Tuesday, May 01, 2018

Tuesday Open Thread

Volunteering this morning in my classroom, the teacher was explaining to the kids about many dates in May (Cinco de Mayo, Mother's Day, Memorial Day, etc) AND that they were in the last full month of the school year.  Wow, time has flown.

Looks like, once again, Denny Middle School is going hard core for the SBAC.  From the Seattle Opt-Out Facebook page:



STUDENTS AT DENNY INT'L MIDDLE SCHOOL IN SEATTLE ARE BEING PULLED FROM ART AND OTHER CONTENT AREAS TO PREP FOR THE SBA!! This is unacceptable. Kids shouldn't be pulled from class for this reason--this is an example of testing gone completely amok, with admin backing a plan that infringes on the health and development of students.
Remember, Denny was at the center of the carnival mayhem back in June of 2015, when principal Jeff Clark forbade students who had opted out from participating in the year end fun. Punitive gesture, to say the least. It made Diane Ravitch's blog, where she, too, was outraged.
A look at teaching reading from The Atlantic:
Among the likely culprits for the stalled progress in math scores: a misalignment between what the NAEP tests and what state standards require teachers to cover at specific grade levels. But what’s the reason for the utter lack of progress in reading scores?

On Tuesday, a panel of experts in Washington, D.C., convened by the federally appointed officials who oversee the NAEP concluded that the root of the problem is the way schools teach reading. The current instructional approach, they agreed, is based on assumptions about how children learn that have been disproven by research over the last several decades—research that the education world has largely failed to heed.

The long-standing view has been that the first several years of elementary school should be devoted to basic reading skills. History, science, and the arts can wait. After all, the argument goes, if kids haven’t learned to read—a task that is theoretically accomplished by third grade—how will they be able to gain knowledge about those subjects through their own reading?

To some extent, it does make sense to focus on reading skills in the early years. One component of reading is, like math, primarily a set of skills: the part that involves decoding, or making connections between sounds and the letters that represent them.

But educators have also treated the other component of reading—comprehension—as a set of skills, when in fact it depends primarily on what readers already know. In countries that specify the content to be taught at each grade level, standardized tests can test students on what they’ve learned in school. But in the United States, where schools are all teaching different content, test designers give students passages on a variety of topics that may have nothing to do with what they’ve learned in school—life in the Arctic, for example, or the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. The tests then ask questions designed to assess comprehension: What’s the main idea of the passage? What inferences can you make?
Digging deeper:
One of those cognitive scientists spoke on the Tuesday panel: Daniel Willingham, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia who writes about the science behind reading comprehension. Willingham explained that whether or not readers understand a text depends far more on how much background knowledge and vocabulary they have relating to the topic than on how much they’ve practiced comprehension skills.

Students from less educated families are usually the ones who are most handicapped by gaps in knowledge.
What to do?
The implication is clear. The best way to boost students’ reading comprehension is to expand their knowledge and vocabulary by teaching them history, science, literature, and the arts, using curricula that that guide kids through a logical sequence from one year to the next: for example, Native Americans and Columbus in kindergarten; the colonial era and the American Revolution in first grade; the War of 1812 and the Civil War in second grade, and so on. That approach enables children to make sense of what they’re learning, and the repetition of concepts and vocabulary in different contexts makes it more likely they’ll retain information.
Not to mention that learning content like this can be a lot more engaging for both students and teachers than the endless practice of illusory skills.
Recent research indicates that students actually learn more from reading texts that are considered too difficult for them—in other words, those with more than a handful of words and concepts a student doesn't understand. What struggling students need is guidance from a teacher in how to make sense of texts designed for kids at their respective grade levels—the kinds of texts those kids may otherwise see only on standardized tests, when they have to grapple with them on their own. 

That view was endorsed by Marilyn Jager Adams, a cognitive and developmental psychologist who is a visiting scholar at Brown University. “Giving children easier texts when they’re weaker readers,” she said during the panel discussion, “serves to deny them the very language and information they need to catch up and move on.”
The failure to build children’s knowledge in elementary school helps explain the gap between the reading scores of students from wealthier families and those of their lower-income peers—a gap that has been expanding.

The bottom line is that policymakers and advocates who have pushed for more testing in part as a way to narrow the gap between rich and poor have undermined their own efforts. They have created a system that incentivizes teachers to withhold the very thing that could accomplish both objectives: knowledge. All students suffer under this system, but the neediest suffer the most.
The NAEP is a valuable educational barometer, but it’s important to understand that while standardized tests can identify a problem, they can’t provide the answer to it.
 What's on your mind?

44 comments:

Ws said...

Does anyone know when waitllists typically move? Does the district wait until end of summer to announce all the shuffles or do they do it as the space is determined as soon as possible?

Melissa Westbrook said...

Ws, see my post on the Capacity Management Work Session. There is documentation in there.

Anonymous said...

Just when you think you've seen the worst from charter schools, there is this about the Nobel Network of Charter Schools:

"One described an issue raised by others at some Noble campuses, regarding girls not having time to use the bathroom when they get their menstrual periods.

“'We have (bathroom) escorts, and they rarely come so we end up walking out (of class) and that gets us in trouble,' she texted. 'But who wants to walk around knowing there’s blood on them? It can still stain the seats. They just need to be more understanding.'

"At certain campuses, teachers said administrators offer an accommodation: They allow girls to tie a Noble sweater around their waist, to hide the blood stains. The administrator then sends an email to staff announcing the name of the girl who has permission to wear her sweater tied around her waist, so that she doesn’t receive demerits for violating dress code."

http://nprillinois.org/post/feedback-noble-charter-schools-story-hit-nerve#stream/0

XJT

Ws said...

Thanks Melissa, so they will make changes between now and no later than August 31. I’m wondering in practicality what people have experi need. Do they really move the waitlist all summer long or just wait until August and make adjustment so in one move?

Anonymous said...

>>>> “Giving children easier texts when they’re weaker readers,” she said during the panel discussion, “serves to deny them the very language and information they need to catch up and move on.”

This is the crux of the HCC debate, which seeks to limit high level education to the privileged alone, because they have already been exposed to more. In fact, ALL students deserve the highest levels of content, not just the most accomplished/exposed/privileged. The weaker the skills, the MORE they need advanced content. Drill and kill, and remediation... will never close the achievement gap. It hasn’t worked in in a century, and it never will. It’s a flawed concept. An inferior educational offering will result in a widening gap not a shrinking one. Glad to see mainstream research backing up that obvious fundamental.

reader

Anonymous said...

@ reader, that is not the crux of the HCC debate. By this same argument, if HC students have already been exposed to more, then they need even more, too. As I recall, the article also referred to below-grade-level reading, advocating for more challenging grade-level material instead. If we are going to challenge every student, are you suggesting we make everyone work at the level of those who are two, three, four years ahead? In all subjects?

Essentially, the article says that when it comes to reading, we should stop "teaching down" to those who are struggling. It does not address academic giftedness or the needs of HC students at all. Limited studies (e.g., on reading) and on limited populations (e.g., struggling readers) cannot be applied willy nilly to suit your fancy.

Willy N.

Nilly W. said...

The crux of the article has nothing to do with HCC.

It has to do with teaching reading to all students. The crux of the article is that students learn most when they are exposed to things they don't know yet. By dumbing down the reading materials you give to low performing readers, you deprive them of the ability to grow as readers. This mistake comes from a very well meaning place- teachers want to help students in a way that is comfortable for the students. But this practice is harming students rather than helping them.

But the principle is the same for HCC students. All students learn best if you give them material that is slightly above the level they're at. A comfortable stretch. This is the underlying premise with grit development. Students do not learn best from being coddled and helicoptered or having ample access to stuff they already know. However good it might feel to nurture students this way. But it is not best practice for teaching.

Anonymous said...

This is the third Advanced Learning task force in 5 years. Seems unwarranted to me. When was the last SpEd task force? How about a task force on language immersion? Also, the formula is to have 3-4 HC parents out of 20 member team as it is a mix of 7 AL and HC parents (AL is not HC - and nearly dismantled). Would such a makeup be allowed for a SpEd task force? What are they afraid of -- the truth?

They are also working to replace accelerated curriculum with MTSS putting pathways and self contained classes in jeopardy.

BTDT

Anonymous said...

@ BTDT, I have a feeling this task force is focused on "advanced learning," masquerading as "Advanced Learning." The likely outcome is recommendation that we don't need "Advanced Learning" programs/services like HCC, because ALL students deserve access to advanced learning. Yes, they do. But what is "advanced learning" for an average student is different from what advanced learning looks like for a student at the 99th percentile. As the WAC says, for highly capable students, access to accelerated learning and enhanced instruction is access to basic education. "Accelerated" and "enhanced" need to be in relation to something--what's the baseline?

hidden agenda?



Anonymous said...

State law requires HC services but doesn't dictate what they should be.

The fact that SPS took the lazy route and turned APP into HCC has led to many
issues that now confront the district, especially now that legislators are involved with amending the law and clarifying how underserved students must be included in HC.

I don't see a hidden agenda at all. The equity group has been very vocal at board meetings and have presented specific proposals. Parent surveys include significant support to broaden who qualifies for advanced learning in the district.

Research overwhelmingly indicates that underserved students are systemically excluded from HC programs.

Just because you don't like what's on the horizon doesn't mean it's insidious.

Changing Times

More Committees! said...

I predict they're going to give everyone advanced learning by just renaming the grades so that it looks like everyone's one grade higher. What used to be third grade will be called 4th grade. It will be completely equitable. Everyone will benefit. And they'll save money, because the students will all be outta here one year earlier. Brilliant, SPS, brilliant!

Anonymous said...


"Research overwhelmingly indicates that underserved students are systematically excluded from HC programs."

In Seattle and everywhere that would be 2e, FRL and 2E. Agreed? Not race but every statement from the HCC Race and Equity team is about black students. Devin Bruckner has repeatedly stated at Board meetings about black students (and in a manor mostly
directly in conflict of Board policy on speakers). And oblivious to all the extenuating circumstances the numbers are stark. Fill in the data points with ELL, 2e and SES this starts to make much more sense.

So work needs to be done. Yet who should do the work? AL Department who can't even control the individual schools? City of Seattle who is stealing resources for pre-k and community college? Bill Gates, I don't work with him but Devin Bruckner's company does. Call him Devin and solve this please - I am sure that is what Ed Reform is all about.

Rusted Floodgates

Anonymous said...

Does Devin Bruckner work for an ed reform part of a Gates' funded organization? This seems to be a new talking point by the HCC crowd.

My strong hunch is that Bruckner does not work for ed reform. Gates provides mosquito nets, too. Do the people who provide the nets get linked to ed reform because they get funding from Gates?

The fact that black students are represented by under 2% in HCC while they are close to 15% of SPS sure sounds like the definition of underserved!

Talking points are an indicator of feeling threated. When the talking point is untrue, it becomes a sign of desperation.

Changing Times


Anonymous said...



what is untrue, then? dewolf's hcc 90 percent white talking point? yeah?

self contained classes are proof of institutionalized racism from geary? yep

respondents overwhelming asked for the elimination of hcc pathways from jesse?

hcc ac is not a supported district organization, hansen?

you need to have equivalent racial makeup of the district in hcc or it is illegal, fwiw. yeah

north ship canal families will have a self contained 1-5 building tolley. haha

honors for all will have continual review and yearly report. howard, just keeps going.

ad nauseum, most of the district towards hcc.


no caps

Anonymous said...

@ Changing Times, one of your statements refkects a common misperception. You said "The fact that black students are represented by under 2% in HCC while they are close to 15% of SPS sure sounds like the definition of underserved!"

Yes, it sounds like it, but isn't necessarily so. If poverty affects early brain development (which it does, for numerous reasons), and if those presumed-to-be-underrepresented groups are also more likely to be living in poverty (which they are, per SPS demographics), then it's more complicated than that. You would not expect to see the same rate of upper-end-of-the-curve brain development in those who had a received a less pro-brain-development prenatal-to-5 experience.

The question is, what's the appropriate expectation? How much is systematic racism (including culturally biased tests) to blame, vs. how much refkects actual differences in abilities/potential at a he time of testing? It's likely a mix of the two--so 2% is probably low for black students in HCC, but 15% would probably be high, given those exposure differences. What's the "appropriate" target that represents equitable access? Hard to say.

One thing SPS could do to start understanding this issue is to look beyond race and analyze data by income, parent factors (single parent household, parent ed level, etc.). For FRL students, what percent qualify, by race? By school? By grade? These disparities will likely be smaller, and may help us understand which FRL students apply and qualify, and why. Then look at the same for non-FRL students. Again, the gap will likely be smaller, and there may be lessons to be learned. Lessons, in particular, about how to potentially adjust eligibility criteria.

It's Complicated

Bondo said...

We spend so much time tracking race and none tracking income. Meanwhile the supreme court said that SES could be used as a tie breaker. SPS spends a lot of time trying to prevent students from accessing advanced learning. Schools may start ability grouping 5 months into the school year, if they happen to get around to it, if the principal happens to support having abilities. Some principals are opposed to students having abilities. Why become a principal then? Go figure.

Our schools are pretty segregated by race and pretty stratified by SES. That should be addressed. But it would be great if we could address this without driving the middle class out of public school. The goal in helping low SES families is not to tank the school district.

We should track growth. Then it will be clear which schools are failing. Then we can improve them. Every student should learn something every day.

Curious Bee said...

Why does Denny MS care so much about these scores when other middle schools seem relatively chill? Why does it matter so much more for Denny?

Anonymous said...

"Our schools are pretty segregated by race and pretty stratified by SES."

It's because race and SES intersect so significantly in SPS.

Since SES is the legal way to help address historical discrimination, it should definitely be the avenue to pursue.

Doing so, however, doesn't mean that racial disparities are not a huge problem in SPS.

Don't forget, the Feds didn't investigate SES disparities in discipline but racial disparities.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-schools-seattle/u-s-probes-racial-disparities-in-seattle-school-discipline-idUSBRE9260KJ20130307

Changing Times

Anonymous said...

That's because poor people are not a protected class, federally, not because we are not also treating poor students as a group much worse than wealthier students (and indeed the rich/poor achievement gap has caught up to and now dwarfs the black/white achievement gap). I wish SPS would do FRL set asides for choice seats.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

"That's because poor people are not a protected class, federally."

The irony is that "poor people" are not a protected class but the courts have ruled that FRL should be used a first step toward addressing race inequities.

So, yes, FRL is the route for WA state and others when enacting laws to increase the number of underserved students in HC.

OCR can/will look at racial disparities. Honestly, the percentages for black kids in HCC "look" horrible because they are.

Changing Times

Changing Times

Anonymous said...

Right, but there is no legal shorthand placing poor people in a class with the protections that race, religion, sex, etc are afforded. I think there should be, but that explains the difference in federal investigation treatment. Not how well we are doing relatively with either race or income.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

When it was disaggregated for other historically underserved students (Hispanic, Pacific Islanders, etc.), there was not anywhere like the discipline disparity that was shown toward black students. Since there's huge intersection between FRL and race in SPS, these results would have revealed something like you are attempting to conclude.

Sounds like an excuse to act like there's not a huge problem in SPS regarding black students, which there is by all data.

Changing Times

Anonymous said...

No, today I am thinking about this study: http://cepa.stanford.edu/content/widening-academic-achievement-gap-between-rich-and-poor-new-evidence-and-possible

And what it means for educational policy.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

SPS has its own particular issues with treatment and outcomes for black students.

Trying to frame those as a mostly FRL problems flies in the face of data and facts--which specifically point to extreme disparities for black students (including in HCC eligibility).

Those are real-life issues for SPS black students, not theoretical.

C Times

Anonymous said...

Those study outcomes are not theoretical. That is real; things are getting worse for poor students. I am not framing. You are projecting a lot into my words that is not there. You initially seemed to use the lack of federal investigation of one group while there was one of another as "proof" that that is the "real" problem. They are both real problems. There is evidence that the income acievement gap may be worse- is by many measures. But income does not have the same statutory protected class status as race and therefore will not show up in federal investigation tallies.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

It sounds like we agree mostly.

My issue with what you are saying is that you've yet to admit that SPS has a specific problem in terms of black students.

The Stanford numbers are theoretical if you are directly applying them to SPS instead of looking at them as a larger study sample.

Why are you so reluctant to admit the truth about the especially poor outcomes for black students in SPS?

C Times

Anonymous said...

Why are you reluctant to admit that things are getting worse for low income students? Woykd you say you are, just because you are talking about another problem? No, right? I am just talking about a faulty line of reasoning up above, not trying to list SPS's voluminous and horrifying roll call of specific failures.

-sleeper

Anonymous said...

last time i looked at the numbers the the majority of the black and hispanic students were going to school from transitional housing situations. and many of those were also from ell from war torn areas of the world. yeah there is a likely that their cognitive abilities would be on distributed over a bell curve but to think they would -- ell and severely ses challenged -- would have 95% achievement in both math and reading, is silly talk.

seattle is unique in the tremendously high black and hispanic students who are struggling day to day. so how do we deal with it? it was michael tolley and mgj worked to put all app kids into two of the highest frl schools in the district; even if it meant over an hour on the bus twice a day for most of the students. why? to kill app. same thing is going on now with the task force. they are trying to kill it again based on the fact that hcc hasn't solved homelessness or recent immigrant issues from war torn areas.

no caps

Anonymous said...

Seriously...?

You obviously don't deeply know any people or children from "world torn areas of the world" or you wouldn't keep up your lies about how they are so cognitively disadvantaged due to their circumstances.

First, most are from educated families or they would have never even been admitted into the US of A. Second, they are (at a minimum) bi-cultural and bi-lingual as they assimilate into a new country. The brainpower that this involves is apparently beyond you.

And you keep having the NERVE to accuse them of being broken and cognitively "all over the bell curve."

Instead of admitting that the HCC admission process is broken, you insinuate that it is they who are broken--all to keep your own children drinking at the trough of a public school advantage.

This disgraceful rhetoric needs to be called out and stopped. NOW.

Since MW keeps allowing it (even though we routinely hear about how she volunteers once a week at "my school" full of the types of children being disparaged here), let's just finally call it what it is: biased, Trumpian and reeking of nativism.

Delete ME

Anonymous said...

great post but the blog is just plain biased in favour of the hcc crowd

they think separate is better for their kids

sad

Melissa Westbrook said...

"seattle is unique in the tremendously high black and hispanic students who are struggling day to day. so how do we deal with it?"

How so? Because in the reading I do every day, most school districts have this issue.

Delete Me, I really don't like your tone especially when it gets personal. Sorry if it offends you if I call the school I volunteer at "my school." I've been there two years now and it feels like home. Do that again and yes, I will delete you.

I think the entire AL program is deeply flawed including admissions and I've said that since this blog started. Charlie and I met because we thought the program was a mess. As I note in the Friday Open Thread, he and I served on an AL Taskforce and they only allowed us to talk about HCC (when he and I also wanted to talk about Spectrum) and they still didn't listen.

You're "insinate that it is they who are broken" is great ed reform talk. "You think poor kids can't learn!" Nope, but poverty is a huge factor in what is happening in our schools. It is a societal problem that is playing out in kids' lives. That needs to be addressed at the SAME TIME we face disproportionate discipline issues in our schools. Not throw up our hands and say, "Wait until we solve poverty" - it's an issue that needs concurrent action.

I will note that when the Board was deciding on focusing just on AA boys, Director Patu had spoken up for Pacific Islander students. In fact, at that Work Session there was data handed out that showed AA students doing worse in some measures, Latino students worse in others and Native American students in others. (But for discipline issues, the data is stark skewed towards AA students.) My point is that many children of color are not doing well and the data shows that.

I will have a separate thread on the AA male initiative which finally had its presentation at the last Board meting and seems to be well-received even nationally. So it's not like the district isn't doing anything.

Trying to pin all the blame for outcomes on one program seems odd.

Anonymous said...

C-Times Poor children of all races are being negatively affected by the achievement gap according to the top researchers of this topic such as Reardon at Stanford. It is not accurate or fair to ignore, or exclude poor children of other races from advocacy if they are not black. They are also in need of advocacy, including the poor white kids.
Ed major

Anonymous said...

Who's ignoring them?

I'm certainly not!

What I am highlighting is the fact that SPS has especially poor outcomes for black students (in addition to FRL and other underserved students).

Again, why the reluctance for people to admit that SPS has a long record of discipline disparity and especially poor academic outcomes for black student (black boys in particular)?

It's very interesting. Maybe that's, in part, why the problem persists? Admitting you have a problem is usually the first step in dealing with a problem. SPS has admitted it, which is good.

Changing Times

Anonymous said...

I don't like constant harping on the HCC parents. They know what is best for their kids and if a self-contained environment works better than blending with GenEd and the District offers such an option, who's to say it's wrong for them to avail themselves of that choice.

SPS, the administration and the Board, feel it is appropriate to offer the self-contained option to students who qualify, and they have set the qualification requirements where they feel they do the best job of identifying HC students.

I trust the Board to oversee the administration and I trust the administration to serve the students of SPS as well as they can.

The fact that the Board has accepted the way the District runs the program shows tha they feel it is well designed and serves the students in the HC program and all students in the District.

no coffee

Bondo said...

I completely agree that the district needs to dramatically improve in terms of discipline disparities with black boys. But it doesn't really make sense to me to want to fix discipline disparities ONLY for black boys without wanting discipline disparities for SpEd students to be fixed as well. And, honestly, boys in general. There are a lot of young boys in our schools being punished for doing things that instead they should be taught and mentored not to do. Schools should teach.

Earl Gray said...

@no coffee, SPS has not been following anywhere near best practices for identifying students who would benefit from HCC. Even families that have a qualifying child have to pass their camel through the eye of a needle to get the qualifying student's educational needs met. This is wrong. If a kid shows up for kindergarten reading at a second grade level, it is not rocket science that this child does not need to spend a year learning the alphabet. Similarly, if a first grader can already ace the first grade, second grade, and third grade expectations for math, they do not need to take first grade math. In fact, taking first grade math may be harmful to them.

The schools really need to improve. Detracking can't work if it means being absolutely blind to what children's weaknesses and strengths and just placing them on an age-based conveyor belt and hoping for the best.

The state legislature passed improvements this year for how to identify students for highly capable services. But these improvements didn't go far enough. The parts of the improvements that might have required money (training for teachers! universal screening, etc.) did not pass.

But that's only part of the problem. Ironically No Child Left Behind left advanced learners behind. The whole country is slowly trying to catch up from that damage. Which is important. Not more important than other historical damage we have to catch up from still. Just also important. The public schools have to educate all the kids who attend. And there is room for improvement for just about every kid.

Anonymous said...

@ Changing Times, I don't see reluctance for people to admit that SPS has a long record of discipline disparity and especially poor academic outcomes for black students (and, I would add, poor academic outcomes for Hispanic/Latino students and Native American students, discipline disparity for special ed students, etc.). The reluctance is to blame HCC for that.

We agree that race and SES intersect. I think we also agree that addressing SES ONLY is not going to solve the problem, but it will make significant progress. Not only that, addressing the poverty-based portion of the disparity will allow us to better understand the extent to which race is a factor regardless of poverty.

Since you seem to get this at some level, it's concerning that you continue to say things like: "Trying to frame those as a mostly FRL problems flies in the face of data and facts--which specifically point to extreme disparities for black students (including in HCC eligibility)." What percent of poor students who are not black get into HCC, compared to poor black students? What percent of students who are not FRL and who do not live in single parent households get into HCC, broken down by race/ethnicity? Without knowing the answer to things like that, your statement about HCC is just an assumption based on your own biases.

I agree that there is likely a problem to some extent, but I believe that SES likely accounts for a much larger percentage of the observed disparity. We need more thorough data analysis to really understand this, but SPS seems content to only look at the matter superficially in order to fan the flames.

It's Complicated

Anonymous said...

yeah eg, too true. and it really all started with mgj and michael tolley mixing app with the lowest frl schools in the district for 1-5 which was advocated to just thurgood marshall but the damage was done. hence now we have race disparity in the south but not in the north.

no caps

Anonymous said...

@It's complicated and Changing Times- One issue is that there is no data shared about SES and HCC. We can assume though that low SES children of ALL races, including white & Asian are most likely underrepresented in HCC. But that is not as visible as race (in which blacks are obviously underrepresented as intersects with SES) and we don't have the data so those kids are invisible to outsiders and never talked about in these conversations that focus on race and African Americans only. People don't see the lack of poor Asians and Whites for example in HCC from the data provided.
JN

Anonymous said...

@JN, I agree. But SPS has those data, and should be doing (and sharing) more extensive--and more meaningful--analyses with them. The fact that they don't is telling.

As for the "unrepresented" language that is typical of this issue, what would apptropriate representation look like? We wouldn't expect giftedness to occur at the exact same rates in poor and affluent populations (since brain development is influenced by a host of environmental/exposure factors, and since IQ seems to have a hereditary component), so how close *should* the rates be? Like I said, I agree there is probably some level of underrepresentation (e.g., due to testing procedures, test biases, teacher biases, parent culture, etc.), but the assumption that rates should be the same for every group, however you break them down, is not backed up by science.

It's Complicated

Anonymous said...

Since there are only about 1.5% black children in HCC, and there are 15% black children in HCC, that about speaks for itself.

That's why this is also, but not exclusively, an HCC issue.

You might like to deflect that but it's not tenable.

Don't forget: This whole discussion was created by someone who was casting aspersions on Devin Bruckner for having the gall to state the facts of these disgraceful numbers publicly.

All I have done is frame those disgraceful HCC numbers into the bigger picture of SPS and how they have had especially poor outcomes for black children (even beyond FRL)--so much so that the Feds were needed to address discipline disparities.

The situation for black boys in SPS is so dire that they had to start an initiative to help them.

So, if science is what you want, SPS has the data. And it's dire for black students.

Why are you so reluctant to admit the truth about the especially poor outcomes for black students in SPS?

Changing Times


Anonymous said...

correction: Since there are only about 1.5% black children in HCC, and there are 15% black children in SPS, that about speaks for itself.

C Times

Anonymous said...

It's Complicated wrote:

"We wouldn't expect giftedness to occur at the exact same rates in poor and affluent populations (since brain development is influenced by a host of environmental/exposure factors, and since IQ seems to have a hereditary component), so how close *should* the rates be? Like I said, I agree there is probably some level of underrepresentation (e.g., due to testing procedures, test biases, teacher biases, parent culture, etc.), but the assumption that rates should be the same for every group, however you break them down, is not backed up by science."

Well, by that logic, why were white people so ignorant as to think it was OK to enslave, exploit, torture, rape, separate the families of, and hate on people just 'cause their skin is a different colour? I mean, folks who would act like that sound like they have brain problems galore.

Viking

Anonymous said...

@ C Times, why do you keep saying there's a reluctance to admit that outcomes are worse for some groups than others? I don't think anyone disputes that. Look at graduation rates, test scores, discipline, whatever. What I'm saying--and what you continue to ignore--is that SES is likely a large factor in some of those disparate outcomes (graduation rate, test scores, HCC eligibility). Why are you so reluctant to acknowledge that it's not all about race? Your simplistic comparison that ignores all the confounding variables does not, as you say, speak for itself. It's more complicated than that. Why are you also so reluctant to ackowledhe that both nature and nurture play a role in child development?

@ Viking, I'm not sure I follow you. Sounds like you're just trying to stir the pot. Nature and nurture both impact child brain development, so it's not unexpected that children who grow up in resource-poor environments are less likely to end up at the extreme upper end of the intellectual abilities scale. If we need better tests and/or other means to identify kids who really are there, by all means let's use them. But we shouldn't be surprised if we still end up with some degree of disparities in HC eligibility, as it's not easy to score at the 98th percentile. Most kids don't. If you faced additional challenges as a youngster, it makes it that much harder and that much more unlikely.

It's Complicated