皮皮蝦 名博

硅谷帕洛阿图联合校区（Palo Alto Unified School District，以下简称PAUSD），一向在各种排名中名列前茅，口碑甚佳，也人才辈出，因此使得所在城市房价高企。

然而，光鲜背后的颓迹不为外人所见，亮丽之下的阴影却被邻里所痛。校区近几年来不断推出各种＂高大上＂的举措，大搞平均主义，名为消灭成就差距（closing achievement gap，象不象文革用语＂消灭城乡差别＂？），实则摧秀于林，折锐铄金。

前几天刚出台的小升初数学跳级考试，居然设计成五个小时时长，比SAT考试时间都要长，对年幼的考生简直就是折磨。不由让人怀疑，其用心就是要为难莘莘学子，让他们知难而退，以达到其不鼓励跳级、把尖子学生拉下来达到表面＂平等＂的荒唐结局。

有鉴于此，今天我们刊登一篇学生家长的英文文章和中文翻译，向大家坦诚公布发生不久的家长为孩子得到公正的数学分班而和学区抗争并诉诸法律的过程。这件事上了本市的报纸，以学区要求和解并赔钱而告一段落。从文章中可以了解到，在硅谷这个看重人才的高科技领地，在PAUSD这样著名的一流学区，反智的力量是多么有权有势，多么根枝深茂。  

 

官司之后的感言

作者：Avery Wang

翻译： 皮皮虾

 

As you know, I sued PAUSD to put my kid in the proper math class, to avoid having him repeat a class in which he already had an A.  I won a settlement, which you may have read about in the PA Daily Post, which was to put my kid into the right math class and pay me $5000.  However, the lawsuit wasn’t just about my child.  It was also to force PAUSD to stop violating California Education Codes 51224.7 and 51228.2, to the detriment of our kids.  And, it is indirectly about preserving my property values.

如您所知，我起诉了PAUSD，为的是让我的孩子能被安排在合适的数学班上，以避免让他重复已经拿了A的课程。我最终达成了和解，这您可能已经在《 Palo Alto 每日邮报（PA Daily Post）》中读到了，结果是我的孩子被安排在了合适的数学班里，并有5000美元付给了我。但是，诉讼不仅仅为了我的孩子。它也应该迫使PAUSD停止违反加州教育法51224.7和51228.2的规定而有害于我们的孩子。而且，这也间接地关系到我的房产的保值。

 

Particulars of our lawsuit:

My kid had been taking the Art of Problem Solving Geometry class, which is arguably more challenging than PAUSD GeoH.  Because AOPS is not a UC a-g approved provider, it does not satisfy the UC (c) graduation requirement.  In order to get around this problem, my kid also took Geometry from online UC Scout, a much easier class, thus definitively satisfying the UC (c) requirement for geometry.  PAUSD, however, rejected this and assigned him to GeoH, forcing him to repeat the class.  According to EDC 51228.2, a school district may not force a kid to repeat a required class.

我们诉讼的细节：

我的孩子上过“Arts of Problem Solving＂的几何课［译注：Arts of Problem Solving（解题艺术），简称AOPS，数学娃都知道的一个权威网站和机构］，可以说比PAUSD开的几何荣誉课 GeoH更具挑战性。因为AOPS不是加州大学UC a-g批准的提供者，所以它不满足UC（c）毕业要求。为了解决这个问题，我的孩子又上了一门UC Scout的在线几何课程，这是一门简单得多的课程，因此可以完全满足UC（c）对几何的要求。可是，PAUSD不认，还是将我儿子安排在了荣誉几何课的班上，迫使他重复上课。根据EDC 51228.2，PAUSD不得强迫孩子重读必修课。  

 

After trying to reason with the PAUSD administration and being completely ignored, I felt the only recourse was to sue PAUSD.  To spare you too many details, we did a lot of research and were prepared to go to trial.  We were confident of winning proper placement before school started.  However, due to COVID, the courts were shut down for a few months.  By the time we were able to get a court appearance to petition for a preliminary injunction for placement into the proper math class, it was already at the beginning of the school year.  A judge may grant a “preliminary injunction” for immediate relief from imminent harm before going to the full trial.  PAUSD argued that

在尝试与PAUSD主管部门理论并被完全忽略之后，我觉得唯一的办法就是起诉PAUSD。长话短说，我们做了很多研究，做好了上庭的准备。我们有信心在开学前赢得适当的安置。但是，由于疫情，法院关闭了几个月。到了我们能够出庭陈情，要求安置适当数学课的“初步禁令”时，新学年已经开始了。法官本可在进行全面审判之前，给予“初步禁令”以立即减轻迫在眉睫的伤害，但PAUSD认为  

 

1. UC Scout Geometry is not the same as PAUSD Geometry so that he would not be repeating the course.
2. Geometry was designed to be taken more than once.
3. No harm would come from repeating Geometry.
4. PAUSD further argued that the Math Placement Act only applied to Students of Color, not for Whites and Asians to “vault ahead.”  This is an outrageous, incorrect, racist, and bad-faith interpretation of the MPA.  The MPA does not mention skin color. We contacted the State Senator Holly Mitchell’s office and they affirmed strongly that the MPA is for ALL students!  In PAUSD’s words:

 

（1）UC Scout几何课与PAUSD的几何课不同，因此我孩子不会重复课程。

（2）几何课的设置就是要上不止一次。

（3）重复几何课不会造成任何伤害。     

（4）PAUSD进一步辩称，《数学安置法》仅适用于有色人种，不是被用来让白人和亚裔“领先”的。这是对此法案残酷、错误、充满种族主义和恶意的解读。此法案根本没有提到肤色。我们联系了州参议员Holly Mitchell的办公室，他们强烈确认此法适用于所有学生！用PAUSD的话来说：

国家立法部门起草了教育法令51224.7，旨在为历史上服务不足的有色人群扭转不利的竞争环境。该规约的起草目的并非出于、也不应该被当作一种机制使（一些）学生进一步领先于该规约所定的目标学生。

 

The judge took PAUSD’s arguments at face value thus denied our petition for preliminary injunction. As a result of this, my kid was forced to repeat Geometry for the first semester of the 2020-2021 school year.  Our next opportunity to argue the case would be a full trial, involving evidence, depositions, and witnesses, then scheduled for December. 

法官接受了PAUSD冠冕堂皇的论点，因此拒绝了我们对初步禁令的请求。因此，我的孩子被迫在2020-2021学年的第一学期重复修读了几何课。我们下一个辩护此案的机会就是全面审判，包括证据、陈述和证人，定于（当年）12月进行。  

 

As we approached the trial date, PAUSD made an offer for a pre-trial settlement, which was to have my son placed in the correct math class and to pay me $5000.  However, it did not include changing their policies to comply with the law.  Because it was already at the end of the first semester, we decided the prudent course of action would be to accept the settlement.  A risk would have been to have the case drag out longer and even if we won, it might have been too late.  He had already missed 1/2 a year of Algebra 2/Trig H.  PAUSD does not usually pay damages in a pre-trial settlement, but I think they really wanted to get rid of my case.

接近法庭日期时，学区提出要进行庭外和解的请求，即安排我儿子上合适的数学课程并支付我5000美元，但是不包括更改其政策以遵守法律。因为已经在第一学期末了，所以我们决定明智的做法是接受和解协议。不然的话，就有风险将案件拖至更长的时间，即使我们胜诉，也可能为时已晚。儿子已经错过了半年的代数2/三角荣誉课［译注：本来应该上的课］。虽然PAUSD通常不会在审前和解中支付赔偿金，但我认为他们确实想从这个案子脱身。

 

The very fact that this lawsuit happened tells you what kind of Board and Administration we have in PAUSD.  At the same time that they are wailing about budget deficits and needing to raise our taxes, they are more than happy to spend on tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight against families who want proper math placement for their kids and to avoid having to repeat classes that they have passed elsewhere.  That amount of money could go a long way to providing enrichment for the disadvantaged students that they keep tweeting about.  Instead, PAUSD finds it easier to act on equity by holding back high-achieving kids in order to “close the gap.”

发生此诉讼的事实告诉您PAUSD拥有怎样的董事会和行政部门。一方面他们为预算赤字而哭穷力主提高我们的税收，与此同时，他们又非常乐意花费数以万计美元的律师费来与那些希望为孩子提供适当数学程度的课程且避免重复已经在其它地方通过了课程的家庭争斗。这笔钱其实本来可以用来大大丰富和帮助他们不断发推关注的弱势学生的课业的。取而代之的是，PAUSD发现，通过压制高成就的孩子以“缩小差距”，可以更轻松地实现公平。  

 

PAUSD administration has systematically refused to engage in evidence-based discussions with parents about proper math placement for their kids.  Instead, they stonewall and run out the clock.  We found during deposition that the Administration ordered staff not to respond to me.  Many of you have had the same experience.  PAUSD’s main tactics are to delay, stonewall, misinform, and misdirect, until it is too late.  Families have generally not gotten organized.  They often just trust the Administration because they believe that PAUSD is the best school district in the nation, and perhaps the world.  Why else would property values be so high?  Once they have figured out that PAUSD has not served them well, they have aged out of the system and quietly faded away.  Thus the status quo continues year after year.  Stonewalling is a very effective way to battle those they deride as “tiger parents."

PAUSD主管部门系统性地拒绝与父母就他们的孩子适当的数学安排进行基于证据的讨论。取而代之的是，他们采取了阻碍并耗尽时间的策略。我们逐步发现行政当局命令工作人员不要回复我。你们中许多人都有过相同的经历。PAUSD的主要策略是拖延、塞责、误传和误导，直到为时已晚。家长们通常是没有组织好的。他们通常只是信任主管部门，因为他们认为PAUSD是美国乃至全世界最好的学区，不然为何房价如此之高？一旦他们发现PAUSD不能很好地为他们服务时，他们已经老到孩子不再是学区系统的适龄学生了，只能悄悄地淡出。因此，这种状况年复一年地持续下去。（这些行政官僚们）嘲笑那些“虎妈虎爸＂，阻塞是他们与之战斗的非常有效的方法。        

 

The cost, time, and effort to take a legal route has historically been an insurmountable and hopeless route for most families.  The cost to mount a lawsuit can be over $50K.  The usual time from filing a complaint until trial is on the order of 2 years, after which the issue at hand becomes moot.  Collecting evidence is a time-consuming task.  Additionally, it was nearly impossible to find an education attorney who was willing to take on this case;  the vast majority will only work within their well-trodden areas of 504’s, IEPs, Title IX violations, bullying, and other stuff that school districts normally get sued about.  These difficulties have effectively shielded PAUSD from challenges to their illegal policies around math placement.  EDC 51224.7 and 51228.2 are relatively new laws, having taken effect in 2016.  The lack of case law and precedent made it uncharted territory that lawyers don’t like to explore.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

从历史上看，采取法律途径的成本、时间和精力对于大多数家庭而言是不可逾越且绝望的途径。提起诉讼的成本可能超过5万美元。从提出申诉到进行审判的通常时间为2年左右，此后手头的问题变得毫无意义。收集证据是一项耗时的任务。此外，要找到愿意承担此案的教育律师几乎是不可能的。绝大多数人只能在他们受过良好训练的504、IEP，IX条例违规行为、欺凌行为以及学区通常会被起诉的其他方面进行工作。这些困难有效地使学区免受了围绕数学分班的非法政策而起的挑战。 EDC 51224.7和51228.2是相对较新的法律，于2016年生效。由于缺乏判例法和判例，因此律师们不愿涉足未知领域。

参考：

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

 

EDC 51224.7 is the “Math Placement Act of 2015,” and stipulates fair, objective, transparent, and multi-point placement criteria for those entering 9th grade. PAUSD, by policy, does not do placement tests for entering 9th graders.  Instead, they do MDTP readiness tests; the MDTP is not a placement test.  A math professor would pass a “readiness” test for Algebra 1, but that test would not be able to determine if the professor were placed properly in Algebra 1.  As described above, PAUSD does not offer timely evidence-based recourse to discuss placement, as required by Section b(4) of the MPA; worse than that, the Administration orders staff not to respond to parents.  Palo Alto also does not compile a report on aggregate placement data, as required by Section b(3).

Reference:  https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-51224-7.html

EDC 51224.7是“ 2015年数学分级分班法”，它为进入9年级的学生规定了公平、客观、透明和多点的分班标准。而PAUSD根据其（自己的）政策对进入9年级的学生不进行入学考试。相反，他们进行MDTP准备就绪测试，这项测试不是分级测试。一位数学教授可以通过代数1的“准备就绪”测试，但该测试无法确定该教授是否正确安置在代数1中。如上所述，PAUSD没有按数学分级分班法第b（4）节的要求提供及时的基于证据的方法来评论代数；更糟糕的是，行政机构命令员工不要回应父母。帕洛阿图（Palo Alto）也未按照b（3）节的要求编制有关分班分级汇总数据的报告。

参考：

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-51224-7.html

 

EDC 51228.2 states that a school district may not force a student to repeat a class that satisfies a UC a-g requirement, presuming that the student has passed the class with an acceptable grade for graduation.   However, PAUSD’s policy is that ALL graduation requirements must be taken on a PAUSD campus.  Those who have taken an external class from community college or online providers, such as UC Scout, BYU, and other WASC/UC-accredited institutions that satisfy the UC a-g requirement, are denied proper placement and graduation credits, and furthermore forced to repeat the class.  This is pretty black and white.  Being forced to repeat a class is a waste of time and is mental abuse.  It destroys the “growth mindset” that PAUSD claims to be so proud of.   EDC 51228.2 was passed into law in 2016, but the PAUSD policy has not changed. Despite my many emails to the Board and Administration informing them of this law, they have met me with silence.  They assert that they are in compliance with the law.  Anyone who has had external courses denied for PAUSD placement and graduation credit should take note — your rights may have been violated.  I know of many cases where PAUSD students with external UC a-g courses have been forced to repeat those courses.

Reference:

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-51228-2.html

EDC 51228.2规定，学区不得强迫学生重复满足UC a-g要求的课程，前提是学生已通过该课程并获得了可接受的毕业分数。然而，PAUSD的政策是，所有毕业要求都必须在本学区的校园内进行。那些从社区学院或在线提供者处接受外部课程的人，例如UC Scout，BYU（杨伯翰大学）和其他满足UC ag要求的WASC / UC认可机构，都在适当分级问题上被否决，得不到该门课的毕业学分，（不得不）被迫重复该课程，非黑即白。被迫重复上课既浪费时间，又是精神上的虐待。它破坏了PAUSD宣称并引以为傲的“增长思维方式”。 EDC 51228.2于2016年通过成为法律，但PAUSD的政策没有改变。尽管我向董事会和行政部门发送了许多电子邮件，提出有关这项法律的内容，但他们还是与我见面时对此不置一词。他们声称自己遵守法律。任何上了外部课程而被PAUSD拒绝接受而没有得到分级安置和毕业学分的人都应注意——您的权利可能已受到侵犯。我知道PAUSD有很多学生上了校外的UC a-g课程后被迫重复这些课程。    

参考：

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-51228-2.html

 

It is interesting to note that transfer students have more rights than PAUSD students entering high school.  Transfer students are placed according to what is on their incoming transcript history, taken at face value.   The timing of when a student transfers into PAUSD can determine whether an external class is accepted.  Hypothetically, if a student transfers into PAUSD before the end of the school year, before June, and then takes a summer class at Foothill College, that class might not be accepted.  But if the same student takes the same summer class and then transfers to PAUSD in August, the class would be accepted.  This defies common sense, in addition to being illegal.

有趣的是，转学生比进入高中的本学区学生拥有更多的权利。转学生根据入学成绩单上的内容按纸面上的分数进行分配。学生何时转入PAUSD的时间可以决定校外课程是否被接受。假设，如果学生在学年末的六月前转入本学区，然后在Foothill College参加暑期课程，则该课程可能不被接受。但是，如果同一名学生参加相同的暑期班，然后在8月转入PAUSD，则该课程就会被接受。除了违法之外，这违背了常识。

 

What now:

The initial scope of my lawsuit was not only to attain proper placement for my kid, but also to force PAUSD to comply with the law:  to change their illegal policies for ALL students.  In the settlement I had to drop all further claims.  I am disappointed by not being able to fulfill all my objectives.

现在怎么办：

我提起诉讼的最初主张不仅是为了为我的孩子获得适当的安置，而且是为了迫使PAUSD遵守法律：改变其对所有学生的非法政策。在和解中，我不得不放弃所有进一步的主张。无法实现我的所有目标令我感到失望。  

 

At the District level, nothing has changed as a result of my lawsuit.  Kids will continue to be forced to be held back to repeat classes.  In neighboring districts, more than 40% of their students enter high school having taken geometry.  In PAUSD it is about 5%.  This may put our kids at a disadvantage in applying to the top STEM programs.  If the community cares about forcing PAUSD to comply with the law and to stop forcing kids to repeat classes and holding them back, someone else will have to continue the fight.  Those who may be interested in pursuing the objective of forcing PAUSD to comply with the law can sign up to talk to my lawyer in a follow-up meeting.  Because we were only a few days away from the trial before PAUSD offered a settlement, the preliminary work has all been done and the incremental cost would not be too high.  There are some donors who are willing to cover the costs so if you want to participate, cost should not be a concern.  Furthermore, the amount of personal involvement would not be too high.

Sign up here:

https://forms.gle/Qg3qU9Hi4nHT946H8

我的诉讼并没有在学区层面有任何改变，孩子们将继续被迫压制在低一级的班级重复课程，而且我们邻近地区有超过40％的学生已经修过几何课程进入高中，这在PAUSD只有大约为5％。这可能会使我们的孩子在申请顶级STEM专业时处于不利地位。如果我们的社区在乎并促使PAUSD遵守法律、停止强迫孩子重复课程和拉低学生水平的做法，那么就得有其他人继续这场斗争。那些有兴趣寻求促使PAUSD遵守法律的人可以签下名，与我的律师进行进一步的交谈。由于只剩一些天就到审判的日子从而可以使PAUSD拿出解决方案，因此初步的前期工作已全部完成，增加的费用不会太高， 又有一些捐助者愿意承担费用，因此，如果您想参加，费用不会是个问题。此外，个人的参与程度也不会太高。注册在这里：   

https://forms.gle/Qg3qU9Hi4nHT946H8

 

I should add:  I do not think it is a good idea to force kids to advance unnaturally in a subject area if he/she is not ready for it.  Love for a subject, be it math, music, art, literature, sports, etc. should be cultivated.  Too much of the wrong pressure can ruin a kid’s love for a subject and that pressure can backfire.  But that is for families to decide, not PAUSD.

我应该补充一点：我认为如果孩子没有准备好而强迫他/她在某学科领域内违背自然地跳级不是一个好主意。对一门学科的热爱应该是被培养的，无论是数学，音乐，艺术，文学，体育等。过多的错误压力会破坏孩子对某学科的热爱，并且这种压力会适得其反。但这是家庭的决定，而不是学区的决定。

 

I also want to add that I think the PAUSD honors math classes are very good and more rigorous than many online providers such as UC Scout or community college.  As an example, PAUSD geometry has 3 levels:  “college prep” Geo, GeoA, and GeoH.  UC Scout Geometry is equivalent to Geo, not GeoA or GeoH.  If you are paying $$$ to live in Palo Alto, I think it is generally a bad idea to take external “college prep” geometry in order to “skip” a grade, versus taking the A or H lane.  In our case, we took UC Scout Geo as a “credit umbrella” on top of Art of Problem Solving geometry.

我还想补充一点，我认为PAUSD的荣誉数学课程比许多在线提供商（例如UC Scout或社区学院）都要好，而且更加严格。例如，PAUSD的几何课有3个级别：“大学预备＂几何，几何A和几何H（即荣誉课）。 UC Scout几何等效于“大学预备＂几何，而不是几何A或几何H。如果您花高价住在帕洛阿图，我觉得采用外部的“学院准备”几何课来跳级通常不是个好主意，而应该走A或H轨道。在我们的案例中，我们只是用UC Scout 几何课为“AOPS”几何课作了个保险。    

 

PAUSD rant:

If you follow Don Austin’s tweets, he has disparaged “grade culture,” promoted “Credit/No Credit” for Spring Semester last year, and crowed about leveling the playing field for disadvantaged students.  The WGPA war was also about “equity,” but put PAUSD students at a disadvantage in college applications.  Most policymakers assume that high-performing students do not need to be nurtured.  Furthermore, high performers have become the punching bag of progressives.  In PAUSD, there has been discussion about tutoring and external classwork as being “cheating,” primarily in STEM.  In contrast, nobody considers external training and coaching in athletics as “cheating.”  It is even expected in some sports!   The same is true with music:  no reputable music teacher would tell their students not to practice or hold them back in order to keep them at parity with their peers.  Indeed PAUSD beams with pride when their students excel at sports and music.

PAUSD声名狼藉：

如果您跟进Don Austin的推文，(你会发现）他会贬低“分数文化”，在去年春季学期他提倡成绩应以“得到学分/没有得到学分”的方式呈现，并嚷嚷为弱势学生扭转不利的竞争环境。WGPA（加权的GPA）斗争也与“公平”有关，但（不加权）会使本学区的学生在大学申请中处于劣势。大多数政策制定者认为，高水平的学生不需要提供养分培养。此外，高绩效学生已成为激进人士的出气筒。在PAUSD，曾有将补习和额外课业视为“作弊”的讨论，特别是在STEM方面。相反，没有人认为在体育上进行外部培训和指导是“作弊”，这甚至在某些运动中是被期许的！音乐也是如此：没有著名的音乐老师会告诉他们的学生不要练习， 或者拉低他们的水平以使他们与同龄人保持同等水平。的确，当学生精于运动和音乐时，PAUSD会为此感到骄傲。  

 

Don’t get me wrong:  I am very supportive of equity, especially for disadvantaged students, but I don’t support “equity” achieved by holding back the hardest working kids.   Why can’t our Administration try programs and policies that actually serve disadvantaged students?  Gilroy performs better at teaching disadvantaged students than PAUSD.  To give an idea of how disadvantaged students can attain great heights, look at “Success Academy” in New York City.  Their disadvantaged students perform much better on proficiency tests than privileged students with median family incomes of $250K versus $50K.  https://www.successacademies.org/results.

不要误会我的意思：我非常支持公平，尤其是对处境不利的学生，但我不支持通过阻止最努力的孩子来实现“公平”。我们的主管部门为何不能尝试为弱势学生提供能实际服务的计划和政策？ Gilroy市在教导弱势学生方面比PAUSD表现更好。要了解弱势学生如何才能取得长足发展，请看一下纽约市的“成功学院”。他们的弱势学生在能力测试中的表现要比家庭收入中位数为25万的幸运儿要好得多，而这些弱势学生的家庭收入中位数仅为5万美元。 https://www.successacademies.org/results。

 

The de-laning movement is being pushed by the PAUSD Board and Administration.  This is the idea that all students in a grade should be put into the same classrooms.  Students who are several years above grade level and those who are several years below are supposed to bond socio-emotionally and all succeed together.  In reality, the high-achieving students are bored and snicker at the under-performing kids.  The latter feel ashamed they will never be able to be good at math.  And the teachers hate the idea because they are forced to try to teach to all levels at the same time.  The Administration has been working with the controversial Jo Boaler as an advisor for de-laning PAUSD middle school.  A key justification is for “equity.”  James Milgram, a highly respected Stanford mathematician, wrote a scathing analysis on Boaler’s controversial 2008 paper that forms the basis for de-laning, accusing her of fraudulent analysis and cherry-picking data.

https://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Essays/v8n5.htm

PAUSD董事会和行政部门正在推动不分班运动。这个想法认为全年级的所有学生都应该放在同样水平的班级里。水平高出几级的学生和落后几级的学生应该搞在一起（从而）在社交和情感上建立纽带，并且一起成功。实际上，成绩优秀的学生会感到无聊，也会对表现欠佳的孩子窃笑。后者会感到耻辱，自认永远无法搞好数学。老师们也讨厌这个想法，因为他们被迫尝试同时教各种水平。有关部门一直与有争议的Jo Boaler合作，她担任PAUSD中学的取消分班的顾问，关键的理由就是为了“公平”。她在2008年有一篇论文引起很大争议，却是取消分班的奠基之作。著名的斯坦福大学数学家James Milgram对Boaler这篇论文进行了严厉的剖析，指责她进行愚弄性分析和挑选剪裁数据。

https://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Essays/v8n5.htm

 

In contrast, Big Fish, Little Pond Effect, studied extensively over many decades by many reputable researchers shows that putting wide range of abilities into the same classroom is bad for self-concept for all but the top students.  This makes intuitive sense, except in PAUSD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-fish–little-pond_effect

相比之下，许多著名研究人员数十年来对“小池塘里的大鱼效应”进行了广泛研究，结果表明，除了顶尖学生以外，将能力差别很大的学生们混合到同一个班级会不利于所有人的自我认同。这也是凭直觉就明白的事，但PAUSD除外https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-fish–little-pond_effect

 

My prediction based on the BFLPE is for even worse outcomes for disadvantaged students than the already-catastrophic performance from recent years.

基于这个小池大鱼理论，我甚至可以预测，与近几年来已经很糟糕的灾难性局面相比，（取消分班）会对弱势学生造成更差的结果。

 

Furthermore, according to an unofficial poll in Verde, a Gunn student magazine, 95% of respondents to a survey dislike the new middle-school math de-laning program.  PAUSD Board and Administration does not listen to community input, except when it matches their agenda.  If you think the “remagining” math plan sounds counterintuitive and outrageous, you’re not alone.

https://verdemagazine.com/math-modifications-middle-school-math-changes-spark-debate

此外，根据Gunn学生杂志Verde的一项非正式调查显示，接受调查的受访者中有95％不喜欢取消初中数学分班的新计划。PAUSD董事会和行政部门不听取社区的意见，除非刚好符合他们的计划。如果您认为这个名为“重新规划”的数学计划听起来违反直觉和令人发指，那么您并不孤单。

https://verdemagazine.com/math-modifications-middle-school-math-changes-spark-debate

 

您是否赞成PAUSD数学教育系统的新变化

是： 4.06% （15票）

否： 95.40% （311票）

326 票，326回复

 

The latest word is that PAUSD middle school “skipping” of math classes for rising 6^th and 7^th graders must take a difficult 5 hour validation test.  These tests are almost 4x longer than the math section of the SAT!  Surely these tests are uncalibrated and designed to forced advanced kids to fail.  Recall that our neighbors have over 40% in 8^th grade taking geometry.  PAUSD would like there to be 0% in order to conform to their de-laning social engineering.

最后我还想说的是，对升入6年级和7年级要数学跳级的学生，PAUSD要求必须参加艰难的5小时资格考试。这些测试几乎比SAT的数学部分长4倍！当然，这些测试是非标准的，这样设计就是用来使得超前的孩子失败。回想一下，我们的邻近学区在8年级时有超过40％的学生在上几何课，而 PAUSD希望有0％的比例以符合他们取消分级的社会工程。

 

Someone can provides an extensive commentary on Jo Boaler, Rousseau, and the failure of US education policy:

https://bit.ly/38oASeE

https://barbaraoakley.com/infinite-powers

 

针对Jo Boaler、卢梭（Rousseau）和美国教育政策的失败，有人提供了大量评论：

https://bit.ly/38oASeE

https://barbaraoakley.com/infinite-powers