Posted on 11/09/2010 10:24:07 AM PST by lbryce
An achievement gap separating black from white students has long been documented — a social divide extremely vexing to policy makers and the target of one blast of school reform after another.
But a new report focusing on black males suggests that the picture is even bleaker than generally known.
Only 12 percent of black fourth-grade boys are proficient in reading, compared with 38 percent of white boys, and only 12 percent of black eighth-grade boys are proficient in math, compared with 44 percent of white boys.
Poverty alone does not seem to explain the differences: poor white boys do just as well as African-American boys who do not live in poverty, measured by whether they qualify for subsidized school lunches.
The data was distilled from highly respected national math and reading tests, known as the National Assessment for Educational Progress, which are given to students in fourth and eighth grades, most recently in 2009. The report, “A Call for Change,” is to be released Tuesday by the Council of the Great City Schools, an advocacy group for urban public schools.
Although the outlines of the problem and many specifics have been previously reported, the group hopes that including so much of what it calls “jaw-dropping data” in one place will spark a new sense of national urgency.
“What this clearly shows is that black males who are not eligible for free and reduced-price lunch are doing no better than white males who are poor,” said Michael Casserly, executive director of the council.
The report shows that black boys on average fall behind from their earliest years.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I don't know Malcolm Gladwell. I was thinking of what I had read in Thomas Sowell.
Cool Thanks
Ask a teacher, like my wife.
“We can dream all we want about “everyone” being “equal” and capable of the same things, “if only we give them the chances they deserve”, etc., etc. (me)
But, here you’re saying nurture makes no difference. Those statements are conflicting.” (you)
I never said that. Dreams do not make things real. I suggest reading comprehension 101.
“the baseline for true conservatism is being able to see the reality of the human condition for what it is. (me)
No, conservatism is about natural law, individualism, and free will. Conservatives judge what people do as individuals, not as members of a group. Grouping people is what the Left does. And conservatism is about taking responsibility, not making excuses.” (you)
Your definition of “what conservatism is” is what _you_ believe it to be. It may not actually be what it is.
Conservatives at times behave as irrationally as we believe liberals do as a matter of course. That is to be expected, for all people are subject to the same failings, regardless of political persuasion.
One of the most striking “conservative” statements I ever read was a simple line:
“Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be”.
That guy said it all. Without being able to see things squarely “as they are”, we’ve no chance to deal with the problems those truths present before us.
There are those in this thread who have chosen (at great risk, even on a forum such as FR) to confront “reality” squarely as it is, without glossing it over or slurping on psuedo-conservative platitudes. Those platitudes often become a balm, a salve to alleviate our inner guilt and frustration. They become a vector for us “to make excuses” (your words above) so that we _don’t_ have to “take responsibility” and deal with the dilemmas before us.
Where am I going with my reply? I think the “reality” of what confronts us (regarding the thread title subject) is that there are some problems that really don’t have “solutions” — at least not those of an “egalitarian” nature.
There are some “gaps” that cannot be closed.
(Suggestion: read “We Are Doomed” by John Derbyshire. A seminal, modern conservative work.)
There are entire land masses that tell us they are.
To find the truth - and solutions - the problem needs to be looked at without PC glasses or rationalizations...
Probably the last thing I'll be accused of is being politically correct. I'm sure there are numerous reasons why some blacks don't fit into the system; however I know what I observed while growing up. I went to public schools during desegregation. In high school, many of the black males sat on the back row with their heads down of the desk, sleeping. They had no intention to even try. I think theirs was an attitude problem, rather than outright stupidity.
I agree with you - lots of reasons people can't intellectually compete - and only one of them is IQ. Like you say - attitude is another. Especially when dealing with teenage boys... Here's some other possibilities: teen boys become whatever turns girls on. White boys do the same - and little white girls have Moms saying things like "what kind of provided will he be - - what does his father do - - what are his plans... " etc. etc. etc. Teen white boys are told by their fathers things about how important it is to finish school, get a good job, etc in order to get the girl. Black culture - the (one that evolved after the 1960's) pushed 'exciting, dangerous, bad boy, 'hood, cool, criminal, drug involved etc.etc. It pushed the message that a 9 to 5 job was boring - that being a member of a gang was exciting. And this worked in a culture overwhelmed with welfare - where the State did the supporting - and boys were for fun. Incentives. Perverse incentives.
Welfare also gave the black culture strong women - and women who could count as two slots for companies dealing with new affirmative action dictates. A black woman would count as 1. a woman and 2. a black. That also undermined the black male. Over the years, incentives created in the sixties have brought us to a place where black women college grads outnumber male college grads. And some of the same incentives that worked against black males is working against white males. White women work cheaper - and companies often give them the job - a twofer - cheaper labor and counts as 1. a woman employee.
Sorry for going on and on - what's your take? What do you think is causing the attitude problem?
Indeed, dreams do not make things real. But, don't take your own statement out of context. You said much more than "dreams do not make things real." Taken in context, your entire post makes the statement that some races are bestowed genetically with intellectual gifts, while others are not, and no amount of "chances" given to them would change their fate.
So, on the one hand, you're saying that one group is bestowed genetically with a gift that, OF COURSE, must be nurtured. Well, why must it be nurtured at all, if, on the other hand, giving people "chances" wouldn't make a difference? For the record, I would be in favor of ending "free" public education for everyone and all financial aid for college. Anyone who's intellectually gifted wouldn't need the help, anyway. Right?
Your definition of “what conservatism is” is what _you_ believe it to be. It may not actually be what it is.
No, I didn't make up the definition. It's the correct definition. And group identity politics is the game the Left plays.
Oh, one more thing - LOVE your tagline!
Can you say, "E-Bonics"? How about, "E-Bonehead culture"?
Can you say, "E-Bonics"? How about, "E-Bonehead culture"?
“Your definition of “what conservatism is” is what _you_ believe it to be. It may not actually be what it is. (me)
No, I didn’t make up the definition. It’s the correct definition” (you)
Citation please?
I’m waiting to see the source of exactly where I can read the “correct” definition of conservatism.
I think I’ll be waiting quite a while for your answer.
“And group identity politics is the game the Left plays.”
The Left “plays it” because (rightly or wrongly) it works for them. It works for them because people naturally identify themselves as being members of groups.
Those “groups” may be political. They may be religious. They may be of a particular nationality. They certainly are of ethnic and racial classifications.
It is as natural (and normal) for people “to see themselves as members of a group” as it is for them to breathe. Nothing is going to change this fact. Again, apply “the test”: to see reality for what it is.
And to deny that those who are _not_ of the liberal and leftist persuasions don’t harbor “group identities” is, well.... it’s simply wishful thinking.
I see the core of the problems that Euros face in America (and the rest of The West) is that they steadfastly refuse “to see themselves as part of a group”, with a culture and ethnic identity worth nourishing and protecting.
One can debate such things all day long, to no end.
But the core issue of this thread is why black students (as a group) fail to achieve as well as white or Asian students (again, measured as a group).
What specifically do you propose to correct that problem?
“There’s no solid evidence that IQ (in a healthy person who has no disability) is inherent.”
Odd. I’ve met a lot of stupid people. And while I’m very smart in math and reading, I cannot learn a foreign language to save my soul.
What makes you think that everyone has the same intelligence? Haven’t you ever met a student who worked hard, studied, and didn’t learn? That, BTW, described me taking French and German, although I had no problem with Calculus in High School and got a BS in Biology in 3 years.
“what’s your take? What do you think is causing the attitude problem?”
I don’t know exactly. However, in my personal experiences I do perceive that foreign-born blacks often have a more positive attitude about education and business than American=born blacks. Some kind of defeatist holdover from the Jim Crow era?
3. In what way are our explanations of success "crude?"
That's a bit of a puzzle because we certainly don't lack for interest in the subject. If you go to the bookstore, you can find a hundred success manuals, or biographies of famous people, or self-help books that promise to outline the six keys to great achievement. (Or is it seven?) So we should be pretty sophisticated on the topic. What I came to realize in writing Outliers, though, is that we've been far too focused on the individual—on describing the characteristics and habits and personality traits of those who get furthest ahead in the world. And that's the problem, because in order to understand the outlier I think you have to look around them—at their culture and community and family and generation. We've been looking at tall trees, and I think we should have been looking at the forest.
4. Can you give some examples?
Sure. For example, one of the chapters looks at the fact that a surprising number of the most powerful and successful corporate lawyers in New York City have almost the exact same biography: they are Jewish men, born in the Bronx or Brooklyn in the mid-1930's to immigrant parents who worked in the garment industry. Now, you can call that a coincidence. Or you can ask—as I do—what is about being Jewish and being part of the generation born in the Depression and having parents who worked in the garment business that might have something to do with turning someone into a really, really successful lawyer? And the answer is that you can learn a huge amount about why someone reaches the top of that profession by asking those questions.
5. Doesn't that make it sound like success is something outside of an individual's control?
I don't mean to go that far. But I do think that we vastly underestimate the extent to which success happens because of things the individual has nothing to do with. Outliers opens, for example, by examining why a hugely disproportionate number of professional hockey and soccer players are born in January, February and March. I'm not going to spoil things for you by giving you the answer. But the point is that very best hockey players are people who are talented and work hard but who also benefit from the weird and largely unexamined and peculiar ways in which their world is organized. I actually have a lot of fun with birthdates in Outliers. Did you know that there's a magic year to be born if you want to be a software entrepreneur? And another magic year to be born if you want to be really rich? In fact, one nine year stretch turns out to have produced more Outliers than any other period in history. It's remarkable how many patterns you can find in the lives of successful people, when you look closely.
6. What's the most surprising pattern you uncovered in the book?
It's probably the chapter nearly the end of Outliers where I talk about plane crashes. How good a pilot is, it turns out, has a lot to do with where that pilot is from—that is, the culture he or she was raised in. I was actually stunned by how strong the connection is between culture and crashes, and it's something that I would never have dreamed was true, in a million years.
* * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The reason the best hockey players are born in the beginning of the year is because in their formative years ( grade school, junior high etc - they have the advantage of being older and stronger than kids born in October etc. Eight months of development matters when a person is young.
The pilot thing you'll have to get the book for - it's such a hoot - you'll never guess it on your own. But there is - or WAS - a cultural cause of plane crashes. If you don't want to read the book, I'll tell you... On race issues, we really need to think outside the box. There's a reason blacks who are born here don't do as well - and that reason needs to be identified. Seems Gladwell touched on it - but I felt it was one of his less insightful parts... He's very much part of that dynamic - being from a black family from ... not sure - think it's Jamaica.
http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/index.html
Plomin, Martin, Bouchard, and Turkheimer were involved in twins studies, but, in a quick search, I found nothing that says they identified a biological reason. Martin suggested genes may be involved but has to do more work, and Turkheimer even noted that socioeconomic influences seem to play a factor.
Now Paul Thompson's study is interesting. At least it tries to pinpoint a biological reason for IQ: http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22333/ But, as the article states, the study doesn't answer all of the questions. Even if science eventually is able to pinpoint myelin as THE reason for disparities in IQ: In order to support the claim many of you are making here that IQ is determined genetically by race, science would have to show that "race" determines how much myelin a person produces. Then, there would be a biological reason to pinpoint. Shoot, it might even be categorized as a genetic disorder, and scientists might come up with a way to boost myelin. (That would help people through the aging process, too.)
But, at this point, science tells us very little.
I never said everyone has the same amount of intelligence. If you reread the line I wrote, you'll see that I said there's no solid evidence that IQ (i.e. "intelligence") is inherent, unless a person has a real disability. At this point, scientists say they still don't know enough about the brain.
You sound like you're new here, although your tagline indicates you're a retread. Here's a link to the statement for Free Republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts Note the references to (natural) God-given rights and limited government.
It is as natural (and normal) for people “to see themselves as members of a group” as it is for them to breathe.
Indeed, it is. No one is arguing that people should not freely associate.
I see the core of the problems that Euros face in America (and the rest of The West) is that they steadfastly refuse “to see themselves as part of a group”, with a culture and ethnic identity worth nourishing and protecting.
(???) There is no ONE "Euro" group. "Euros" always have identified as different groups. There is no ONE European culture.
the core issue of this thread is why black students (as a group) fail to achieve as well as white or Asian students (again, measured as a group). What specifically do you propose to correct that problem?
I have a responsibility for my own family and myself. Not only is this issue not a problem that is my responsibility, but I don't even see it as a problem. There are people who make the choice to reach higher levels of education, and people who decide not to. They're free to make their own choices, whoever they may be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.