Lauren Thomas' post last weekinspired a flurry of weekend responses. Many tackled serious philosophical quandaries, like asking what happens to those "left behind" when the brightest students are culled into special classes -- and challenging the merits of mixed-ability class groupings, particularly for kids who are bored to tears with teaching to the middle (or well below, as one commenter suggested). The core issue is whether acting in one child's best interest -- via G&T, Prep for Prep, honors classes and the like -- benefits or harms other kids. It's a personal, politically sensitive question many parents confront: Do I want to giver my child advantages over others? Does my desire to give my child every opportunity 'owe' anything to the greater good?

Lauren wrote of her belief that "a rising tide floats all boats." Is that true -- or is that an expensive idealism, on the shoulders of the most able? What if your child, bright or struggling, is the one being left behind? What if your local school -- without special gifted classes -- offers kids small, intimate classrooms of 16 or 18 students, and the district's 'best' gifted program taps out at 27+? Can "so-called 'undesirable' schools" be transformed, as one commenter asked, "if the best and the brightest in the community remained"? And is it the responsibility of the parents of the 'best and brightest,' whoever they may be, to lift the community up -- or to secure the best educational challenges for their children? Can we do both?

Our bet is that you're asking these questions, too, even as the OLSATs continue. We're eager to hear from readers whose children have been tested -- how's it going? Has your thinking changed or been affected by the test? And we're eager to hear from those who've opted out, by opting 'in' to their zoned schools. Comment here, or on our forum: The conversation is ongoing and complex, with all voices welcome.