However, based on these forums, this does occur with significant frequency in high SES families.
The schools in the first post are not generally those with high populations of academically underestimated students, since they are mostly in areas with high SES high education parents (e.g. computer scientists, engineers, medical professionals, university faculty).
Indeed. GIGO. In our local public HS, approximately a third of seniors take AP Calc (and a handful of Juniors), but GreatSchools shows 11% AP math. That’s partially due to the fact that AP Courses aren’t allowed in our HS until Jr year. (it requires the equivalent of a Papal decree to get approval to take them sooner.) Regardless, using the total student body in the denominator makes little sense.
Yeah, I think it is obvious sometimes parents get caught up in using their kids in their own peer competitions. Another parent they know brags their kid is already doing Calculus, and they feel pressure to have their kid compete with that kid, and they can rationalize that being best for their kid.
And the way we talk can lead into that sort of thinking. Like, if kid A is in this class early because they “belong” in such a class, then if kid B is not in this class, does that mean they don’t “belong”? And what does that say about them, that A “belongs” there and B does not? What parent is ever happy saying their kid does not “belong” somewhere?
So while we might say we are OK with each kid doing math at an appropriate pace for them, once we start talking about kids in group terms like that, I think it can start triggering the less healthy ways of kids thinking about themselves, parents thinking about their kids, and so on.
And I don’t mean to suggest it is easy to avoid that, I think it is so weaved through so many discussions about schools and classes and so on in our society that both parents and kids are constantly being pushed in that direction, and it can take a lot of conscious effort to counteract.