SFUSD’s justification for suppressing advancement is based on an ideological argument, such as the claim that allowing students to accelerate is inequitable, but the new eighth-grade math policy is a bait-and switch.
There’s a difference between a constraint policy — one that sets a ceiling based on practical or developmental concerns and a suppression policy — one that slows students down or prevents them from reaching the ceiling. In SFUSD’s case, the justification for suppressing advancement is always based on an ideological argument, such as, say, the claim that allowing students to accelerate is inequitable.
That’s why SFUSD parents feel like the new eighth-grade math policy is playing a bait-and-switch — because that’s exactly what it’s doing.
Honest policy is transparent
It is reasonable and realistic in public education policy to set a ceiling as long as this is done in a manner that is consistent and transparent.
An honest ceiling is set based on real operational or developmental limits. Within that ceiling, students should be allowed to progress without additional hindrances or obstacles. A district that is being transparent with families about its constraints is directing the community’s institutional energies toward getting all over the finish line.
But what SFUSD keeps doing is neither honest nor transparent.
——-
Related: English 10.