Newton, Massachusetts, a town that once proudly hailed its academic rigor, decided to take a bold step in the name of “equity.” A step so audacious, it was bound to either revolutionize education or leave a smoking crater where excellence once thrived. The initiative? Multilevel classrooms. The result? A cacophony of chaos, tears in the teacher’s lounge, and a stunningly ironic collapse of both equity and excellence.
Let me walk you through this well-intentioned disaster.
What Exactly Is a Multilevel Classroom?
Think of a multilevel classroom as the educational equivalent of hosting a dinner party where some guests can barely boil water and others are Michelin-starred chefs. It sounds like a fun mix, right? Except instead of food, the stakes are grades, futures, and teacher sanity.
Newton Public Schools eliminated traditional tracked classes—where students were sorted into college prep, advanced college prep, or honors levels—and opted for a one-size-fits-none approach. The promise? Seamless transitions between levels, better exposure to advanced material for lower-performing students, and enriching camaraderie among kids who’d otherwise sit on opposite sides of the lunchroom.
Spoiler alert: none of this happened. What did happen was an epic implosion that left students, teachers, and even administrators scrambling to find a silver lining in a pile of wreckage.
The “Why” Behind It All
The district’s rationale for multilevel classrooms wasn’t entirely wrongheaded. Tracked classes, it argued, disproportionately placed black, Latino, and low-income students in lower-level courses, perpetuating inequities in academic achievement. It’s a real problem that demands a thoughtful solution. But Newton’s strategy wasn’t thoughtful—it was reckless.
Instead of addressing systemic issues like biased assessments or unequal access to preparatory resources, the district opted to shove all students into a single classroom, slap a “multilevel” label on it, and call it progress. It’s like putting a Band-Aid on a broken bone and then patting yourself on the back for solving healthcare inequities.
Reality Hits Hard: The Classroom Experience
Fast forward to 2021, when multilevel classrooms went full steam ahead, and teachers were handed an impossible task: teach a room full of students spanning the academic spectrum with no additional resources or support.
Here’s a snapshot of what that looked like:
- Lower-level students were too intimidated to ask questions, fearing they’d “look dumb.”
- Higher-level students held back their own questions to avoid making peers “feel dumb.”
- Teachers were caught in the middle, desperately trying to teach to “the middle”—a mythical average student who doesn’t exist.
Imagine trying to simultaneously explain basic arithmetic and advanced calculus in a single lesson. Or teaching colors to one group of students while dissecting Salvador Dali’s surrealist masterpieces with another. That’s not pedagogy; that’s educational triage.
Teachers in the Trenches
Newton’s educators are nothing if not dedicated, but even the most committed professionals have limits. One world language teacher described the multilevel experiment as akin to “teaching a class where half the students are learning colors for the first time and the other half are analyzing a Salvador Dali painting.”
It’s no wonder one teacher was found crying in a closet. Or that new hires are quietly (and not-so-quietly) fleeing the district. Professional development to prepare for multilevel teaching? Minimal. Support from administrators? Laughable. The only thing abundant was the stress.
Where’s the Data? (Spoiler: There Isn’t Any)
Newton implemented this seismic shift in education without a single plan to measure its success. Let me repeat that: no metrics, no benchmarks, no data collection.
It wasn’t until the Faculty Council—a group of teachers who clearly care more about results than appearances—conducted their own surveys that the depth of the problem became clear. Among STEM teachers:
- 61% said multilevel classes were “not at all beneficial” for students.
- Only 1 respondent rated them as “beneficial.”
And the cherry on top? Students in single-level classes consistently outperformed their multilevel peers on assessments and final exams—even when taught by the same teacher using the same materials.
That’s right: Newton’s grand experiment in equity was actively harming the very students it was meant to uplift.
Parents Join the Revolt
If you thought the teachers were the only ones upset, think again. Parents—those ever-watchful stakeholders—began to notice their kids were coming home either overwhelmed or bored out of their minds. A petition signed by over 400 residents was presented to the school committee, demanding an end to multilevel classes.
And yet, the district remains in bureaucratic denial, promising to “study leveling” and issue findings months from now. By then, another cohort of students will have slogged through an educational system that prioritizes appearances over outcomes.
Equity vs. Excellence: A False Dichotomy
Newton Public Schools proudly touts its motto: “Equity and Excellence.” But in the rush to achieve equity, the district abandoned excellence altogether—and ended up with neither. True equity isn’t about dragging everyone to the same level. It’s about lifting those who need help while allowing others to soar.
Instead, multilevel classrooms have become the educational equivalent of a sinking ship where everyone drowns equally.
Lessons from Failure
What can we learn from Newton’s multilevel debacle? Here are a few takeaways:
- Equity Requires Thoughtful Design. Address systemic inequities with targeted solutions—like better resource allocation and early intervention—not performative policies that harm everyone.
- Data Matters. You can’t fix what you don’t measure. Implementing sweeping changes without tracking their impact is not bold; it’s irresponsible.
- Support Your Teachers. Throwing educators into the deep end without training or resources isn’t progressive; it’s cruel.
- One Size Does Not Fit All. Students are individuals, not cogs in a machine. Tailored instruction is a necessity, not a luxury.
Conclusion: The Price of Performative Equity
Newton’s multilevel experiment was a well-intentioned attempt to address real problems, but good intentions don’t excuse bad outcomes. The district’s refusal to admit failure and course-correct is a disservice to students, teachers, and the community at large.
If Newton truly values “equity and excellence,” it’s time to abandon this failed experiment and return to the drawing board. Because right now, the only thing this initiative has achieved is proving that even in education, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The Candle Issue Volume 4