Should public schools academic goals for students be based on race?

[JollyRoger]

Because the short-term target is to nearly double the number of black students who achieve grade level, while the target for whites is a mere 28% increase.

Why are they holding whites to a lower level of improvement? Jim Crow laws are back.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Because the short-term target is to nearly double the number of black students who achieve grade level, while the target for whites is a mere 28% increase. In order to do this, they have to do this:

"They should be spending more resources to target failing kids to make more of them proficient"

I mean, they are literally doing what you said earlier that you want them to do... They are spending more resources to ensure that twice as many black students are proficient at reading and maths.

By lowering the percentage of students that have to be proficient that counts as success?

Well, considering you claimed earlier that "they shouldn't be lowering the proficiency bar to let more of them pass", despite the article stating nothing of the sort.... you're quite welcome.

And I was mistaken by a misleading OP and first paragraph as others have noted. I have been trying to learn about the situation and was interested in serious discourse on the subject. Your last post was just rude and that was the point where I lost interest in talking to you.

 

[downtown]

How do individual student targets get set stateside?

Depends completely on the school, if not the specific teacher and student.

 

[Mise]

By lowering the percentage of students that have to be proficient that counts as success?

They aren't lowering it. They're trying to RAISE the number of black students who achieve proficiency at reading and maths by 95%. If the targets are met, then nearly double the number of black students will be proficient at reading and maths. It's lower than the target for whites, yes, but it's double what it currently is. In what way is this lowering standards?

And I was mistaken by a misleading OP and first paragraph as others have noted. I have been trying to learn about the situation and was interested in serious discourse on the subject. Your last post was just rude and that was the point where I lost interest in talking to you.

Well, if you want to learn about the situation, you could try reading the thread. Or at least the article. Or at least the 2nd paragraph of the article. Or at least not throw a hissy fit when someone calls you out on not doing any of those things.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

How do individual student targets get set stateside?

At the state level by state legislatures. Local school districts have some say in curriculum and such, but targets of this kind are set by state governments.

They aren't saying that. This isn't a final goal, but a baby step.

Look, even the best public school doesn't legitimately set a goal for 100% graduation rate or passage of tests. If you have more than 100 students, that's pretty much impossible to get on a regular basis without luck. You teach every kid like you think they're going to pass, you work with everybody, and you try to get as close to 100 as you can.

If you are a poor district (and this is), setting 95% or 100% is stupid, at least at first. You can't go from 60 to 100 in one year. If all demographic groups are able to make significant gains, then the district has been successful, and if they continue those growth patterns over years, they will be serving all the kids. If they can hit this goal, they can replicate those practices into closing the racial achievement gap more the following years.

Dude, I totally get that in poor districts, you are not going to get high graduation and passage rates. I went to a drop out factory, hell I was one myself.

I'm just not seeing the connection between lowering the number of students that have to be proficient for the district to claim success and actually raising student proficiency. I worked as Community College Board member and honestly this smells like a scheme to get state or federal money by claiming more students are proficient and therefore the school district is successfull and deserving of more funding. This kind of thing was encouraged by No Child Left Behind.

Well, if you want to learn about the situation, you could try reading the thread. Or at least the article. Or at least the 2nd paragraph of the article. Or at least not throw a hissy fit when someone calls you out on not doing any of those things.

Ohh. Hissy Fits! I like.

 

[Mise]

I'm just not seeing the connection between lowering the number of students that have to be proficient for the district to claim success and actually raising student proficiency.

Again, they are not lowering it, they are raising it from 38% to 74%.

Ohh. Hissy Fits! I like.

Yes, you seem to.

 

[downtown]

I'm just not seeing the connection between lowering the number of students that have to be proficient for the district to claim success and actually raising student proficiency. I worked as Community College Board member and honestly this smells like a scheme to get state or federal money by claiming more students are proficient and therefore the school district is successfull and deserving of more funding. This kind of thing was encouraged by No Child Left Behind.:

There is some incentive to make this change to comply with Federal Legislation (as it said in the article), but that is because NCLB requires students with achievement gaps to demonstrate minority gains. They aren't lowering the expectations, if anything, like Mise said, they're going up. They just aren't expecting, as a school, to pull even with white kids in one year when they aren't anywhere close to level now.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

You're right; I'm stupid and you're a genius.

Thanks for helping me out with that.

You're welcome.

You have demonstrated a history in this thread of writing the opposite of what you mean. I was taking the affirmative action of giving you a chance to clarify your meaning if you once again screwed it up. Rest assured, I would not hold people that are not white males to this low of a standard.

Neither would I, just saying this is all politics. Lets go back to my earlier example. I believe it was you who said that woman got the job because she was the younger one? Sure she did because of age..... but also because she is a black woman. You can't say it is only because of age. The other fellow has much more experience and nailed the interview while she stumbled over it. My father is 63 years old and he was 60 when he got his current job and he outbeat this white woman who got 3 kids to 2 different guys who is in her 30's. If it was age then why did my father get his current job when he is almost 2x the age of this woman? Because he has more epxeirence and degrees from good places, not from that degree mill Phoenix University. So you can't use the whole age thing.

 

[Disgustipated]

I apologize about the OP, the article didn't state what the original goals were.

Nevertheless, it just looks bad having them different based on race. Why are test scores based on race anyways? Why are students required to check race when taking a test? This makes no sense to me.

The goal should be 100% for everyone. People shouldn't be separated into different races (and with mixed races, it's pretty silly anyways).

It should be illegal to ask for a race when taking a test. And it should also be illegal to ask for a race with regards to college admissions.

 

[JollyRoger]

Neither would I, just saying this is all politics. Lets go back to my earlier example. I believe it was you who said that woman got the job because she was the younger one? Sure she did because of age..... but also because she is a black woman. You can't say it is only because of age. The other fellow has much more experience and nailed the interview while she stumbled over it. My father is 63 years old and he was 60 when he got his current job and he outbeat this white woman who got 3 kids to 2 different guys who is in her 30's. If it was age then why did my father get his current job when he is almost 2x the age of this woman? Because he has more epxeirence and degrees from good places, not from that degree mill Phoenix University. So you can't use the whole age thing.

And you cannot necesarily assume the race thing (though it is interesting that you and your klan automatically suspect that). Neither of us know the entire reasoning.

 

[King Kalmah]

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/10/12/florida-passes-plan-for-racially-based-academic-goals/

I hear France is eliminating home work.

Thank god...waste of teachers time and students....

Also the primary reasons the children are failing is the teacher...lets not ignore the problem and say "oh its the kids fault since they are (insert ethnicity here)"

I am seriously sick and tired of the schools avoiding the blame and then getting a scape goat everytime...

During the Civil Rights it wasn't the teachers fault,but the people who wanted to learn.That was the problem.Certain people wanted to learn and the system couldn't handle it...

When I was a kid and low test scores were starting to become a major problem...what happened?

9/11

So back then the focus was not on teaching,but protecting the kids.They spent money on cameras and new chain links fences/Iron rod bar gates.No new programs or books...Just security...(of course we are now 49th when ranked against the other 50 states when it comes to Education,almost dead last,but no schools were attacked by Taliban..right?)

So flash forward about a decade and now the rage is all about the teachers and their wages.They say that if they don't make the right amount of money then they will not teach.Its mostly an issue in California since the rent/housing prices are murder,but it should not effect the classroom.I keep seeing these "strikes" and other protests.I just think its funny we keep handing them more money and our kids keep getting dumber...

So now the new kids will suffer just like I did because the teachers and their masters want more money and will continue playing the "avoid the blame game".

They found another scapegoat...this time its the recession.Another fine excuse to avoid responsibility.....

Now its getting scary since they know the recession cannot last forever so they are coming up with their next "game plan" which is sickening and it is not so hard to believe since it did happen before in the 30s/40s...We needed the Civil Rights movement or else no one would have gotten a fair education... I just think its going to far now with the "He/she is (insert nationality here) so of course they fail"...It will undo everything we have fought so hard for in the last 50 years...

EDIT just read the article and I assumed the OP's point was set in stone...Left above post cuz it proves an interesting point...


but it still is weird...why do you need to submit your race?

I always just checked the box without thinking about it,but maybe their is something unfair here...

so since I am Caucasian I get that held against me...what about my OCD and other disorders...do I get a handicap if I mention those???

 

[Bamspeedy]

Why are students required to check race when taking a test

but it still is weird...why do you need to submit your race?

So they can do these studies that show results based by race.

Talking about France again, did you know they banned studies by race, so I guess that would solve the problem. France doesn't have any racism problems now like they did before the ban.....

 

[Disgustipated]

The French way is the way to go. Never thought I'd say that. Which also maybe relates to the topic in the Chamber about the French eliminating homework. That may not be a bad idea after all, especially with increased school hours.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

And you cannot necesarily assume the race thing (though it is interesting that you and your klan automatically suspect that). Neither of us know the entire reasoning.

Yes, it was. Was it the sole reason? Nope. Was it a reason? Yes. She is young, therefore, cheaper for salary/healthcare purposes. She is a woman, good for PR since she is directly in line for the President position and how many black women do you see as Presidents of both 4 year colleges and community colleges? Not to many. And she is black, good for PR since the school doesn't have a lot of black students.

Besides, the college President probably hand his hand force anyhow.

 

[Truronian]

Yes, it was. Was it the sole reason? Nope. Was it a reason? Yes. She is young, therefore, cheaper for salary/healthcare purposes. She is a woman, good for PR since she is directly in line for the President position and how many black women do you see as Presidents of both 4 year colleges and community colleges? Not to many. And she is black, good for PR since the school doesn't have a lot of black students.

Besides, the college President probably hand his hand force anyhow.

This isn't how job recruitment works. She will have got the job because she had the better reference, had the better interview, would command the lower salary or had the better connections. Suggesting she would have got the job because she is a black women is naive... the entire reason race based recruitment quotas exist is because this mythical selection bias you described doesn't happen: indeed the exact opposite is common.

It is likely whoever you heard this story from has a somewhat biased and incomplete perspective on this incident; I assume you heard it from an acquaintance of the rejected candidate, or said candidate himself?