All but the most optimistic residents of District 20 of CCSD and their friends were unhappy but not surprised by Judge Scarborough's ruling concerning the lawsuit against Buist Academy's admissions policies. If he had ruled in their favor, it would be the first sign of a break in the wall. [See County Board Wins Buist Battle in Saturday's edition of the P & C].
However, if 75 Calhoun thinks that residents of District 20 will simply go quietly into the night--well, another case is yet to be made. Of course, the plaintiffs should go ahead with their appeal of this one, but if the courts refuse to interpret the rules to mean what they say, the statistical route remains. It's time to pull it into shape.
Now, before you stop reading, let me say that I'm not going to bore you with statistics here. My point is that many high-profile lawsuits have been won on such data, the most obvious one being against the tobacco companies. The legal reason for that warning on each pack of cigarettes is the statistical correlation between cigarette-smoking and cancer, not scientific or medical evidence (although I'm sure by now some exists).
You can see where I'm heading with this. A statistician should be able to take the addresses of each student of Buist for the last, say, 10 years, and show that it is statistically impossible to arrive at the composition of its student population as it has stood over that decade without finagling and malfeasance on the part of officials "testing" with the YCAT and running the "lottery."
In other words, based on CCSD's use of four lists for kindergarten, a statistical case can be made that the number of Buist students living in District 20 should be within a certain range if CCSD has followed its own rules. Needless to say, CCSD officials, especially Janet Rose, have done everything in their power to avoid handing over the numbers. Thanks to FOIA, they can't hide forever.
Now that Doug Gepford supposedly is culling the waiting lists for Buist, will its "lottery" also be run transparently, or will we again have "trust us, the unknown number beside your child's name didn't come up." [If you want to see how its lottery "works," see my blog of last March, Gambling by the Numbers: Magic Tuition Money.]
Superintendent McGinley's integrity is on the line here.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Yes, in deed, "Superintendent McGinley's integrity is on the line here."
She has no integrity. She is just another educator that talks the talk with "Give me more money and I produce no results, but, I will blame everyone else!" but doesn't walk the walk.
As Molly Shannon (one of my favorite comedians from Saturday Night Live) would say, "I LOVE IT, I LOVE IT, I LOVE IT..."
I could not have said it any better. Any chance you know of a statistician who'd be willing to tackle this small feat?
My understanding is that something has been in the works for a while now.
I'm waiting, but I'm not holding my breath.
I will tell you that when Mark Brandenburg admits he got in on the County-wide list something smells fishy.
Post a Comment