I most certainly agree with that sentiment in a more general sense. I see that, too, on a state-wide level. The local phenomenon is more of a Garrison Keillor effect--
everyone's child is "above average" here. Even if they aren't.
Now, there is probably
some validity to the notion that our local mean skews a bit high relative to state and national averages. (Heck, the state that I'm in skews about five IQ points higher than the national average, and my county far higher than that... so a ballpark estimate is that 'average' IQ scores in the district might really
be about 110-- but still...)
Anyway, point is that expecting more critical thinking of
all learners is probably a good thing. But that means not spending
all of the class time focused on moving the second-to-lowest quartile up into "meets standard" range on the almighty annual assessments.
That is not going to happen anytime soon in the 'standard' classes, I fear.
Ergo the students with the best opportunities for meaningful learning in their individual proximal zones are, ironically, those in the lowest quartile in 'remedial' coursework, and those in the top quartile (less the ones like our own kids who are mostly in the top 1% or so) who are in 'accelerated/enriched' material. I agree with the notion that the enrichment available to those students could easily be beneficial to the students in the middle two quartiles as well. If only we (as a nation) weren't so fixated on standardized testing, that might actually become a reality; the evidence is quite clear that higher expectations and richer instruction benefit students of ALL abilities.
No wonder parents want their kids in enriched classrooms-- even if the only way to get them there is to coach them into "GT" status. Personally, I obviously don't favor that approach because it necessarily means diluting the level and pace of appropriate instruction for those GT classes, but I can certainly understand parental frustration with the "standard" (and AYP focussed) offerings.
What is unconscionable is that administrators and educators buy into this kind of fallacious thinking-- that by PLACING kids in those environments with higher-ability classmates, we'll automatically get higher performance from everyone. It's the wrong mechanistic explanation, basically, and it costs resources (and quality of education for all students) to get that equation wrong.
In short, while I stand by my belief that plenty of kids that do NOT belong there are being shuttled into GT and/or accelerated coursework (at least locally, but I suspect this is true on a national level too, given the relative popularity and resonance of pieces like "Race to Nowhere,"), it is simultaneously the case that the WAY in which children as a whole are being taught science and mathematics is deeply, maybe even profoundly flawed, and highly skewed toward 'basic proficiency' rather than a mastery model that seeks/expects excellence.
All kids deserve better.
