Applied criteria shifts from prior years and parents say process in bad faith
DELMAR – At the April 24 Bethlehem Central school board meeting, Superintendent Jody Monroe reported how she determined the 20 student threshold she set last month for allowing 9th graders to enroll in Lab School next September fell short. Parents cried foul and complained the process was “unfair”, “inconsistent” and “in bad faith.”
On April 17, Monroe advised some 8th grade families there would be no 9th grade 2024-2025 Lab School class because not enough students were eligible to meet the 20 student minimum. Until the April 24 board meeting, Monroe had offered no explanation how that determination was reached.
Monroe acknowledged that 50 students had indicated interest, but the process to assess eligibility was “different from the past.” She claimed that shift was based on “feedback from many of you and based on the condensed timeline for choosing a schedule.” She said the district had provided information to parents and students in person and through parent square, the district’s communication system.
Monroe explained three criteria determined Lab School “eligibility.” Students had to have an above 80 average and be enrolled in all four core Lab School courses and the research class. As for the third criteria, Monroe said, “students who had been recommended and on track for honors math outside of Lab School were not recommended to continue if the curriculum could not be included in the current Lab School program so any of the classes outside of the cohort were not part of the recommendation process.”
Monroe tempered her report stating she understood the news was difficult for Lab school supporters and families. She said, “committee members will continue to work collaboratively with all stakeholders to find a solution that serves our students and community effectively.” In February, the board voted to establish a committee to review Lab School after mandating parents have a committee seat. Monroe had no report on the committee’s progress other than stating teachers “are still deciding what they are going to do.” She had no timeline for their decision.
Board members asked Monroe to explain why there had been no formal application process, no deadline for indicating interest, and whether students were automatically deemed ineligible for Lab School if recommended for honors classes.
Monroe said after students met with guidance counselors, the interested number was down to 30-35 so given the size no application process was needed. She said no “formal deadline” was established because the district was behind on scheduling and once counselors conducted their outreach she “had a final list and said we’re good.” “I believe they were confident that every student who had expressed interest had an opportunity to meet with them,” she said. “That was when we made the decision.”
She countered that automatic disqualification for honors recommendations was “not correct.” She said counselors met with students and they could choose to take honors classes. School board member Ewan McNay pressed Monroe, asking whether students could still enroll in Lab School if they were recommended for honors classes. Monroe responded, “yes”, but qualified her statement saying that students who had taken certain math classes cannot retake the same class.
Board member Katherine Nadeau asked why, unlike past years, a student this year had to take all four core classes in Lab School to be eligible. Monroe blamed past “low numbers” and said the district was “overly flexible with that.” Parent Rob Cole, during the public speaker session, observed that Lab School has long allowed that flexibility. “For so long Lab School has allowed flexibility and this is the year when we have had all these conversations, that the decision is made – nope, we’re going to stick to the rules and we’re going to suddenly get rid of all flexibility that has existed for years, really?”
Monroe repeatedly referred to the curriculum handbook as supporting the strict eligibility criteria. Parents attending the board meeting said the handbook says, “Lab School is open to everyone.”
Nadeau also asked, “you just went through the eligibility criteria pretty clearly, how was that shared with people exactly?” Monroe, again cited the curriculum handbook. She also said she instructed guidance counselors when they met with students and parents to tell them that the four core courses and research class are required for enrollment. Nadeau said she was hearing about a lot of confusion about that shift and that it had not been communicated clearly, particularly regarding honors and accelerated math classes.
Nadeau asked whether that information had been communicated “wholistically.” Monroe said “no” and again referred to the curriculum handbook.
Monroe asked Deputy Superintendent David Hurst to explain why accelerated math posed an obstacle for enrollment. Hurst said it was schedule and curriculum related. He said the district needs to schedule to maximize availability of classes for all students. From a curriculum standpoint, he said calculus “does not exist in Lab School.” He said in the last few years, students were allowed to take calculus outside of Lab School. He continued, “but from what I have heard from a lot of the community members both in forums and in emails is that the cohort model is the strength of the program and if that’s what we’re going to hang our hats on then that is the strength of the program, we can’t start having these one-offs being pulled in and out for coure courses because that dilutes the whole idea of the core model.”
Nadeau further questioned communications about this year’s return to the four core course requirement. “It seems from many, many accounts that communication was disorganized at best and different information was coming from different channels to the students and parents,” she said. While she understood the “core curriculum is the point”, she also understood why that would “create a sense of frustration.” She said, “what is implicit and understood by the folks running it” needs to be “really explicit for folks who are applying and folks who are watching.”
McNay echoed that. He noted that “people were still talking to middle school staff” on the 18th when the decision was made the next day. He said a deadline would have been helpful and told Monroe she needs to “over communicate this stuff.”
During the public comment period, 9th grade Lab School parent Jason MacLaughlin, lauded Monroe for her preceding presentation on an upcoming registration and application for the district’s Universal Pre-K program. He said he really “appreciated” the “clear deadlines, the logical enrollment process and how clearly and concisely that was from beginning to end.” He pondered whether the Lab School result would have been different if the “same level of clear, concise application process with clear deadlines” had applied.
Parent Scott Garno said Lab School “criteria were anything but clear and certainly not advertised.”
Other parents and Lab School supporters voiced dissatisfication with Monroe’s explanations and disputed her statements. 8th grade parent Matthew Kohn said he came to the meeting to “find out how the decision was made.” After hearing Monroe, he said, “I have some additional clarity but it still sounds like decisions were made during the process as opposed to before. They shifted the goal post.” He said his son was told he was eligible for Lab School and several days later told he was not. He also said his son was given “no opportunity to choose Lab School over accelerated math.”
Parent Arthur Siegel also said students were categorically denied the option of choosing Lab School over other courses. The whole thing was designed to fail.” He said it was “cruel” of the administration to “dangle the opportunity in front of eager students when it had no intention of actually offering it.” “The administration would of course argue this isn’t true, but at this point, what credibility does it have left?,” he said. He noted he has repeatedly stood before the board “to poke holes in the administration’s self-serving narrative while pointing out its flagrant and repeated acts of bad faith.”
Parents accused Monroe of purposefully whittling down the numbers to avoid meeting the 20 student threshold. Cole said he was particularly appalled that two students who had medically excused absences were deemed ineligible for Lab School due to excessive absenteeism. “It’s not like they were playing hooky,” he said.
After the meeting, when asked by Spotlight to respond to questions about reviewing Monroe’s conclusion, board president Holly Dellenbaugh declined and referred Spotlight to the district’s spokesperson for comment. The district responded, “Superintendent Monroe indicated at the meeting that the next step is the formation of the committee to review Lab School and possible Lab School alternatives.”
Several parent speakers asked the board to exercise oversight and provide accountability for Monroe’s decision. “I urge you to exercise your power of oversight and hold the administration accountable for its actions,” said Siegel. “For every failure to challenge an act of bad faith is complicity in that act and license to continue to commit them.”
8th grade parent Leah DiRamio said, “I thought the Board was supposed to be fighting for us.”
