Coaches want ACT, SAT removed. Systematically Racist
- Thread starter DAiello18
- Start date
They are in the sense that those with the most resources tend to do the best on these tests. Those with the most resources have historically been white and have been able to pass down through generation those resources. It's a cascade effect.
I don't know if getting rid of standardized testing is the answer but we should be providing more resources to underprivileged students so they can do better on standardized testing.
I don't know if getting rid of standardized testing is the answer but we should be providing more resources to underprivileged students so they can do better on standardized testing.
What? Schools teach to the standardized test to help students succeed. In school. What does that have to do with resources?
Also you of course pivoted this to a "black vs white" issue but as is the typically the case these days in education, it's actually another minority that is always at the top of the ladder academically. The same minority group that is actively being discriminated against by Woke college boards.
Average SAT Scores by Racial and Ethnic Group, 2018
Math Evidence-Based
Reading and Writing Total 1-Year Change
American Indian 480 469 949 -14
Asian 635 588 1223 +42
Black 463 483 946 +5
Latino 489 501 990 no change
Native Hawaiian 489 498 986 no change
White 557 566 1123 +5
It has everything to do with resources. More money, better schools and teachers. Schools are funded through property taxes, so it's a rich get richer thing. Have money, buy a bigger house, pay more property tax, have better schools, pay teachers better, get better teachers, kids learn more, kids do better on the standardized tests, repeat.
There is alot wrong and factually untrue about what you just wrote, but if this is what you believe, then you should be a huge proponent of school choice programs and the expansion of charter schools. But Democrats hate these programs so typically they don't get implemented, even though it's the best way for kids out of crap schools if they want out.
What's wrong and factually untrue? Maybe in districts like Orange all schools get generally equal resources but it's not like that in most places. Where I grew up our district outspent the city's district 4/5-1. I think the reason Democrats oppose school choice is because it takes money out of already struggling public schools and puts it into private/religious schools.
Schools are funded at the county level, not by the zipcode or neighborhood level. Pinellas County residents pay property taxes and then the Pinellas school board allocates funding to schools not based upon property values but based upon need and getting schools what they don't have. Florida is not the Hamptons, the areas with high property values are just a few streets away from lower income houses. The public schools cross alot of boundaries here.
Also if you simply cared about a kid escaping a bad school to get to a good school, you'd absolutely support private school if that is the best option for that kid. The idea that public school funding would dry up is nonsense too since parents who send their kids to private school and pay tuition are STILL paying property taxes to fund public schools they aren't using.
The intent should be getting kids into the best schools for them to learn in. The idea of government public schools being sacred or something needs to end since so many of them suck anyways, for reasons not having to do with funding.
Have you ever actually looked at school districts to confirm this "common knowledge"? I know that I've heard it repeated frequently but I don't think that's the case overall. It's not like the school is directly funded only on the properties in it's footprint; a lot of the tax money goes in a big pool and is distributed by the county or the district.
Here's a comparison of some schools in Volusia County, FL. You tell me which one is in the poorer neighborhood.
School Name School-level: State/local funds School-level: Federal funds District-level: State/local funds District-level: Federal funds Total costs per pupil
SILVER SANDS MIDDLE SCHOOL $6,009 $268 $505 $10 $6,792
CAMPBELL MIDDLE SCHOOL $7,380 $823 $542 $31 $8,776
TURIE T. SMALL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL $7,281 $1,535 $613 $30 $9,459
HORIZON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL $7,140 $340 $564 $48 $8,092
MAINLAND HIGH SCHOOL $6,302 $454 $496 $21 $7,273
SPRUCE CREEK HIGH SCHOOL $5,897 $254 $463 $18 $6,632
Data Source: https://www.jacksonville.com/news/2...-flagler-schools-spend-per-student-it-depends
If you guessed that the schools either in or serving the poorer neighborhoods had the higher tuition per student, you'd be absolutely right. Now, if you want to talk about all the differences in the kids' resources outside of the schools and beyond tax funding, then let's have that conversation. But to act like the schools in the poorer neighborhoods get less money because of property taxes, I don't think that's true. Maybe in some places, like Chicago, where the school districts are corrupt as hell. But not across the board.
In Florida it's funded on the county level, I grew up in Ohio. Frankly most of the Florida public schools aren't that good. A lot of places are funded by the specific city or district.
Yes in Florida it's funded at the county level, not all places are like that. I don't really have an issue with school choice but I do have an issue with public money going to private institutions.
Our city is zoned for a really bad school and decided to start their own public charter school 10 years ago. It has limited space and there is a waiting list to get but it's like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. You build better schools for some kids, while others get left in worse schools with mostly transient students.
Right. In Chicago, where I grew up, they have Chicago Public Schools and then districts for the suburbs. CPS is always on some campaign or another to try to equalize funding to schools. They are also "severely" underfunded even though they pay as much or more per student than most places.
In the suburbs, you do get disparities based upon income. So maybe the change needs to be getting out of balkanized districts and fixing the school systems rather than taking away a method for colleges to assess the individuals based on a test they can take. Because if you take a test away, then they are going to look at the school system and you're going to see individuals denied simply because of where they came from. At least the test provides an objective opportunity for them to show that they qualify.
Government has decided that it is going to force you to pay for their education service whether you like it or not. I think it's only fair that government subsidizes your kids if they've screwed up that service so badly that you have to go to a private or semi-private provider.
Only because there isn't enough room to take all of the students that apply. A 4.0 GPA in a CPS may not be equal to a 4.0 GPA in a nice Chicago suburb but both of those students put in effort to get 4.0s, which is probably the most important factor to success. With online courses, space is no longer a limiting factor. Maybe it is time to get rid of the standardized tests.
Good points. I do worry about the reports of grade inflation at schools to try to qualify students for college that aren't ready for that. It's not fair to those students that aren't learning what they need to learn to prepare them to be successful in college.
Though I agree they are culturally biased to a certain extent, the value of standardized tests is that they are one measure that puts all students on the same measuring stick. Should they be the "be-all and end-all" of a competitive admissions process? Absolutely not. But they serve as an important tool when weighing students from a wide-range of different school systems and economic circumstances.
But how in the world are competitive admissions committees supposed to make the best possible decisions without standardized test scores? If top universities admitted the high school students with "the best grades," they would end up with a freshman class that was six or seven-times larger than the school can admit. What else do you use as a differentiator?
I always thought it was interesting that parents and high school counselors are clamoring to remove standardized testing from the decision-making process of selective admissions committees---and yet, somehow, they expect BETTER and MORE FAIR decisions? How's that work?
Once again, the soft bigotry of low expectations rears its ugly head. It isnt fair for people of a certain skin color to be held to the same standard as people of a different skin color, because one group is inherently worse than the other at "×, y, or z".
There should be racial quotas for college basketball scholarships that represent the racial makeup of this country. 5 out of every 7 basketball players on scholarship should be white, 1 out of 7 should go to Hispanics, and 1 out of 7 should go to African americans.
If your dad played in the NFL/NBA, you have a better chance at playing in the NFL/NBA. If your dad is a doctor, you have a better chance at being a doctor. Everyone isn't starting life in the same place.
What is there to learn? 4 generations ago they were interned by our government and now they are the wealthiest subsect of our nation.
I know a lot about Asian American subculture. They don't come here unless they have money or are educated. Therefore their kids will focus on education. If your dad is a doctor, you will be pushed to become a doctor. I have friends that drop 6 figures a year on private schools and tutors. Education is a priority.
You have a very limited viewpoint of their experience and that is of the exception rather than the norm. Many, many more come to this country and struggle to find jobs doing what they did in Asia because of racism. So they start up or work in businesses that Americans deem acceptable. Like restaurants and laundromats. They work their assess off and their families work the business As children. But they also have very strict family norms and strong expectations. They drive their children to be more than they are because it is the way their culture works. Their is severe cultural stigma when the children don’t achieve more than the parents. It’s why there is a very high suicide rate in S. Korea. It is also why their statistics are so much better here.
Most of the Asians that come over are not rich by any means. They are not using generational wealth. They are taking advantage of the opportunities that they have to create better outcomes.
EDIT: There have been more educated Asian immigrants in the recent waves.
Last edited:
It's not just hard work, there are sophisticated networks in place that have been built up over decades. They still come here with skills, education and/or a network of support within the local community and the community from home. There is nothing undesirable about owning a restaurants, laundromat or nail salon, those are solid cash businesses. They have solid systems in place (supply chains, access to capital) which makes it much easier to succeed. There is a reason that nail salons are the first business in every strip mall.
Put the courses online and give everyone an opportunity. The cream will rise to the top when it matters.
Again, you only have one part of the story. In Louisiana, for instance, Vietnamese immigrants who were fishermen were locked out of the industry by the locals. They persevered and, sure, now they have set up systems. But that hasn’t been in place for more than 100 years of Asian immigration. That’s a recent thing and it’s a testament to the community improving itself, not a strike against them.
One common thing in all of your arguments is that you are quick to dismiss what people work hard to build and endure as luck or privilege. One generation’s luck was built on another’s hard work and sacrifice. But you just look at outcomes and judge everything as unfair. That’s a huge disservice to the people that spent their lives improving their families and communities.
They aren't the only people who worked their @ss off. It's a combination of work and systems. For some, those systems have been in place for over 100 years. They were able to capitalize off of their hard work in ways that others were not allowed to. There were acceptable avenues for success for some groups, Asians in service, Jews in financial/legal, blacks in athletics.
