[jimfree]

If there were no baseline of unequal achievement among groups, then different goals would be stupid. On the other hand if one group is performing poorly at say 50 percent and another group is performing very well at perhaps 90 percent, you tell me how they are going to be performing at the same level next year.

If the board wants to set standards permanently low for a group, that is a travesty. If the board wants to grant special privileges to an underperforming group, that is unequal treatment.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Your point is well-made. We have to try for some improvement in every group, no matter where their starting point.

I wonder how it would look if they divided students' scores by sex rather than by race?

Or by nationality? (Polish, Irish, German, Lithuanian ancestry) Or by religion? (Cathoic, Baptist, MOrmon, Jewish...)

Or --- HEY! this would get people's attention--- by zip code:

33820
33822
33901
33930... and so forth

With all the different target scores for different geographic neighborhoods. Wouldn't that shake people up?

Why is it always race?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Or here's one: Income.

Divide students by family income in $20,000 increments:

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

etc, and get your base scores and target scores accordingly.

That would be interesting, no?

[Travis McGee]

Actually, what it is doing is instituting realism into the system.

This will not be allowed to stand. They will be apologizing for their temerity in a week.