The district's internal and external reviews also found that the district scores about 1 SD above the mean on nationally-normed instruments (InView, SATs, ACTs). So that a program designed for the top 4% should actually accommodate ~10% of their school population. I actually think this means that the core curriculum of the district should include a more challenging range (hence the external review recommendation for total school clustering), so that in-class differentiation and ability/achievement grouping will capture a larger percentage of students.
On the elementary/middle school advanced math program, the internal review board based their recommendation to delay the program to middle school on statistically insignificant differences in grades in high school math courses between students who entered the advanced math track in 4th grade vs 6th grade (perhaps because there is a natural ceiling on grades--can't get higher than an A, right? Both averaged low 90s.)
I agree that some parts of the superintendent's letter definitely struck a sympathetic chord. For example, the dramatic reduction in children assigned to basic skills level instruction in reading and math when more objective criteria were instituted. (Apparently, children reading at grade level were being perceived as behind.)
The majority of the changes appear to have come straight out of recommendations from the internal and external review committees.
