Date: Dec 23, 2012 12:25 PM
Author: Paul A. Tanner III
Subject: Re: A Coordinator, A Facilitator, And An Educator Walk Into A Bar
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Haim <email@example.com> wrote:
> Paul A. Tanner, III Posted: Dec 22, 2012 4:49 PM
>>> I commented on "the explosion" in the number of gifted
>>> and talented children in NYC, a biological and
>>> statistical improbability. To put it another way,
>>> this "explosion" shines a revealing light on the
>>> dishonesty of The Education Mafia. That they are
>>> playing at something is perfectly clear. Just exactly
>>> what they are playing at can be debated.
>>This is false since not only does this "mafia" not
>>exist, but, as evidenced by what the cited article
>>itself says, it is parental pressure that has and still
>>is dictating things here.
> The NY Times article is about the sibling preference policy for school enrollment and parental pressure has to do with that. The article mentions, in passing,
> "Amid an explosion in the number of students who qualify for the seats [in gifted and talented programs]..."
> and you find nothing odd about that?
> No representation without taxation.
Oh, I see - since the standards are based on scoring above percentiles, you think that if the percentile numbers did not go down, then the raw number of those meeting the standards (scoring above the percentiles) could not go up?
This is what the article says:
"Students must score in the 90th percentile on an admissions test to qualify for a district-level gifted program, and in the 97th percentile for one of the citywide programs, like the Anderson School or the Brooklyn School of Inquiry."
To show your error, some questions:
What happens to the raw number of those who qualify - who score above these 90th and/or 97th percentiles if the raw number of those taking the admissions test goes up?
Oh, you think that the raw number of those taking the admissions test cannot go up in NYC?
Oh, you think that the raw number of students in NYC cannot go up?
Oh, you think that these percentiles of 90% and/or 3% are too low?
Oh, you have a problem with how they decide who is allowed to take the admissions test? Why? If every last student in NYC took the admissions test, then the standard would still be such that the gifted and/or talented programs are only for the top 10% and/or 3% of the entire population.
The facts are in - (they always have been in - some just can't see it): It is as I said in
"Re: A Coordinator, A Facilitator, And An Educator Walk Into A Bar"
and they are this:
What you claim is false since as evidenced by what the article says, it is parental pressure - that's right, parental pressure, something you just always refuse to take into account - that has and still is dictating things here, not imagined conspiracies by imagined demons.
And I reiterate the rest of my message above, especially my reply to your reference to Norway, which is to speak about how much more superior the economic success of the Scandinavian countries is in comparison to that of the US, especially Norway - if the US had Norway's economic success, our economy would be TWICE as large as it presently is. (The Norwegian nominal GDP growth rate has been so much larger than that of the US over these past many decades, we have now have the situation that the Norwegian per capita nominal GDP is roughly $100,000 while the US is at only a little less than $50,000.)