The New Letter Grade Accountability System... (Dallas, Allen: crimes, employment, elementary school)

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by karenw729

Are you saying that blacks scoring lower is due to genetics and Affirmative Action is "an inconvenient truth"? If you are then count yourself among those who read the Daily Stormer.

Culture. Not genetics.

[Katana49]

Originally Posted by karenw729

Are you saying that blacks scoring lower is due to genetics and Affirmative Action is "an inconvenient truth"? If you are then count yourself among those who read the Daily Stormer.

I don't even know what the Daily Stormer is.

What I'm saying I clearly spelled out in my previous post. Affirmative action DOES elevate minorities who are otherwise unqualified by their own academic merit or job skill set.

In other words, not all white people can be an Einstein. Not all black people can be Neil deGrasse Tyson. But when whites outnumber blacks 10 to 1, so do the number of qualified people from whites vs blacks. By artificially boosting the number of minorities, the intention of affirmative action was to give minorities a chance to succeed in a world where racism was preventing QUALIFIED minorities from being accepted. Unfortunately, the end result today is that if you're a qualified minority, then you're having no problem being accepted into any school or job you want. The problem lies in the other UNQUALIFIED minorities who are getting in solely because of their race, not because they possess the skills or knowledge to qualify on their own merit.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by OkieSoonerGuy

The real inconvenient truth is that AA has helped white women more than anybody else.

Got any evidence for that? White women have been a proportionately represented cadre in medicine for decades. Medicine being the most pristine example of meritocracy remaining.

I'm going to guess you are used to snowing your way through similar arguments. Not happening here.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Katana49

I don't even know what the Daily Stormer is.

What I'm saying I clearly spelled out in my previous post. Affirmative action DOES elevate minorities who are otherwise unqualified by their own academic merit or job skill set.

In other words, not all white people can be an Einstein. Not all black people can be Neil deGrasse Tyson. But when whites outnumber blacks 10 to 1, so do the number of qualified people from whites vs blacks. By artificially boosting the number of minorities, the intention of affirmative action was to give minorities a chance to succeed in a world where racism was preventing QUALIFIED minorities from being accepted. Unfortunately, the end result today is that if you're a qualified minority, then you're having no problem being accepted into any school or job you want. The problem lies in the other UNQUALIFIED minorities who are getting in solely because of their race, not because they possess the skills or knowledge to qualify on their own merit.

Der Sturmer..... a NSDAP/NAZI propoganda mag. from far darker days. If memory serves Julius Streicher was the publisher. Everyone with a functioning brain stem should despise those days and all of those people.

[OkieSoonerGuy]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Got any evidence for that? White women have been a proportionately represented cadre in medicine for decades. Medicine being the most pristine example of meritocracy remaining.

I'm going to guess you are used to snowing your way through similar arguments. Not happening here.

Snowballing like you've been doing regarding your comment about "utterly destroys the notion that any of these tests are significantly racially biased" when it was obviously clear you didn't know what you were talking about since you never responded to my comment regarding measurement invariance and differential item functioning in regards to racial biases and standardized assessments. Anyways, here are a few arguments for your review. Let me know if you need to me to help break them down for you.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/1168295...rmative-action

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | The Huffington Post

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by OkieSoonerGuy

Snowballing like you've been doing regarding your comment about "utterly destroys the notion that any of these tests are significantly racially biased" when it was obviously clear you didn't know what you were talking about since you never responded to my comment regarding measurement invariance and differential item functioning in regards to racial biases and standardized assessments. Anyways, here are a few arguments for your review. Let me know if you need to me to help break them down for you.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/1168295...rmative-action

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | The Huffington Post

White Women and Affirmative Action: Prime Beneficiaries and Opponents -

Let's take this to DM. Huffington Post as a relevant source - for Pete's sake

[shane_pcs]

What about the idea that this new letter grade system is just a vehicle to facilitate a school voucher system? I believe the logic goes that support for school choice is low among people in areas with all high performing schools, but if you assign them a C (because the system is on a curve) then all the sudden the parents will not be happy with the same school they loved last year. Too much tin foil?

[TheOverdog]

From the Austin American Statesman description of the categories:

• How students perform on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness.

• How students improve on the STAAR year over year.

• How well students are prepared for careers and college after high school. The state is scoring elementary school students on this category based on how many of their students are chronically absent. Middle schools will also be scored on their drop out rates.

• How campuses and school districts close performance gaps between low-income and higher-income students

I don't know much about these rankings, but I don't like that that the measurements don't align with the titles, ie: they haven't proved that elementary absenteeism/drop out rates is correlated with preparation for a career after high school, and how that correlation is not better reflected in STARR testing results. If it is not, then why even have the STARR test if there is no correlation to 'life after highschool' preparedness?

Whatever. Just call it 'attendance' and not 'prepared for life after high school' or some such nonsense.

Also, there are multiple ways to 'close performance gaps between low-income and higher-income students' and the easiest seem to me to be more discrimination, so schools should first be measured that this gap exists at all, and then on whether or not they are trying to solve it. I'm not sure a single letter grade is enough to encompass all the possibilities between a school in Highland Park vs some school down in the Rio Grande Valley.

I could use those ratings as a parent even if the school district didn't like them.

[jdallas]

but the real question is how will this affect the GreatSchools rating coveted by minivans and suv's everywhere?!


seriously, take responsibility for educating your children, stay involved in their school through volunteering, PTA, activities and conferences and they will be fine. Take family vacations out of the state or country if you can. Let the politicians spend hundreds of thousands of dollars creating more pointless systems that do little more than give them something to point to come election time and get on with life.

[mSooner]

It's definitely too complicated and trying to cover too many in too simplistic of a manner to be understand appropriately by the target audience.