misme said:CogNeuroSci said:I'm worried about what the IUSD high schools are clearly trying to do: slow down students who want to try to be more advanced. The net result is a lot of straight-A students who are very run-of-the-mill and have no chance (but they and their poor parents don't know it yet) of getting into the best schools that they want. Imagine putting your child into a high school that you thought would position your child for the ultimate gains but actually was designed to impede separation at the top and as a direct result prevent any good chance of getting into the top schools.
this is an issue that is not unique to Irvine, but to
public education in California and the nation as a whole?case in point, the Ca proposed math curriculum to eliminate all math tracking until 11th grade, similar proposed changes to virginia math curriculum, proposals in Palo Alto to limit number of AP/honors courses kids can take.
combined with the growing movement to eliminate standardized testing for college like ACT/SAT and widespread grade inflation on high school transcripts, college admissions is moving towards becoming a randomized lottery process once kids have demonstrated a certain threshold of achievement.
This is what happens when you put a person (Boaler) with a degree in psychology in charge of math curriculum.
I think there's some truth to that last sentence. After you get through the legacies/athletes/stories/etc that I mentioned above, the remaining pool is like winning a lottery jackpot. It's not uncommon to see parents pushing their kids to apply to a long laundry list of schools. More apps = more chances to "win".