Public Education and Race
 

This topic was brought up in the Obama thread but I didn't want to tread jack it. Besides I'm very interested and involved in this topic and would love to hear some opinions on it. Here is the background quotes and then my reply.



I agree that using "white" as a descriptor is problematic. But, I'm not sure how to address the issue when, for example, all other things being equal (income, neighborhood, family) a black student does worse on tests than a white student. Why?

I think the behaviors and knowledge that is required in education is, more or less, what needs to be taught in order to successfully navigate our capitalist culture. However, I think we need a dialogue on recognizing that the failure of public education is due in large part to the inability to "appropriately" socialize a large group of our population (that group obviously varies, where I teach the largely unsuccessful group is Hispanics). What compounds the problem is our inadequate response to the environments where acting "anti-(classroom) social" is encouraged and even essential. It is here where I think solving this with more money in the classroom is mostly wasted.

I very much like what Jeffery Canada is doing with his Harlem Children's Zone, particularly his Baby College for parents. He believes that in order to thrive in a middle class and above environment, a child by 5 needs to have self-control, be able to delay gratification and exhibit some sort of resilience. I think the race issue comes in believing that these behaviors are inherently correct and any other way of being is a deviation from this "normal".

Another way of bringing it out in the open would be to explore some of the the motivations behind private schools. In essence, a private school gives parents the opportunity to put their child in a homogenous classroom, one with shared behaviors and expectations. Should public classrooms be more explicitly divided into socialized and un-socialized? How many parents would prefer to have their culturally bright student in a classroom surrounded by other similarly socialized students? Thus, keeping the un-socialized in separate but equal classrooms?

So essentially you want to turn public education into a Brave New World-style dystopia? Because that's precisely what would happen - the separation between classes would grow even stronger.

I'm not sure he said he wanted that at all.

Certinly I can't speak for an entire race whether I am idenitifed as that race or not, that said there is a separate (maybe larger) cultural facor at play.

There is still this underlying stigma in the African American community regarding being an Uncle Tom..or otherwise attempts to minimize the expression of their culture. While cultural heritage is something to be celebrated, I have personally witnessed this be expanded to the point where I watched a father figure mock and ridicule an 1 yar old child for making all A's on a report card. An achievement that should have been celebrated and promoted was actively discouraged. The young man responded that he wanted good grades so he could grow up and make a lot of money...his "father figure" replied "Who's got mo money, Jay Z, LeBron, or the manager at Burger King"...and continued that good grades wouldnt make him rich...

Anecdotal and singular incident for sure, but in coaching little league sports for the past 8 years I have seen this over and over to varying degrees.

So are the results biased? Are the schools actually in fact reaching all races equally while some hide their ability?

Beyond my ability to say for sure...but I think its a factor worth mentioning.

dola- and yes, I would want my kid in a classroom surrounded by other bright students as opposed to kids who, regardless of color, could be a bad influence or distraction.

What parent wouldn't?

Having three kids the thing I've noticed most when interacting with the various classrooms is that some kids (all races) simply don't have much structure at home and that creates a conflict.

The divide is only going to get worse as schools start adopting technology and it won't be so much about race anymore as it will be about class. Those with money and technology will have the avenues and opportunities opened up them much more than those that don't. Students in rural areas and inner-city schools that don't have the means to provide these things to their students will be left in the dust.

There are several studies that show that most kids are comparable by an number of improvement metrics from the beginning to the school year to the end of the school year, but there is a huge discrepancy in summer retention. Kids with more structure or means or [pick your adjective] maintain what they've learned and learn more at a significantly higher rate over the summer than those who lack structure/means/____.

What kind of school gives grades to a 1 yar old child? I think we have zeroed in on the problem right there.

I can't speak for the 'means' crowd because we aren't part of it. :lol:

But I always stress that my kids pay attention at school. Bad reports/grades from school are one of the few things that get seriously frowned upon in our home.

I'd be interested in seeing the studies that show this. Specifically, do certain ethnicities do better or worse that others? Is there actual correlation there? Or is correlation based more on geography and/or class?

I think 1 yar = 10 earth years.

Did you mean 1 or 11?

Parenting is the issue in this example, but you can't apply that in all situations, as I find most African American parents are just the opposite of that stellar Dad. You bring up a good issues though, as regardless of class or race, peer pressure seems to be the one thing that can trump a strong parent who encourages good grades.

Classrooms should be diverse where possible, with a consistent approach to all kids IMO, which tutoring offered as needed to bridge deficiencies. Another key factor to success is keeping the influences that damage academic success to a minimum.

Two examples that are really striking to me.

1-Our daughter came home one day upset because someone told her she talked white and needed to act more black.... I told her that her response should be that she talked neither black or white, she talked "proper" and she should never be ashamed to be educated.

Kids don't get the big picture and many that are completely capable of excelling don't for the fear of being ostracized by their peers who worship the thug factor of those who have made it. What they don't realize is that guys like Jay-Z, Curtis Jackson, etc are actually very articulate in a business setting and have a solid concept of business. Maybe these role models could talk about this more, or even better, parents should point this out. Sure, some genuine thugs/scumbags of all races get rich, but for everyone of them there are thousands and thousands that get nowhere in life. It is just like the athletes we coach. We never encourage them to shoot for an athletic scholarship, we stress working for an academic scholarship and foster that in an environment they are free from peer pressure to blow school off by conducting study halls.

This brings up the second example. We won our section for the third straight year last season, but our biggest source of pride was having 14 players make all-academic first team. More than double the number of any other school in our section. The sad part is, that once they are out of season, grades drop dramatically and this has been a disturbing trend. Our solution this year, if you play Football you will study hall all year long, including your senior year, unless you are involved in other sports or school activities.

This will keep them focused and in a like minded environment and even playing other sports, the opportunity to avoid distraction (plus most other sports have study halls too) will keep them away from the "anchors" that think it is not cool to get good grades and be educated.

I think de facto segregation is still alive and well. I'm suggesting that by openly embracing it less money will be wasted. Any big city is already divided by rich kid private schools and poor public schools. Also, I know here in San Fran the few good public schools are hyper-test based competitive, meaning nearly it's impossible to get in without extra education resources, thus the separation keeps growing.

So you are taking the stance of that's how it has always been? There is always a solution if enough are willing to embrace it.

I would argue the correlation exist between communities/cultures that embrace capitalistic-upper middle class norms, and those who do not. In order words: the assimilated and non-assimilated.

As for data, a quick search of "achievement gap and race and income: netted this:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 129 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test score that was 61 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000.

• Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_coll...ions-test.html

Yes, it has, and it mostly worked because our economy had a large need of manufacturing type jobs. But as our economy is changing and demanding more extra high schools education/training I think the model is breaking.

10,000 or 100,000?

A black 1 year old makes on average $100,000 a year thanks to the rap industry. How can my kids compete with that?

Its not race as much as it is economics.
Poor rural schools in "white" areas can be just as poorly rated as big city public schools.
The example above is a lower income response, be it "white" or "black".

Where the money is, is where the opportunities are. Race doesnt really matter.

The above SAT study was posted as I typed my response.

That is interesting data. And very confusing. Why would that be? Its not nature is it? Because that study would rule out nurture.

I hope this is a PC question.

It's not socioeconomic, it's cultural. The sooner we're allowed to start saying that, the better.

But isnt culture related to socioeconomic?

Major, major selection bias at work. Anyone, regardless of race, from a family making less than $10,000 a year who actually takes the SAT is bound to be significantly more intelligent than their peers.

I'm gonna have to disagree on this point I think. I'd argue that SAT participation is more a function of the expectations of the adults around a child than of the child's intellect.

My perspective on this is that if you sign up to take a test with a registration fee that's ~25% of what your family brings home in a week, you're not just taking it for the hell of it.

For the average middle-class American where going to college is an expectation, taking the SATs is a another rite of passage like getting your drivers' license or going to prom, so even marginally intelligent kids sign up for it.

I thought it was subsidized for students who had parents with low household income?

Yep, criteria for the fee waiver are pretty easily met too


edit to add: The fee waiver also triggers application fee waivers for a number of colleges AND provides additional score sends at no charge

I knew someone would bring that up, but that's assuming your school district is proactive enough to fill out the paperwork and make sure students are aware of and prepared for the test. Not as likely when we're talking areas with high concentrations of families earning <$10k/year.

This looks like a report for the state of Florida in 2006: http://reporting.collegeboard.com/rm...l_WebReady.pdf

Just eyeballing the income figure, about half of the test takers were from the top quartile of household income while 4 percent of test takers came from families earning under $10,000 a year (approximately the 10th percentile in income).

Varies widely from state to state & even district to district though.

Beyond that however, I said the expectations of adults which includes parents as well as school personnel. At some point, somebody has to get off their ass ... and by the time you're SAT-taking age, that also includes the student.

Honestly, if you aren't looking into those options to help dig yourself (or your child) out of a $10k/year hole, I don't believe college is somewhere you're likely to succeed anyway so I'm not sure I'm going to bemoan the situation a whole lot regardless.

Which has nothing to do with my original point, that of course white students from families making under $10,000 a year are going to score higher than average, because for them to be taking the test in the first place means that they were smart enough (whether by some innate giftedness or by a better home environment) that some teacher or counselor thought they had a chance to succeed and dig themselves out of that hole.

If you're the guidance counselor at a mediocre, underfunded high school, you're not going out of your way to encourage some kid who has no chance at college to take the SATs and bring down your school's statewide ranking and give yourself a bunch of paperwork in the process. However, a dumb, wealthier kid whose family and peers all took the SAT and went to/are planning to go to college is a lot more likely to take it (and bring down the average for their particular income bracket) than a poor kid from a family where nobody ever attended college.

I'd go along with that, even historically that had been true.

It's not just "poor" blacks or Hispanics. When I was at grad school at UNC in the 1980s, we (I was a cultural geographer) did a study on education in the state. The most anti-education "culture" I had ever experienced in my life was the white trash of NC, more so than the rural blacks of that state. But that was back then when NC was in the bottom in education standards and the study showed anti-education values being passed down from generation to generation. Since living in Colorado for decades now, I have not been exposed to much anti-education cultures so I can't speak for current trends.

Dammit...typo.
I suck at typing..I need to work on that.

"an 11 year old" not a 1 yar old..damn...sorry guys carry on

So, wait, your contention here what exactly? That white families with <$10k HH income have a better home environment than the average black student in the same circumstances?

Methinks you may be overestimating the conditions of those white families in that income range.


I disagree -- fervently -- because I've seen that exact thing happen on a regular basis for pretty much my entire life (my HS years were the early/mid 80s for reference). It's one (of many many) reasons Georgia SAT scores suck.

All this reminds me of the ebonics debate we had here about 10 years ago.

I have spent a majority of my life working in white-collar IT and have participated on many interview teams. The values we always look for goes beyond technical. Those values are communications (written and oral) and character = teamwork, work ethic, attitude and ethics. If those are "whitey" values (they shouldn't be), then so be it and schools (of all types) should be teaching those and supported by parents.

Here's a snippet from my son's high school on character:


I believe these can be taught to all socioeconomic classes - as my son's school have done extremely well (highest standardized test scores in the state and 93% college placement). I do not believe anyone is or should be automatically excluded.

Thank you. You said what I was trying to demonstrate.
Sometimes it is parents, sometimes peers, but I have witnessed too many intelligent kids intentionally do worse than their capable of INTENTIONALLY to fit in.

That white kids with <$10k HH income who actually take the SAT will have higher than average SAT scores. Survivorship bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's indisputable that kids from higher-income families are overrepresented among SAT test takers. What this means is that if you take two kids (regardless of race) who would score a 600 on the SAT, and one of them's from a family earning less than $10k/year and the other one's from an upper-middle class family, the upper-middle class one is way more likely to actually take the test.

Simply put most black kids do not care about education because most of their societal role models did not need education to make money. (i.e. LeBron, Jay Z, Athletes, Singers, Rappers)

A majority of these kids do not know even know how to write properly.

I think the issue starts with the women, but that is that issue for another day.

LOL, you had me until you dropped your bombshell.

Tell me, Noop, you would be a role model considering that you are pursuing a professional degree and having to overcome some difficulties in your life. What motivated and encouraged you to do so despite what most other black kids would do (to use your words)?

I'm not following your argument. Why do you think a poor white kid will score better than a poor black kid? That teachers in poor minority dumb schools are too reluctant and lazy to even help out the smart kids?

Anyway, I'm not sure how your argument still answers why black students over 100k score less.

It's not just SAT's too. The California Standardized tests scores show that in math and science low income white kids score better than high income black and Hispanic students. In English, high income white kids out perform high income black and Hispanic kids. Why?

Here's the math and science link: STEMing the minority gap | Thoughts on Public Education

While I do not think your character qualities are in themselves better than other ones, I do think they are the best ones to be successful in our current society.

The problem is, not all families, communities share your (and your school) opinion. What then should be done with their children? Right now we throw them (along with lots of money) to public educators and say, socialize them, or, even more cynically, parent them the right way. The result is less attention and stimulation for the properly socialized and a repressive discipline policy aimed at the un-socialized.

I'm arguing, that to "solve" public education, this race/income socialization expectation needs to be discussed. One possible outcome could be behavioral expectations for all students entering kindergarten. Make sure all students have the skills to be properly socialized so that the can become a productive member in our laissez faire society.

I never said anything at all about poor black students because the first article you posted had no reference to their scores, only those of poor white students. If I had to speculate, I'd guess that poor white students would also score better than poor black students on the SAT, on average, because a disproportionate amount of the latter group would be composed of prospective Division I athletes who just need to get a minimum score.


In so many words, yes. I went to a high school that is right around the 50th percentile for my state in standardized test scores. Even at that level, the focus was mainly on making sure people show up to class/are on track to graduate. Less than 25% of my class took the ACTs, and I had to drive about an hour to another school to take the SAT with two other students. If that's average, then schools in the 10th percentile are going to be pretty horrible.



There is a cultural element to that, but it's not "The poor white kids pull themselves up by the bootstraps and do better than the rich black kids," as much as it's "The poor white kids that actually take the SAT are going to be from the top 10-20 percent of all poor white kids in terms of intelligence, so it makes sense they'd score higher than black kids as a whole, and they'd probably score more than white kids as a whole if there wasn't a multibillion dollar test prep industry powered by predominantly wealthy families/school districts."



This is definitely an area where cultural arguments like "we need to stress STEM professions for black/Latino students because there aren't enough role models for them in those fields" do carry more weight. I would caution that standardized tests are incredibly easy to game, and that it's hard to say too much about that data without knowing whether high income black and Latino students will are more likely to be in worse school districts than their white counterparts.


Going out on a limb here, but because more of them grew up speaking the language?

This is exactly the kind of conversation that needs to happen. From how I read your statement, you are saying that poor black kids have lower scores because they are too lazy to do better.



Again, great concept. I'm assuming you also mean the African American community is also, basically, English Language Learners.

Out of idle curiosity ... did the new book from the "Tiger Mom" have anything to do with inspiring this thread?

You need to get out more and read more (non-law school) books mah nigga.

I thought a fair bit about this morning from the perspective of a little over 5 years of first year composition teaching at the college level, and I realized that from my own anecdotal experience, it tends to go something like this:

White males and females have no noticeable trends either way. The distribution of writing quality follows the basic curve you might expect - a few exceptional, a few in need of major work, and most in the middle.

Hispanic males and females overall tended to have had the second worst writing in my classes. I suspect this is a result of more than a few of them being first generation college students. That's not to say I've had no great writers here - I have - It's just that from a global perspective, this is how it goes.

African-American males and females have the single greatest disparity of any racial group, and it's quite astounding, really. In fact, as a whole, I'd say the black women in my classes tend to be one of the strongest groups of writers overall, and yet the black men have tended to be the worst group of writers, and it's not that close. Again, I'm talking about general terms here rather than universal statements.

I don't have enough data points on American-born Asian students to be able to comment on them one way or the other - most of the ones I've had are foreign-born.

My international students, regardless of race, tend to either be really, really strong, to the point where they outperform native speakers/writers (this was especially true at UArk), or the weaker than English as first language students like you might expect.

Again, this is completely anecdotal, and I was tossing it out there for consideration.

You all need to read more and stop letting ancedotal experience drive your perceptions of people. There's too many data and information for you all to be living in the "WELL I ONCE MET ONE OF THEM AND YOU KNOW..." zone.

Correlation does not imply causation and there are a lot of things at work that most folks who are speaking out of turn don't really know about, understand or care about the root causes of.

It's not as easy as "pathologies" or "the bracks don't appreciate book learnin'" like most things, it's far more complicated than that. And by trying to distill into pea shaped material that helps you all digest it better and sleep better at night or whatever; you discount the real issues that if more people in society understood the root causes, we could begin to come up with REAL solutions rather than band aid measures that isolate populations and don't address structural problems that affect challenged populations beyond just race or whatever marker you're using.

Depending how much more of a trainwreck this thing is, maybe I'll cobble together a book list for you folks. It won't help, but it might make me feel better because so many you don't really know what the hell you're talking about and it's embarrassing, well-intentioned or not.

I would presume, though, that the expectations of parents (good or bad) would have a correlating affect on both SAT participation and performance.

So, it still comes back to parents, and the affect of communities on parents (and their children), probably in that order.

No, because private and public schools actually have different missions.

A private school's mission is to provide a competitive education to a group of (mostly) homogenous, (generally) excelling students.

A public school's mission is to provide a baseline education (and competitive where time & resources permit) to a heterogeneous (often dramatically so, by many measures) group of students.

If we have public schools adopt the private school mission, then we agree to cut loose vast swathes of American children.

What the hell? What I'm saying is hardly any poor people, regardless of race, take the SAT. Those that do are more likely to be smart because if your family's in poverty and you're not gonna get high enough scores to get a hefty scholarship or get into a college with need-blind financial aid, what's the point in taking the SAT?

If you threw out everyone that is taking the test just to be eligible for college sports (who would presumably be scoring below average because they don't need to ace it), I'm sure poor black kids who take the SAT would have above average scores as well. I'll attach a diagram to explain what's going on, where only the people to the right of the tall red bar actually take the SAT.

Coincidentally, the tiger mom makes the same elementary errors in survivorship bias. If you look at Chinese and Indian immigrants compared to African Americans, of course the immigrants are going to look like they have some intrinsic cultural superiority: the people who actually get to leave those countries and come to America are disproportionately made up of doctors, entrepreneurs, and PhD. students.