Investments in Education May Be Misdirected

[MeachTheMonster]

poor asians do not have the same culture as wealthy asians, thats the point

how do you know

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

OK Asians are superior. You want a cookie?

Now that we got that out of the way. Your data shows that income plays a big roll in achievement regardless of race.

If Black African Immigrants were allowed to have their own statistics, they would also have higher scores.

In fact when that data is pried out, it definitely shows that.

Culture is the most important variable here, not income. Income has explanatory power but no where NEAR that of culture. I don't care what income level a child belongs too, if they come from an East Asian or Indian or African Immigrant household, the kids are going to do better period.

The parents from these households are not going to tolerate low performance. North American cultural households have a degenerate parental culture full of cliches like, "there are no losers", "kids have to have fun", "you have to talk to your kids", "you canT hit your kids", or "My kid tries hard and that's enough". The results of that parental culture are clear--inferior academic and socioeconomic outcomes.

 

[theworldismine13]

I'm not asking for a link. I'm asking you. How do these schools address culture? What do they do, that addresses culture?

well you have to address what it means to be an african american, a lot of black people come from an environment where getting good grades and academics is not part of your identity as a person

so addressing the culture means equating being a "real nikka" (for lack of a better term) to academic performance (high SAT scores, straight A's and going to college)

that is the real difference between low income and high income, its the expectations and the culture, its not how much money is spent in their school

the public school system is set up in a way where they expect your academic culture and academic expectations to come from home. where your parent reads to you every night and they do homework with you and they expect high grades, that is the only way public schools can work

if the parents are not doing things like that then the public school has to be reorganized to address the non academic environment the kids are coming from and that is why you need charters and private schools

 

[MeachTheMonster]

If Black African Immigrants were allowed to have their own statistics, they would also have higher scores.

In fact when that data is pried out, it definitely shows that.

Culture is the most important variable here, not income. Income has explanatory power but no where NEAR that of culture. I don't care what income level a child belongs too, if they come from an East Asian or Indian or African Immigrant household, the kids are going to do better period.

The parents from these households are not going to tolerate low performance. North American cultural households have a degenerate parental culture full of cliches like, "there are no losers", "kids have to have fun", "you have to talk to your kids", "you can hit your kids", or "My kid tries hard and that's enough". The results of that parental culture are clear--inferior academic and socioeconomic outcomes.

Why do wealthy Asians outperform poor Asians?

 

[theworldismine13]

how do you know

im in cali, i have observed high income asians and low income asians

and culture is the theory, and the theory fits the data,

culture explains the income gap that exists regardless of race and it also explains the racial gap as to why high income blacks perform worse than low income asians

 

[MeachTheMonster]

well you have to address what it means to be an african american, a lot of black people come from an environment where getting good grades and academics is not part of your identity as a person

so addressing the culture means equating being a "real nikka" (for lack of a better term) to academic performance (high SAT scores, straight A's and going to college)

that is the real difference between low income and high income, its the expectations and the culture, its not how much money is spent in their school

the public school system is set up in a way where they expect your academic culture and academic expectations to come from home. where your parent reads to you every night and they do homework with you and they expect high grades, that is the only way public schools can work

if they parents are not doing things like that then the public school has to be reorganized to address the non academic environment the kids are coming from and that is why you need charters and private schools

Regardless of public or charter. This costs money. It costs money to create and support these individualized plans. Kids with servers disadvantages at home, need trained profesionals at school. That Chicago school you keep posting has these type of people and programs, and the funding to keep them. If they couldn't afford those things, the school would not be doing as well.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

im in cali, i have observed high income asians and low income asians

and culture is the theory, and the theory fits the data,

culture explains the income gap that exists regardless of race and it also explains the racial gap as to why high income blacks perform worse than low income asians

The theory fits your postion. But you have to ignore a bunch of other data and studies in order to make your claims.

 

[theworldismine13]

Regardless of public or charter. This costs money. It costs money to create and support these individualized plans. Kids with servers disadvantages at home, need trained profesionals at school. That Chicago school you keep posting has these type of people and programs, and the funding to keep them. If they couldn't afford those things, the school would not be doing as well.

im not sure what your point is, i wasnt suggesting cutting money from education, im suggesting that increasing money is not the key, changing the culture is the key

as far as money, money has to be put into people and institutions that are working, and have creative, innovative ideas, if they arent working they need to be shut down or fired

 

[theworldismine13]

The theory fits your postion. But you have to ignore a bunch of other data and studies in order to make your claims.

im not ignoring anything

its you that are ignoring data, you see a study that says that high income is doing better than low income and you assume that income is the key

and you ignore studies that show that parents reading to their kids and doing homework with their kids and other cultural values is what is key and what explains the difference between high income and low income and different racial grups

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

If Black African Immigrants were allowed to have their own statistics, they would also have higher scores.

In fact when that data is pried out, it definitely shows that.

Culture is the most important variable here, not income. Income has explanatory power but no where NEAR that of culture. I don't care what income level a child belongs too, if they come from an East Asian or Indian or African Immigrant household, the kids are going to do better period.

The parents from these households are not going to tolerate low performance. North American cultural households have a degenerate parental culture full of cliches like, "there are no losers", "kids have to have fun", "you have to talk to your kids", "you can hit your kids", or "My kid tries hard and that's enough". The results of that parental culture are clear--inferior academic and socioeconomic outcomes.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Poor Schools or Poor Kids? : Education Next

Here is something I read on the subject. I'll pull out the parts that stood out to me.

Poverty does not cause academic failure, but it is a factor that profoundly influences the character of schools and student performance, in at least three broad and interrelated ways: 1) in most cases, considerably less money is spent on the education of poor children. Per-pupil spending has bearing on the quality of facilities, the availability of learning materials, and the ability of schools to attract and retain highly qualified personnel. While high levels of funding do not guarantee that children will receive a quality education, money matters, and many of the most acclaimed charter schools spend more per pupil than public schools, even though they generally serve fewer high-need students (i.e., special education or English language learners); 2) the unmet, nonacademic needs of children (social, emotional, and psychological) often have an impact on learning; 3) schools serving large numbers of poor children typically lack the resources and expertise to respond to their academic and social needs.

The key is making sure that schools and educators have the tools to provide students with the kind of education they need to clear the bar, including resources, the ability to build teams of excellent educators, and enough flexibility at the school level to adjust the length of the school day and year (among other things). This will likely require both additional resources and smarter use of education budgets around the country.

We have quality standards for airports, highways, food, drugs, and water, but no state has adopted standards for learning environments, and many poor children attend under-resourced, inferior schools. In fact, the most troubled schools typically serve students with the greatest needs. These schools cannot solve problems related to inequality and poverty without additional support.

School choice is an idea that should be supported in principle. It is good for parents to have a variety of schools from which to choose because not all children have the same needs or interests. The greater challenge is ensuring that there are many high-quality schools to choose from and ensuring that choice does not contribute to further segregation in schools. Unfortunately, in many communities that have enacted choice plans, well-organized and informed parents do their best to gain access to the better schools, and invariably, others are left out.

in most choice systems it’s not parents but schools that really do the choosing. The better schools are often able to screen out needy students and limit enrollment. Because of high demand, they can be selective about whom they choose. This often occurs even in charter schools that use lotteries to determine admission but set criteria that are difficult for low-income parents to meet.

Addressing the effectiveness of teachers must be an essential part of education reform in this country. However, judging teachers and awarding bonuses simply on the basis of test scores is problematic. We have already witnessed a large number of schools that have adopted scripted curricula and a narrow focus on test preparation as one way to raise test scores. This tendency will undoubtedly increase if teachers are evaluated exclusively on that basis. Such an approach is likely to discourage good teachers from working in high-need schools and to widen the gap between poor and affluent students. A narrow focus on raising test scores is also likely to deny poor students access to an enriched curriculum that encourages the development of higher-order thinking skills.

Research in child development has shown that the learning that occurs during infancy establishes a foundation for learning throughout life. It is cost effective and in our national interest to expand access to quality early-childhood education for all children.

Students clearly have needs that extend beyond merely learning to read and do math. In the most successful schools serving low-income students, we see a wide range of child development activities, including sports, dance, art, chess, and citizenship enrichment activities. The notion that these activities are distractions from academic instruction assumes this is an either/or proposition. The best schools out there today seem to nail both.

An expanded federal role will allow our entire nation to cut through some of the political fog that has prevented good, sound ideas about how to change our schools from getting the go-ahead to proceed as part of a major systemic reform strategy. This is about using the tremendous leverage of the federal government to force some really blunt conversations at the state and district level, the kinds of conversations that make people uncomfortable and often lead to political paralysis. We have this tendency, if policy conversations make people feel uncomfortable, to sweep important issues under the rug. This is one of the reasons so little has actually changed despite waves and waves of reforms.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

im not sure what your point is, i wasnt suggesting cutting money from education, im suggesting that increasing money is not the key, changing the culture is the key

as far as money, money has to be put into people and institutions that are working, and have creative, innovative ideas, if they arent working they need to be shut down or fired

You can't change the culture without more money. The people and institutions that have creative, innovative ideas cost more money than the currently poor and failing schools are getting.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

im not ignoring anything

its you that are ignoring data, you see a study that says that high income is doing better than low income and you assume that income is the key

and you ignore studies that show that parents reading to their kids and doing homework with their kids and other cultural values is what is key and what explains the difference between high income and low income and different racial grups

You are it ignoring the plenty of studies that show increased resources= increased performance.

I've never denied any of that. All I said is, the fact that poor kids don't get this type of treatment at home only increases their need for extra resources at school. That's why studies show that poor students are most affected by extra resources. They are already starting for a disadvantage at home, if we expect them to perform equally to the kids who don't have these disadvantages then they are going to need more resources, in America these kids receive the least resources which compounds the inequality.

 

[theworldismine13]

You can't change the culture without more money. The people and institutions that have creative, innovative ideas cost more money than the currently poor and failing schools are getting.

i never said you can change the culture without money and i have never called for cutting education spending, so i dont really know what your point is

 

[MeachTheMonster]

i never said you can change the culture without money and i have never called for cutting education spending, so i dont really know what your point is

then how does money not matter?