Seriously, can someone explain this to me so it does not come across as racist? Here’s the blurb for the video:
Oh, I see now why it’s not so racist–these goals are higher than the old goals. :rolleyes:
ETA: For your sanity, I suggest you do not read the comments on that page.
Ignoring the stupidity of no child left behind as an idea, this does not seem unreasonable to me. To quote the New York Times:
So if you need to improve Asians by 24 points, but blakcs by 62 points, in 10 years, then you need to improve Asians by 12 points and blacks by 31 points in 5 years if you assume a totally linear approach. Do the maths with a slightly more complex approach to target than linear and presumably those given figures are what you end up with.
Okay. In the anchor pool, who had “Simple Linctus” as the first one to post in defense of this policy?
Is FL the only state that breaks down academic goals by race like this? On the one hand, it does seem racist. OTOH, it’s reality.
I’m not defending the policy, dickhead, I think it’s a stupid policy and I think the same is to be said for No Child Left Behind.
But if the policy is to be implemented then I’m certainly defending the logic of the “racist” intermediate goal.
Let’s make it even simpler:
Assume it’s year 0 and Green People are getting 8 out of 10 on a test, and Red People are getting 6 out of 10 on a test.
You are told that you need both Red and Green people to get 10 out of 10 on the test by year 2.
Therefore you need to raise the attainments of Red people by 4 points, but the attainments of Green people, by 2 points.
Assume that you want to spread the work equally by time, and by population. That means that by year 1, you need to have raised the attainment of Red people by 2 points (4 points over 2 years, remember, becomes 2 points over 1 year) while you only need to raise the attainment of Green people by 1 point.
This gives you a target in year 1 of Green people: 9, Red people: 8
Making the plan:
Year 0: Green People: 8 Red People: 6
Year 1: Green People: 9 Red People: 8
Year 2: Green People: 10 Red People: 10
It’s perfectly logical.
I wish I could explain that in a way that doesn’t scream racism. I’ve been working on Florida’s standardized test for nine years and this policy appears to contradict everything I’ve worked on. All items on the assessments go through a bias and sensitivity screening – two different committees evaluate each and every single item to ensure that it isn’t biased for or against any given group. The standards are the same for all students. The test items are designed to assess understanding of the standards.
Example: Let’s say there is a Reading standard that calls for students to be able to read a passage and determine the author’s purpose for writing that passage. There will be an item that reads something like, "Based on the passage, “Title of Passage,” what was the author’s purpose? And then four plausible answer choices will be given.
This thread is the first I’ve heard of this race-based goals thingy. I haven’t seen a memo, heard any gossip, and it hasn’t been addressed in any meeting I’m invited to. I do not understand how the race-based goals support or contribute to success on the test.
This could also be a move to address the eminent shift from state-based standards to nationalized common core standards, and I have nothing to do with that part of the program so I wouldn’t have any insight on what’s up with all this.
I think it’s important to distinguish semantics in terms of the language used, however. In Assessment World (which is not unlike Spice World), “standards” are the benchmarks that all students should be aspiring to. A typical standard will be something like: In math, by 3rd grade, a student should be able to multiply and divide 2-digit numbers. Presented with a 2-digit multiplication problem on an assessment, the student will have achieved the standard if he or she can work the problem and choose the correct answer.
I think the word “goals” is being used in a slightly different way, although this is speculation on my part. The State Board of Ed is trying to set goals; they want to see minority students achieving the standards at the same levels of success as non-minority students. That doesn’t mean the standards (Add 2+2 and get 4) are racist, but the goal certainly sounds like it is.
I have to wonder… is this the most useful way for the school system to slice and dice the student population? Should that population be sliced and diced at all? How about by school district? We seem to be obsessed with race in the US.
Florida Schools: Now with 12% less average racism!
It doesn’t seem racist to me.
Star-belly Sneetches score 80% on a reading test.
Plain-belly Sneetches score 60%.
We need to improve that.
Next year, we would like the Star-belly Sneetches to score 85%, and the Plain-belly Sneetches to score 70%.
It’s unraslistic to expect both groups to score 85%. They’re starting from different levels of ability.
So if you’re smart, black, and lazy, sounds like you’ve got it made!
Yeesh… in my day there was a time limit.
I’m an editor, silly, not a student.
But that made me chuckle.
Students can take the test as many times as they need to in order to pass. But there is a time limit for every sitting.
Chuckle, my ass. I haven’t laughed that hard at post in a couple weeks, at least
Can’t it be seen as a percentage? The goal is to raise everyone’s reading level by 15% (or whatever). So depending on where they started, the finish line would be different.
Let’s play Assumption:
Assume today, the reading scores are
Asian - 85%
Caucasian - 81%
Hispanic - 69%
African American - 60%
The 2018 goals are
Asian - 90%
Caucasian - 88%
Hispanic - 81%
African American - 74%
This represents:
Asian - +5%
Caucasian - +7%
Hispanic - +12%
African American - +14%
Obviously, these numbers are made up since the article didn’t provide the starting point. I suspect that I’m not entirely offbase in the sense that the new values are not just made up “blacks and hispanics are dumb” numbers, but represent a targeted level of improvement from an existing point.
Saying we want all races to be at 90% ignores the fact that some groups are so far behind that standard as to be guaranteed failure. Guaranteed failure is no way to set up a plan of action, unless you want to blame the program’s failure on those dumb minorities who are screwing it up for everyone else.
I don’t have a problem with it, but I think a lot of people are misreading the policy. The benchmarks are the percentage of students from a given ethnic group who score at or above grade level, not the percentage an individual student from one of these ethnic groups is expected to score on the test. IOW, I agree that it would be racist if Asian students had to score a 90% on the test to meet the goal while Hispanic students had to score 81%, but they’re not saying that at all.
I had this discussion with some FL friends of mine, and although on its face it does seem a little weird, I do understand what they’re trying to represent. It’s not that the entire goal is to have performance disparities between races persist, it’s to set goals based on current levels of performance that can be improved to X level by the year 2018. It doesn’t do anything to set unattainable goals just for the sake of political correctness if there are groups starting from wildly different points.
ETA: once the 2018 goals are reached, you’ll see them readjust upward and the percentages of improvement required will be more in conjunction than they are now. It’s not PC to say there are performance variants between groups but it doesn’t do any good to pretend they don’t exist if you want to fix them.
Not exactly. The goal isn’t for any one individual student. It’s a percentage for the school district as a whole to hit. So the potential problem is that the reverse is true. If you’re smart and black, there’s a good chance you’ll be ignored while administration spends time, money and resources trying to advance those who aren’t as academically inclined in order to hit their target.
I think that’s an issue whenever states have standardized testing. The resources will go to making everyone hit the target, rather than being distributed in a way that furthers the development of every student.
How do you count a student who’s, say, half Asian and half African American?* I guess it depends on how good a student he is, and which ethnic group’s numbers you need to boost.
*For that matter, why do we say “African American” but not “Asian American”? Isn’t that inconsistent?