eulero83
Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML Perhaps because you view this through the prism of racial profiling and are trying to make the testing issue fit your preconceived notion. I just say that there is nothing genetically keeping the child of other ethnicity back, so using skin color as a parameter is not scientific, and judge people by the color of the skin when it's not directly relevant is the definition of racism. quote:
School desegregation law is very insistent that states keep track of ethnic and racial populations along with poverty data and special needs data. this just means that former laws should be reconsidered quote:
That would be true if the results were based on a one off. But there is a history of this testing going back to the Bush Administration No Child Left Behind Act signed into law January 8, 2002. There is an abundance of data to show trends. but none of this trends show the reasons and random mistakes are random so this doesn't mean they compensate it's a fallacy thinking this way quote:
The corollary to this plan is that schools doing poorly on the tests could apply for money grants to bring in more teachers, more experienced teachers if needed, and devise plans/techniques to improve the learning of the students. Actually, poor testing schools benefit more than good testing schools. Sorta like the NBA draft. of course that's the policie planned to reach the goals but as I told before it's not that adding something erases the fact they keep tracking resoults mostly by skin color. quote:
Sadly, children do not all begin at the same spot in the first grade. Learning, listening, and talking skills, as well as personality begin to develop in early childhood during the first eighteen months of growth. Some children are advantaged with excellent preschool environments and parents that read to them. Unfortunately, many are not. They are left behind before they even get to the first grade. If a child is developmentally unreceptive to learning or unsocialized its success in school is already jeopardised. I learned to read as a self-taught at the age of 4 and a half (school starts at 6 in italy I don't know in the usa) when in first grade I had an "easier life" but than the gap was soon covered, and there was still a lot to learn, if the goal of education is just to learn how to read, write and count this are poor goals, that were enough for the 19th century not for the 21st. quote:
Black third-graders are expected to go from 79 percent passing in math in 2013 to 88.5 percent in 2018, while whites are expected to go from 91.5 percent in 2013 to 95.4 percent in 2018. Read it carefully. Black third grade test success is expected to improve by 9.5% while white thrid grade improvement is expected to be only 4% MORE is expected of the black schools than of the white schools. So, how is that racially detrimental to blacks? The premise of the title of the thread and the original post were just plain mistaken. If you set the same end standard for the black student schools you would be requiring a leap of 16.4 percentage points. While the white schools only were expected to improve by 4% That is pretty damn unrealistic. It is punishing to the black schools. I read and carefully all the article and understood it, I can assure you I'm not an illitterate and my english comprension level is enough to see this, even if it's not my language, so please do not suppose that my ideas comes from a lack of comprehension. This is the red herring part I already talked about, they where supposed to reach goals even before and when FAILED they just declared this where irrealistic, this goals are again on paper so if pubblic administration fails again they can deny their responsibility and say the goals where again irrealistic.
|