Submitted by mark spyder thompson, ph.d.
on 10/12/04 3:45 PM
Diane wrote:
"Many people in affluent communities are surprised when their school does not meet these important new standards, often times because a particular subgroup (e.g. disabled or minority children) has been left behind. "
Affluent is not necessarily rich of course, but your point here is one that is so often missed in these discussions. Districts and schools of greater wealth can provide choices that work to eliminate subgroups within their populations at specific schools. To suggest that the schools of the future will improve because we hold them to formulaic ratios by lumping subjective numbers together ignores the already well documented means applied by districts across this country in altering their subgroups.
The last point, that concerns me the most, is your phrase "important new standards." I have never thought they were "new" or "important." For me they reflect "traditional" (old) values and views that are beholden to interests predicated on the maintenance of the systemic status quo of this nation. And while I alone here may make this comment among those engaged in the dialogue, I do know it to be true for a surprisingly large number of my peers and colleagues.
