I'm not convinced. The entire focus of the article in the Washington Post was on low achievers. This paragraph sums it up:
Those in the lowest-achieving 5 percent would be required to close, replace at least half their staff, switch to independent management or take other aggressive action, including replacing the principal, to raise achievement. Those in the next-lowest 5 percent would be placed on a warning list and expected to take major steps. Another 5 percent of schools, those with the widest achievement gaps, would be required to narrow those disparities. Schools would be rewarded for making large gains.
can be translated into
holding back the bright ones as much as
advancing the low achievers. Many educators describe this approach with the terms "equity" and "equal outcomes," which sounds nice. In practice, though, it can mean that everyone is believed to be able to reach the same level. So, by necessity, bright kids have to be held back.
And in this sense, the term "bright kids" applies to anyone who scores above the minimum passing score on a test, not just gifted kids. Gifted kids are hit hardest as individuals, but the society as a whole is suffering because talented people of all persuasions aren't allowed to be challenged in school.
Val
