Anonymous wrote:Transparency is not MCPS strong suit. It’s why so many parents are fed up with the MCPS propaganda and BS. The lack of transparency is why people no longer trust the school system.

MCPS determines what they want the outcome to be then comes up with the smoke and mirrors so the predetermined outcome becomes a reality. Most parents are sheep and don’t want to question MCPS or rock the boat at their school.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses? I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.

Doesn't make the data wrong. PP just presented the data and it is pretty clear it disadvantages and penalizes a particular racial minority group for good performance. I don't think it is fair but I am not particularly bothered by it. Eventually work doesn't go waste. Just have the grace though to accept the facts. It is obvious what's happening here - could be because of local mooring which happened for a reason.

The reason for local norming is a nationwide shift towards policies that reward the top percentile students based on their home school, not their entire district. It's a sea change, it's everywhere.

Can you provide examples from other school districts applying this same methodology?

Local norming is when "the criteria for gifted is set at the top 5 percent of a school instead of the top 5 percent of the nation" https://www.nagc.org/blog/local-norms-improve-equity-gifted-identification.

The theory is that schools traditionally with higher percentages of Black and Hispanic children would have a higher number of "gifted" identified in those racial categories.

Kentucky has a few examples. Not sure about anywhere else.

However, even the experts caution against applying it without certain adjustments.

"users of local norms must recognize that being gifted or advanced within a local comparison may not mean the student is prepared for the rigor of advanced classes."

"using local norms may harm those who would be identified using national norms. Address this issue by identifying all students who meet the national norms as well as the underrepresented students who meet group-specific norms."

https://www.wku.edu/gifted/rap/using-local-norms.pdf provide example.

Unfortunately, MCPS doesn't do this. MCPS actively discriminates - for example, when they don't select a 99th percentile asian for the magnet program. That's racism.

I'm all for using local norms. Many people believe these schools are not all the same. Some even pay hundreds of thousands more for a home in boundary of one of these good schools because they believe it confers an advantage. This is one of the things that local norms would address. They make sure that all get to children have a fair chance. This is simply selecting students using merit based on the opportunities that were available to them. What I do not like is using a random lottery their results in a much weaker cohort.

Yep. Do the local norming but do proper testing too to enable a fair, measurable process. Not some random lottery. Doesn't help anyone. Get the best kids from local schools AND the best kids from the county. Win win. This doesn't need to get political or weaken the schools. Diversity with performance and excellence is very much possible given the right intent. As of seems like MCPS just wants to take short cuts.

I agree but I'd also create more MS magnets to ensure that kids that need this kind of thing all get it. Not just some random subset. Also doing this could help reduce the bussing costs by reducing travel time.

Yep. I wonder if someone has done an analysis on bussing costs that can be saved. Either way, the investment will be well worth it for the community.

And there are underenrolled middle schools, like Westland and Shady Grove with hundreds of empty seats each, that would be much more conveniently located for lots of families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses? I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.

Doesn't make the data wrong. PP just presented the data and it is pretty clear it disadvantages and penalizes a particular racial minority group for good performance. I don't think it is fair but I am not particularly bothered by it. Eventually work doesn't go waste. Just have the grace though to accept the facts. It is obvious what's happening here - could be because of local mooring which happened for a reason.

The reason for local norming is a nationwide shift towards policies that reward the top percentile students based on their home school, not their entire district. It's a sea change, it's everywhere.

Can you provide examples from other school districts applying this same methodology?

Local norming is when "the criteria for gifted is set at the top 5 percent of a school instead of the top 5 percent of the nation" https://www.nagc.org/blog/local-norms-improve-equity-gifted-identification.

The theory is that schools traditionally with higher percentages of Black and Hispanic children would have a higher number of "gifted" identified in those racial categories.

Kentucky has a few examples. Not sure about anywhere else.

However, even the experts caution against applying it without certain adjustments.

"users of local norms must recognize that being gifted or advanced within a local comparison may not mean the student is prepared for the rigor of advanced classes."

"using local norms may harm those who would be identified using national norms. Address this issue by identifying all students who meet the national norms as well as the underrepresented students who meet group-specific norms."

https://www.wku.edu/gifted/rap/using-local-norms.pdf provide example.

Unfortunately, MCPS doesn't do this. MCPS actively discriminates - for example, when they don't select a 99th percentile asian for the magnet program. That's racism.

I'm all for using local norms. Many people believe these schools are not all the same. Some even pay hundreds of thousands more for a home in boundary of one of these good schools because they believe it confers an advantage. This is one of the things that local norms would address. They make sure that all get to children have a fair chance. This is simply selecting students using merit based on the opportunities that were available to them. What I do not like is using a random lottery their results in a much weaker cohort.

Yep. Do the local norming but do proper testing too to enable a fair, measurable process. Not some random lottery. Doesn't help anyone. Get the best kids from local schools AND the best kids from the county. Win win. This doesn't need to get political or weaken the schools. Diversity with performance and excellence is very much possible given the right intent. As of seems like MCPS just wants to take short cuts.

I agree but I'd also create more MS magnets to ensure that kids that need this kind of thing all get it. Not just some random subset. Also doing this could help reduce the bussing costs by reducing travel time.

Yep. I wonder if someone has done an analysis on bussing costs that can be saved. Either way, the investment will be well worth it for the community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses? I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.

Doesn't make the data wrong. PP just presented the data and it is pretty clear it disadvantages and penalizes a particular racial minority group for good performance. I don't think it is fair but I am not particularly bothered by it. Eventually work doesn't go waste. Just have the grace though to accept the facts. It is obvious what's happening here - could be because of local mooring which happened for a reason.

The reason for local norming is a nationwide shift towards policies that reward the top percentile students based on their home school, not their entire district. It's a sea change, it's everywhere.

Can you provide examples from other school districts applying this same methodology?

Local norming is when "the criteria for gifted is set at the top 5 percent of a school instead of the top 5 percent of the nation" https://www.nagc.org/blog/local-norms-improve-equity-gifted-identification.

The theory is that schools traditionally with higher percentages of Black and Hispanic children would have a higher number of "gifted" identified in those racial categories.

Kentucky has a few examples. Not sure about anywhere else.

However, even the experts caution against applying it without certain adjustments.

"users of local norms must recognize that being gifted or advanced within a local comparison may not mean the student is prepared for the rigor of advanced classes."

"using local norms may harm those who would be identified using national norms. Address this issue by identifying all students who meet the national norms as well as the underrepresented students who meet group-specific norms."

https://www.wku.edu/gifted/rap/using-local-norms.pdf provide example.

Unfortunately, MCPS doesn't do this. MCPS actively discriminates - for example, when they don't select a 99th percentile asian for the magnet program. That's racism.

I'm all for using local norms. Many people believe these schools are not all the same. Some even pay hundreds of thousands more for a home in boundary of one of these good schools because they believe it confers an advantage. This is one of the things that local norms would address. They make sure that all get to children have a fair chance. This is simply selecting students using merit based on the opportunities that were available to them. What I do not like is using a random lottery their results in a much weaker cohort.

Yep. Do the local norming but do proper testing too to enable a fair, measurable process. Not some random lottery. Doesn't help anyone. Get the best kids from local schools AND the best kids from the county. Win win. This doesn't need to get political or weaken the schools. Diversity with performance and excellence is very much possible given the right intent. As of seems like MCPS just wants to take short cuts.

I agree but I'd also create more MS magnets to ensure that kids that need this kind of thing all get it. Not just some random subset. Also doing this could help reduce the bussing costs by reducing travel time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses? I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.

Doesn't make the data wrong. PP just presented the data and it is pretty clear it disadvantages and penalizes a particular racial minority group for good performance. I don't think it is fair but I am not particularly bothered by it. Eventually work doesn't go waste. Just have the grace though to accept the facts. It is obvious what's happening here - could be because of local mooring which happened for a reason.

The reason for local norming is a nationwide shift towards policies that reward the top percentile students based on their home school, not their entire district. It's a sea change, it's everywhere.

Can you provide examples from other school districts applying this same methodology?

Local norming is when "the criteria for gifted is set at the top 5 percent of a school instead of the top 5 percent of the nation" https://www.nagc.org/blog/local-norms-improve-equity-gifted-identification.

The theory is that schools traditionally with higher percentages of Black and Hispanic children would have a higher number of "gifted" identified in those racial categories.

Kentucky has a few examples. Not sure about anywhere else.

However, even the experts caution against applying it without certain adjustments.

"users of local norms must recognize that being gifted or advanced within a local comparison may not mean the student is prepared for the rigor of advanced classes."

"using local norms may harm those who would be identified using national norms. Address this issue by identifying all students who meet the national norms as well as the underrepresented students who meet group-specific norms."

https://www.wku.edu/gifted/rap/using-local-norms.pdf provide example.

Unfortunately, MCPS doesn't do this. MCPS actively discriminates - for example, when they don't select a 99th percentile asian for the magnet program. That's racism.

I'm all for using local norms. Many people believe these schools are not all the same. Some even pay hundreds of thousands more for a home in boundary of one of these good schools because they believe it confers an advantage. This is one of the things that local norms would address. They make sure that all get to children have a fair chance. This is simply selecting students using merit based on the opportunities that were available to them. What I do not like is using a random lottery their results in a much weaker cohort.

Yep. Do the local norming but do proper testing too to enable a fair, measurable process. Not some random lottery. Doesn't help anyone. Get the best kids from local schools AND the best kids from the county. Win win. This doesn't need to get political or weaken the schools. Diversity with performance and excellence is very much possible given the right intent. As of seems like MCPS just wants to take short cuts.

Transparency is not MCPS strong suit. It’s why so many parents are fed up with the MCPS propaganda and BS. The lack of transparency is why people no longer trust the school system.

MCPS determines what they want the outcome to be then comes up with the smoke and mirrors so the predetermined outcome becomes a reality. Most parents are sheep and don’t want to question MCPS or rock the boat at their school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses? I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.

A Black student in a low FARMS school scores a 225 MAP-M that is locally normed to 80% and is not eligible for the lottery. A Black student in a high FARMS school gets a MAP-M 220 locally normed to the 90% and is eligible for the lottery. What makes that second student more deserving of the opportunity to be selected for enriched curriculum than the first?

Yes, but cherry-picking these hypotheticals to suit your narrative is also meaningless. Actual data looks exactly like what they got because that was the outcome of this process.

Huh? This is cherry picking nothing. This is pointing out how this process can lead to outcomes that don't make sense on the surface. As long as people understand and are happy with that, then fine. But you cannot waive away poor design just because. You seem very focused on gross numbers but less focused on real people. The reality is that MCPS could just release the data for transparency, but they won't. So all I can do is point out flaws in their own process.

This example relies on a handful of assumptions that don't necessarily hold up.

The first is that a 225 MAP-M in a wealthy school norms to 80th percentile while a 220 in a Title I school norms to a 90th percentile. We have no idea whether that gap is that large, and a lot of anecdotal discussion on this board suggesting it is not. Anecdotally, the Title I "local norms" for MAP appear to roughly approximate the national norms, which are usually only one or two points below the MCPS average.

The second assumption is that the two kids in your scenario are demographically identical, and that race is the salient factor here. There is a lot of evidence that poverty is a bigger predictor of outcome than race, particularly in MCPS. So a rich Black kid and a poor Black kid are actually facing very different challenges. Both might be equally intelligent and capable of handling the workload, but the one coming from poverty ie experiencing an additional marginalization on top of race, and one that we know can often limit opportunity.

Finally, you are pretending that the MAP-M is the only criteria for placement. That's not true, and it should not be true.

There would be no point in local norming if there was not a significant achievement gap. You are also engaged in speculation. MCPS can be transparent of course and we all know why it won't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses? I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.

A Black student in a low FARMS school scores a 225 MAP-M that is locally normed to 80% and is not eligible for the lottery. A Black student in a high FARMS school gets a MAP-M 220 locally normed to the 90% and is eligible for the lottery. What makes that second student more deserving of the opportunity to be selected for enriched curriculum than the first?

Yes, but cherry-picking these hypotheticals to suit your narrative is also meaningless. Actual data looks exactly like what they got because that was the outcome of this process.

Huh? This is cherry picking nothing. This is pointing out how this process can lead to outcomes that don't make sense on the surface. As long as people understand and are happy with that, then fine. But you cannot waive away poor design just because. You seem very focused on gross numbers but less focused on real people. The reality is that MCPS could just release the data for transparency, but they won't. So all I can do is point out flaws in their own process.

This example relies on a handful of assumptions that don't necessarily hold up.

The first is that a 225 MAP-M in a wealthy school norms to 80th percentile while a 220 in a Title I school norms to a 90th percentile. We have no idea whether that gap is that large, and a lot of anecdotal discussion on this board suggesting it is not. Anecdotally, the Title I "local norms" for MAP appear to roughly approximate the national norms, which are usually only one or two points below the MCPS average.

The second assumption is that the two kids in your scenario are demographically identical, and that race is the salient factor here. There is a lot of evidence that poverty is a bigger predictor of outcome than race, particularly in MCPS. So a rich Black kid and a poor Black kid are actually facing very different challenges. Both might be equally intelligent and capable of handling the workload, but the one coming from poverty ie experiencing an additional marginalization on top of race, and one that we know can often limit opportunity.

Finally, you are pretending that the MAP-M is the only criteria for placement. That's not true, and it should not be true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses? I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.

Doesn't make the data wrong. PP just presented the data and it is pretty clear it disadvantages and penalizes a particular racial minority group for good performance. I don't think it is fair but I am not particularly bothered by it. Eventually work doesn't go waste. Just have the grace though to accept the facts. It is obvious what's happening here - could be because of local mooring which happened for a reason.

The reason for local norming is a nationwide shift towards policies that reward the top percentile students based on their home school, not their entire district. It's a sea change, it's everywhere.

Can you provide examples from other school districts applying this same methodology?

Local norming is when "the criteria for gifted is set at the top 5 percent of a school instead of the top 5 percent of the nation" https://www.nagc.org/blog/local-norms-improve-equity-gifted-identification.

The theory is that schools traditionally with higher percentages of Black and Hispanic children would have a higher number of "gifted" identified in those racial categories.

Kentucky has a few examples. Not sure about anywhere else.

However, even the experts caution against applying it without certain adjustments.

"users of local norms must recognize that being gifted or advanced within a local comparison may not mean the student is prepared for the rigor of advanced classes."

"using local norms may harm those who would be identified using national norms. Address this issue by identifying all students who meet the national norms as well as the underrepresented students who meet group-specific norms."

https://www.wku.edu/gifted/rap/using-local-norms.pdf provide example.

Unfortunately, MCPS doesn't do this. MCPS actively discriminates - for example, when they don't select a 99th percentile asian for the magnet program. That's racism.

I'm all for using local norms. Many people believe these schools are not all the same. Some even pay hundreds of thousands more for a home in boundary of one of these good schools because they believe it confers an advantage. This is one of the things that local norms would address. They make sure that all get to children have a fair chance. This is simply selecting students using merit based on the opportunities that were available to them. What I do not like is using a random lottery their results in a much weaker cohort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses? I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.

Doesn't make the data wrong. PP just presented the data and it is pretty clear it disadvantages and penalizes a particular racial minority group for good performance. I don't think it is fair but I am not particularly bothered by it. Eventually work doesn't go waste. Just have the grace though to accept the facts. It is obvious what's happening here - could be because of local mooring which happened for a reason.

The reason for local norming is a nationwide shift towards policies that reward the top percentile students based on their home school, not their entire district. It's a sea change, it's everywhere.

Can you provide examples from other school districts applying this same methodology?

Local norming is when "the criteria for gifted is set at the top 5 percent of a school instead of the top 5 percent of the nation" https://www.nagc.org/blog/local-norms-improve-equity-gifted-identification.

The theory is that schools traditionally with higher percentages of Black and Hispanic children would have a higher number of "gifted" identified in those racial categories.

Kentucky has a few examples. Not sure about anywhere else.

However, even the experts caution against applying it without certain adjustments.

"users of local norms must recognize that being gifted or advanced within a local comparison may not mean the student is prepared for the rigor of advanced classes."

"using local norms may harm those who would be identified using national norms. Address this issue by identifying all students who meet the national norms as well as the underrepresented students who meet group-specific norms."

https://www.wku.edu/gifted/rap/using-local-norms.pdf provide example.

Unfortunately, MCPS doesn't do this. MCPS actively discriminates - for example, when they don't select a 99th percentile asian for the magnet program. That's racism.

The excuses I've heard for the Magnet admissions changes are that "there are many forms of genius" or "test results don't matter" or "it's an equity issue and we're just leveling the playing field."

The irony here is that the Magnet approach MCPS is using will backfire by HS. A child at the 85 percentile is unlikely to be able to compete with a 99th percentile child on equal footing. Why? For the exact same reason not every child scoring a 1400 on the SAT can improve more than a few points (normally less than 100); no matter how much a child "test preps."

Labeling a child as Magnet surrounded by kids smarter than them will not automatically make that child perform at a higher level; it just dumbs-down the Magnet program. A child barely qualified for CES will just be demoralized trying to keep up. The other option is the teacher is forced to teach to the bottom of the class (or fail them, which they can't do for equity reasons), which demoralizes the top students (making them resent the class anchors). The teachers all know this - they're just going through the motions to make their bosses happy.

It can be fixed. There are a lot of bad apples at the top that have to get fired before anything will improve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses? I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.

Doesn't make the data wrong. PP just presented the data and it is pretty clear it disadvantages and penalizes a particular racial minority group for good performance. I don't think it is fair but I am not particularly bothered by it. Eventually work doesn't go waste. Just have the grace though to accept the facts. It is obvious what's happening here - could be because of local mooring which happened for a reason.

The reason for local norming is a nationwide shift towards policies that reward the top percentile students based on their home school, not their entire district. It's a sea change, it's everywhere.

Can you provide examples from other school districts applying this same methodology?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses? I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.

A Black student in a low FARMS school scores a 225 MAP-M that is locally normed to 80% and is not eligible for the lottery. A Black student in a high FARMS school gets a MAP-M 220 locally normed to the 90% and is eligible for the lottery. What makes that second student more deserving of the opportunity to be selected for enriched curriculum than the first?

Yes, but cherry-picking these hypotheticals to suit your narrative is also meaningless. Actual data looks exactly like what they got because that was the outcome of this process.

Huh? This is cherry picking nothing. This is pointing out how this process can lead to outcomes that don't make sense on the surface. As long as people understand and are happy with that, then fine. But you cannot waive away poor design just because. You seem very focused on gross numbers but less focused on real people. The reality is that MCPS could just release the data for transparency, but they won't. So all I can do is point out flaws in their own process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses? I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.

Doesn't make the data wrong. PP just presented the data and it is pretty clear it disadvantages and penalizes a particular racial minority group for good performance. I don't think it is fair but I am not particularly bothered by it. Eventually work doesn't go waste. Just have the grace though to accept the facts. It is obvious what's happening here - could be because of local mooring which happened for a reason.

The reason for local norming is a nationwide shift towards policies that reward the top percentile students based on their home school, not their entire district. It's a sea change, it's everywhere.

And it seems much more fair than simply handing out seats at these programs to the children of people whose kids attend prep. It seems more fair to reward actual talent which is distributed evenly if opportunities aren't.

I agree with the notion of giving out seats to top kids in local schools. Because it will create positive incentives in those schools. However this notion of just saying talent is evenly distributed without any measurement seems so bogus. Based on what measure are you coming up with this statement? Go ahead and give seats to local schools but stop maligning kids and parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what percent of each group take private math courses? I suspect the taking of private math courses correlates far more with 5s than does race.

You may be right, but not sure that matters. They're ignoring the details of the process like local morning which explains the delta that they're pointing to as evidence of rigging. I think they're just heavily vested in this narrative and are in heavy denial of reality.

Doesn't make the data wrong. PP just presented the data and it is pretty clear it disadvantages and penalizes a particular racial minority group for good performance. I don't think it is fair but I am not particularly bothered by it. Eventually work doesn't go waste. Just have the grace though to accept the facts. It is obvious what's happening here - could be because of local mooring which happened for a reason.

The reason for local norming is a nationwide shift towards policies that reward the top percentile students based on their home school, not their entire district. It's a sea change, it's everywhere.

Just because it is happening everywhere doesn't make it fair. I can live with it but know that this is an attack on a particular group. Rationalizing it, labeling kids may help you feel better but doesn't change the basic facts.