![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyThe problem with the high school admissions process is that some kids don't get matched with schools, and have to go to second round admissions. And that sucks, it really does - but to hear people complaining... sheesh!
And maybe it's mean, because their kids are all crying and all, but I just want to shake these people! "This system is so cruel! Why do we trust this super secret algorithm!"
It's not a super secret algorithm.
"Nobody could explain it to me!"
Probably because that's not their job. Google it. It's a variation of the Gale-Shapley algorithm, and it works pretty well for 95% of NYC 8th graders.
"But it should have been perfect for my own kid, who is SO smart and has THE BEST grades, they should've looked at her again!"
I get that you think that, and I see that you're really upset, but there is absolutely no way to give everybody seats in the first round unless we either go back to strict zoning or else assign some kids to schools they never asked for.
"Something, something, something, the DoE has a hidden agenda!"
The DoE does not have a hidden agenda. (Actually, they kinda do have an agenda in that they've decided not to start new screened programs on the completely reasonable grounds that this just drives school segregation and makes the remaining programs even less desirable, but that's hardly a hidden agenda, they're pretty open about it. I didn't feel this was the time and place to bring that up to Mr. "My smart kid should've been given special treatment".)
"They should open more really good schools!"
Sure - but how? If it was that easy, don't you think they'd have done it already? But at the high school level, 85% of what drives the perception of being a "good school" is having "good students" - not the quality of the teaching. And how do you attract those students? There's the rub.
"At least none of our schools should be below average! At least, not the ones for the good students."
This isn't Lake Woebegone, and your second sentence is really disturbing. (A surprising number of high schoolers will openly state that "bad kids deserve bad schools", at least they do if they think they're better than that, and this is where they get that disgusting attitude.)
"Well, the very least I expect is constant improvement, and that's not happening with this algorithm!"
Cool, well, when you come up with a better one, submit it to the DoE. They'll send you your Nobel via FedEx.
And maybe it's mean, because their kids are all crying and all, but I just want to shake these people! "This system is so cruel! Why do we trust this super secret algorithm!"
It's not a super secret algorithm.
"Nobody could explain it to me!"
Probably because that's not their job. Google it. It's a variation of the Gale-Shapley algorithm, and it works pretty well for 95% of NYC 8th graders.
"But it should have been perfect for my own kid, who is SO smart and has THE BEST grades, they should've looked at her again!"
I get that you think that, and I see that you're really upset, but there is absolutely no way to give everybody seats in the first round unless we either go back to strict zoning or else assign some kids to schools they never asked for.
"Something, something, something, the DoE has a hidden agenda!"
The DoE does not have a hidden agenda. (Actually, they kinda do have an agenda in that they've decided not to start new screened programs on the completely reasonable grounds that this just drives school segregation and makes the remaining programs even less desirable, but that's hardly a hidden agenda, they're pretty open about it. I didn't feel this was the time and place to bring that up to Mr. "My smart kid should've been given special treatment".)
"They should open more really good schools!"
Sure - but how? If it was that easy, don't you think they'd have done it already? But at the high school level, 85% of what drives the perception of being a "good school" is having "good students" - not the quality of the teaching. And how do you attract those students? There's the rub.
"At least none of our schools should be below average! At least, not the ones for the good students."
This isn't Lake Woebegone, and your second sentence is really disturbing. (A surprising number of high schoolers will openly state that "bad kids deserve bad schools", at least they do if they think they're better than that, and this is where they get that disgusting attitude.)
"Well, the very least I expect is constant improvement, and that's not happening with this algorithm!"
Cool, well, when you come up with a better one, submit it to the DoE. They'll send you your Nobel via FedEx.
no subject
Date: 2017-03-15 01:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-03-15 10:41 pm (UTC)When you say it's a variation on that, can you explain a little more? Do the schools get transcripts for all the students and rank them, or what?
no subject
Date: 2017-03-16 12:43 am (UTC)There's "Limited Unscreened", which means that they give preference to students who attend an open house or tour, but do a lottery system.
There's "screened", which means they use some sort of criteria to sort students, which includes but is not limited to grades and standardized test scores - but they can also use interviews, a school visit, essays, portfolios, or auditions. (Or home language, for bilingual programs.)
There's "ed. opt", which means they use some system where the school picks half the students in order to get a bell curve, academically, and the DoE picks the other half among the same bell curve.
And many schools, in addition to this, give preference to continuing 8th graders, or to students in a particular geographic catchment, or both.
So it's not a straightforward "students list schools, schools list students, and they match up", it's all played around the specific entrance requirements of each school and the priority groups.
Additionally, although the creators of the algorithm suggested that families be allowed to list as many schools as they like, the DoE insisted on a 12 school cut-off. I'm with the DoE on this - without a cut-off, either many more families than now would only list one or two schools (because they wouldn't have a suggestion of how many to list) or they'd drive themselves batty trying to rank 100 different schools. Possibly both groups would increase, and there'd be nobody in the middle ground. Listing as many schools as you like may be more mathematically optimal, but it's hell psychologically.