Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is that even supposed to mean? That's a very nonsensical statement. You can take a group of kids and find averages for all kinds of measures. Or are we not supposed to, because - you know- kids.
I haven't missed the trend of more and more telling the government "no".
They can say "No" all they want but the changes are happening anyway.
Sure CC assessments have been turned down by states.
But did you know that CC assessments weren't fully ready either ?
That's why there isn't the big backlash coming from them (CC committees)..they weren't ready.
I don't disagree. There are individuals of very race and ethnic background that achieve high academic success. But that wasn't the point that I made. It's a difference in averages. Blacks and Hispanics have lower average performance on all standardized tests. This doesn't mean that all Blacks and Hispanics perform poorly. There is always individual variation.
I understand what you are saying but I do not think kids are averages. I can understand getting pissed at getting lumped into something you don't belong lumped in with.
Quote:
But when looking at academic achievement between racial groups, race is a better indicator of success than SES. You have to understand that this is only in reference to groups scores.
What is that even supposed to mean? That's a very nonsensical statement. You can take a group of kids and find averages for all kinds of measures. Or are we not supposed to, because - you know- kids.
I made what I believe a perfect example of why "averages" do nothing to address a problem. Nobody disputed it.
You have a system of 3 million with a graduation rate of 35%. You have 30 systems of 100,000 each with a graduation rate of 90%.
Your average isn't very good but it hardly addresses the problem.
They can say "No" all they want but the changes are happening anyway.
Sure CC assessments have been turned down by states.
But did you know that CC assessments weren't fully ready either ?
That's why there isn't the big backlash coming from them (CC committees)..they weren't ready.
Something that many are not likely aware of but the government came out with regulations that stated cities of a certain size had to address run off. That is in another word, rain. It had to be collected and ran through the system before being released back into rivers or streams.
Many cities said "no" we can not afford to do this and there is no reason to. What was done to them? Nothing.
I made what I believe a perfect example of why "averages" do nothing to address a problem. Nobody disputed it.
You have a system of 3 million with a graduation rate of 35%. You have 30 systems of 100,000 each with a graduation rate of 90%.
Your average isn't very good but it hardly addresses the problem.
I'm not following your perfect example. Graduation rates are not averages. It's just a simple percentage. I think you might have some confusion about what an average is.
Something that many are not likely aware of but the government came out with regulations that stated cities of a certain size had to address run off. That is in another word, rain. It had to be collected and ran through the system before being released back into rivers or streams.
Many cities said "no" we can not afford to do this and there is no reason to. What was done to them? Nothing.
Say No to education requirements and the Fed will hold back their money.
No school wants to lose their Federal money.
What evidence do you have that if the money wasn't spent, that the achievement gap would widen precipitously?
The achievement gap existed before closing the achievement gap ever was a goal.
That's not evidence that if the money wasn't spent, that the achievement gap would widen precipitously. I could go years without seeing a doctor without any problems, but that doesn't mean I should expect to remain perfectly healthy for the next thirty years without seeing a doctor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
The fact that it has remained in place, despite all the money spent and the collective efforts of millions of people is a good indication that it's not going to close.
No, sorry - that's a fallacy. Things change. Without evidence, you have not shown that the surrounding environment hasn't gotten so much worse that the situation we have now doesn't reflect a significant improvement over what would have been otherwise. You just haven't proven your case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
We haven't forestalled regression.
Again, you're going to have to prove that, if you want your comments to be considered legitimate, and do so without assuming that regression is black-and-white, instead of the reality, that there could be different levels of regression in different circumstances, and less regression is better than more regression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
And who has talked about throwing children over cliffs?
If you didn't mean to then you should have been a lot more explicit about your intentions. You cannot leave a gap in explaining what would happen to those less fortunate without folks reasonably assuming that you really don't care. Not saying something isn't good enough. When you're complaining about money spent, you have to fill in the gap left by the insinuations you make, or abide the reasonable assumption that you'll take the approach where the least money is spent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
Have you proved me wrong in the point?
My objective is to discredit your claims - to prove your comments are not demonstrably correct, not to prove you "wrong" - something that would only come up if you try to reject moral prioritization, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
Are you even trying to engage that issue or do you just want to invent hysterical strawmen to argue against?
I'm holding your comments to account, to discredit them on the basis of their implicit failings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
Do you understand metaphors and analogies?
Do you understand the difference between economics and morality?
That's not evidence that if the money wasn't spent, that the achievement gap would widen precipitously. I could go years without seeing a doctor without any problems, but that doesn't mean I should expect to remain perfectly healthy for the next thirty years without seeing a doctor.
No, sorry - that's a fallacy. Things change. Without evidence, you have not shown that the surrounding environment hasn't gotten so much worse that the situation we have now doesn't reflect a significant improvement over what would have been otherwise. You just haven't proven your case.
Again, you're going to have to prove that, if you want your comments to be considered legitimate, and do so without assuming that regression is black-and-white, instead of the reality, that there could be different levels of regression in different circumstances, and less regression is better than more regression.
If you didn't mean to then you should have been a lot more explicit about your intentions. You cannot leave a gap in explaining what would happen to those less fortunate without folks reasonably assuming that you really don't care. Not saying something isn't good enough. When you're complaining about money spent, you have to fill in the gap left by the insinuations you make, or abide the reasonable assumption that you'll take the approach where the least money is spent.
My objective is to discredit your claims - to prove your comments are not demonstrably correct, not to prove you "wrong" - something that would only come up if you try to reject moral prioritization, for example.
I'm holding your comments to account, to discredit them on the basis of their implicit failings.
Do you understand the difference between economics and morality?
You keep insisting that I offer evidence, but you offer no proof whatsoever for your statements. You only give vague speculations about what might be. By your own stated standards, you should not expect me to consider your comments to be legitimate.
You seem to be well aware that the achievement gap exists and has existed since the first standardized test was given, so I feel no need to post charts. Why don't you offer some evidence that it would widen if we didn't explicitly try to close it? You know there is no evidence for that.
Your point seems to be contrary without ever addressing my initial assertion. Here's a direct question for you to answer:
Is there any school district in the entire United States where the achievement gap does not exist?
Do you understand the difference between economics and morality?
Being moral doesn't mean ignoring the facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
