Wow....just wow...

[Trish]

Maybe it's part of the push to pay teachers based on "results?"

[Parrothead]

Maybe it's part of the push to pay teachers based on "results?"

Oh, dear. That won't end well.

[kiana]

Here in NY, it's 1,2,3,4 land in the elementaries. 1 and 2 don't meet grade level standards, 3 does, 4 is above. The districts tend to put the most resources into 2s, as they can be moved up to 3 by spring test time if the parents can be persuaded to get them to school at the 95% or better rate. 4s are ignored -- if your child is a 4 he will have a lot of time on his hands no matter his skin color or economic status or mother's education level. He has met the objectives, job is done since no teacher is held to seeing that there is at least a year's growth for a year's attendance. (Later in middle and high school he'll be at risk of dropping out from insane boredom as most of the advanced classes have been eliminated, so that the former honors/ap teachers can be assigned to double period remedial and more sped teachers can be hired.)

 

 

1s are generally students who need extraordinary resources -- don't speak or understand any english, have parents who refuse to classify or provide appropriate medical treatment, have a developmental level 2+ years behind age level, do not attend school frequently, etc. The district isn't funded for the amt of help that child needs, and in any case, he isn't going to catch up several years worth in a year even if all he did was academics in K-2. He could catch up and progress at least a year for each year in school, if he had the correct instruction -- i.e. starting at his developmental level, not at grade level. It would be much more fair to judge the teacher's effectiveness t the scehat way (a year for a year) instead of the current scenario of child enters class way behind, teacher presents and maybe even attempts to teach grade level mat'l, washes hands of several children after refersing strugglers to rTi or evaluation. I've seen teachers with classes of 1s and 4s do nothing all year except present. The 4s read under their desks or cause trouble because they already have it figured out, and the 1s work with the sped teachers and 1:1 aides. Class is useless to all parties. I've heard of schools in Maryland though, that group by instructional level and have good success. That seems better than shoving everyone who is 2+ grade levels behind into rTi or ignoring them if they don't qualify for sped.

 

Agree with all of this.

 

But it's a totally logical response on the school's part. When you have many who are close to the requirements, you can get far more 'bang for your buck' by pushing them over and ignoring everyone else.

[Stacy in NJ]

No, they are not. Each student as an individual is told that they are expected to achieve grade level performance, regardless of their demographics. The standard each student must meet to be considered "on grade level" is the same, no matter what the color of their skin or what other socioeconomic influences play a part. No individual is being let off the hook or being held to a lesser standard because of the color of their skin.

 

Recognizing that a higher percentage of students from certain groups are falling to meet these standards is statistical facts, not racism. The fact that lower performances in those groups have existed is a complex issue related more to culture and socioecomic factors, IMHO, that coincidentally also happen to statistically follow racial demographics. Not something I like, I wish it wasn't the case, but it is the sad truth.

 

:iagree:

 

Understanding empirical data is frequently the first real step in solving problems. We have a stagering performance gap in the USA. NCLB was the first attempt at collecting data. This type of program, at least on the surface, offends our sense of fairness, but it's purpose is to SOLVE A PROBLEM. The logic to setting race based goals is to measure INTERVENTIONS and determine what works. Culturally, different groups may need different interventions.

 

The moral preening and self-indulgent outrage in the thread is pathetic.

[GWOB]

We are a nation of immigrants.Even within a group, needs are vastly different on an individual basis. Each child needs to be valued and receive instruction appropriate to his needs. No one should be wasting their time, teacher or child.

 

:iagree: Exactly. Meet the individual child where he is. Don't assume he needs something because of his race.

[Jennifer3141]

We are a nation of immigrants.Even within a group, needs are vastly different on an individual basis. Each child needs to be valued and receive instruction appropriate to his needs. No one should be wasting their time, teacher or child.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

Unless you're NA, you are an immigrant.

 

This is playing the stats. How many times have we been outraged as a group when a DOCTOR does that to one of us as his/her patient?

 

I'm getting very tired of heinous actions in the name of "statistical evidence."

 

Maybe one of the reasons people seem so ANGRY in our country is that they are tired of being looked at as anonymous, powerless number.

[Parrothead]

 

The moral preening and self-indulgent outrage in the thread is pathetic.

I really think it is a lack of understanding of how some children have to live, and what it takes to be normal within their culture. not saying it is right. But the culture needs to be re-educated.

[labst60]

I haven't read all the responses - but this is (imho) how this will play out over the years...

 

Everyone will say that "race is just being used as measuring tool'.. until every group EXCEPT ONE meets their goals - let's say the Hispanic Group.

 

So -they the Hispanic Kids are going to be pulled out for special enrichment to help that group (b/c that's how the teacher/school/district) is being evaluated. Let's forget Suzy, the Asian girl, who ALSO is below grade level - the "Asian" group, on the agrregate, scored high enough - So Suzy won't get the help she needs because she's not in the "group that needs improvement" (ie she is the wrong race for the enrichment class).

 

It won't be the first year, or even the second - but when you use race as a measuring tool - you will also use it as a remediation tool.

 

And the children will be aware they are being measured based on the color of their skin - and that more is expected of some, and less of others. It's really a shame and quite sad.

[justamouse]

Marva, oh Marva, where are you and what do you have to say about this?

[TammyinTN]

Unbelievable! :glare:

[mamatohaleybug]

Speechless with shock and disgust!

[Jennifer3141]

I haven't read all the responses - but this is (imho) how this will play out over the years...

 

Everyone will say that "race is just being used as measuring tool'.. until every group EXCEPT ONE meets their goals - let's say the Hispanic Group.

 

So -they the Hispanic Kids are going to be pulled out for special enrichment to help that group (b/c that's how the teacher/school/district) is being evaluated. Let's forget Suzy, the Asian girl, who ALSO is below grade level - the "Asian" group, on the agrregate, scored high enough - So Suzy won't get the help she needs because she's not in the "group that needs improvement" (ie she is the wrong race for the enrichment class).

 

It won't be the first year, or even the second - but when you use race as a measuring tool - you will also use it as a remediation tool.

 

And the children will be aware they are being measured based on the color of their skin - and that more is expected of some, and less of others. It's really a shame and quite sad.

 

Yes. But I think it may be even more insidious. I can totally see us giving up entirely on entire races. We'll start giving the black kids the materials the white kids used 8 years ago because we'll want to "save money." Hey, we won't have to FEED those kids as well either. After all, they won't be working as hard and won't count as much as the Asians. We can throw white bread and bologna sandwiches at them instead.

 

And then, let's face it. They aren't going to be running any companies. The black kids are really only going to grow up to push buttons. So do they really need to know history? Science? Let's make a new curriculum for them and make things "easier" for us all. :(

[besroma]

And the dumbing down of America continues .... :eek:

 

:iagree: :glare:

[Georgiana Daniels]

I'm horrified. As a minority, I guess I wouldn't need to work as hard. What is this telling kids about themselves??? Did anyone--any one single reasonable person--pause to consider what kind of message they are sending to children?

[littleWMN]

I get what you are saying. I really do. I just cannot get over the race thing. I acknowledge it may be a character fault, and I reserve my right to be completely wrong on this issue.

 

Of course, we can flip my argument on its head and say "Why aren't the white kids supposed to improve as much as the minority kids?" In my humble, less-than-genius opinion, the problem occurs when you throw race into the equation. And again, these policies are treating symptoms, not causes. Let's get to the root of the problem. Let's address the different incarceration rates between Blacks and Whites. Let's address the limited opportunities for minorities. Let's address pathetic funding for schools located in minority neighborhoods. Let's be real about the hardships minorities. Let's take an honest look at potential racial bias in standardized tests. Perhaps that is really my "beef" with this subject. You can treat a symptom, but unless you get to the core of the problem, you will accomplish nothing.

 

Amen.

[mirth]

I'm horrified. As a minority, I guess I wouldn't need to work as hard. What is this telling kids about themselves??? Did anyone--any one single reasonable person--pause to consider what kind of message they are sending to children?

 

Let's do that now. To see how this policy is disabling rather than empowering, let's think it through ...

 

Why should racial achievement potentials only affect adolescents? How about if the school district came up with another school policy that says by 2018 all Asian, Black, White, Latino teachers must be able to get 91%, 74%, 88%, 81%, respectively, of their whole (diverse, mixed race, whathaveyou) class at grade level in order to get a raise? Suddenly this policy would seem racist, and teachers may complain -- mainly Asian teachers.

 

But suppose there aren't many Asian teachers anyway, so their complaints are largely ignored. And the other teachers kind of like it because it makes it relatively easier for them to get raises. But after a while, school superintendents would say, "Hmmm, why should our district ever hire any non-Asian teachers at all? Maybe we should only recruit Asian teachers. Afterall, it is our longstanding position that they actually get the job done. AND WE SURE DO NEED THE JOB DONE!"

 

My point is, the ALL CAPS statement is what every employer in the world has as top priority. They want the job done by the most able candidate in absolute terms. Not the candidate who is doing all that was expected of his racial class.

 

So the message sent is worst than that of a racist one, it is a unrealistic one grown in fantasyland that tells students that everyone should take one look at you and adjust their standards according to you -- that these artificial constructs we invented in this institution will in any way serve you once you leave these 4 walls.

Edited October 15, 2012 by mirth

[moki4]

This thinking keeps perpetuating the false premise that kids can't learn!

But then again, who makes up school boards? Eight years ago, I attended a local school board meeting and the 8th grade math teacher proclaimed that "these kids should never be expected to learn algebra." I was so angry! That was another nail in the coffin for considering public school for our DC's. Why are board members and teachers allowed to marginalized children like that?

This is why we homeschool. If you look hard enough, this type of thinking/policy making is ubiquitous.

[akmommy]

Standardized test scores here are broken down by ethnic origins amongst other things. I don't know if that's federally mandated or not, but I'm wondering if, as disgusting as it is, if they aren't trying to find a way to comply with some federal mandate in NCLB.

 

Either way it's sickening.

[Caroline]

I'm not familiar with the geographical demographics in FL or VA, but I have to wonder how this impacts areas/districts where there is a good deal of WHITE poverty.

 

Usually there is a subgroup for economically disadvantaged kids, too.

[abacus2]

I haven't read all the responses - but this is (imho) how this will play out over the years...

 

Everyone will say that "race is just being used as measuring tool'.. until every group EXCEPT ONE meets their goals - let's say the Hispanic Group.

 

So -they the Hispanic Kids are going to be pulled out for special enrichment to help that group (b/c that's how the teacher/school/district) is being evaluated. Let's forget Suzy, the Asian girl, who ALSO is below grade level - the "Asian" group, on the agrregate, scored high enough - So Suzy won't get the help she needs because she's not in the "group that needs improvement" (ie she is the wrong race for the enrichment class).

 

It won't be the first year, or even the second - but when you use race as a measuring tool - you will also use it as a remediation tool.

 

And the children will be aware they are being measured based on the color of their skin - and that more is expected of some, and less of others. It's really a shame and quite sad.

 

Let's do that now. To see how this policy is disabling rather than empowering, let's think it through ...

 

Why should racial achievement potentials only affect adolescents? How about if the school district came up with another school policy that says by 2018 all Asian, Black, White, Latino teachers must be able to get 91%, 74%, 88%, 81%, respectively, of their whole (diverse, mixed race, whathaveyou) class at grade level in order to get a raise? Suddenly this policy would seem racist, and teachers may complain -- mainly Asian teachers.

 

But suppose there aren't many Asian teachers anyway, so their complaints are largely ignored. And the other teachers kind of like it because it makes it relatively easier for them to get raises. But after a while, school superintendents would say, "Hmmm, why should our district ever hire any non-Asian teachers at all? Maybe we should only recruit Asian teachers. Afterall, it is our longstanding position that they actually get the job done. AND WE SURE DO NEED THE JOB DONE!"

 

My point is, the ALL CAPS statement is what every employer in the world has as top priority. They want the job done by the most able candidate in absolute terms. Not the candidate who is doing all that was expected of his racial class.

 

So the message sent is worst than that of a racist one, it is a unrealistic one grown in fantasyland that tells students that everyone should take one look at you and adjust their standards according to you -- that these artificial constructs we invented in this institution will in any way serve you once you leave these 4 walls.

 

:iagree:

[momto2Cs]

The more I read about this, which includes reading here on the thread, the more I see this as not an attack on certain ethnic groups, but rather an attempt to get all the identified ethnic groups performing at closer to the same level. While it may seem wrong in many ways to separate performance by "race", it stands true that the different ethnic groups perform overall at very disproportionate rates. In this legislation, it seems that they will be demanding more of the failing ethnic groups than the groups that are already performing at a higher level, while at the same time, they will be expecting all groups to improve.

 

I don't know that the way they worded this new legislation is the best, since it certainly gets people irritated and upset with the racial terminology, but were those terms removed, the statistics would remain the same - group a performs at this level, group b at this level, and so on, showing that there are groups performing far under the level they should be able to reach and maintain. Naturally much of this results from economic disparity, but denying it exists merely because it sounds racist won't fix anything.

Edited October 15, 2012 by momto2Cs

[Nestof3]

I think what they are doing is working backward.

 

In VA, police officer promotion tests (the math portion anyway) was deemed racially biased. The aim was to get more minorities promoted, but to do so, they had to change the passing grade.

 

The school system is probably resorting to changing the standard in the same way so that more minorities pass. The truth of the matter is that minorities are not excelling as well, and perhaps regardless of potential, they are doing the same thing that VA did with the police force.

 

I figure this will continue until the minorities represented stand up and demand they want equal treatment and don't want lower expectations. I never saw an outcry around here by the minorities insisting they could pass the fifth-grade level math test given to them.

[Nestof3]

And if you think this is only happening to poor minorities, you are wrong.

 

My friend teaches at a private Catholic school in NC. The students do not actually fail a math class. Their failing grade is changed to a D, and then the next year, they students are placed into a new math class -- given a title that sounds good on paper -- but it is a remedial form of what they took the year prior.

 

My friend, despite being an excellent teacher, has to compete with students who honestly do not give a crap who spend their time texting instead of paying attention, who do not show up with their textbooks or do homework. Their parents, who believe sweet Johnny can do no wrong and who are paying good money for this school are appeased by their no-fail system. It's a business, and after all, you should not bite the hand that feeds you.

 

I am so sick of none of the blame being put on parents or children. You will never be able to force a person to learn. My friend and others I know who teach refer to this generation of teens as the entitlement generation.

[fhjmom]

To all those saying it is wrong to look at student GROUP performance based on demographics, I have some questions for you.

 

Would you rather school ignore that current levels of performance show huge disparities between those groups?

 

If school should not even measuring performance levels of sub-groups based on demographics, how can those disparities even be identified?

 

Should schools continue on based on statistics for only the total number of students, ignoring that different student groups have different needs based on cultural, socioeconomic, linguistic experiences, disabilities, etc. based conditions?

 

If only the total number is used, even if you accept the fact that disparities exist, how can the schools measure if there is acceptable improvement in originally lower performing groups if those subgroups are not measured individually?

 

IMHO, not recognizing the disparities, not recognizing that we need to do a better job of addressing the needs of some cultural groups in a learning environment, not making an effort to mitigate effects on education that some demographic groups face in higher numbers... THAT would be racist (and elitist and less accessible - to include socioeconomic issues and disabilities).

 

Lower levels of academic performance in some subgroups is a FACT. The only way to know if our educational system is doing a better job of serving these subgroups than it has in the past is to measure it statistically. The goal is to have 100% of students at grade level proficiency, (but realistically that will never happen). It isn't saying that lower performance from subgroups is acceptable, but setting realistic interim goals for subgroups that have lower present levels of performance is just trying to get them up to par in an achievable manner. Unrealistic, impossible goals aren't going to help anyone.

 

It seems that those who are saying that this is racist are denying that such disparities even exist in the first place or are extrapolating statistical group data and incorrectly applying it to individual student performance, which is not how this data is being used.

[LucyStoner]

 

The school system is probably resorting to changing the standard in the same way so that more minorities pass. The truth of the matter is that minorities are not excelling as well, and perhaps regardless of potential, they are doing the same thing that VA did with the police force.

 

I figure this will continue until the minorities represented stand up and demand they want equal treatment and don't want lower expectations.

 

Um, no. They are not changing the standards. They are setting a goal to increase the number of students who reach that standard. This is not a lower expectation based on race.

[LucyStoner]

:

 

The moral preening and self-indulgent outrage in the thread is pathetic.

 

Yep. It's also making me question if people are reading it for real. Frankly it seems some are taking race + gap, jumping to a conclusion about racism and making a goal of lowering the gap and raising achievement for ALL groups. into something it is not. It's not about idnovkdial students. It's not about helping some kids less or more based on race. It's not about affirmative action even (which I personally support in some forms.)

[LucyStoner]

One would have thought they'd have at least tried a more palatable spin, e.g. "halving the illiteracy rate" in each group.

 

I personally think to solve a problem, you need to be frank and about it. The schools are failing in the area of 2/3 of black students. I say don't dumb that horrifying fact down with prettier or nicer sounding language.

[Audrey]

I'm horrified. As a minority, I guess I wouldn't need to work as hard. What is this telling kids about themselves??? Did anyone--any one single reasonable person--pause to consider what kind of message they are sending to children?

 

No. Because it really has nothing to do with the children, and everything to do with $$.

[LucyStoner]

And yet, the poster who proposed this plan said nothing about different improvement standards for different races. In fact, she said something to the effect of "Can't we all just be people?" Why can't we just reward teachers for general improvement and leave race out of the equation?

 

Race is a factor. Because like it or not we live in a racist culture. If the improve et is disproportional- say way more kids pass but if you dig deeper you see that while 3 of 4 racial groups have made HUGE progress but 1 is declining or holding steady, you could have a success which is really a failure in terms of lowering the gap. You, yourself pointed out that there are vast root causes outside of the schools- poverty, disproportionate incarnation rates etc. Until that changes, we do have to work harder to help some children meet the standards and succeed. We are all just people but we have a system where some people get more and some people get less out of a massive public education system. Fixing that is a worthy goal and not feasible if we persist in believing the world is fair, equal and colorblind merely because it SHOULD be fair, equal and color bias free.

[I talk to the trees]

I haven't read all the responses - but this is (imho) how this will play out over the years...

 

Everyone will say that "race is just being used as measuring tool'.. until every group EXCEPT ONE meets their goals - let's say the Hispanic Group.

 

So -they the Hispanic Kids are going to be pulled out for special enrichment to help that group (b/c that's how the teacher/school/district) is being evaluated. Let's forget Suzy, the Asian girl, who ALSO is below grade level - the "Asian" group, on the agrregate, scored high enough - So Suzy won't get the help she needs because she's not in the "group that needs improvement" (ie she is the wrong race for the enrichment class).

 

It won't be the first year, or even the second - but when you use race as a measuring tool - you will also use it as a remediation tool.

 

And the children will be aware they are being measured based on the color of their skin - and that more is expected of some, and less of others. It's really a shame and quite sad.

 

This is pretty much what I was thinking when I read the article. Instead of looking at children as individuals and trying to meet the needs of those individuals, they're throwing them into racially based groups that may or may not reflect the needs of each child.

 

And am I the only one who had the following thought: Hey! Let's announce a new set of goals based on the *race* of our students! Everyone will be so busy being outraged at the mere mention of race that nobody will notice that literacy and math scores are plummeting for *everyone*!

[abacus2]

To all those saying it is wrong to look at student GROUP performance based on demographics, I have some questions for you.

 

Would you rather school ignore that current levels of performance show huge disparities between those groups?

 

If school should not even measuring performance levels of sub-groups based on demographics, how can those disparities even be identified?

 

Should schools continue on based on statistics for only the total number of students, ignoring that different student groups have different needs based on cultural, socioeconomic, linguistic experiences, disabilities, etc. based conditions?

 

If only the total number is used, even if you accept the fact that disparities exist, how can the schools measure if there is acceptable improvement in originally lower performing groups if those subgroups are not measured individually?

 

IMHO, not recognizing the disparities, not recognizing that we need to do a better job of addressing the needs of some cultural groups in a learning environment, not making an effort to mitigate effects on education that some demographic groups face in higher numbers... THAT would be racist (and elitist and less accessible - to include socioeconomic issues and disabilities).

 

Lower levels of academic performance in some subgroups is a FACT. The only way to know if our educational system is doing a better job of serving these subgroups than it has in the past is to measure it statistically. The goal is to have 100% of students at grade level proficiency, (but realistically that will never happen). It isn't saying that lower performance from subgroups is acceptable, but setting realistic interim goals for subgroups that have lower present levels of performance is just trying to get them up to par in an achievable manner. Unrealistic, impossible goals aren't going to help anyone.

 

It seems that those who are saying that this is racist are denying that such disparities even exist in the first place or are extrapolating statistical group data and incorrectly applying it to individual student performance, which is not how this data is being used.

 

From my perspective, tracking performance of subgroups to work toward improvements is reasonable and probably a good idea, although focusing on the individual is ideal. However, diving subgroups by skin color reinforces the idea that there is something solely about a person's race which impacts how they can or should achieve academically. Subgroups should have some relevance to the subject being studied. You could track progress dividing by situational factors that tend to affect access to quality education like being low income, or inner city, or parental education levels. You could track students based on past performance to see if they are making progress, staying along the same curve, or falling behind. You could track by school or community or district.

 

It's possible that we could see some pattern emerge if we tracked students by hair color too, but we don't do that because it there is no reason to divide students this way for study. The only reason students are divided by skin color is because we've divided by skin color in the past.

[kalanamak]

I personally think to solve a problem, you need to be frank and about it. The schools are failing in the area of 2/3 of black students. I say don't dumb that horrifying fact down with prettier or nicer sounding language.

 

Not sure how "halving the illiteracy rate" is dumbing down. It is perfectly honest. Saying you are expecting X rate in one race and Y rate in another is gauche, not "smarting up".

[Arcadia]

Because as a black child, his friends made fun of him for being smart. They wanted him to not "act smart" because the teachers didn't expect as much out of them, and he would ruin it for them. He started not doing his work and testing poorly, because of the ideas from his peers that they weren't worth it.

 

That happes in Oakland, California and some parts of San Jose, California too.

In the school district I live in, I get the feeling that this is happening too. The hispanics and african americans standardized test scores are stagnant and sometimes decreasing while the other races are increasing every year.

[regentrude]

To all those saying it is wrong to look at student GROUP performance based on demographics, I have some questions for you.

Would you rather school ignore that current levels of performance show huge disparities between those groups?

...

IMHO, not recognizing the disparities, not recognizing that we need to do a better job of addressing the needs of some cultural groups in a learning environment, not making an effort to mitigate effects on education that some demographic groups face in higher numbers... THAT would be racist (and elitist and less accessible - to include socioeconomic issues and disabilities).

 

Lower levels of academic performance in some subgroups is a FACT. T

It seems that those who are saying that this is racist are denying that such disparities even exist in the first place or are extrapolating statistical group data and incorrectly applying it to individual student performance, which is not how this data is being used.

 

 

No. the disparities do exist. But they will not be fixed if students belonging to a certain race are not held to the same expectations than their Asian peers.

Because in effect, it is saying that one does not expect them to perform as well and acknowledging that they are inherently less capable.

[Julie in CA]

Again, please explain how implementing a plan to significantly improve performance by minority groups and closing the achievement gap is racist.

Because dividing people according to the color of their skin (race) *is racist* by it's very definition and intention. :001_huh:

 

Lift those who are performing poorly for whatever reason, yes.

Designate some races as needing a higher or lower standard, no.

[justasque]

From my perspective, tracking performance of subgroups to work toward improvements is reasonable and probably a good idea, although focusing on the individual is ideal. However, diving subgroups by skin color reinforces the idea that there is something solely about a person's race which impacts how they can or should achieve academically. Subgroups should have some relevance to the subject being studied. You could track progress dividing by situational factors that tend to affect access to quality education like being low income, or inner city, or parental education levels. You could track students based on past performance to see if they are making progress, staying along the same curve, or falling behind. You could track by school or community or district.

 

It's possible that we could see some pattern emerge if we tracked students by hair color too, but we don't do that because it there is no reason to divide students this way for study. The only reason students are divided by skin color is because we've divided by skin color in the past.

 

All this would be true if race was really treated like hair color. And in some places - in many places - it is. Yet I have seen, over and over again, librarians make it very clear to black children and their parents that they were flat-out unwelcome at the children's room of a Florida public library. If you haven't seen this, or lived this, then it's hard to believe it happens. But, in some places, it does. And if you do not have equal access to your local public library, then there is something solely about your race which impacts how you can achieve academically.

 

I don't have any answers. It's complicated.

Edited October 16, 2012 by askPauline

[laundrycrisis]

This is the Florida B of E giving itself written permission to fail, and blame it on the race of the students.

[readinmom]

It's the first time I've seen it publicly in writing, but it has been the undertone of our testing focus. Subgroups.

 

Pick an area to focus on that will give you more bang for your buck. If we move a student who is a minority and categorized as special ed, we get "extra" points. :confused:

 

I'm so sick of public education. I need to find a new calling. Teaching, but teaching my own. Help!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Because dividing people according to the color of their skin (race) *is racist* by it's very definition and intention. :001_huh:

 

No, it isn't. I suggest you look up racism in the dictionary.

 

Lift those who are performing poorly for whatever reason, yes.

Designate some races as needing a higher or lower standard, no.

 

Individuals are not being held to different standards. A documented gap in achievement between groups is being addressed by the school system setting a goal of significantly reducing that gap over a period of time.

[fhjmom]

No. the disparities do exist. But they will not be fixed if students belonging to a certain race are not held to the same expectations than their Asian peers.

Because in effect, it is saying that one does not expect them to perform as well and acknowledging that they are inherently less capable.

 

Individual students are being held to the same expectations, regardless of race. No one is saying that any student is expected to perform worse or sayin they and inherently less capable. That is not it at all. The statistics are not about individual student performance or lowered expectations.

[butterflymommy]

I'm surprised you guys are so surprised by this! This has been part of NCLB since 2001. NCLB specifically says that "disadvantaged groups" must show a specific amount of improvement in order to receive Title I funding. Disadvantaged groups meaning blacks, hispanics, ESL, and disabled. When NCLB was first implemented there were crazy story in the news about children with severe mental retardation being expected to "show improvement." As in kids who couldn't even feed themselves or count to 3.

 

So this is nothing new-- breaking kids down by race and setting subgroup improvement goals has been going on for more than a decade. I'm actually surprised by how high FL is aiming. I doubt they're going to be able to life a group with ~30% reading proficiency to ~70 proficiency. The school system has tried for 2 generations now to shrink the achievement gap between socioeconomic and racial groups to little avail. Schools like harlem's children zone (mentioned previously in this thread) aren't really emblematic of potential change because those students are de facto cherry picked by having highly motivated parents enroll them in the lottery. HCZ also has a very strict discipline code that is enforced in a way that isn't really feasible for your typical "problem" school.

 

I'll come out and say that-- race aside-- it's just not realistic to expect a nation full of PhDs. FL would be better served implementing vocational education-- we are facing a national crisis of shortage of skilled labor. While it may not be as lofty to learn something like plumbing, a person can make a nice living off of it (in fact, probably more than a PhD)! But many vocational programs have been dismantled nationally because they are viewed as racist and classist.

[Julie in CA]

No, it isn't. I suggest you look up racism in the dictionary.

 

Or perhaps we could define "combative" and "abrasive"...:001_huh:

Hmm....never mind...;)

[abacus2]

All this would be true if race was really treated like hair color. And in some places - in many places - it is. Yet I have seen, over and over again, librarians make it very clear to black children and their parents that they were flat-out unwelcome at the children's room of a Florida public library. If you haven't seen this, or lived this, then it's hard to believe it happens. But, in some places, it does. And if you do not have equal access to your local public library, then there is something solely about your race which impacts how you can achieve academically.

 

I don't have any answers. It's complicated.

 

I absolutely know that racism still impacts many students in America. I grew up in rural TN. It is my observation that all racists view another group as less than. However, I see two common perspectives. "Bad" racists are condescendingly hostile toward another race. "Good" racists are condescendingly charitable toward another race. I believe these goals are an example of something that is a either a product of "good" racists or at the very least serve to confirm those racists' biases.

 

Publishing differentiated goals based on race is a very significant step beyond just tracking data by race, which I also believe has very limited educational value.

[justasque]

I absolutely know that racism still impacts many students in America. I grew up in rural TN. It is my observation that all racists view another group as less than. However, I see two common perspectives. "Bad" racists are condescendingly hostile toward another race. "Good" racists are condescendingly charitable toward another race. I believe these goals are an example of something that is a either a product of "good" racists or at the very least serve to confirm those racists' biases.

 

Publishing differentiated goals based on race is a very significant step beyond just tracking data by race, which I also believe has very limited educational value.

 

I think you've raised legitimate concerns. It's complicated. No simple, one-sentence-headline of a policy is going to fix problems that have long historical roots and that continue to this day.

 

But I do think it's important to understand that the Florida folks aren't coming up with this on their own; they are trying to deal with the NCLB requirements to preserve their federal funding.

 

As I understand it (and I am no expert!) NCLB requires schools to measure several groups - all students, plus 5 ethic groups (American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, Black, and White), plus Limited English Proficient, Special Education, Migrant Status, and Free/Reduced-Price Lunch (a rough stand-in for income level). The subgroups only count for a particular school (or is it district?) if it has a certain minimum number of students actually in that particular group.

 

NCLB sets ever-increasing goals of the percentage of students who score "proficient"or better on the state standardized tests, with the ultimate goal of getting to 100% proficiency by 2014. Schools who meet these goals are considered to have made "adequate yearly progress" (AYP). A school is judged both on the scores of all students combined, and also on the subgroup scores. If they meet the goal for the "all students" group, but one of the subgroups does not meet the goal, then they have not made AYP regardless of how well the "all students" group did.

 

Right now, I the stuff I read said that 90% of Florida schools do not meet AYP. There are serious federal funding consequences for this. So they are applying for a waiver from the NCLB requirements that basically says - "I know you wanted us to be at 100% by 2014, but we're just not on track to make it. We want to avoid the federal consequences kicking in, so we'd like to be allowed to be on a slightly slower path to get there. We want to get there, really we do, but it's going to take us a few years longer than NCLB initially required. Here is what we're shooting for in 2014. It's actually pretty ambitious, but it's not 100% by 2014. It will get us to 100% in year such-and-such." Under this slower path, according to my reading, 90% of Florida schools will meet AYP, thus avoiding all the federal consequences. They could have masked this by just saying "everyone at 100 by 2016 (or whatever the year is), but apparently for the waiver they needed to spell out interim goals - where they needed to shoot for in 2014 so that they would be on track to be at 100 by 2016 (or whatever year). And that's why they have race-based goals.

 

Picture a graph, with year on the horizontal (x) axis, and percent proficient on the vertical (y) axis. Put dots where the various sub-groups fall today. Now put dots at 100% on 2014. Draw a line connecting each subgroup - that's the curve for NCLB. Now do another graph, starting with today's dots and connecting them to 100% dots at 2016. The lines won't be as steep, but they'll still end in the same place, just two years later. That's what Florida is asking to do.

 

From an administrative perspective, I don't think it matters whether the sub-groups are race-based or based on what color the kid's lunch box is. Either way, if they don't ask for a waiver for the group of pink-lunch-box kids who are at 38% proficiency, they face NCLB consequences. So *of course* they are going to say, "Hey, how about if we get those pink-lunch-boxers up to 74% this year, and take another year or two to get them to 100%, OK"?

 

I have all kinds of issues with NCLB - Does it make sense to base all this on standardized testing? Do the tests really measure the kinds of things we want from education, or do they shortchange the less-easy-to-measure things which will bite us in the long run as schools are forced to teach to the test? Are we comparing this year's 4th graders to next year's 5th graders, or are we comparing this year's 4th to next year's 4th, which may for all kinds of reasons (wave of immigration, etc.) be a different group of kids? How are we handling kids who drop out? How many kids are "encouraged" to drop out, or be absent on test day, to improve the school's numbers? Is it even realistic to think that 100% of students can meet the "proficient" requirement? If the goal is set where 100% of students can meet it, are we aiming high enough? What is encouraging schools to also focus on the kids who are capable of much more than merely "proficient"? Are there other subgroups that would give more useful results? Is asking for enough info from parents so that we can put their kids into subgroups way too intrusive for government? etc. etc. etc.

 

Again, it's complicated. I have no easy answers.

[Laurie4b]

Sad. Also from FL here. We have a lady at our church who is black, and she made the choice to hs her son in high school. Why? Because as a black child, his friends made fun of him for being smart. They wanted him to not "act smart" because the teachers didn't expect as much out of them, and he would ruin it for them. He started not doing his work and testing poorly, because of the ideas from his peers that they weren't worth it. He almost ruined the chance for a football scholarship because of the racial stereotypes that are put on blacks in this state.

 

This exists all over the country; it is not a FL issue. It is a heartache to many African American parents, but it is especially hard to deal with because it seems to come from within, not from without the AA community. It also seems to apply primarily to the boys more than the girls.

[butterflymommy]

This exists all over the country; it is not a FL issue. It is a heartache to many African American parents, but it is especially hard to deal with because it seems to come from within, not from without the AA community. It also seems to apply primarily to the boys more than the girls.

 

My DDs attend a school that is predominantly AA. This sentiment does exist among the student body. DD10 (5th grade) actually had a girl tell her to stop doing so well academically so she would be more likable and popular.

 

At their last school (also mostly AA) kids would laugh and show off zeros on tests. :confused:

 

Where this sentiment comes from I don't know.

 

And I have noticed it's usually the girls who can overcome it-- usually by middle school the "smart girls" are competing with each other for the best grades.

[regentrude]

I'll come out and say that-- race aside-- it's just not realistic to expect a nation full of PhDs. FL would be better served implementing vocational education-- we are facing a national crisis of shortage of skilled labor. While it may not be as lofty to learn something like plumbing, a person can make a nice living off of it (in fact, probably more than a PhD)!

 

:confused: Nobody talks about PhDs - the goal was about reading proficiently at grade level and about being proficient at grade level math. That bar really does not hang all that high. And I would certainly hope and expect that my plumber and my electrician can read and do the math they need for their work.

[Laurie4b]

The confusion about whether we are talking about comparing "groups" or discussing "individuals" is a lot of the misunderstanding on this thread. All individual kids need the same score to pass; standards for what it takes to pass reading, etc. are not lowered for any individual or any group.

 

The goal is rather to close the gap that currently exists between kids of different ethnic groups, so certain ethnic groups will need a higher rate of improvement to meet the goal of raising all students' performance, while closing ethnic gaps.

 

(Analogy: if you and your friends decide to run around the track 16 times (passing grade) within 1 hour, and after 15 minutes, some of your friends have run around the track 3 1/2 times and some have gotten around 2 times, the ones who have gotten around 2 times have to improve their rate of speed much more significantly than the ones who've made 3 1/2 laps in 15 minutes IF they are ALL going to pass. That is what is meant by "closing the gap." )

 

Does this affect kids' sense of self to hear or read these things reported on the news? Yes, when they hear about their group doing poorly, many are embarrassed; if they hear that their group is doing well, many may be tempted to a sense of superiority.

 

Is ignoring it a better?

 

What FL is doing is is step one in solving a problem: collect the data. They have a goal to increase the passing rate for all students while decreasing the gap between students.

 

Step 2 is to analyze the data. WHY is the gap there?

 

Step 3: Decide on an intervention that addresses the reasons for a gap.

 

Step 4 Implement

 

Step 5 Evaluate.

 

 

As to the why part: What if culturally, ethnic groups tend to respond better different styles of teaching, etc? What if there are particular values in the culture that help or hinder education? While no overall group trend can explain every individual within a group, that doesn't mean there are not group trends. For instance, suppose that one ethnic group tends to culturally have a stronger tradition of oral back-and-forth, and another ethnic group tends to have a stronger tradition of keep your mouth closed and listen to your elders. How the school environment is structured (towards verbal back-and-forth or towards "hush and listen") may very well favor in general a certain group of kids in the educational process. If a particular group, such as black teenaged males, mentioned earlier, has a group value against appearing "smart" you would address that issue differently than you would if a group had a group value about helping their parents earn money being more important than doing well in school. If a particular culture is more oriented to the "collective" than to individual competition, you adjust to that as well. It's complex, but ignoring the problem is not the answer.

 

ETA: We have been analyzing & intervening in education by the "group" designation of gender for quite a while and interventions have been successful. Back in the 1970s a study was done showing that teaching techniques favored boys. Teaching techniques were changed: to favor girls. :/ It wasn't just what happened in the schools; the culture changed. Disney stopped making movies with sleeping princesses and started making movies with smart and beautiful heroines (and the "heroes" are quite likely to be not quite as smart or brave or moral as the heroine.) As a result, most universities have even a more skewed ratio today in favor of women than the ratio of the universities of the 70s which favored men. That's not just either.

 

Paying attention to what works for groups in no way undoes the fact that kids within each group are individuals who may respond differently than other members of their groups.

 

The answer might be that racial breakdowns are not as significant as socioeconomic break-downs of data. Again, good analysis of the data shows you what you need to do to help ALL kids reach their potential. The answer is to have a range of teaching environments and practices so that every child can learn, male or female, immigrant or native born, lots or little melanin.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Laurie4b

[Caroline]

The answer might be that racial breakdowns are not as significant as socioeconomic break-downs of data. Again, good analysis of the data shows you what you need to do to help ALL kids reach their potential. The answer is to have a range of teaching environments and practices so that every child can learn, male or female, immigrant or native born, lots or little melanin.

 

Part of the problem with the research is that the only way to track socio-economic status is free/reduced lunch. It is not a very fine scale. Kids either receive f/r lunch or they don't. Many researchers believe that if there were a more detailed poverty scale, that race would not be a factor any more. You would see that the further below the poverty line a kid lives, the more obstacles to learning he has. The Board of Regents in Louisiana has been trying to look at data this way. However, it is hard to get information.

[justasque]

Part of the problem with the research is that the only way to track socio-economic status is free/reduced lunch. It is not a very fine scale. Kids either receive f/r lunch or they don't.

 

Yep. At one point Philly found that it was cheaper to assume everyone qualified for a free lunch than it would be to hire folks to collect and process the data, follow up on non-responders, etc.