皮皮蝦
Will update later on.
矽穀帕洛阿圖聯合校區（Palo Alto Unified School District，以下簡稱PAUSD），一向在各種排名中名列前茅，口碑甚佳，也人才輩出，因此使得所在城市房價高企。
然而，光鮮背後的頹跡不為外人所見，亮麗之下的陰影卻被鄰裏所痛。校區近幾年來不斷推出各種＂高大上＂的舉措，大搞平均主義，名為消滅成就差距（closing achievement gap，象不象文革用語＂消滅城鄉差別＂？），實則摧秀於林，折銳鑠金。
前幾天剛出台的小升初數學跳級考試，居然設計成五個小時時長，比SAT考試時間都要長，對年幼的考生簡直就是折磨。不由讓人懷疑，其用心就是要為難莘莘學子，讓他們知難而退，以達到其不鼓勵跳級、把尖子學生拉下來達到表麵＂平等＂的荒唐結局。
有鑒於此，今天我們刊登一篇學生家長的英文文章和中文翻譯，向大家坦誠公布發生不久的家長為孩子得到公正的數學分班而和學區抗爭並訴諸法律的過程。這件事上了本市的報紙，以學區要求和解並賠錢而告一段落。從文章中可以了解到，在矽穀這個看重人才的高科技領地，在PAUSD這樣著名的一流學區，反智的力量是多麽有權有勢，多麽根枝深茂。
官司之後的感言
作者：Avery Wang
翻譯： 皮皮蝦
As you know, I sued PAUSD to put my kid in the proper math class, to avoid having him repeat a class in which he already had an A. I won a settlement, which you may have read about in the PA Daily Post, which was to put my kid into the right math class and pay me $5000. However, the lawsuit wasn’t just about my child. It was also to force PAUSD to stop violating California Education Codes 51224.7 and 51228.2, to the detriment of our kids. And, it is indirectly about preserving my property values.
如您所知，我起訴了PAUSD，為的是讓我的孩子能被安排在合適的數學班上，以避免讓他重複已經拿了A的課程。我最終達成了和解，這您可能已經在《 Palo Alto 每日郵報（PA Daily Post）》中讀到了，結果是我的孩子被安排在了合適的數學班裏，並有5000美元付給了我。但是，訴訟不僅僅為了我的孩子。它也應該迫使PAUSD停止違反加州教育法51224.7和51228.2的規定而有害於我們的孩子。而且，這也間接地關係到我的房產的保值。
Particulars of our lawsuit:
My kid had been taking the Art of Problem Solving Geometry class, which is arguably more challenging than PAUSD GeoH. Because AOPS is not a UC a-g approved provider, it does not satisfy the UC (c) graduation requirement. In order to get around this problem, my kid also took Geometry from online UC Scout, a much easier class, thus definitively satisfying the UC (c) requirement for geometry. PAUSD, however, rejected this and assigned him to GeoH, forcing him to repeat the class. According to EDC 51228.2, a school district may not force a kid to repeat a required class.
我們訴訟的細節：
我的孩子上過“Arts of Problem Solving＂的幾何課［譯注：Arts of Problem Solving（解題藝術），簡稱AOPS，數學娃都知道的一個權威網站和機構］，可以說比PAUSD開的幾何榮譽課 GeoH更具挑戰性。因為AOPS不是加州大學UC a-g批準的提供者，所以它不滿足UC（c）畢業要求。為了解決這個問題，我的孩子又上了一門UC Scout的在線幾何課程，這是一門簡單得多的課程，因此可以完全滿足UC（c）對幾何的要求。可是，PAUSD不認，還是將我兒子安排在了榮譽幾何課的班上，迫使他重複上課。根據EDC 51228.2，PAUSD不得強迫孩子重讀必修課。
After trying to reason with the PAUSD administration and being completely ignored, I felt the only recourse was to sue PAUSD. To spare you too many details, we did a lot of research and were prepared to go to trial. We were confident of winning proper placement before school started. However, due to COVID, the courts were shut down for a few months. By the time we were able to get a court appearance to petition for a preliminary injunction for placement into the proper math class, it was already at the beginning of the school year. A judge may grant a “preliminary injunction” for immediate relief from imminent harm before going to the full trial. PAUSD argued that
在嚐試與PAUSD主管部門理論並被完全忽略之後，我覺得唯一的辦法就是起訴PAUSD。長話短說，我們做了很多研究，做好了上庭的準備。我們有信心在開學前贏得適當的安置。但是，由於疫情，法院關閉了幾個月。到了我們能夠出庭陳情，要求安置適當數學課的“初步禁令”時，新學年已經開始了。法官本可在進行全麵審判之前，給予“初步禁令”以立即減輕迫在眉睫的傷害，但PAUSD認為
- UC Scout Geometry is not the same as PAUSD Geometry so that he would not be repeating the course.
- Geometry was designed to be taken more than once.
- No harm would come from repeating Geometry.
- PAUSD further argued that the Math Placement Act only applied to Students of Color, not for Whites and Asians to “vault ahead.” This is an outrageous, incorrect, racist, and bad-faith interpretation of the MPA. The MPA does not mention skin color. We contacted the State Senator Holly Mitchell’s office and they affirmed strongly that the MPA is for ALL students! In PAUSD’s words:
（1）UC Scout幾何課與PAUSD的幾何課不同，因此我孩子不會重複課程。
（2）幾何課的設置就是要上不止一次。
（3）重複幾何課不會造成任何傷害。
（4）PAUSD進一步辯稱，《數學安置法》僅適用於有色人種，不是被用來讓白人和亞裔“領先”的。這是對此法案殘酷、錯誤、充滿種族主義和惡意的解讀。此法案根本沒有提到膚色。我們聯係了州參議員Holly Mitchell的辦公室，他們強烈確認此法適用於所有學生！用PAUSD的話來說：
國家立法部門起草了教育法令51224.7，旨在為曆史上服務不足的有色人群扭轉不利的競爭環境。該規約的起草目的並非出於、也不應該被當作一種機製使（一些）學生進一步領先於該規約所定的目標學生。
The judge took PAUSD’s arguments at face value thus denied our petition for preliminary injunction. As a result of this, my kid was forced to repeat Geometry for the first semester of the 2020-2021 school year. Our next opportunity to argue the case would be a full trial, involving evidence, depositions, and witnesses, then scheduled for December.
法官接受了PAUSD冠冕堂皇的論點，因此拒絕了我們對初步禁令的請求。因此，我的孩子被迫在2020-2021學年的第一學期重複修讀了幾何課。我們下一個辯護此案的機會就是全麵審判，包括證據、陳述和證人，定於（當年）12月進行。
As we approached the trial date, PAUSD made an offer for a pre-trial settlement, which was to have my son placed in the correct math class and to pay me $5000. However, it did not include changing their policies to comply with the law. Because it was already at the end of the first semester, we decided the prudent course of action would be to accept the settlement. A risk would have been to have the case drag out longer and even if we won, it might have been too late. He had already missed 1/2 a year of Algebra 2/Trig H. PAUSD does not usually pay damages in a pre-trial settlement, but I think they really wanted to get rid of my case.
接近法庭日期時，學區提出要進行庭外和解的請求，即安排我兒子上合適的數學課程並支付我5000美元，但是不包括更改其政策以遵守法律。因為已經在第一學期末了，所以我們決定明智的做法是接受和解協議。不然的話，就有風險將案件拖至更長的時間，即使我們勝訴，也可能為時已晚。兒子已經錯過了半年的代數2/三角榮譽課［譯注：本來應該上的課］。雖然PAUSD通常不會在審前和解中支付賠償金，但我認為他們確實想從這個案子脫身。
The very fact that this lawsuit happened tells you what kind of Board and Administration we have in PAUSD. At the same time that they are wailing about budget deficits and needing to raise our taxes, they are more than happy to spend on tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight against families who want proper math placement for their kids and to avoid having to repeat classes that they have passed elsewhere. That amount of money could go a long way to providing enrichment for the disadvantaged students that they keep tweeting about. Instead, PAUSD finds it easier to act on equity by holding back high-achieving kids in order to “close the gap.”
發生此訴訟的事實告訴您PAUSD擁有怎樣的董事會和行政部門。一方麵他們為預算赤字而哭窮力主提高我們的稅收，與此同時，他們又非常樂意花費數以萬計美元的律師費來與那些希望為孩子提供適當數學程度的課程且避免重複已經在其它地方通過了課程的家庭爭鬥。這筆錢其實本來可以用來大大豐富和幫助他們不斷發推關注的弱勢學生的課業的。取而代之的是，PAUSD發現，通過壓製高成就的孩子以“縮小差距”，可以更輕鬆地實現公平。
PAUSD administration has systematically refused to engage in evidence-based discussions with parents about proper math placement for their kids. Instead, they stonewall and run out the clock. We found during deposition that the Administration ordered staff not to respond to me. Many of you have had the same experience. PAUSD’s main tactics are to delay, stonewall, misinform, and misdirect, until it is too late. Families have generally not gotten organized. They often just trust the Administration because they believe that PAUSD is the best school district in the nation, and perhaps the world. Why else would property values be so high? Once they have figured out that PAUSD has not served them well, they have aged out of the system and quietly faded away. Thus the status quo continues year after year. Stonewalling is a very effective way to battle those they deride as “tiger parents."
PAUSD主管部門係統性地拒絕與父母就他們的孩子適當的數學安排進行基於證據的討論。取而代之的是，他們采取了阻礙並耗盡時間的策略。我們逐步發現行政當局命令工作人員不要回複我。你們中許多人都有過相同的經曆。PAUSD的主要策略是拖延、塞責、誤傳和誤導，直到為時已晚。家長們通常是沒有組織好的。他們通常隻是信任主管部門，因為他們認為PAUSD是美國乃至全世界最好的學區，不然為何房價如此之高？一旦他們發現PAUSD不能很好地為他們服務時，他們已經老到孩子不再是學區係統的適齡學生了，隻能悄悄地淡出。因此，這種狀況年複一年地持續下去。（這些行政官僚們）嘲笑那些“虎媽虎爸＂，阻塞是他們與之戰鬥的非常有效的方法。
The cost, time, and effort to take a legal route has historically been an insurmountable and hopeless route for most families. The cost to mount a lawsuit can be over $50K. The usual time from filing a complaint until trial is on the order of 2 years, after which the issue at hand becomes moot. Collecting evidence is a time-consuming task. Additionally, it was nearly impossible to find an education attorney who was willing to take on this case; the vast majority will only work within their well-trodden areas of 504’s, IEPs, Title IX violations, bullying, and other stuff that school districts normally get sued about. These difficulties have effectively shielded PAUSD from challenges to their illegal policies around math placement. EDC 51224.7 and 51228.2 are relatively new laws, having taken effect in 2016. The lack of case law and precedent made it uncharted territory that lawyers don’t like to explore.
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
從曆史上看，采取法律途徑的成本、時間和精力對於大多數家庭而言是不可逾越且絕望的途徑。提起訴訟的成本可能超過5萬美元。從提出申訴到進行審判的通常時間為2年左右，此後手頭的問題變得毫無意義。收集證據是一項耗時的任務。此外，要找到願意承擔此案的教育律師幾乎是不可能的。絕大多數人隻能在他們受過良好訓練的504、IEP，IX條例違規行為、欺淩行為以及學區通常會被起訴的其他方麵進行工作。這些困難有效地使學區免受了圍繞數學分班的非法政策而起的挑戰。 EDC 51224.7和51228.2是相對較新的法律，於2016年生效。由於缺乏判例法和判例，因此律師們不願涉足未知領域。
參考：
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
EDC 51224.7 is the “Math Placement Act of 2015,” and stipulates fair, objective, transparent, and multi-point placement criteria for those entering 9th grade. PAUSD, by policy, does not do placement tests for entering 9th graders. Instead, they do MDTP readiness tests; the MDTP is not a placement test. A math professor would pass a “readiness” test for Algebra 1, but that test would not be able to determine if the professor were placed properly in Algebra 1. As described above, PAUSD does not offer timely evidence-based recourse to discuss placement, as required by Section b(4) of the MPA; worse than that, the Administration orders staff not to respond to parents. Palo Alto also does not compile a report on aggregate placement data, as required by Section b(3).
Reference: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-51224-7.html
EDC 51224.7是“ 2015年數學分級分班法”，它為進入9年級的學生規定了公平、客觀、透明和多點的分班標準。而PAUSD根據其（自己的）政策對進入9年級的學生不進行入學考試。相反，他們進行MDTP準備就緒測試，這項測試不是分級測試。一位數學教授可以通過代數1的“準備就緒”測試，但該測試無法確定該教授是否正確安置在代數1中。如上所述，PAUSD沒有按數學分級分班法第b（4）節的要求提供及時的基於證據的方法來評論代數；更糟糕的是，行政機構命令員工不要回應父母。帕洛阿圖（Palo Alto）也未按照b（3）節的要求編製有關分班分級匯總數據的報告。
參考：
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-51224-7.html
EDC 51228.2 states that a school district may not force a student to repeat a class that satisfies a UC a-g requirement, presuming that the student has passed the class with an acceptable grade for graduation. However, PAUSD’s policy is that ALL graduation requirements must be taken on a PAUSD campus. Those who have taken an external class from community college or online providers, such as UC Scout, BYU, and other WASC/UC-accredited institutions that satisfy the UC a-g requirement, are denied proper placement and graduation credits, and furthermore forced to repeat the class. This is pretty black and white. Being forced to repeat a class is a waste of time and is mental abuse. It destroys the “growth mindset” that PAUSD claims to be so proud of. EDC 51228.2 was passed into law in 2016, but the PAUSD policy has not changed. Despite my many emails to the Board and Administration informing them of this law, they have met me with silence. They assert that they are in compliance with the law. Anyone who has had external courses denied for PAUSD placement and graduation credit should take note — your rights may have been violated. I know of many cases where PAUSD students with external UC a-g courses have been forced to repeat those courses.
Reference:
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-51228-2.html
EDC 51228.2規定，學區不得強迫學生重複滿足UC a-g要求的課程，前提是學生已通過該課程並獲得了可接受的畢業分數。然而，PAUSD的政策是，所有畢業要求都必須在本學區的校園內進行。那些從社區學院或在線提供者處接受外部課程的人，例如UC Scout，BYU（楊伯翰大學）和其他滿足UC ag要求的WASC / UC認可機構，都在適當分級問題上被否決，得不到該門課的畢業學分，（不得不）被迫重複該課程，非黑即白。被迫重複上課既浪費時間，又是精神上的虐待。它破壞了PAUSD宣稱並引以為傲的“增長思維方式”。 EDC 51228.2於2016年通過成為法律，但PAUSD的政策沒有改變。盡管我向董事會和行政部門發送了許多電子郵件，提出有關這項法律的內容，但他們還是與我見麵時對此不置一詞。他們聲稱自己遵守法律。任何上了外部課程而被PAUSD拒絕接受而沒有得到分級安置和畢業學分的人都應注意——您的權利可能已受到侵犯。我知道PAUSD有很多學生上了校外的UC a-g課程後被迫重複這些課程。
參考：
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-51228-2.html
It is interesting to note that transfer students have more rights than PAUSD students entering high school. Transfer students are placed according to what is on their incoming transcript history, taken at face value. The timing of when a student transfers into PAUSD can determine whether an external class is accepted. Hypothetically, if a student transfers into PAUSD before the end of the school year, before June, and then takes a summer class at Foothill College, that class might not be accepted. But if the same student takes the same summer class and then transfers to PAUSD in August, the class would be accepted. This defies common sense, in addition to being illegal.
有趣的是，轉學生比進入高中的本學區學生擁有更多的權利。轉學生根據入學成績單上的內容按紙麵上的分數進行分配。學生何時轉入PAUSD的時間可以決定校外課程是否被接受。假設，如果學生在學年末的六月前轉入本學區，然後在Foothill College參加暑期課程，則該課程可能不被接受。但是，如果同一名學生參加相同的暑期班，然後在8月轉入PAUSD，則該課程就會被接受。除了違法之外，這違背了常識。
What now:
The initial scope of my lawsuit was not only to attain proper placement for my kid, but also to force PAUSD to comply with the law: to change their illegal policies for ALL students. In the settlement I had to drop all further claims. I am disappointed by not being able to fulfill all my objectives.
現在怎麽辦：
我提起訴訟的最初主張不僅是為了為我的孩子獲得適當的安置，而且是為了迫使PAUSD遵守法律：改變其對所有學生的非法政策。在和解中，我不得不放棄所有進一步的主張。無法實現我的所有目標令我感到失望。
At the District level, nothing has changed as a result of my lawsuit. Kids will continue to be forced to be held back to repeat classes. In neighboring districts, more than 40% of their students enter high school having taken geometry. In PAUSD it is about 5%. This may put our kids at a disadvantage in applying to the top STEM programs. If the community cares about forcing PAUSD to comply with the law and to stop forcing kids to repeat classes and holding them back, someone else will have to continue the fight. Those who may be interested in pursuing the objective of forcing PAUSD to comply with the law can sign up to talk to my lawyer in a follow-up meeting. Because we were only a few days away from the trial before PAUSD offered a settlement, the preliminary work has all been done and the incremental cost would not be too high. There are some donors who are willing to cover the costs so if you want to participate, cost should not be a concern. Furthermore, the amount of personal involvement would not be too high.
Sign up here:
https://forms.gle/Qg3qU9Hi4nHT946H8
我的訴訟並沒有在學區層麵有任何改變，孩子們將繼續被迫壓製在低一級的班級重複課程，而且我們鄰近地區有超過40％的學生已經修過幾何課程進入高中，這在PAUSD隻有大約為5％。這可能會使我們的孩子在申請頂級STEM專業時處於不利地位。如果我們的社區在乎並促使PAUSD遵守法律、停止強迫孩子重複課程和拉低學生水平的做法，那麽就得有其他人繼續這場鬥爭。那些有興趣尋求促使PAUSD遵守法律的人可以簽下名，與我的律師進行進一步的交談。由於隻剩一些天就到審判的日子從而可以使PAUSD拿出解決方案，因此初步的前期工作已全部完成，增加的費用不會太高， 又有一些捐助者願意承擔費用，因此，如果您想參加，費用不會是個問題。此外，個人的參與程度也不會太高。注冊在這裏：
https://forms.gle/Qg3qU9Hi4nHT946H8
I should add: I do not think it is a good idea to force kids to advance unnaturally in a subject area if he/she is not ready for it. Love for a subject, be it math, music, art, literature, sports, etc. should be cultivated. Too much of the wrong pressure can ruin a kid’s love for a subject and that pressure can backfire. But that is for families to decide, not PAUSD.
我應該補充一點：我認為如果孩子沒有準備好而強迫他/她在某學科領域內違背自然地跳級不是一個好主意。對一門學科的熱愛應該是被培養的，無論是數學，音樂，藝術，文學，體育等。過多的錯誤壓力會破壞孩子對某學科的熱愛，並且這種壓力會適得其反。但這是家庭的決定，而不是學區的決定。
I also want to add that I think the PAUSD honors math classes are very good and more rigorous than many online providers such as UC Scout or community college. As an example, PAUSD geometry has 3 levels: “college prep” Geo, GeoA, and GeoH. UC Scout Geometry is equivalent to Geo, not GeoA or GeoH. If you are paying $$$ to live in Palo Alto, I think it is generally a bad idea to take external “college prep” geometry in order to “skip” a grade, versus taking the A or H lane. In our case, we took UC Scout Geo as a “credit umbrella” on top of Art of Problem Solving geometry.
我還想補充一點，我認為PAUSD的榮譽數學課程比許多在線提供商（例如UC Scout或社區學院）都要好，而且更加嚴格。例如，PAUSD的幾何課有3個級別：“大學預備＂幾何，幾何A和幾何H（即榮譽課）。 UC Scout幾何等效於“大學預備＂幾何，而不是幾何A或幾何H。如果您花高價住在帕洛阿圖，我覺得采用外部的“學院準備”幾何課來跳級通常不是個好主意，而應該走A或H軌道。在我們的案例中，我們隻是用UC Scout 幾何課為“AOPS”幾何課作了個保險。
PAUSD rant:
If you follow Don Austin’s tweets, he has disparaged “grade culture,” promoted “Credit/No Credit” for Spring Semester last year, and crowed about leveling the playing field for disadvantaged students. The WGPA war was also about “equity,” but put PAUSD students at a disadvantage in college applications. Most policymakers assume that high-performing students do not need to be nurtured. Furthermore, high performers have become the punching bag of progressives. In PAUSD, there has been discussion about tutoring and external classwork as being “cheating,” primarily in STEM. In contrast, nobody considers external training and coaching in athletics as “cheating.” It is even expected in some sports! The same is true with music: no reputable music teacher would tell their students not to practice or hold them back in order to keep them at parity with their peers. Indeed PAUSD beams with pride when their students excel at sports and music.
PAUSD聲名狼藉：
如果您跟進Don Austin的推文，(你會發現）他會貶低“分數文化”，在去年春季學期他提倡成績應以“得到學分/沒有得到學分”的方式呈現，並嚷嚷為弱勢學生扭轉不利的競爭環境。WGPA（加權的GPA）鬥爭也與“公平”有關，但（不加權）會使本學區的學生在大學申請中處於劣勢。大多數政策製定者認為，高水平的學生不需要提供養分培養。此外，高績效學生已成為激進人士的出氣筒。在PAUSD，曾有將補習和額外課業視為“作弊”的討論，特別是在STEM方麵。相反，沒有人認為在體育上進行外部培訓和指導是“作弊”，這甚至在某些運動中是被期許的！音樂也是如此：沒有著名的音樂老師會告訴他們的學生不要練習， 或者拉低他們的水平以使他們與同齡人保持同等水平。的確，當學生精於運動和音樂時，PAUSD會為此感到驕傲。
Don’t get me wrong: I am very supportive of equity, especially for disadvantaged students, but I don’t support “equity” achieved by holding back the hardest working kids. Why can’t our Administration try programs and policies that actually serve disadvantaged students? Gilroy performs better at teaching disadvantaged students than PAUSD. To give an idea of how disadvantaged students can attain great heights, look at “Success Academy” in New York City. Their disadvantaged students perform much better on proficiency tests than privileged students with median family incomes of $250K versus $50K. https://www.successacademies.org/results.
不要誤會我的意思：我非常支持公平，尤其是對處境不利的學生，但我不支持通過阻止最努力的孩子來實現“公平”。我們的主管部門為何不能嚐試為弱勢學生提供能實際服務的計劃和政策？ Gilroy市在教導弱勢學生方麵比PAUSD表現更好。要了解弱勢學生如何才能取得長足發展，請看一下紐約市的“成功學院”。他們的弱勢學生在能力測試中的表現要比家庭收入中位數為25萬的幸運兒要好得多，而這些弱勢學生的家庭收入中位數僅為5萬美元。 https://www.successacademies.org/results。
The de-laning movement is being pushed by the PAUSD Board and Administration. This is the idea that all students in a grade should be put into the same classrooms. Students who are several years above grade level and those who are several years below are supposed to bond socio-emotionally and all succeed together. In reality, the high-achieving students are bored and snicker at the under-performing kids. The latter feel ashamed they will never be able to be good at math. And the teachers hate the idea because they are forced to try to teach to all levels at the same time. The Administration has been working with the controversial Jo Boaler as an advisor for de-laning PAUSD middle school. A key justification is for “equity.” James Milgram, a highly respected Stanford mathematician, wrote a scathing analysis on Boaler’s controversial 2008 paper that forms the basis for de-laning, accusing her of fraudulent analysis and cherry-picking data.
https://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Essays/v8n5.htm
PAUSD董事會和行政部門正在推動不分班運動。這個想法認為全年級的所有學生都應該放在同樣水平的班級裏。水平高出幾級的學生和落後幾級的學生應該搞在一起（從而）在社交和情感上建立紐帶，並且一起成功。實際上，成績優秀的學生會感到無聊，也會對表現欠佳的孩子竊笑。後者會感到恥辱，自認永遠無法搞好數學。老師們也討厭這個想法，因為他們被迫嚐試同時教各種水平。有關部門一直與有爭議的Jo Boaler合作，她擔任PAUSD中學的取消分班的顧問，關鍵的理由就是為了“公平”。她在2008年有一篇論文引起很大爭議，卻是取消分班的奠基之作。著名的斯坦福大學數學家James Milgram對Boaler這篇論文進行了嚴厲的剖析，指責她進行愚弄性分析和挑選剪裁數據。
https://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Essays/v8n5.htm
In contrast, Big Fish, Little Pond Effect, studied extensively over many decades by many reputable researchers shows that putting wide range of abilities into the same classroom is bad for self-concept for all but the top students. This makes intuitive sense, except in PAUSD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-fish–little-pond_effect
相比之下，許多著名研究人員數十年來對“小池塘裏的大魚效應”進行了廣泛研究，結果表明，除了頂尖學生以外，將能力差別很大的學生們混合到同一個班級會不利於所有人的自我認同。這也是憑直覺就明白的事，但PAUSD除外https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-fish–little-pond_effect
My prediction based on the BFLPE is for even worse outcomes for disadvantaged students than the already-catastrophic performance from recent years.
基於這個小池大魚理論，我甚至可以預測，與近幾年來已經很糟糕的災難性局麵相比，（取消分班）會對弱勢學生造成更差的結果。
Furthermore, according to an unofficial poll in Verde, a Gunn student magazine, 95% of respondents to a survey dislike the new middle-school math de-laning program. PAUSD Board and Administration does not listen to community input, except when it matches their agenda. If you think the “remagining” math plan sounds counterintuitive and outrageous, you’re not alone.
https://verdemagazine.com/math-modifications-middle-school-math-changes-spark-debate
此外，根據Gunn學生雜誌Verde的一項非正式調查顯示，接受調查的受訪者中有95％不喜歡取消初中數學分班的新計劃。PAUSD董事會和行政部門不聽取社區的意見，除非剛好符合他們的計劃。如果您認為這個名為“重新規劃”的數學計劃聽起來違反直覺和令人發指，那麽您並不孤單。
https://verdemagazine.com/math-modifications-middle-school-math-changes-spark-debate
您是否讚成PAUSD數學教育係統的新變化
是： 4.06% （15票）
否： 95.40% （311票）
326 票，326回複
The latest word is that PAUSD middle school “skipping” of math classes for rising 6th and 7th graders must take a difficult 5 hour validation test. These tests are almost 4x longer than the math section of the SAT! Surely these tests are uncalibrated and designed to forced advanced kids to fail. Recall that our neighbors have over 40% in 8th grade taking geometry. PAUSD would like there to be 0% in order to conform to their de-laning social engineering.
最後我還想說的是，對升入6年級和7年級要數學跳級的學生，PAUSD要求必須參加艱難的5小時資格考試。這些測試幾乎比SAT的數學部分長4倍！當然，這些測試是非標準的，這樣設計就是用來使得超前的孩子失敗。回想一下，我們的鄰近學區在8年級時有超過40％的學生在上幾何課，而 PAUSD希望有0％的比例以符合他們取消分級的社會工程。
Someone can provides an extensive commentary on Jo Boaler, Rousseau, and the failure of US education policy:
https://barbaraoakley.com/infinite-powers
針對Jo Boaler、盧梭（Rousseau）和美國教育政策的失敗，有人提供了大量評論：
https://barbaraoakley.com/infinite-powers
有一句話，叫什麽年齡幹什麽事，原因在於社會趨同這個現實。孩子跳級使得孩子生活在與自己年齡不符的環境，馬上就成為異數，很難與同學交往，更沒有在學校環境中具有話語權的機會，因為小學生根本就沒有形成世界觀的可能，都是在模仿，年齡是很大因素。白人家庭不罕見讓孩子晚一年上學的現象，目的是年齡大一歲，個頭就大，在學校就不會被霸淩，美國學校裏霸淩行為是普遍的。
朋友中有兩個人的孩子都是跳過級，一個還跳了兩級，如今十幾年後都是大學畢業後找不到工作的宅男，因為性格很內向。你長期生活在比旁人小沒有話語權的環境裏，如何能培養掌握話語權的能力？
如果數學好，參加數學俱樂部就是了，那裏不分年齡和年級，也有機會參加各種級別的比賽，我們小小老大當年就是這樣，參加美國數學競賽後NSA都找上門試圖招募。
而同齡人中生活，孩子很容易交朋友，成長順利，父母也不需要太操心，之後上大學，畢業後進入醫學院之前利用gap year休息一年，期間工作積累經曆和掙錢都是非常順利，也一直是朋友圈裏的頭頭。
現代人在30歲以前很難形成世界觀，也就是相對缺乏自主能力和自製力，就容易受到社會趨同性特點的影響和排斥，看看世界上知名的神童，有幾個是好下場的？
因為心理上因為環境因素很難正常。
華人孩子在大學裏兩年修完全部學分的不罕見，但學校，尤其是名校不許他們提前畢業，這是有原因的。小學生就更需要注意這事情了，美國社會聰明孩子有很多機會發展興趣和消磨時間，認識的聰明孩子，包括我們自己的，都是在學校期間或者畢業後使用gap year，去世界上旅遊或者進研究生院之前工作，有目的的延長進入下一個階段的時間，目的就在於獲得更多經曆，經曆比學位重要多了。
而跳級等於剝奪孩子的這個機會。