And again, you have to use logic here. If you don't teach kids, but still take up their time not teaching them, how are they going to learn things? The position you're putting forward is absurd. Literally illogical. Cannot happen. Like, yeah, if you don't let anybody take calculus, their math grades might go up. Because you stopped asking anything of them. They might also feel more confident? Which doesn't mean a whole lot if they actually want to do university math and find out they're way behind, and their school just never actually offered anything past what other kids were doing in middle school.
If you think you got a different result, the conclusion needs to be that you measured the wrong thing and you asked the wrong question.
I think I've been pretty clear that it's about 20% of the kids that are apparently operating at a very high level. I've been told that the median is around the national median, which is to say abysmal. I don't have a good picture of the distribution between the 50th and 80th percentile at our school. So yes, the class is operating at a level several years beneath her. And if I assume that 20% of her cohort are above her, then it's also operating at a level years beneath them. Again, this is just a basic logical inference granting the assumption that they told me.
I don't know where you get this idea about force-feeding books. I said I've never worked with her for more than about a half hour in a given day, and I think you'll find I said that I think the smart kids would thrive if you just put them in a room with each other with some educational toys/games, and maybe gave them about a half hour of instruction per day.
I also never suggested I'm competing with you or anyone or that anyone is a threat? The original context was about people having exactly the weird visceral reaction to tracking (or "discrimination" or segregation) that you display. I want her to learn about the world because life is interesting. The fact that you think it's unfulfilling to learn at the pace you're capable of instead of being made to artificially sit and wait is more of a statement about you.
And, yes, my kid is an outlier, as are these other kids I'm talking about. That was literally the start of the discussion. We are talking about how the score handles outliers. The statistics of our school are that the class has a large number of what would be considered outliers at the national level. Did you miss the part where I said at least 15 kids in the cohort were measured at the 99th percentile? Do you understand what percentile means? They are, by definition, outliers. Or stated that the school said my kid is at the 97th percentile on the test they gave? That's ~2.5 standard deviations. And then I threw out numbers that made it pretty clear that there are around 100 kids in the cohort. Obviously we are not a typical distribution. The school knows this, and doesn't attempt to accommodate it.
And in fact, the first step for them would be to notice that their test doesn't attempt to measure the relative position of outliers. It stops at the skill it's trying to measure, which is far beneath their level. I imagine that if you or I were given a kindergarten test, we would also place above the 95th percentile, but it probably can't say very much about our relative ability because it makes no attempt to actually measure where we're at, and we're likely both well above kindergarten level.
(Not that this is particularly germane to the discussion, but since you keep calling me an armchair scientist, I do actually have published work on modeling plasma physics from my undergrad. I'm familiar with science)