The Problem We All Live With (The Other Story of Michael Brown)

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with

Right now, all sorts of people are trying to rethink and reinvent education, to get poor minority kids performing as well as white kids. But there's one thing nobody tries anymore, despite lots of evidence that it works: desegregation. Nikole Hannah-Jones looks at a district that, not long ago, accidentally launched a desegregation program. First of a two-part series.

Integration cuts the achievement gap by half.

Between 1971 and 1988 (the peak years of desegregation), reading gap scores dropped from 39 points to 18 points.

After 1988, we start to re-segregate and the gap widens.

Now sitting next to white kids doesn't make you smarter, but it does put you in schools with the better teachers, greater resources, and more rigorous classes.

As ProPublica has documented in a series of stories on the resegregation of America’s schools, hundreds of school districts across the nation have been released from court-enforced integration over the past 15 years. Over that same time period, the number of so-called apartheid schools — schools whose white population is 1 percent or less — has shot up. The achievement gap, greatly narrowed during the height of school desegregation, has widened.
“American schools are disturbingly racially segregated, period,” Catherine Lhamon, head of the U.S. Education Department’s civil rights office, said in an October speech. “We are reserving our expectations for our highest rigor level of courses, the courses we know our kids need to be able to be full and productive members of society, but we are reserving them for a class of kids who are white and who are wealthier.”
According to data compiled by the Education Department, black and Latino children are the least likely to be taught by a qualified, experienced teacher, to get access to courses such as chemistry and calculus, and to have access to technology.
The inequalities along racial lines are so profound nationally that in October the department’s Office for Civil Rights issued a 37-page letter to school district superintendents warning that the disparities may be unconstitutional.

http://www.propublica.org/article/ferguson-school-segregation

 

[fast]

If we withhold resources from those with higher achievement scores, would that reduce the inequality, and even if that is so, and even if it would be wrong to do so, would the benefits of the ensuing equality be preferred over the negative impact of doing so?

And since you bring up Michael Brown, would it be a preferred state of affairs if we had to choose between an increase in white crime and less police attention to black crime to the point no substantily often cited racially based statistics could be identified?

My overall point, the underlying curiosity, is to what extent is racial equality important. Is it so important that it trumps reason? I know how it sounds on the surface, but really, a decline in white achievement scores and an incline in white crime might not be a better state of affairs, but if it would ease racial tensions because of ensuing racial equality, couldn't making a bad thing worse have the interesting effect of making something else that is bad better?

Crazier things have been said, but pursing a wrong course of action can yet sometimes unwittingly bring about a better state of affairs. With an overwhelming reduction in racial inequality (even at the expense of intentional harm to society), couldn't that breath a playing field that would enable us to overcome the new-bread challenges?

I'm not advocating anything, just throwing out a nutball idea.

 

[Derec]

I'm not advocating anything, just throwing out a nutball idea.

It is a nutball idea, but it's pretty much a more hardcore and honest version of what affirmative action has been doing for the last 40+ years.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If we withhold resources from those with higher achievement scores, would that reduce the inequality, and even if that is so, and even if it would be wrong to do so, would the benefits of the ensuing equality be preferred over the negative impact of doing so?

And since you bring up Michael Brown, would it be a preferred state of affairs if we had to choose between an increase in white crime and less police attention to black crime to the point no substantily often cited racially based statistics could be identified?

My overall point, the underlying curiosity, is to what extent is racial equality important. Is it so important that it trumps reason? I know how it sounds on the surface, but really, a decline in white achievement scores and an incline in white crime might not be a better state of affairs, but if it would ease racial tensions because of ensuing racial equality, couldn't making a bad thing worse have the interesting effect of making something else that is bad better?

Crazier things have been said, but pursing a wrong course of action can yet sometimes unwittingly bring about a better state of affairs. With an overwhelming reduction in racial inequality (even at the expense of intentional harm to society), couldn't that breath a playing field that would enable us to overcome the new-bread challenges?

I'm not advocating anything, just throwing out a nutball idea.

Did you listen to the show?

 

[ApostateAbe]

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with



Integration cuts the achievement gap by half.

Between 1971 and 1988 (the peak years of desegregation), reading gap scores dropped from 39 points to 18 points.

After 1988, we start to re-segregate and the gap widens.

Now sitting next to white kids doesn't make you smarter, but it does put you in schools with the better teachers, greater resources, and more rigorous classes.

As ProPublica has documented in a series of stories on the resegregation of America’s schools, hundreds of school districts across the nation have been released from court-enforced integration over the past 15 years. Over that same time period, the number of so-called apartheid schools — schools whose white population is 1 percent or less — has shot up. The achievement gap, greatly narrowed during the height of school desegregation, has widened.
“American schools are disturbingly racially segregated, period,” Catherine Lhamon, head of the U.S. Education Department’s civil rights office, said in an October speech. “We are reserving our expectations for our highest rigor level of courses, the courses we know our kids need to be able to be full and productive members of society, but we are reserving them for a class of kids who are white and who are wealthier.”
According to data compiled by the Education Department, black and Latino children are the least likely to be taught by a qualified, experienced teacher, to get access to courses such as chemistry and calculus, and to have access to technology.
The inequalities along racial lines are so profound nationally that in October the department’s Office for Civil Rights issued a 37-page letter to school district superintendents warning that the disparities may be unconstitutional.

http://www.propublica.org/article/ferguson-school-segregation

I listened to that NPR radio show a few weeks ago. It is an interesting and informative episode all about the social context of racial inequalities of the schools. The lesson, for me, was that racial integration does not happen naturally. Whites will tend to live in white neighborhoods, blacks will tend to live in black neighborhoods, and the racial mix of the schools will reflect the racial mix of the respective neighborhoods. There is a 15-point IQ difference between whites and blacks that will not go away, and whites will always be unhappy with black children coming into their schools. They may claim their objections are not about race, oh no, of course not--it is just about the low academic success, poverty, violence, sex and drug abuse (closely associated with blacks).

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with



Integration cuts the achievement gap by half.

Between 1971 and 1988 (the peak years of desegregation), reading gap scores dropped from 39 points to 18 points.

After 1988, we start to re-segregate and the gap widens.

Now sitting next to white kids doesn't make you smarter, but it does put you in schools with the better teachers, greater resources, and more rigorous classes.

http://www.propublica.org/article/ferguson-school-segregation

I listened to that NPR radio show a few weeks ago. It is an interesting and informative episode all about the social context of racial inequalities of the schools. The lesson, for me, was that racial integration does not happen naturally. Whites will tend to live in white neighborhoods, blacks will tend to live in black neighborhoods, and the racial mix of the schools will reflect the racial mix of the respective neighborhoods. There is a 15-point IQ difference between whites and blacks that will not go away, and whites will always be unhappy with black children coming into their schools. They may claim their objections are not about race, oh no, of course not--it is just about the low academic success, poverty, violence, sex and drug abuse (closely associated with blacks).

What does the 15 points mean?

 

[ApostateAbe]

I listened to that NPR radio show a few weeks ago. It is an interesting and informative episode all about the social context of racial inequalities of the schools. The lesson, for me, was that racial integration does not happen naturally. Whites will tend to live in white neighborhoods, blacks will tend to live in black neighborhoods, and the racial mix of the schools will reflect the racial mix of the respective neighborhoods. There is a 15-point IQ difference between whites and blacks that will not go away, and whites will always be unhappy with black children coming into their schools. They may claim their objections are not about race, oh no, of course not--it is just about the low academic success, poverty, violence, sex and drug abuse (closely associated with blacks).

What does the 15 points mean?

A full standard deviation of the most informative metric of intelligence, strongly predictive of academic success.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What does the 15 points mean?

A full standard deviation of the most informative metric of intelligence, strongly predictive of academic success.

Which means what? in real terms, what?

- - - Updated - - -

And keep in mind, the Normandy kids did better in the white schools and the white schools test scores did not drop.

 

[fromderinside]

First I didn't listen to the show. Second when I got down to teachers as problem I got pissed off.

Teachers are there for the wrong reasons. Baby sitting and doing the will of the state.
Those who actually teach burn out quickly. Some don't burn out. They actually love to teach and do have the temperament and skills to teach. Unfortunately there aren't the ten million or so necessary.

Whatareyagonnado. Pad by baby sitting and following procedures not bought in to resulting in relatively emotionless instruction. Better way combine Khan with good on the ground teachers who model, demonstrate, get actual hands on participation toward mastery. For the rest, lecture, recite,practice, and test, leave to computers and aides.

Caring, of course is at the top. Access is required for that. Computers con help here too. Nearly instant access to a teacher, aide, or face does wonders for confidence and esteem.

there you have it. Blend, mix, serve through a range of competence with those who demonstrate and apply going from room to room doing what they do on a schedule. Still retain the generalist idea for teachers. Believe me an education degree with a major in English is not an English expert. That is a generalist who has some capability in English.

I use my wife and kids as models. they are all master teachers who always achieve well above standard results while teaching in such as Berendo Middle School in LA, Almondale Middle School at Keppel Union in Antelope Valley, and Fenton Charter in Sylmar.

Why do I name the schools? You can check them out. Berendo is in Korea Town bordering on East LA and Watts, mostly extremely poor Hispanic and black students. Keppel Union is that district west of Palmdale where children are sent to be with relatives after they are kicked out of schools in LA. Fenton Charter is in the poor Hispanic district on the north end of SF valley taking only local residents. So if there are going to be sub par scores its at these places. As schools these are among the worst in the LA area.

Yet those persons I listed routinely achieve anywhere from one to three grade levels better that at expected level for age and grade groups. There are reasons for this. Investment of own resources is one that is family wise significant and academically significant since it permits my family members to bring the best of tools into the classroom. They do it because they care. They use these tools and outside resources as if they were addicts. Primarily they are hands on project oriented people who engage students to take responsibility for each and every goal. All kids, thusly engaged, are very likely to thrive in such places. Oh yeah, and they also spend to make sure the kids are always fed and the kids are always near a listening personal ear.

Teachers with talent, caring attitude, proper tools, and adequate support, will succeed anywhere.

I see moving lecture, recitation, practice, and test to mechanical devises which will be part of the child's future. Then find ways to get demonstration, participation education focused projects, into the hands of talented teachers who can guide such work. Provide nutritional and emotional support as a guarantee, and support the kids. Wallah.

 

[ApostateAbe]

A full standard deviation of the most informative metric of intelligence, strongly predictive of academic success.

Which means what? in real terms, what?

- - - Updated - - -

And keep in mind, the Normandy kids did better in the white schools and the white schools test scores did not drop.

Before IQ was standardized to make the standard deviation 15 and the largely-white median of 100, it was calculated as the ratio of mental age over chronological age multiplied by a hundred, and you can still get a rough idea of IQ scores that way. A person with an IQ of 80 is expected to have a learning ability two grades below the average white child of the same age (about 10 points per grade level). I heard the claim on the show that the integration did not affect the test scores of the school, and that would be unexpected, and I would love to see the published data.

 

[fromderinside]

Which means what? in real terms, what?

- - - Updated - - -

And keep in mind, the Normandy kids did better in the white schools and the white schools test scores did not drop.

Before IQ was standardized to make the standard deviation 15 and the largely-white median of 100, it was calculated as the ratio of mental age over chronological age multiplied by a hundred, and you can still get a rough idea of IQ scores that way. A person with an IQ of 80 is expected to have a learning ability two grades below the average white child of the same age (about 10 points per grade level). I heard the claim on the show that the integration did not affect the test scores of the school, and that would be unexpected, and I would love to see the published data.

Ah, statistics, my specialty. Yes one gets what one has with statistics. Yes the genes the key if the subject is a standard subject.

Why? Well laws are discriminatory. It is human nature for that to be so. Income is discriminatory. It is economic nature for that to be so. IQ is individually unrepresentative. It is the nature of normalization to be so. No help here.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Which means what? in real terms, what?

- - - Updated - - -

And keep in mind, the Normandy kids did better in the white schools and the white schools test scores did not drop.

Before IQ was standardized to make the standard deviation 15 and the largely-white median of 100, it was calculated as the ratio of mental age over chronological age multiplied by a hundred, and you can still get a rough idea of IQ scores that way. A person with an IQ of 80 is expected to have a learning ability two grades below the average white child of the same age (about 10 points per grade level). I heard the claim on the show that the integration did not affect the test scores of the school, and that would be unexpected, and I would love to see the published data.

Uh huh.

What does 15 points difference on one test mean for the life chances of people?

 

[Trausti]

Before IQ was standardized to make the standard deviation 15 and the largely-white median of 100, it was calculated as the ratio of mental age over chronological age multiplied by a hundred, and you can still get a rough idea of IQ scores that way. A person with an IQ of 80 is expected to have a learning ability two grades below the average white child of the same age (about 10 points per grade level). I heard the claim on the show that the integration did not affect the test scores of the school, and that would be unexpected, and I would love to see the published data.

Uh huh.

What does 15 points difference on one test mean for the life chances of people?

Quite a lot.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Before IQ was standardized to make the standard deviation 15 and the largely-white median of 100, it was calculated as the ratio of mental age over chronological age multiplied by a hundred, and you can still get a rough idea of IQ scores that way. A person with an IQ of 80 is expected to have a learning ability two grades below the average white child of the same age (about 10 points per grade level). I heard the claim on the show that the integration did not affect the test scores of the school, and that would be unexpected, and I would love to see the published data.

Uh huh.

What does 15 points difference on one test mean for the life chances of people?

This image is a pretty good summary. It comes from Linda Gottfredson's 1998 article in Scientific American, "The General Intelligence Factor."

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Uh huh.

What does 15 points difference on one test mean for the life chances of people?

Quite a lot.

Couldn't those charts be explained by foreign and domestic policy decisions made not just by the countries themselves but decisions made by the those countries trade partners and wartime enemies? Not to mention history? Speaking of which, how stable are those numbers over the course of history?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Uh huh.

What does 15 points difference on one test mean for the life chances of people?

This image is a pretty good summary. It comes from Linda Gottfredson's 1998 article in Scientific American, "The General Intelligence Factor."

Linda Gottfredson

Where do I know that name from?

Oh yeah, the  Pioneer Fund.

Again, couldn't those differences be explained by factors other than 15 points? Are that not other factors that determine life outcomes that can and do mitigate the supposed effects of the 15 points? Is poverty, for example, more a result of the 15 points or being born into poverty?

 

[ApostateAbe]

This image is a pretty good summary. It comes from Linda Gottfredson's 1998 article in Scientific American, "The General Intelligence Factor."

Linda Gottfredson

Where do I know that name from?

Oh yeah, the  Pioneer Fund.

Again, couldn't those differences be explained by factors other than 15 points? Are that not other factors that determine life outcomes that can and do mitigate the supposed effects of the 15 points? Is poverty, for example, more a result of the 15 points or being born into poverty?

Correlation would be all that is relevant for the question at hand, and cause is another thing. A correlation is all that is needed to be predictive. Though, to answer your question, IQ variations have more to do with genetic variations, though environmental variations count for a part of the minority of effect. This table comes from page 24 of Richard Nisbett's 2010 book, Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. It does not prove that the IQ differences between groups are likewise mostly due to genetics, though it makes such a conclusion more probable.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Linda Gottfredson

Where do I know that name from?

Oh yeah, the  Pioneer Fund.

Again, couldn't those differences be explained by factors other than 15 points? Are that not other factors that determine life outcomes that can and do mitigate the supposed effects of the 15 points? Is poverty, for example, more a result of the 15 points or being born into poverty?

Correlation would be all that is relevant for the question at hand, and cause is another thing. A correlation is all that is needed to be predictive. Though, to answer your question, IQ variations have more to do with genetic variations, though environmental variations count for a part of the minority of effect. This table comes from page 24 of Richard Nisbett's 2010 book, Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. It does not prove that the IQ differences between groups are likewise mostly due to genetics, though it makes such a conclusion more probable.

So again, what does the 15 points mean? One group can learn and another can't? If that is the case, why is that when schools integrate and whites don't flee, taking their money and votes with them, the achievement gap closes and overall grades over time remain stable or improve?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with



Integration cuts the achievement gap by half.

Between 1971 and 1988 (the peak years of desegregation), reading gap scores dropped from 39 points to 18 points.

After 1988, we start to re-segregate and the gap widens.

Now sitting next to white kids doesn't make you smarter, but it does put you in schools with the better teachers, greater resources, and more rigorous classes.

And it goes a long way towards bringing down the good students rather than helping the poor ones.

Poor schools normally get the same resources. It's just they spend more on security and the like.

How rigorous the classes are is far more a factor of the students than anything else--a teacher who teaches a rigorous class to ill-prepared students is actually doing them a disservice as they'll just be left behind.

Also, to have any hope of success it must be done young. Take a kid out of a ghetto high school and put him in a good school and you didn't help him one bit. I'm not aware of any research that shows doing it younger does help, though.

Schools are a reflection of the average student they get. That's why private schools can do so well--set a high bar for who they will admit, it's easy to turn out good results.

- - - Updated - - -

Before IQ was standardized to make the standard deviation 15 and the largely-white median of 100, it was calculated as the ratio of mental age over chronological age multiplied by a hundred, and you can still get a rough idea of IQ scores that way. A person with an IQ of 80 is expected to have a learning ability two grades below the average white child of the same age (about 10 points per grade level). I heard the claim on the show that the integration did not affect the test scores of the school, and that would be unexpected, and I would love to see the published data.

Uh huh.

What does 15 points difference on one test mean for the life chances of people?

Usually, blue collar vs white collar.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And it goes a long way towards bringing down the good students rather than helping the poor ones.

Actually it doesn't. Unless you think that all black students are disruptive and in a secret cabal dedicated to not learning and seeing to it no other kids learn either. Is that what you think?

Poor schools normally get the same resources. It's just they spend more on security and the like.

Then they are getting the same resources now are they? they are getting money. Not the same thing. And not always the same money. Most public school funding in the US comes from property taxes.

How rigorous the classes are is far more a factor of the students than anything else--a teacher who teaches a rigorous class to ill-prepared students is actually doing them a disservice as they'll just be left behind.

Having actually taught school, I find that kids respond to expectation. And they are more engaged when challenged and not when bored.

Also, to have any hope of success it must be done young. Take a kid out of a ghetto high school and put him in a good school and you didn't help him one bit.

Depends on the kid, depends on the school, depends on the educational support available. But younger is better.

I'm not aware of any research that shows doing it younger does help, though.

And even if you were aware, you wouldn't link it, so what's the dif?

Schools are a reflection of the average student they get.

To some people.

That's why private schools can do so well--set a high bar for who they will admit, it's easy to turn out good results.

Turning out sociopaths is a good result?

- - - Updated - - -

Before IQ was standardized to make the standard deviation 15 and the largely-white median of 100, it was calculated as the ratio of mental age over chronological age multiplied by a hundred, and you can still get a rough idea of IQ scores that way. A person with an IQ of 80 is expected to have a learning ability two grades below the average white child of the same age (about 10 points per grade level). I heard the claim on the show that the integration did not affect the test scores of the school, and that would be unexpected, and I would love to see the published data.

Uh huh.

What does 15 points difference on one test mean for the life chances of people?

Usually, blue collar vs white collar.

And you can prove that the 15 point is the direct cause of your conclusion?