She distributed a one page sheet describing this evaluation, which states that this independent analysis will "provide an in-depth analysis and summary of the program's strengths and areas for improvement" and that this evaluation will include interviews/surveys to parents, staff, and administrators, as well as review of existing data (test results, demographics, etc.) and specialized programs. This evaluation will occur next year. I think this is a wonderful step by our interim superintendent, Maria Geryk, to provide information about our special education services, and I commend her willingness to engage in such an evaluation. I look forward to hearing more about this process over the next few weeks and months.

Next, we heard a food services report -- there is a long memo on this provided by Rob Detweiler, which will be included, I believe, with the minutes of this meeting, so I'm not going to go through all the details. The short version is that the food service contract continues to run a deficit (although somewhat less of a deficit than in past years), and that five food services workers have been let go (although these were all newly hired workers). Several members of the audience had questions/concerns about Whitson's (practices, payment of health insurance, etc.), which are going to be looked into and reported on by Rob.

We then turned -- once again -- to the fiscal year 2010 budget. This budget was not that much different from those we have seen previously, so I'm just going to touch on four main topics that I think will be salient for parents. First, IDEA federal stimulus money is going to pick up part of the payment for the Bridges program, which is pretty expensive in terms of the overall MS budget (so that is good news). Second, the middle school will have 3 teams in 7th grade (about 18 kids in a class), and 2 1/2 teams in 8th grade (about 20 kids in a class), and all 6 world languages will be retained at both the 7th and 8th grade levels (although Russian 1 and 2 and German 1 and 2 will be taught simultaneously in a class). I'm delighted that we are going to be able to continue to offer such a range of languages -- and to continue with world language instruction in 7th grade. Third, the position of middle school librarian has been cut (more on this later). Fourth, the high school will see a reduction in 6.2 teachers, which cover a range of areas (english, math, science, world language, business, health, technology, art, etc.), meaning that low enrollment classes won't be taught. Unfortunately this reduction also means that kids will spend 2 of their 15 periods in study hall next year -- or 13% of their high school day, which seems unfortunate.

The School Committee then raised a number of questions about these cuts, including whether it would be possible to eliminate some of these cuts by increasing class sizes (which are now around 22 in the high school, and 18 to 20 in the middle school), and how the functions of the MS librarian would now be covered. I believe more information and more discussion on both of these topics will be forthcoming in the weeks/months/year ahead.

Finally, we turned to School Committee planning, and three topics were proposed by members. I raised the idea of discussing an evaluation of the middle school. I continue to hear concerns from parents about the middle school, including level of rigor/expectations in the classes, and it strikes me as a very important time for us to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the MS (e.g., with the arrival of a new superintendent, discussions about regionalization, and the potential for moving 6th grade to the MS). I believe the new principal, Glenda Cresto, has been working very hard and cares deeply about this school and the students, and I'm hopeful that such an evaluation could be very helpful to her (and to her assistant principal, and to the new superintendent) in determining steps for moving the MS forward in particular ways. Second, Steve Rivkin raised the issue of evaluation of new teachers prior to tenure, and his belief that we need to have policies that set the bar high for new teachers and make sure that we are taking tenure decisions very seriously. Third, Irv Rhodes expressed the desire to make sure that we set particular goals for our new superintendent so that he understands how he will be evaluated during his first year. These ideas both strike me as very important, and I'm hopeful that current Regional Chair, Michael Hussin, will make sure these items are on a School Committee agenda in the near future.

At the end of the meeting, Michael Hussin announced that he was not running for re-election in Pelham, and that this would be his last meeting. We will therefore elect a new School Committee chair at our first meeting in May (after which new members from Leverett and Pelham have joined the board -- the Shutesbury member doesn't arrive until July 1st, which might be late to select a new chair).

Powerhouse School District Reaches Beyond the Elite

Here's an interesting article from the New York Times -- published February 5, 2009. I like the emphasis on both exposing all kids to research early on (7th grade!) and also increasing access to AP classes for all kids. I believe kids rise to the challenge when adults around them believe in them, set high expectations, and provide the support needed to succeed. The Port Washington approach sounds like a great success.

By Ruby Washington/The New York Times

PORT WASHINGTON, N.Y. — Six at a time, the seventh graders sprinted across the gymnasium floor in patent-leather flats, furry Ugg boots, clunky heels, sweat socks or bare feet. Their classmates timed them, carefully recording each fraction of a second.

Original research can be fun, teachers say, especially when it involves activity.
For the students, it was a science project studying the effects of footwear on speed. But for educators in this town on the North Shore of Long Island, it was part of a higher-stakes experiment: giving students with solid but not stellar grades access to the best academic and extracurricular programs.

After decades of grooming a handful of high school students in an exclusive research class to succeed in the elite national Intel Science Talent Search, school administrators this year, for the first time, required every seventh grader to do original research.

With similar goals in mind, the district has added honor societies in English, art and music — for a total of seven — to recognize students whose overall grades may keep them out of the National Honor Society. Since 2003, it has expanded its menu of Advanced Placement courses to 25 subjects and opened them to students who previously would not have qualified. And it instituted a policy prohibiting students from being cut from the orchestra, band and most sports, adding “junior varsity 2” teams to accommodate extra players.

Like many high-performing suburban school districts nationwide, Port Washington had heard complaints about the lack of attention to what is often called the great middle — students sandwiched between the overachievers who break records and win coveted prizes and the underachievers whose performance is monitored closely by federal and state testing mandates.

The district’s unusual focus on these average students in recent years has pleased many but has also drawn criticism that A.P. classes have become less rigorous, students have been coddled, and music groups and sports teams saddled with marginal players.

Students in A.P. classes say that some teachers, now required to accept students who did not pass a qualifying exam or get a teacher’s recommendation, have been known to weed out the weak with heavy reading loads, daily pop quizzes, and zeros on biology labs.

Joe Barrett, 17, a senior, said his United States history teacher went to the opposite extreme in the 2007-8 school year, presenting “elaborate PowerPoints with music videos to keep people interested.”

“At the beginning of the year, it was funny, but then it just got tiresome because there wasn’t a lot of content,” complained Joe, who earned the top score of 5 on the A.P. exam in the class last May. “I definitely could have learned more and faster. I felt like we skipped a lot of history.”

Jenny Park, 16, a junior who plays violin in the orchestra, said the inclusion philosophy went too far by rotating students, based on seniority, in the coveted first chair position. The first chair, designating the best performer in orchestral sections, is traditionally decided by audition. (In the violin section, the lead performer is also the concertmaster.)

“It’s not fair because I know I practice the most,” she said. “I take it so seriously and it could have helped my college application to say I was concertmistress since sophomore year.”

Despite such complaints, Linda Reyes Weil, a mother of three who is co-president of the high school’s Home and School Association, said the district was doing a better job by serving a broader population. “As parents, we all talk about the middle because we worry about the middle students getting lost in the shuffle,” she explained. “We all want that thing of beauty — a really nice transcript that will stand out in college admissions.”

Denise Pope, a senior lecturer at Stanford University’s School of Education, said that increasing access to advanced classes and extracurricular activities could “reduce the dog-eat-dog competition” in a school. While educators have long been reluctant to tinker with a system that worked for their best students, she said, college admissions have grown more competitive and the middle has become harder to ignore.

Decades after wars over tracking students by academic ability from year to year, this new push is meant to give average performers entree into what had been for so-called stars.

Saratoga High School, in California’s Silicon Valley, has, since 2005, allowed students with at least a C-minus average — “virtually anybody who wishes,” as the principal, Jeff Anderson, put it — to take honors or A.P. classes in English, social studies and science, abolishing the previous policy of requiring at least a B-plus average and a teacher recommendation.

At Palos Verdes Peninsula High School in Rolling Hills Estates, south of Los Angeles, school officials adapted a college-prep program, developed for high-achieving students in poor urban schools, into a course for more than 200 middle-level students; it offers SAT preparation and other help to increase their attendance at four-year colleges.

In the Chicago suburbs, the Glenbard Township school district last spring adopted a policy forbidding the elimination of freshmen from sports teams, reasoning that participation would help all students with the academic and social transition to its four high schools.

“There’s been such a focus on the high-high and the low-low that the parents of children in the middle are feeling like ‘our kids need attention, too,’ ” Professor Pope explained. “And what they want is what the top kids are doing.”

“But you do have to be careful,” she cautioned, “since some overzealous parents will push their children to take many A.P. classes when they really can’t handle that.”

Port Washington, a prosperous waterfront town, has long attracted top students with extras like its three-year research program preparing students for the Intel competition. The program accepts 30 of the approximately 400 freshmen each year and has produced 44 Intel semifinalists since 2003, including three announced last month. Starting in third grade, students with I.Q.’s of 130 or higher, among other criteria, are selected for the gifted and talented program.

“Nobody comes around and says, ‘You’re doing great with the middle kids,’ ” said Geoffrey N. Gordon, the superintendent. “They don’t get the Intel awards and they don’t go to the Ivy League schools. It’s not glamorous, which is why you don’t see more schools doing it.”

Still, in the last few years district officials have broadened their approach to push up the students at the bottom and the middle of the achievement ladder and allow the top to rise naturally.

At the start of this school year, 574 high school students — just under half the enrollment in grades 10, 11 and 12 — signed up for A.P. classes, up from about 250 in 2002. Of those, about 200 failed to qualify by passing a test or receiving a teacher’s recommendation, and about 40 of those students had to sign a waiver saying they would complete all the work and maintain a B average. Sixty-five students — including 24 who had to sign the waivers — subsequently dropped to lower-level courses.

Melis Emre, 17, a senior in the research program, said that allowing students to take A.P. classes when they do not meet the qualifications teaches an unrealistic lesson. “You have to learn how to deal with a situation not working out in your favor,” she said. “If you don’t get a job, you can’t sign a piece of paper and then come hang out in the office Monday to Friday.”

But district officials say that their efforts have improved the quality of education for everyone. Even as the number of A.P. exams taken by Port Washington students nearly doubled, to 1,134 last year from 603 in 2002, the average overall score climbed to 3.30 from 3.04.

At the same time, the percentage of students accepted to four-year colleges during that period also rose, to 82 percent from 74 percent, according to district records.

Dylan Snyder, 16, a junior who took A.P. European history last year, said he was happy to get a C-plus in such a hard class — until he realized that everyone around him was getting B-pluses. But he did not drop down.

“I like to work to learn because the payoff is better,” he said. “I would have felt bad if I had gotten kicked out because of my grades. I would have felt A.P. is not for me, ever.” Dylan has a B average in A.P. United States history this year, and plans to take A.P. courses next fall in government, physics and computer science.

At the middle school, the entire seventh grade is taking part in the science of sports project to fulfill the new research requirement. The students are creating a database of their individual running times, first in sneakers and then in alternate footwear, and evaluating how variables like height, gender, birth date and shoe type affect speed. They will present their findings in a research paper or PowerPoint presentation.

“I learned that I move faster without my shoes,” said Jermaine Brown, 13. “This is really fun, and it’s better than sitting in class.”

David Katz, the science teacher who came up with the running experiment, said that when he first asked students if they wanted to do original scientific research, 2 of 23 raised their hands. When they found out the research would involve sports, they all jumped up.

“They think research is more work, more papers,” he said. “But if you teach them in a way they can relate to, they grow to love it.”