And every single time I’ve made a case for six figure earners being considered middle class it’s in the view of 1) high COL areas 2) those who are debt burdened to get there.
You're quite explicitly shytting on lower-earning people when you make those statements. And ignore all the times you explicitly said that you fight for the interests of the middle class "like yourself" before you'd fight for the interests of the poor.
And honestly, what is "like yourself"? Be upfront for a second - is your peak income more like $150-200k or more like $200-300k? Cause you've been clear it's "your people" you're fighting for, so let's nail down exactly what that bracket is.
Tracking isn’t segregated schools or keeping income locked up by zip code. I’m against that, but in creating more equitable public schools I absolutely think there should be an advanced track/classes for “gifted” kids. I won’t apologize nor back down from that - kids who can’t afford private schools should be given a chance to do advanced work and be in classes where the other students take it seriously. You wanna play obtuse to the fact that some kids come to school with the aim of being disruptive or act like it’s fair to hold higher aptitude kids back so the whole class can learn at the same pace…nah
First off, those conversations have come in the context of shyt like NYC doing testing and tracking their entire school system, not just tracking individual schools. So you create the "have" schools that have the best kids, best teachers, best resources, etc, which is a massive brain and resources drain on every other school.
And claiming that tracking creates "more equitable" schools is bullshyt. Let's say a school has 15 sections and you put all the privileged kids in the "advanced" three sections. Those sections automatically get assigned the top teacher - which means the rest of the school loses out. If there's a staffing shortage, does the advanced section get left behind? Hell no, they will ALWAYS pull the teacher from the "lower" class. If any extra school expenditure is spent on special field trips, or special materials, it always ends up in those higher-tracked classes first. And all those other kids lose the opportunity to ever work together with the "better" kids, they lose the chance to rub shoulders with families different from their own. That might have been their only chance to have friends with parents who had connections, who could give insights to different futures, their only chance to build a social network that was to their advantage. And you've ruined it.
Studies have shown that tracking has little to no effect on advanced kids. The "go too slow" argument is bullshyt - amount of material covered in a given year doesn't mean anything in future outcomes. And getting the top teachers makes less difference to them cause they had shyt on lock either way. But tracking has a LARGE negative impact on the lower-tracked kids. Almost every single aspect of what is shytty about disadvantaged schools, tracking makes it even shyttier. It's not an improvement, it's not "more equitable", it's literally giving up on 80% of the school.
You liked tracking cause you had a comfortable middle-class background and got to be one of the "special" ones. You didn't care what happened to the poor kids cause you felt they deserved what they got, they were the "bad" ones. But you haven't made the slightest evidence-based case that tracking actually improved anything for poor kids or for your school as a whole, you just want the safe personal outcome for yourself.
HL really hates you like damn 
