71 Responses

  1. Roger and Me says:

    “Aren’t race-based preferences and double standards, aka affirmative action, for college admissions, just as “racist” as race-based double standards for academic outcomes for math and reading proficiencies for elementary and high school students?”

    Yes, yes and yes.

    But you know, these people are logical and rational. It doesn’t mean that supporting AA for their kids is fair to others, but it’s an advantage to their kids.

    As for the different standards. Well, the last attempt, NCLB(No Child Left Behind), tried to do away with the achievement gap through soaring rhetoric.

    It didn’t work out so well. NCLB has been an abysmal failure. Head Start has been able to shrink the differences at the early stages in school but failed dismally when you got to 8th and 12th grade.

    What the folks in Florida and elsewhere are doing is basically realizing that kids these days, for a wide variety of reasons, start out at different places.

    People who talk about poverty and opportunity should think about this:
    The average black schoolchild in America gets more than the white schoolchild in funding from their public schools(about 50% more, in some cases as much as 100% more).

    In DC, the average spending per pupil is a whopping $38,000 dollars per child. That’s a higher fee than many of the most élite public prep schools. Yet look at the achievement of those kids: it’s dismal. Not quite Detroit-levels of achievement, but it’s moving that way.

    Second, I remember reading a few stats from the SAT. It was a graph highlightning both race and class. I was pretty stunned that the bottom 20% of whites in terms of income had slightly better scores on average than the top 20% of blacks(in income).

    So black children from families where the head of the household was an engineer, doctor, lawyer etc had lower scores than white children from households that were usually broken, the parents were unemployed, probably divorced and they went to bad schools.

    So what this all means is that poverty isn’t an excuse. Spending per pupil is higher on majority-black schools than on schools with mostly white or Asian pupuls.

    When even upper-middle class black households have their children score lower than the poorest 20% of whites, you know that there is a culture that is deeply wrong. It crosses all socio-economic boundaries.

    Bill Crosby spoke about this, the out-of-wedlock rate, how black men need to stay in the families and not just go for the next woman, as long as she breathes and has legs. The need to cultivate a culture of learning, not lashing out against those who care and call them ‘oreos’ for ‘acting white’.

    What happened to him? He was called a ‘house negro’ and an ‘uncle Tom’.

    Contrary to popular perception, black children get a lot of support, more than white children(substantially more) but when even black children from the highest-earning income households score lower than white, poor children from the poorest white households, then you know something is wrong. You have to talk about the culture.

    But that isn’t a popular thing to do. It’s much more popular to call the government racist and ask for more cash. Their excuses in the age of Obama isn’t as plenty, but if Romney wins, know that the NAACP and the others will start to attack the president(because he is white and therefore cannot be trusted).

    AP has a good piece on this phenomenom here, by the way:
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_BLACK_FAVORITISM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-13-14-08-26

  2. Peter says:

    I am shocked Dr. Walter E. Williams was not consulted on this double standard…

  3. Jon Murphy says:

    Call me cynical, but I somehow think that Mr. Lopez, Ms. Robinson, and the black and Hispanic parents calling Florida’s new academic double-standards “racist” would probably all support race-based preferences/profiling in college admissions?

    Cynical! :-P

    The people I’ve talked to who benefit from affirmative action actually find it highly insulting. They see it as the government saying “you are born with a handicap because of your race and you’ll never be as successful as us white people.” Now, granted, this is a small sample size, so take this for what it’s worth.

    • Methinks says:

      I challenge the statement that any of us who are targeted by affirmative action actually benefit from it. I have always found it an enormous hindrance. When hiring and placement decisions are made purely to satisfy affirmative action requirements, the entity most damaged is the employee hired to meet those requirements.

      • Walt Greenway says:

        The individual is not supposed to benefit or not benefit from AA — the group is, If you were building a team of 10 people and a test you devised had the top 10 tested as white guys, would you try to find a way to get a female, black . . . viewpoint on that team if it meant probable success or failure of your team? I would expect those people with the highest test scores to not get on the team to be automatically pissed off because they are thinking about themselves instead of the team. I’ve done teamwork training, and the most difficult part is getting people to check their individuality at the door.

        Also, people will self-identify with groups if left to themselves and you will see all the white women at one table, all the white men at one table, all of the blacks at one table . . . To change that up, we have everyone put their names on the table in front of them, and we move all the name tags around at the first break. At first everyone is upset because they are out of their comfort zone, but later it seems to work out very well.

        Some people see value in diversity, some don’t and label it racist, but all indications are that the U.S. is becoming much more diverse. The companies and employees who can deal with this will thrive while those who don’t will not.

        • Methinks says:

          That’s a mighty elaborate way to chase your own tail, Walt.

          If no individual benefits, then the collective doesn’t either.

          Meanwhile, your whole idea is repulsive and ridiculous. The “team” doesn’t pay my mortgage or buy my groceries. Don’t you understand the difference between a team of people who are in the team voluntarily and working at a company with a single goal from and a bunch of people whose only similarity is they have the same skin colour?

          Dear Lord. The disorganized minds of collectivists.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            I’m arguing using a test score or skin color either way at 100% is not always the best decision-making process. Of course, not everyone can be on the team, and whomever is left off will be upset.

            Would you buy a car using price alone as a 100% decision-making factor? Why or why not?

          • Methinks says:

            Nobody is on any team. You learned some team building crapola from a management guru at some point in your life and you haven’t been able to find an appropriate use for it since. This isn’t it.

          • Ron H. says:

            Methinks: “Nobody is on any team. You learned some team building crapola from a management guru at some point in your life and you haven’t been able to find an appropriate use for it since. This isn’t it.

            Oh thank you. That’s a gem. I’m keeping it. hope you won’t mind if I use it sometime when I need it.

            Still waiting for the book.

        • morganovich says:

          walt-

          then what you are arguing is that the test is bad, not that the scores need to be adjusted.

          when i hire teams, i look for the best folks. i could care less what sex or race they are. i want to get a job done and will pick the team that can best do it. sure, you need different sorts of people etc, but why would i take someone who is a worse fit just because they are iroquoi?

          your logic here is all self defeating and counter to the ideals that made the us succeed. the brilliance of the us constitution is that it places the inalienable rights of the individual above the society and thus broke the tyranny of the majority inherent in democracy. granted, we have lost a lot of ground defending this ideal (to our own detriment) but that is no reason to make it worse.

          the sort of collectivist notions you espouse are precisely how a society fails, not thrives.

          the rest of your analogy totally fails.

          when you by a car, you look at price, performance, and a variety of factors. hiring and educational admissions should work the same way.

          what you do NOT do when you buy a car is say “well, it’s a bit worse and more expensive than the one i like, but it was built by Azerbaijanis, so i’ll take it anyhow”.

          the whole standard you are trying to set up there is wrong.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            “when you by a car, you look at price, performance, and a variety of factors. hiring and educational admissions should work the same way.”

            I agree with that! I am not saying the test is bad, but it is only one factor. You might want that iroquoi on your team if you are selling a product to a bunch of iroquoi even if he does not score the best on some test.

          • morganovich says:

            walt-

            that is not an answer, it it is admission that you are wrong. if being iroquoi makes you better able to sell to the target market, then that should be in the test when you are looking at which features matter.

            thus, yes, it is the test that is wrong, not the modification of outcomes.

            if i am looking for a sales guy or a marketing factor, then i will take that account. being an indian might matter, or it might not. that’s about determining what i need, not about slanting results.

            business comes down to price/performance.

            affirmative action is, by definition, about trying to force choices that lie off the optimal curve. if race helped in performance, that should already be in the calculation. what you are championing seems like double counting.

          • John Dewey says:

            Walt: “You might want that iroquoi on your team if you are selling a product to a bunch of iroquoi even if he does not score the best on some test.”

            Very true. But the leftists and the government wouldn’t allow that, would they? Even if you are damned positive that your customers are 100% white guys and want to deal only with a white male salesperson, as an employer you are prohibitied from using race or ethnicity or gender in selecting your sales force. (Nothing racist about that comment. One could substitute “black” or “female” or “Iroqois” for “white” and the statement would still be true.)

          • Methinks says:

            I don’t know about that, John Dewey. I’ve heard modern day liberals eagerly embrace the idea of less qualified black doctors serving the “black community” simply because they’re black and blacks are expected to respond better to other blacks. That’s totally fine and not at all racist, in their view.

            If you’re a white man and express a preference for a white male doctor, then you are both racist and sexist. It seems an employer can express a preference for politically expedient groups, but not for any group not on the PC checklist.

          • John Dewey says:

            Methinks, you are correct. I was confusing the way the laws are written with the ways the laws are implemented.

          • Ron H. says:

            Walt: “I agree with that! I am not saying the test is bad, but it is only one factor. You might want that iroquoi on your team if you are selling a product to a bunch of iroquoi even if he does not score the best on some test.

            In Walt’s world, given enough Affirmative action, anyone can become Iroquois.

      • Methinks says:

        At this point I don’t think even you understand what you’re talking about.

    • Amused says:

      “Now, granted, this is a small sample size, so take this for what it’s worth.”

      People tend to think small-size anecdotes is the same thing as statistics. Poll data is the exact opposite. Most AA recipients strongly support it by 70% or more when you ask broad swathes of hispanics and blacks.

      As Christopher Caldwell said a few years ago:

      “One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.”

      • Methinks says:

        That’s because they like the idea of having an advantage and don’t realize what a disadvantage it really is. Politicians rely on our swallowing headlines without bothering to read the fine print, let alone actually think beyond step one (to borrow from Thomas Sowell yet again). We cheer on our own enslavement.

        • Amused says:

          “That’s because they like the idea of having an advantage and don’t realize what a disadvantage it really is.”

          This comment is probably the essence of the modern conservative mind and what’s fundamentally broken with it.

          That sentence shows perfectly why conservatives have been losing the culture war for decades. It’s because conservatives have since long ago adopted liberal thinking and tried to dress it up as conservative thinking.

          One such prime example is the “they’re too stupid to understand what’s best for them”. A typical liberal thought. A real conservative would realize that you take things for what they are, not how you wish them to be.
          And a real conservative does not underestimate people’s intellects.

          People aren’t stupid. There is a reason why the polls look like they do. You’re not a beneficiary of AA, so how can you know? So you read Sowell and think that everything he says must be true? You may agree with him on the principles on why AA is wrong(and I do too), but there’s a difference between the principles and reality of how people actually feel.

          And, I hate to break it to you, but they feel pretty good about it. And second, they’re at no disadvantage.

          And third; no they’re not stupid not to see the supposed disadvantage that you do. They don’t see it because there is none. Check the polls on self-esteem on college students. Blacks and hispanics have higher self-esteem than whites have, and even higher than Asians.

          And, I hate to break it to you, but they’re rational for doing that. After College, AA continues. And they’re being told on every step of the way that they’re huge victims of white supremacy and that this is racial justice.

          Or as Eric Holder recently put it: “The question is not when AA ends but when it should really begin, when people of color actually get what they’re entitled to”.

          I re-iterate: no, they’re happy with it for the overwhelming part. Anecdotes from your personal life isn’t the same thing as statistics.
          And Sowell, who’s been attacked as a ‘house negro’ for years and an ‘uncle Tom’ isn’t exactly very popular in the black community.
          And, by the way, the vast majority of his readers are white conservatives, not blacks.
          That you invoke him as a testament to truth is just further evidence of how removed you are from reality, with so many other white conservatives.

          AA won’t go away until you have a serious debate about it. And it won’t go away until it’s opponents try to make the effective case on it.

          And that effective case is not trying to convince minorities that, actually, actually, AA is “bad” for you(even though it isn’t and polls shows overwhelming support) and instead take it by its horns.

          Trying to convince minority beneficiaries that AA is bad for them makes no sense for them. Everything in their life proves the opposite. And don’t fall into the liberal trap so many “modern conservatives” do: thinking that you know what’s better for them than they do.

          You don’t.

          They’re perfectly rational and they support a racist policy that aids them. Of course, that would leave you trying to advocate for the true victims of AA; whites and Asians.

          Which, you’ve been mentally trained all your life not to do. So you’re stuck trying to tell minorities that they’re too stupid to understand their own interests, which they’re not, and then conservatives wonder why opposition to AA is so weak.

          Maybe the liberals have a point about the stupidity of the conservative mind. At the least the ‘modern’ variant.

          • give me freedom says:

            “And, I hate to break it to you, but they feel pretty good about it. And second, they’re at no disadvantage.”

            Actually, I would think that the targets of AA would have differing opinions of it. Some would like it and others would not. To say that they all feel one way or another make no sense.

            Take for example the Black or Hispanic who would have qualified for a position regardless of his race. AA did not help him but he would still have to deal with the stigma that somehow he did not earn that position on his own merit. He would likely have a different view of AA than some others who did get their position because of AA, know they did, and are happy they got it because of AA. Either way, some will be happy with AA, some will not be.

            AA is redistribution in opportunity. Using AA, in order for some targeted “disadvantage” person to be given an opportunity that they do not merit, it has to be taken away from someone else who does merit that opportunity. That is simply unfair.

        • Methinks says:

          You know what’s amusing about your comment? This:

          “You’re not a beneficiary of AA, so how can you know?”

          After an admonishment for a pretense of knowledge. How do you know, Amused?

          I am, in fact, a woman and supposedly a “beneficiary” of AA. I know for a fact that it hurts women and I know this from experience. We are hurt by it.

          You can pretend you know about “them” and what’s good for “them” all you want. You have no idea.

  4. Colin says:

    And if you have one Asian parent and one Hispanic parent? Or are white skinned but have parents from Cuba? Maybe the South Africans can lend us their racial classification section from the apartheid handbook?

    • Walt Greenway says:

      Most programs use self-identification of race/ethnicity and/or allow “Other” as a choice.

      • Methinks says:

        Which makes absolutely zero difference. I’m not “team white” or “team woman”.

        • Walt Greenway says:

          It’s government compliance and reporting to ask.

          • morganovich says:

            walt-

            “It’s government compliance and reporting to ask.”

            and that demonstrates what?

            that is a logical fallacy. (appeal to practice)

          • Walt Greenway says:

            Compliance to the law is a fallacy? How? Try telling that to the IRS when you don’t file a tax return.

          • morganovich says:

            walt-

            i am beginning to wonder if you are just trying to be deliberately disingenuous.

            the logical fallacy is called “appeal to practice”.

            it’s a way to use the fact that we do something to justify doing it and therefore a kind of circular reasoning.

            saying “it’s the law” to justify the existence of a law is a complete logical fallacy.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

            it was once the law that women could not vote too. that did not justify it.

        • morganovich says:

          methinks-

          “Which makes absolutely zero difference. I’m not “team white” or “team woman”.”

          precisely.

          you either can do X or you cannot. your or my race and sex are irrelevant.

          we exist as individuals, not as parts of some demographic.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            “we exist as individuals, not as parts of some demographic.”

            Don’t think zero-sum. If you were part of a relay team, would you try to help your teammate run faster even if your time would not improve by doing so?

          • Methinks says:

            Wrap your mind around this simple little fact, Walt: We’re not on a relay team.

          • morganovich says:

            that’s your weakest argument yet.

            it is not zero sum to wish to get credit for what you have achieved.

            your analogy is totally inapt. if i want a job or a place at university and so do you, then i want my merits to be evaluated on the same level as yours. what you are describing is actually negative, not positive sum.

            you take a less qualified person, and put them into place for some exogenous reason of preferencing and them claim it to be a net positive?

            no way. that’s a net loss, not a net gain.

            you’ve never run any sort of enterprise, have you walt?

        • Walt Greenway says:

          Morganovich,

          I am not saying you don’t personally get credit for what you achieved. I would never try to build a team of 10 people who all scored 100% on their SATs and received a 4.00 GPA in college even if if were possible.

          • morganovich says:

            walt-

            and what does that have to do with anyhting? who cares what your criteria for a team are? why is it relevant? that has nothing to do with the topic which is “why would you give some people credit for things they have not achieved”?

            this has nothing to do with what criteria i seek in each member of a team, particularly if i am free to determine such as opposed to being required to preference some over others.

            you seem so unable to think in basic logic that you cannot even stay on topic.

            is this larry using a different name? your endless nested logical fallacies and distortions of the issue through bad analogy sounds remarkable similar to his.

  5. Walt Greenway says:

    Successful strategic planning requires the goals be realistic and attainable. This plan’s outcomes are deliverable in 2018, which is only 6 years away. To know if the goals are realistic and obtainable we need to know the percentage of each demographic that read at grade level in 2012. It’s not a matter of expecting more or less from one demographic group than another as much as admitting they are not starting in the same place using present scores.

    Strategic planning could also explain letting some students into college with lower test scores than others. If your plan is to admit students with the highest test scores, you do just that to achieve your goals. If your plan is to admit a diverse group of students, you might have to use other criteria than test scores to do so. You can’t really tell if your plan is successful unless you know what your plan is. Plans are built on beliefs and values, so maybe some colleges do not believe the highest test score group meets their plan. Everyone measures success differently (within current law).

    • morganovich says:

      walt-

      i think you have missed the whole thrust of the argument. to say “well, it depends on your goals” does not address the issue.

      the issue is whether or not such goals themselves are racist/preferential to certain groups.

      just saying it depends on the goals is meaningless. if your goal, for example, was to have all white universities and that blacks, asians, and hispanics needed higher scores, i doubt you would feel the same way. but it would hold just as well as your argument.

      it’s not seeking a goal that matters. it’s which goal you seek.

      • Walt Greenway says:

        Morganovich,

        Where some people see preference, other people see diversity. I aimed my discussion toward the strategic plan and not what people thought of it. I suppose black kids could ask why they have to improve 95% in six years while white kids only have to improve 28% to meet the goals. :)

        I agree that goals matter, and goals that you seek are determined by people. Sometimes the people we need at meetings to determine those goals will not donate their time and input into what goals are being sought.

        • morganovich says:

          walt-

          you seem to be taking a moral relativist approach to this and assuming that all goals are equal. that is the thinking with which i am finding fault.

          just because we agree that schools need more Lithuanians does not make it a valid goal.

          but you also seem to be speaking in more of an affirmative action vein here. these rules are standards. they are setting lower targets for some races. consider the sort of signal that sends.

          worse, the sort of logic you are trying to use could be as easily applied to excluding races as including them. if “all men are created equal” why treat them differently based on race? why set different targets?

          race is quite possibly not even the key determinant here. wealth and 2 parent households are likely at least as deterministic in terms of scores as race. perhaps the most pivotal issue is parental involvement. telling parents “it’s ok that your kids score lower” seems like the wrong way to promote that.

          personally, i believe in equality of opportunity, but not of outcomes. you need to make your own outcomes. everyone gets a prize day is anathema to achievement.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            Morganovich, If the strategic plan was to have 20% more Lithuanians in college in four years and you only had 10%, you would have to either reexamine your plan, lower you goal, or extend yout time deadline. I’ll let someone else decide whether the plan was the right one or not (hopefully, from all of those who are affected).

            The targets for different groups are set somewhere by the NCLB Act, so I don’t think the racial axe to grind, if there is one, is with Florida. Percentagewise, more improvement is expected in six years from those who score lower presently than those who score higher presently, and rightly so (I expect my “A” students to keep an “A” while my “E” students get at least a “C” by the end of the class).

          • Walt Greenway says:

            “personally, i believe in equality of opportunity, but not of outcomes. you need to make your own outcomes. everyone gets a prize day is anathema to achievement.”

            A number of my students are learning disabled and get testing accommodations by federal law not allowed to other students, but the grading scale is exactly the same. Is that an appropriate way to equalize opportunity while still achieving the same outcome?

          • morganovich says:

            walt-

            i think you are still missing the point.

            first off, no, that is not the same outcome. if i get more time than you do, then even our identical score is not the same outcome. if we run a race and you run it in 11 second and so do i, but i get to start 1 second earlier, that is not the same outcome. you were faster. why should i be treated as being as fast as you are?

            you are assuming your premise. saying “well, the plan was to have more lithuanians win” is the issue. why is that a good plan? why is that relevant? if you are irish, that seems grossly unfair, no? percentages are irrelevant. why should my ability to run 10% faster in the 100 meters from 20 seconds to 18 be treated the same as going from 11 seconds to 9.9? one would not get you onto a high school track team, the other would make you the fastest in the world. that is not the same sort of achievement.

            when you are way off the pace, improvement is easier. once you are near world class. a 1% improvement in time in the tour de france is far more impressive than a 10% improvement on a high school team.

            saying somehting like “under more accommodating terms, i can do just as well as you” is a fundamentally bad metric. it’s not the same contest. why should the prize be the same?

            you are still starting from a point of assuming that A is not as good as B so we should treat less as more.

          • morganovich says:

            also:

            i think you are looking at %’s the wrong way.

            if 90% of estonians can read at grade level and 70% of lithuanians (i like to pick on lithuanians because i am one) then the fact is that you are not asking for a smaller % of lithuanians to improve but, rather, a greater number.

            only 10% of estonians are below level. 30% of lithuanians are. thus, if 10% of all estonians reading below level gain, it’s only 1% overall, but if 10% of lithuanians do, it’s 3%.

            thus, 3% gains among non level liths is the same as 1% in ests. you re trying to penalize groups that are already doing well because they are already doing well.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            “you are still starting from a point of assuming that A is not as good as B so we should treat less as more.”

            No, I’m starting from a real-world point from testing of knowing A is behind B at some point in time and then devising a plan to narrow that gap using achievable measurements. I will be thrilled if all my current E students get Cs and expect my A and B students to stay A and B students. Yeah, in a perfect world they would all get As because I am such a great teacher :) Likewise, the black students in Florida are expected to improve 95% (38% currently to 74%) while the white students are expected to improve 28% (69% currently to 88%) in the next 6 years. I consider a 95% improvement a lofty goal, and I hope my investment portfolio does as well in the next 6 years.

            The NCLB Act requires the disaggregation of data to race and poverty that so many find disturbing for the reason of finding knowledge gaps among groups that are hidden in the aggregate and addressing them quantitatively. Knowing where the gaps are is the first step to narrowing them.

          • morganovich says:

            walt-

            that is not any kind of answer. why does narrowing a gap require holding different groups to different standards?

            there seems to be no logic underpinning your statement.

            why not just say “we’d like all kids to read at grade level or better” and then measure progress? why set the bar lower for some? that is not needed to measure trends, only to preference some individuals by race.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            Morganovich,

            The bar to reach is set at different heights because the starting points are different for each group. Did you notice the six-year bar for blacks is set 95% higher than their current starting point and only 28% higher for whites than their current starting point? Could the title of this thread be: “Blacks need to improve more than three times more in their reading scores than whites in the next six years”?

            I know you don’t like justifying something because of the law, but the Florida strategic planning committee was constrained by the NCLB Act that recognizes group disparity must be dealt with and achievable plans submitted separately: that’s simply the parameters of the plan if or until the law is changed.

          • morganovich says:

            walt-

            it’s not about what i like, it is about what is a logical construction. that is not a debatable thing. it is a provable fact.

            you seem incapable of understanding the notion of assuming your premise and of appeal to practice fallacies.

            i’m not sure how to explain it to you any more clearly.

            you have provided all manner of purported justification, but it all comes down to assumed premises and appeal to practice. your entire argument is based upon logical fallacy and contains no first principles justification.

            at no point have you ever made any argument about what racial targets are valid. you just keep claiming that we have them and need to reach them.

            this si also known as “begging the question” (a badly misused and little understood phrase.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

            if we pare out assuming your premise and appeals to practice, you have literally said absolutely nothing.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            Morganovich,

            You are arguing what should be while I am arguing what is. Look at it from the Florida planning committee perspective instead of someone who perceives a wrong and evaluate their performance. What would you do given what you are given? You are not always given what you want to build what you want.

            I have two students with one receiving a 38% on a mid-term exam and the other a 68%. Is it a realistic expectation to expect both to receive the same score on the final exam? If so, what should that realistic and achievable score be? (not what you want it to be) If both As, I will be accused of grade inflation.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            p1) Blacks and whites are currently at different reading levels
            p2) Different reading level gap closures requires different plans to close the gap
            c) Therefore, blacks will have different plans than whites to close the gap

            Logic:

            If A then B
            If B then C
            If A then C

          • morganovich says:

            walt-

            if you think that is logic, then there is really no helping you.

            your statement is not logic, it’s a logical fallacy.

            P2 is an assumptive fallacy and a begged question.

            “p2) Different reading level gap closures requires different plans to close the gap”

            that is not proven. you have simply assumed it as you have assumed all your other arguments. the same plan might well work for everyone.

            further, that is not even the question. the question is “why have different goals for different races if all are supposedly equal?”. even if they did need different plans, that is still not a justification for different goals.

            there is no proof that that is true.

            your refrain of “i am arguing from what is” is the hidey hole that those incapable of understanding the logical fallacy of appeal to practice always hide in.

            this has become painfully repetitive. you are just committing the same fallacies over and over and attempting to layer them to justify the previous ones. you are literally saying nothing, just demonstrating that you do not understand how a logical premise works.

          • Walt Greenway says:

            “that is not proven. you have simply assumed it as you have assumed all your other arguments. the same plan might well work for everyone.”

            Morganovich,

            The same plan will not work for everyone anymore than the same plan would work for your real estate, stocks, bonds, gold . . . . You need to talk to some teachers. If we can’t agree, I guess we can agree to disagree.

      • morganovich says:

        walt-

        the only thing i am going to agree to is that you are not capable of logical thought.

        even in your last comment, you once more assume your premise.

        “the same plan will not work for everyone” is an unproven opinion. it cannot be placed into a logical construct as a proposition until you can prove it.

        you just keep going around and around chasing your tail by assuming premises and begging the question.
        everyone is different, sure. we all learn a bit differently. we all walk a bit differently too, but that is no reason we cannot all take the same path to get to the same place.

        further, even if we all learn differently, why is race the proper way to divide goals? why not socioeconomics or sex? once more, you are presuming your conclusions. it seems you know of no other way to think. you just do it over and over. seriously, is this larry? apart from him, i have never met anyone so unable to work through basic logic.

        then you retreat into that preposterous canard of “we can agree to disagree”. no, we cannot. the arguments you are making are provably invalid. you agree to disagree about whether sushi is better than steak. it’s a matter of opinion and not provable in any way. logic does not work like that. we cannot agree to disagree that an invalid logical construction is valid. that’s like agreeing to disagree about what 2+2 equals.

        you are just retreating into more bad logic because you are so brainwashed by moral relativism that you have forgotten that there is such a thing as an objective fact.

        here, i throw my hands up.

        it’s manifestly clear that you do not even understand why the constructions you are using are invalid or that your arguments are just a series of nested fallacies. i suppose one must be capable of logical thought in order to realize that one is incapable of logical thought, so expecting you to grasp this is clearly not going to work.

        with that, i am going to write this conversation off. if you were capable of grasping this, you’d have done so by now and any more attempts to point out the same thing over and over are just a waste of time.

        • Ron H. says:

          M: seriously, is this larry? apart from him, i have never met anyone so unable to work through basic logic.

          Without a reference to every industrialized country doing it this way, I doubt it. :)

        • Methinks says:

          seriously, is this larry? apart from him, i have never met anyone so unable to work through basic logic.

          Except Walt.

  6. Krishnan says:

    It is indeed perfectly logical for the affirmative action groups to say that lowering expectations is racist while demanding special admissions privileges. Their argument is simple – If black and hispanics do not do well, it is the fault of the white Americans (they essentially ignore the Asians, except to fault them for grabbing “more than their fair share” of admissions).

    Affirmative action is about doing whatever they can to equalize the results. One way to equalize results is to penalize those groups that do well under a merit system and hope that their lot in life goes down. Redistribution is not about taking wealth/opportunities from those that have it to those that may not – but to increase the misery of those that can and have something. Cynical? Yes – but watch what they say/claim and what they do.

  7. Walt Greenway says:

    I found the current scores and did the math (Asian was not listed). I also found the NCLB Act requires the subgroupings such as these.

    2011-12 Scores Target 2018 % change

    white 69 88 28%
    black 38 74 95%
    Hispanic 53 81 53%

  8. SeattleSam says:

    When my son went to high school, among his classmates were a boy with black parents and a girl with Chinese parents. They both lived in our neighborhood a block away. But we should set different learning standards for these three simply because their parents are racially different? If I walked over to their homes and told them that, they would be insulted, and I would look like an idiot.

  9. PeakTrader says:

    It seems, Black and Hispanic parents, in general, can learn from Asian and White parents.

    Maybe parents should take a test too.

    And someone can explain their test scores to their kids.

  10. Methinks says:

    The WSJ has an article about the effect on students admitted to satisfy AA requirements this weekend. It points out the same failures that Thomas Sowell has pointed out for years. Admitting students into academic programs they can’t handle unnecessarily erodes their confidence and lowers their probability of succeeding in life beyond college.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578050901460576218.html?KEYWORDS=the+unraveling+of+affirmative+action

  11. Tom E. Snyder says:

    Walt:
    “I found the current scores and did the math (Asian was not listed). I also found the NCLB Act requires the subgroupings such as these.

    2011-12 Scores Target 2018 % change

    white 69 88 28%
    black 38 74 95%
    Hispanic 53 81 53%”

    I’m assuming the first number represents the percent reaching the standard currently and the second is the target for 2018. The goal for change in percentage points is:

    white 88-69=19
    black 74-38=36
    Hispanic 81-53=28

    Either way you consider it they are expecting more improvement from blacks than whites or Hispanics even with the lower target.

    • Walt Greenway says:

      My first number is current (2011-2012), my second number is the 2018 goal, and the third number is my percent change from 2012-2018. I will stick with my calculations (for example: (88-69)/69) * 100 = 28 percent change

      The Excel copy to comment window looks good until the comment is posted.

  12. hancke says:

    Perfect. Treat the symptom and not the cause.

    • SeattleSam says:

      Treating the causes would involve addressing some political incorrect facts. Even Dan Moynihan was vilified for doing so, and not many have his guts.

  13. Tucker McCall says:

    I blame 99% of all kids failures on their parents. If you honestly look at kids situations they not only have to work through poverty, hunger, and/or negative peer presure, but they also have to battle their parents ignorance, hypocrisy, and general attitude of loathing.

    • John Dewey says:

      Tucker,

      If parents were given a choice about where to spend education dollars, many would send their kids to schools other than the ones in which their kids are currently failing. A free market in education would enable parents to provide a better environment in which to learn.

      I blame the public school monopoly for most of the academic failure of kids who do grow up in porr environments.

      I agree that many parents – parents of all socioeconomic levels and all races – do not expect enough of their kids. But the parents as well as the kids are battling the poor environment provided by public schools.

      • hancke says:

        There are studies that prove just that! The underlying factor is having parents that care enough to seek out a better education for their children. The remainder are parents that don’t give a flip and see public schools as a free baby sitter. Everyone expects teachers to overcome bad parenting. Sometimes teachers can get through to a student but many times that is not the case. Who needs an education when you can grow up to be the .001% that make it into pro sports?

        • John Dewey says:

          hancke,

          And there is a great amount of anecdotal evidence that the chaos in many inner city schools combined with teacher incompetence prevents even the motivated child from being able to learn much of anything.

          Incompetent teachers can be and are protected by unions because public schools have a monopoly on education tax receipts. Remove that monopoly and public schools will clean up their acts very quickly.

  14. Walt Greenway says:

    First Try:

    I hope this hyperlink to Education Week works. We don’t get a preview or delete option on this blog as far as I can tell and every format seems to handle links differently. Ironically, I received the NCLB waiver article last night. Take it for what it’s worth to you.

    Education Week NCLB

  15. Walt Greenway says:

    Third Try:

    Can someone help me out if this does not work? :)

    NCLB News

Leave a Reply

Mobile Theme | Switch To Regular Theme