but what I meant was that the tests should constantly be revised so as to not privelege a narrow cultural bias while assuming that that bias represents objectivity.
midwinter's spiel on canon formation is instructive: it recognizes that the standard is partial and it strives to be critical while at the same time maintaining a stringent notion of strength and tradition.
But I think that canon formation should be a more malleable dialogue with different voices beyond its set set-list: the stronger work will win out in the end anyway. Nonetheless there still should be a standard.
I like what Bloom said of Shakespear: 'he is so strong that he is found illucidating fart reaches and obscure regions of human experience . . . in other words (paraphrased) --the strength of the work is that it fits in the most mundane of places as well as the most sublime.
Midwinter:
I am not familiar with ED Hirsh first hand. But, I very much enjoyed a book by David Hoy called the Critical Circle. This book is about Gadamarian Hermeneutics, and, very thoroughly, systematically and convincingly dismantles Hirsh's notion of Intention and Interpretation. . . . and that's chapter 1 . ..
by the way . . . have yo ever seen Ken Russel's movie Dante's Inferno?
Its a film about Dante Gabriel Rossetti. Russel takes some editing liberties but really makes his poetry come to life in context of the bio.
I've only read a few Christina Rossetti's poems . . . anyway anyway anyway . . .
oh yeah a.bout p,unctu.ation . . .I failed teh standardization test . . . blame the liberal women teachers . . .
It's funny how race baiters will argue until they are blue in the face that there are difference between races. Then when a standardized test finds differences then they argue till they are blue in the face that the test is wrong.
but what I meant was that the tests should constantly be revised so as to not privelege a narrow cultural bias while assuming that that bias represents objectivity.
Sure. And I agree, but the problem is that when the tests are constantly revised they don't return you any viable (is that the word?) data. Here's an example from my end: I teach in a program that sees 3,000 freshmen a SEMESTER. We have a fairly standardized curriculum, and we use common textbooks. Years ago, when I first got here, we changed the textbook and the curicculum about every other year in response to instructors' complaints (and students, but they complain about everything ) about the material. The problem, in the end, was that we never stayed with anything long enough to be really sure where the problems were. That all changed, and so has the level of student complaint. We're *just* getting ready to change the curriculum (I've been busy editing the book for it) for the first time in 5 years. Everyone's happy, and we know what kinds of problems we need to fix this time around.
More to the point, though: there is no way EVER that a test of any kind will not reflect cultural biases. Hell, even the act of writing the DATE on the page is a political/cultural statement. It's 5/31/03 for whom? Jewish calendar? Muslim calendar? Chinese? You get the point. But this is important, and this is where I get awfully conservative about eduction: we have to draw the line somewhere. We can't teach it all, and we can't include all cultures without running the risk of doing our students a disservice. I'm all for exciting stuff in education. I'm all for expanding students' horizons. But there is a core level of knowledge that, at the university level, I should expect my students to have obtained.
Gawd. I feel like I'm James Brolin's soporific character in the West Wing, ranting about "Eskimo poetry." I'm sorry if I seem erratic about all of this; my conservatism on this matter is often at odds with the rest of my political ideology, and like anything else, I'm constantly in the process of sorting it all out. Suffice it to say that I worry that our recent (i.e. since the 1970s) attempts to expand the canon to include more women, more minorities, more this, more that, sometimes come at the cost of a knowledge of the canon that's being revised. My own educational experience is a case in point: I was educated by people interested in all kinds of weird stuff, and so I'd read all of these oddball non-canonical texts (some by canonical authors) before I'd read the canonical stuff. It made studying for my comprehensive exams a delight, since I finally had time to read all the stuff that I hadn't had since Brit Lit II.
Quote:
midwinter's spiel on canon formation is instructive: it recognizes that the standard is partial and it strives to be critical while at the same time maintaining a stringent notion of strength and tradition.
But I think that canon formation should be a more malleable dialogue with different voices beyond its set set-list: the stronger work will win out in the end anyway. Nonetheless there still should be a standard.
I like what Bloom said of Shakespear: 'he is so strong that he is found illucidating fart reaches and obscure regions of human experience . . . in other words (paraphrased) --the strength of the work is that it fits in the most mundane of places as well as the most sublime.
See, I'm going to quibble with you on language a little. Perhaps it's semantics, perhaps not. Here's my leftism: I don't think that there's anything inherently "strong" or "weak" in literature. Indeed, I often have difficulty making value judgements about literature, since I've been trained to find points of interest in even the most inane, conventional drivel. The canon exists simply because we find certain books consistently interesting, not because they are "better" than other books. And also don't forget that Bloom has/does/will argue that Shakespeare is largely responsible for creating US, and therefore, the system of criticism that is responsible for evaluating him. Of course it'll find him interesting
Quote:
Midwinter:
I am not familiar with ED Hirsh first hand. But, I very much enjoyed a book by David Hoy called the Critical Circle. This book is about Gadamarian Hermeneutics, and, very thoroughly, systematically and convincingly dismantles Hirsh's notion of Intention and Interpretation. . . . and that's chapter 1 . ..
I'll check that out (literally). Don't get me wrong on Hirsch. As conservative as I am about all of this, his notion of a standardized set of knowledge makes me uncomfortable. I've not read *much* of Hirsch beyond a couple of pieces about how to revamp the educational system. Is he so reactionary that he's still talking about authorial intention? How passe....
Quote:
by the way . . . have yo ever seen Ken Russel's movie Dante's Inferno?
Its a film about Dante Gabriel Rossetti. Russel takes some editing liberties but really makes his poetry come to life in context of the bio.
I've only read a few Christina Rossetti's poems . . . anyway anyway anyway . . .
NO! Wow! I'm going to HAVE to get that. Is it rentable? I suppose it covers his marriage to Lizzie Siddall, her overdose/death, and his burying his poems with her?
CR's poetry is pretty amazing. You religious folk here (and especially the Methodists) will know a couple of them already. The Methodist/Anglican hymn "In the Bleak Midwinter" is a poem of hers. (That's not where I got my nick, although I like the connection).
Cheers
Scott
PS
About a year ago I had my students write an essay defending the placement of certain texts in the canon. One of my students wrote in her introduction "These are all books that are in the canon, which means that they are the big gun books."
It's funny how race baiters will argue until they are blue in the face that there are difference between races. Then when a standardized test finds differences then they argue till they are blue in the face that the test is wrong.
Not knowing who the race-baiters are in your post, I'm left a little confused about whether or not you're suggesting that there are inherent differences that are racial in nature. Are you?
It's funny how race baiters will argue until they are blue in the face that there are difference between races. Then when a standardized test finds differences then they argue till they are blue in the face that the test is wrong.
Yes, I don't get that.
And here's some news for alcimedes, midwinter, and other who are talking about cultural bias in tests: the psychometrics people haven't found any empirical evidence that the tests like IQ and SAT that do show large black-white differences are culturally biased in any way. And they've been looking.
And here's some news for alcimedes, midwinter, and other who are talking about cultural bias in tests: the psychometrics people haven't found any empirical evidence that the tests like IQ and SAT that do show large black-white differences are culturally biased in any way. And they've been looking
That IS interesting. It seems to me that "race baiters" (as Scott put it) are going ballistic trying to blame everything and everyone under the sun. We know the discrepenecy is there. One question that needs to be asked is: "Is IQ fluid and changeable?". Can it go down due to cultural practices? I think most would agree it is so. One poster indirectly referenced cultural differences. This is valid, I think. Look at the numbers for illegitamacy and broken families in the African American community. Look at the financial (socio-economic) differences. These are the bigger problems.
It's also funny that the argument is being made here that since some students did well on the SAT and got good grades, they should graduate. The SAT is perhaps one of the biggest standardized tests in the world. Grades are often based on, at least, school-standardized testing. How does this argument wash? The only argument that can be made is about the fitness of the test itself. It must measure certain basic skills accurately. But using the above argument to position one's self against the entire concept of standardized testing? That doesn't make sense to me.
IMO, we should, in fact, have a test of basic skills at each grade. That's what No Child Left Behind was supposed to do. There may be problems with the Act, but the idea is sound. A student that cannot read and perform basic math should not move from 3rd to 4th grade. The same student should be able to demonstrate said skills at another level by 12th grade (unless due to mental/physical disability).
My point is that a High School Diploma must stand for certain skills. Anyone with said diploma should be able to read, write, perform basic math, have some general knowledge of history, the Arts, etc. One of the other major arguments against testing is that some students simply CANNOT test due to learning disability (though many of the same students have exceptionally high IQ's). My wife teaches these type of children at a private school. What's the solution for them? Perhaps the expansion of alternative schools (publicly funded?) for children with this particular probelm. The severely disabled? Perhaps a special diploma with a disability exception. As horrible as this sounds, if a student cannot pass the test, that says something about that student's ability to assimilate and process information in written form. Rather than blindly accept the disability, we must teach the child to DEAL with it (this is exactly what my wife's school does). The child will need skills in writing and reading, no matter how intelligent he is.
Standardized testing is bad because teachers limit their scope to cover their ass. Learning goes down to make sure the 50 test questions are understood and nothing more. This is the exact opposite of what we want from our school systems.
The only possible way it can 'work' is if you have 20 tests with absolutely zero overlap, and these tests are given at random times. The tests would have to be changed ever year or two as well. That way teachers couldn't focus on a limited agenda hurting the students.
As far as cultural bias is concerned, I believe it's possible in some if not most subjects. Math is one of the only cut and dried subjects that's exempt.
Not knowing who the race-baiters are in your post, I'm left a little confused about whether or not you're suggesting that there are inherent differences that are racial in nature. Are you?
Cheers
Scott
You shouldn't be confused. I made no statements about weather or not I think there are "inherent differences that are racial in nature".
You shouldn't be confused. I made no statements about weather or not I think there are "inherent differences that are racial in nature".
You're right, I inserted "inherent" in there. My bad.
But you said: "It's funny how race baiters will argue until they are blue in the face that there are difference between races. Then when a standardized test finds differences then they argue till they are blue in the face that the test is wrong."
But there are two statements here about differences in races (I'm assuming this is in reference to performance on standardized tests), and I'm still not sure who the "race-baiters" are. I'm just trying to figure out what you're getting at here. Are you saying that some people argue that there are differences (whatever that means...there are all kinds) in different races and then those same people go on to argue that, when a test (and I'm assuming again that this means performance on a standardized test) shows this to be the case, that the tests are "wrong" and therefore ought to be modified to accommodate these differences? If this is what you're arguing, I'm not sure why this is a bad thing.
IMO, we should, in fact, have a test of basic skills at each grade. That's what No Child Left Behind was supposed to do. There may be problems with the Act, but the idea is sound. A student that cannot read and perform basic math should not move from 3rd to 4th grade. The same student should be able to demonstrate said skills at another level by 12th grade (unless due to mental/physical disability).
My point is that a High School Diploma must stand for certain skills. Anyone with said diploma should be able to read, write, perform basic math, have some general knowledge of history, the Arts, etc. One of the other major arguments against testing is that some students simply CANNOT test due to learning disability (though many of the same students have exceptionally high IQ's).
I'm with you, especially on the first bit. I wonder, though, if one of the reasons we don't do this is that it could potentially be very, VERY embarrassing for schools, teachers, administrators, parents, AND students.
I'd only add to your second point that while I'm a little uneasy about a tiered system, I think that what we DESPERATELY need at this point is a public, culture-wide legitimizing of trade schools in this country. Since the GI bill, I imagine, kids who would normally have never gone to college have been compelled to go. It breaks my heart when, year after year, I see students who don't know why they're here, don't want to be here, don't need to be here, and who are genuinely, seriously, unhappy here. These kids, most of the time, just want to get a job that in no way requires a complete university education. And yet here they are. If there were some track for kids like this that was publical regarded as just as valid of an education as a university education, that might go a long way toward fixing some of these problems, and would give many of the kids you're talking about a place to go.
I don't know much about the long history of all this other than Newman's Idea of a University (although I keep running across books about it), but I do know that my expectation that my students (generally college freshmen) know the same kinds of things I did when I left high school are hardly ever met. I've had students who had never read a book. I've had students who never wrote anything longer than a page in all of high school. Now, granted, I'm in a state with a woeful education system--budget cuts, school closings, poor teacher pay, lots and lots and LOTS of under-funded rural schools--but I don't think it's too much to ask that my students be able to conjugate verbs in their native language or know what a complete sentence is. Hell, a year ago or so, I had a group of students asking me when WWII was. They honest to god didn't know. When I told them, they asked me when WWI was. They didn't know. Had NO idea. Then they asked me when the civil war was. Again. They didn't know.
This is a serious problem. I mean, I'm not expecting students to be able to talk about French poststructuralism or anything, but WORLD WAR TWO? This was a group of FIVE PEOPLE. In college. At a Big 12 University. I shouldn't have to explain stuff like that at this level.
I see. "Race baiter" is typically used to mean people who use race as an issue where race is not an issue. Or interject race into a discussion where it's not needed or called for. For example there's the "hazing girls" in suburban chicago. On teevee I saw a guy start in with the "If these were inner city black kids ..." stop right there. They are not inner city black kids so why bring it up?
It's people who try to stir up racial trouble where there is none.
So they way I see it a race baiter needs to argue that there are differences. Once differences are "confirmed" with a test then it's the test that's wrong.
What do they want? A test to show no difference? A test normalized for race? ... Don't kill the messenger.
If they want real progress in minority education shouldn't we have a method to objectively measure the difference between minority education against the average? But if we measure that there is a difference and minorities are below average then ... the test is racist. Do they want objectivity or ordained results? I don't get it.
I see. "Race baiter" is typically used to mean people who use race as an issue where race is not an issue. Or interject race into a discussion where it's not needed or called for. For example there's the "hazing girls" in suburban chicago. On teevee I saw a guy start in with the "If these were inner city black kids ..." stop right there. They are not inner city black kids so why bring it up?
It's people who try to stir up racial trouble where there is none.
Gotcha. All is clear now.
Quote:
So they way I see it a race baiter needs to argue that there are differences. Once differences are "confirmed" with a test then it's the test that's wrong.
What do they want? A test to show no difference? A test normalized for race? ... Don't kill the messenger.
Well, if a test is supposed to measure performance of, say, kids exiting high school and certain segments of those being tested consistently do poorly on the test, it suggests either that a) something is wrong with that segment of the population or b) something is wrong with the test. The problem is really that it's difficult to know whether or not the scores of the test are valid.
Quote:
If they want real progress in minority education shouldn't we have a method to objectively measure the difference between minority education against the average? But if we measure that there is a difference and minorities are below average then ... the test is racist. Do they want objectivity or ordained results? I don't get it.
That's a fair point. And it's also difficult terrain to navigate.
I don't think it would be so hard if the politics of race weren't interjected "all" the time. From what I remember of my high school "basic skills" test it was something that anyone needed to know to function. Answer some basic questions about this medicine label. Do this simple math. Answer this question on a job application. I don't remember it being "racist" but it's been a while.
funny you bring that up Scott. as the initial article linked, this is also the first year that minority students have improved on these tests across the board. every single score went up, and significantly.
if you worry about teachers teaching to the tests, just make sure the tests only contain useful knowledge based questions. like algebra. history. vocabulary. grammer.
how in the world do you "teach to" any of those subjects without just teaching the entire subject. you can't teach someone how to have a good vocabulary without teaching them a wide range of words. same goes with all the other categories.
I see. "Race baiter" is typically used to mean people who use race as an issue where race is not an issue. Or interject race into a discussion where it's not needed or called for. For example there's the "hazing girls" in suburban chicago. On teevee I saw a guy start in with the "If these were inner city black kids ..." stop right there. They are not inner city black kids so why bring it up?.
Because in general it's true. There are plenty of records to show that persons classified as white get different treatement that those classified as black when dealing with the justice system. It stats from the initital contact with the police and follows through to the Judge and Jury. While the comment may have no bearing on the fcts of the actual case, in a larger discussion it is an accurate commentary.
Because in general it's true. There are plenty of records to show that persons classified as white get different treatement that those classified as black when dealing with the justice system. It stats from the initital contact with the police and follows through to the Judge and Jury. While the comment may have no bearing on the fcts of the actual case, in a larger discussion it is an accurate commentary.
I'm not sure that's true. I'd ask you for a link or at least a reposting of data. There has been the bit with racial profiling.
Scott is right: Race gets injected into just about every argument imaginable. We do have significant problems in the minority communities, but it is always blamed on our system limiting those groups. I really don't think that's true, unless we are talking about the federal welfare state that exists with many minorities. This in itself discourages things like two-parent families and increased levels of education.
I challenge anyone to show me an example of how our system is unfair to minorities. I know discrepancies exist in income, home ownership, education, etc....but I don't think that there is a race-created glass ceiling in today's world.
...but I don't think that there is a race-created glass ceiling in today's world.
That's probably because you live out in isolation.
actually the particulars of racial profiling are very interesting. Anyone interested should look up some of the studies. I remember one (I think in Kansas) where they tried pulling cars over at random and found that drug/weapons violations became equal between white/black. Of course, the idea was then floated that blacks, expecting to be singled out, did more to hide their drugs, guns. When we studied it in class it was in the context of false interpretation of facts in order to justify previous assumptions, which is all too common in statistical studies.
Anyway, the easy one to shut you up is the fact that race plays very heavily in US executions:
I challenge anyone to show me an example of how our system is unfair to minorities. I know discrepancies exist in income, home ownership, education, etc....but I don't think that there is a race-created glass ceiling in today's world.
How about...a tax cut for dividends when 95% of the people making those dividends are white?
How about...a tax cut for dividends when 95% of the people making those dividends are white?
there's nothing to stop black people from investing their money to benefit from the same tax cut, but that's not really the point.
the justice system is terrible with race. drugs are one of the worst discrepencies. i know i did a research paper about the legalization of drugs. one of things i found beyond just the different arrest rates/sentences was the percentage of drug offenders who eneded up (disenfranchised?), forgot what the term was.
in any case, it's where after being convicted of a felony you lose your right to vote. happened to black people by more than a factor of 10 when compared to white people with the same crime/situation.
it was bad. but of course, it's also not that the system has been set up to promote racism, it's just that there aren't standardized rules regarding when someone should lose their right to vote. but then we're right back to standardizing things.
Comments
but what I meant was that the tests should constantly be revised so as to not privelege a narrow cultural bias while assuming that that bias represents objectivity.
midwinter's spiel on canon formation is instructive: it recognizes that the standard is partial and it strives to be critical while at the same time maintaining a stringent notion of strength and tradition.
But I think that canon formation should be a more malleable dialogue with different voices beyond its set set-list: the stronger work will win out in the end anyway. Nonetheless there still should be a standard.
I like what Bloom said of Shakespear: 'he is so strong that he is found illucidating fart reaches and obscure regions of human experience . . . in other words (paraphrased) --the strength of the work is that it fits in the most mundane of places as well as the most sublime.
Midwinter:
I am not familiar with ED Hirsh first hand. But, I very much enjoyed a book by David Hoy called the Critical Circle. This book is about Gadamarian Hermeneutics, and, very thoroughly, systematically and convincingly dismantles Hirsh's notion of Intention and Interpretation. . . . and that's chapter 1 . ..
by the way . . . have yo ever seen Ken Russel's movie Dante's Inferno?
Its a film about Dante Gabriel Rossetti. Russel takes some editing liberties but really makes his poetry come to life in context of the bio.
I've only read a few Christina Rossetti's poems . . . anyway anyway anyway . . .
oh yeah a.bout p,unctu.ation . . .I failed teh standardization test . . . blame the liberal women teachers . . .
Camille Paglia's mentor...
Ohh for the the heady " Bloom " of a Bloomian education.
God bless his sox....
Originally posted by pfflam
I understand that point
but what I meant was that the tests should constantly be revised so as to not privelege a narrow cultural bias while assuming that that bias represents objectivity.
Sure. And I agree, but the problem is that when the tests are constantly revised they don't return you any viable (is that the word?) data. Here's an example from my end: I teach in a program that sees 3,000 freshmen a SEMESTER. We have a fairly standardized curriculum, and we use common textbooks. Years ago, when I first got here, we changed the textbook and the curicculum about every other year in response to instructors' complaints (and students, but they complain about everything
More to the point, though: there is no way EVER that a test of any kind will not reflect cultural biases. Hell, even the act of writing the DATE on the page is a political/cultural statement. It's 5/31/03 for whom? Jewish calendar? Muslim calendar? Chinese? You get the point. But this is important, and this is where I get awfully conservative about eduction: we have to draw the line somewhere. We can't teach it all, and we can't include all cultures without running the risk of doing our students a disservice. I'm all for exciting stuff in education. I'm all for expanding students' horizons. But there is a core level of knowledge that, at the university level, I should expect my students to have obtained.
Gawd. I feel like I'm James Brolin's soporific character in the West Wing, ranting about "Eskimo poetry." I'm sorry if I seem erratic about all of this; my conservatism on this matter is often at odds with the rest of my political ideology, and like anything else, I'm constantly in the process of sorting it all out. Suffice it to say that I worry that our recent (i.e. since the 1970s) attempts to expand the canon to include more women, more minorities, more this, more that, sometimes come at the cost of a knowledge of the canon that's being revised. My own educational experience is a case in point: I was educated by people interested in all kinds of weird stuff, and so I'd read all of these oddball non-canonical texts (some by canonical authors) before I'd read the canonical stuff. It made studying for my comprehensive exams a delight, since I finally had time to read all the stuff that I hadn't had since Brit Lit II.
midwinter's spiel on canon formation is instructive: it recognizes that the standard is partial and it strives to be critical while at the same time maintaining a stringent notion of strength and tradition.
But I think that canon formation should be a more malleable dialogue with different voices beyond its set set-list: the stronger work will win out in the end anyway. Nonetheless there still should be a standard.
I like what Bloom said of Shakespear: 'he is so strong that he is found illucidating fart reaches and obscure regions of human experience . . . in other words (paraphrased) --the strength of the work is that it fits in the most mundane of places as well as the most sublime.
See, I'm going to quibble with you on language a little. Perhaps it's semantics, perhaps not. Here's my leftism: I don't think that there's anything inherently "strong" or "weak" in literature. Indeed, I often have difficulty making value judgements about literature, since I've been trained to find points of interest in even the most inane, conventional drivel. The canon exists simply because we find certain books consistently interesting, not because they are "better" than other books. And also don't forget that Bloom has/does/will argue that Shakespeare is largely responsible for creating US, and therefore, the system of criticism that is responsible for evaluating him. Of course it'll find him interesting
Midwinter:
I am not familiar with ED Hirsh first hand. But, I very much enjoyed a book by David Hoy called the Critical Circle. This book is about Gadamarian Hermeneutics, and, very thoroughly, systematically and convincingly dismantles Hirsh's notion of Intention and Interpretation. . . . and that's chapter 1 . ..
I'll check that out (literally). Don't get me wrong on Hirsch. As conservative as I am about all of this, his notion of a standardized set of knowledge makes me uncomfortable. I've not read *much* of Hirsch beyond a couple of pieces about how to revamp the educational system. Is he so reactionary that he's still talking about authorial intention? How passe....
by the way . . . have yo ever seen Ken Russel's movie Dante's Inferno?
Its a film about Dante Gabriel Rossetti. Russel takes some editing liberties but really makes his poetry come to life in context of the bio.
I've only read a few Christina Rossetti's poems . . . anyway anyway anyway . . .
NO! Wow! I'm going to HAVE to get that. Is it rentable? I suppose it covers his marriage to Lizzie Siddall, her overdose/death, and his burying his poems with her?
CR's poetry is pretty amazing. You religious folk here (and especially the Methodists) will know a couple of them already. The Methodist/Anglican hymn "In the Bleak Midwinter" is a poem of hers. (That's not where I got my nick, although I like the connection).
Cheers
Scott
PS
About a year ago I had my students write an essay defending the placement of certain texts in the canon. One of my students wrote in her introduction "These are all books that are in the canon, which means that they are the big gun books."
Heh.
Originally posted by Scott
It's funny how race baiters will argue until they are blue in the face that there are difference between races. Then when a standardized test finds differences then they argue till they are blue in the face that the test is wrong.
Not knowing who the race-baiters are in your post, I'm left a little confused about whether or not you're suggesting that there are inherent differences that are racial in nature. Are you?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Scott
It's funny how race baiters will argue until they are blue in the face that there are difference between races. Then when a standardized test finds differences then they argue till they are blue in the face that the test is wrong.
Yes, I don't get that.
And here's some news for alcimedes, midwinter, and other who are talking about cultural bias in tests: the psychometrics people haven't found any empirical evidence that the tests like IQ and SAT that do show large black-white differences are culturally biased in any way. And they've been looking.
Yes, I don't get that.
And here's some news for alcimedes, midwinter, and other who are talking about cultural bias in tests: the psychometrics people haven't found any empirical evidence that the tests like IQ and SAT that do show large black-white differences are culturally biased in any way. And they've been looking
That IS interesting. It seems to me that "race baiters" (as Scott put it) are going ballistic trying to blame everything and everyone under the sun. We know the discrepenecy is there. One question that needs to be asked is: "Is IQ fluid and changeable?". Can it go down due to cultural practices? I think most would agree it is so. One poster indirectly referenced cultural differences. This is valid, I think. Look at the numbers for illegitamacy and broken families in the African American community. Look at the financial (socio-economic) differences. These are the bigger problems.
It's also funny that the argument is being made here that since some students did well on the SAT and got good grades, they should graduate. The SAT is perhaps one of the biggest standardized tests in the world. Grades are often based on, at least, school-standardized testing. How does this argument wash? The only argument that can be made is about the fitness of the test itself. It must measure certain basic skills accurately. But using the above argument to position one's self against the entire concept of standardized testing? That doesn't make sense to me.
IMO, we should, in fact, have a test of basic skills at each grade. That's what No Child Left Behind was supposed to do. There may be problems with the Act, but the idea is sound. A student that cannot read and perform basic math should not move from 3rd to 4th grade. The same student should be able to demonstrate said skills at another level by 12th grade (unless due to mental/physical disability).
My point is that a High School Diploma must stand for certain skills. Anyone with said diploma should be able to read, write, perform basic math, have some general knowledge of history, the Arts, etc. One of the other major arguments against testing is that some students simply CANNOT test due to learning disability (though many of the same students have exceptionally high IQ's). My wife teaches these type of children at a private school. What's the solution for them? Perhaps the expansion of alternative schools (publicly funded?) for children with this particular probelm. The severely disabled? Perhaps a special diploma with a disability exception. As horrible as this sounds, if a student cannot pass the test, that says something about that student's ability to assimilate and process information in written form. Rather than blindly accept the disability, we must teach the child to DEAL with it (this is exactly what my wife's school does). The child will need skills in writing and reading, no matter how intelligent he is.
The only possible way it can 'work' is if you have 20 tests with absolutely zero overlap, and these tests are given at random times. The tests would have to be changed ever year or two as well. That way teachers couldn't focus on a limited agenda hurting the students.
As far as cultural bias is concerned, I believe it's possible in some if not most subjects. Math is one of the only cut and dried subjects that's exempt.
Originally posted by midwinter
Not knowing who the race-baiters are in your post, I'm left a little confused about whether or not you're suggesting that there are inherent differences that are racial in nature. Are you?
Cheers
Scott
You shouldn't be confused. I made no statements about weather or not I think there are "inherent differences that are racial in nature".
Originally posted by Scott
You shouldn't be confused. I made no statements about weather or not I think there are "inherent differences that are racial in nature".
You're right, I inserted "inherent" in there. My bad.
But you said: "It's funny how race baiters will argue until they are blue in the face that there are difference between races. Then when a standardized test finds differences then they argue till they are blue in the face that the test is wrong."
But there are two statements here about differences in races (I'm assuming this is in reference to performance on standardized tests), and I'm still not sure who the "race-baiters" are. I'm just trying to figure out what you're getting at here. Are you saying that some people argue that there are differences (whatever that means...there are all kinds) in different races and then those same people go on to argue that, when a test (and I'm assuming again that this means performance on a standardized test) shows this to be the case, that the tests are "wrong" and therefore ought to be modified to accommodate these differences? If this is what you're arguing, I'm not sure why this is a bad thing.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by SDW2001
IMO, we should, in fact, have a test of basic skills at each grade. That's what No Child Left Behind was supposed to do. There may be problems with the Act, but the idea is sound. A student that cannot read and perform basic math should not move from 3rd to 4th grade. The same student should be able to demonstrate said skills at another level by 12th grade (unless due to mental/physical disability).
My point is that a High School Diploma must stand for certain skills. Anyone with said diploma should be able to read, write, perform basic math, have some general knowledge of history, the Arts, etc. One of the other major arguments against testing is that some students simply CANNOT test due to learning disability (though many of the same students have exceptionally high IQ's).
I'm with you, especially on the first bit. I wonder, though, if one of the reasons we don't do this is that it could potentially be very, VERY embarrassing for schools, teachers, administrators, parents, AND students.
I'd only add to your second point that while I'm a little uneasy about a tiered system, I think that what we DESPERATELY need at this point is a public, culture-wide legitimizing of trade schools in this country. Since the GI bill, I imagine, kids who would normally have never gone to college have been compelled to go. It breaks my heart when, year after year, I see students who don't know why they're here, don't want to be here, don't need to be here, and who are genuinely, seriously, unhappy here. These kids, most of the time, just want to get a job that in no way requires a complete university education. And yet here they are. If there were some track for kids like this that was publical regarded as just as valid of an education as a university education, that might go a long way toward fixing some of these problems, and would give many of the kids you're talking about a place to go.
I don't know much about the long history of all this other than Newman's Idea of a University (although I keep running across books about it), but I do know that my expectation that my students (generally college freshmen) know the same kinds of things I did when I left high school are hardly ever met. I've had students who had never read a book. I've had students who never wrote anything longer than a page in all of high school. Now, granted, I'm in a state with a woeful education system--budget cuts, school closings, poor teacher pay, lots and lots and LOTS of under-funded rural schools--but I don't think it's too much to ask that my students be able to conjugate verbs in their native language or know what a complete sentence is. Hell, a year ago or so, I had a group of students asking me when WWII was. They honest to god didn't know. When I told them, they asked me when WWI was. They didn't know. Had NO idea. Then they asked me when the civil war was. Again. They didn't know.
This is a serious problem. I mean, I'm not expecting students to be able to talk about French poststructuralism or anything, but WORLD WAR TWO? This was a group of FIVE PEOPLE. In college. At a Big 12 University. I shouldn't have to explain stuff like that at this level.
Cheers
Scott
It's people who try to stir up racial trouble where there is none.
So they way I see it a race baiter needs to argue that there are differences. Once differences are "confirmed" with a test then it's the test that's wrong.
What do they want? A test to show no difference? A test normalized for race? ... Don't kill the messenger.
If they want real progress in minority education shouldn't we have a method to objectively measure the difference between minority education against the average? But if we measure that there is a difference and minorities are below average then ... the test is racist. Do they want objectivity or ordained results? I don't get it.
Originally posted by Scott
I see. "Race baiter" is typically used to mean people who use race as an issue where race is not an issue. Or interject race into a discussion where it's not needed or called for. For example there's the "hazing girls" in suburban chicago. On teevee I saw a guy start in with the "If these were inner city black kids ..." stop right there. They are not inner city black kids so why bring it up?
It's people who try to stir up racial trouble where there is none.
Gotcha. All is clear now.
So they way I see it a race baiter needs to argue that there are differences. Once differences are "confirmed" with a test then it's the test that's wrong.
What do they want? A test to show no difference? A test normalized for race? ... Don't kill the messenger.
Well, if a test is supposed to measure performance of, say, kids exiting high school and certain segments of those being tested consistently do poorly on the test, it suggests either that a) something is wrong with that segment of the population or b) something is wrong with the test. The problem is really that it's difficult to know whether or not the scores of the test are valid.
If they want real progress in minority education shouldn't we have a method to objectively measure the difference between minority education against the average? But if we measure that there is a difference and minorities are below average then ... the test is racist. Do they want objectivity or ordained results? I don't get it.
That's a fair point. And it's also difficult terrain to navigate.
Thanks for clarifying your point for me.
Cheers
Scott
if you worry about teachers teaching to the tests, just make sure the tests only contain useful knowledge based questions. like algebra. history. vocabulary. grammer.
how in the world do you "teach to" any of those subjects without just teaching the entire subject. you can't teach someone how to have a good vocabulary without teaching them a wide range of words. same goes with all the other categories.
Originally posted by Scott
I see. "Race baiter" is typically used to mean people who use race as an issue where race is not an issue. Or interject race into a discussion where it's not needed or called for. For example there's the "hazing girls" in suburban chicago. On teevee I saw a guy start in with the "If these were inner city black kids ..." stop right there. They are not inner city black kids so why bring it up?.
Because in general it's true. There are plenty of records to show that persons classified as white get different treatement that those classified as black when dealing with the justice system. It stats from the initital contact with the police and follows through to the Judge and Jury. While the comment may have no bearing on the fcts of the actual case, in a larger discussion it is an accurate commentary.
Originally posted by Sondjata
Because in general it's true. There are plenty of records to show that persons classified as white get different treatement that those classified as black when dealing with the justice system. It stats from the initital contact with the police and follows through to the Judge and Jury. While the comment may have no bearing on the fcts of the actual case, in a larger discussion it is an accurate commentary.
I'm not sure that's true. I'd ask you for a link or at least a reposting of data. There has been the bit with racial profiling.
Scott is right: Race gets injected into just about every argument imaginable. We do have significant problems in the minority communities, but it is always blamed on our system limiting those groups. I really don't think that's true, unless we are talking about the federal welfare state that exists with many minorities. This in itself discourages things like two-parent families and increased levels of education.
I challenge anyone to show me an example of how our system is unfair to minorities. I know discrepancies exist in income, home ownership, education, etc....but I don't think that there is a race-created glass ceiling in today's world.
Originally posted by SDW2001
...but I don't think that there is a race-created glass ceiling in today's world.
That's probably because you live out in isolation.
actually the particulars of racial profiling are very interesting. Anyone interested should look up some of the studies. I remember one (I think in Kansas) where they tried pulling cars over at random and found that drug/weapons violations became equal between white/black. Of course, the idea was then floated that blacks, expecting to be singled out, did more to hide their drugs, guns. When we studied it in class it was in the context of false interpretation of facts in order to justify previous assumptions, which is all too common in statistical studies.
Anyway, the easy one to shut you up is the fact that race plays very heavily in US executions:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...scid=5&did=184
Originally posted by SDW2001
I challenge anyone to show me an example of how our system is unfair to minorities. I know discrepancies exist in income, home ownership, education, etc....but I don't think that there is a race-created glass ceiling in today's world.
How about...a tax cut for dividends when 95% of the people making those dividends are white?
How about...a tax cut for dividends when 95% of the people making those dividends are white?
there's nothing to stop black people from investing their money to benefit from the same tax cut, but that's not really the point.
the justice system is terrible with race. drugs are one of the worst discrepencies. i know i did a research paper about the legalization of drugs. one of things i found beyond just the different arrest rates/sentences was the percentage of drug offenders who eneded up (disenfranchised?), forgot what the term was.
in any case, it's where after being convicted of a felony you lose your right to vote. happened to black people by more than a factor of 10 when compared to white people with the same crime/situation.
it was bad. but of course, it's also not that the system has been set up to promote racism, it's just that there aren't standardized rules regarding when someone should lose their right to vote. but then we're right back to standardizing things.