Date: Dec 24, 2012 12:50 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 1:24 PM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Haim <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
> We have the same issue here. The top 2% of the students number 6% to 8% of
> the students.
> Bob Hansen
This is not right. You and Haim are assuming that every last kid in NYC who is the top 10% and 97% respectively (see the article on these two percentages) of the entire school population of NYC have already been taking the admissions test. You have no idea whether this is true.
This is about how many are allowed to take the admissions test and who is allowed to take it.
Note that one could still have total NYC enrollment going down but because of parental pressure that is there, allow more kids to take the admissions test, still holding to the standard of the 90th and 97th percentiles of admission test takers being allowed admission in these schools, and then have the mathematically inevitable result of higher numbers of test takers scoring in these percentiles.
It's again proved to be as I said: The problem they have is due to parental pressure to allow their kids to take the admissions test, not some imagined conspiracy by some imagined demons.
No? How would you decide how many and which ones are allowed to take the admissions test?
What if your kid were not even allowed to take the test?
Would you not be part of this parental pressure problem to allow kids to take the test if your kid were not allowed to even just take the admissions test?
Of course you would be part of that problem.