Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 8486
Joined: 01 Mar 2002, 9:37 am

Post 14 Jan 2011, 9:43 am

First, a fun little test just so you can deal with any preconceptions. Which of these statements is true?

1) On the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) in math, no statistically significant difference was found between scores of low-income fourth graders attending more affluent schools and those of low-income fourth graders in high poverty schools.
2) On the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) in math, low-income fourth graders attending more affluent schools are two years ahead of low-income fourth graders in high poverty schools.

There's a new Board of Education in Wake County, North Carolina, which encompasses Raleigh and surrounding areas and is the 18th largest school district in the USA. It seems, though this is a critical fact I'm unable to confirm, that a majority of the Board consists of new (?) members who were endorsed or supported by the Tea Party (i.e. elements thereof). The Washington Post saysthe district has "a new majority-Republican school board backed by national tea party conservatives..." but I can't find any more detail this AM before I gotta' run off. (Maybe one of you can dig a bit deeper?)

It seems that the first order of business for this new Board has been to radically alter a policy regarding diversity and integration that's had bipartisan support for decades. As a result, the NAACP has initiated protests, legal proceedings, and other courses of action (?) to oppose the move. The District is in danger of losing its accreditation. Among the organizations not supporting the School Board is the county Chamber of Commerce, indicating that the previous policy was indeed bipartisan.

In addition to the WAPO article linked above HEREand HEREand HEREand HEREare relevant articles or blogs that aren't too much alike.

I could not find much that lays out the case for this change in policy, but I don't wish to have the possibility that the change is justified ignored. Wouldn't it be refreshing if one of you who is hostile to the Tea Party took it upon themselves to do that research and post the best info to be found? Absent such evidence, it seems at least superficially reasonable to see this as a case where the NAACP is justified in getting involved - in other words a change being proposed by unreconstructed racists.

Now of course we can't (ever) say that the TP folks who supported these candidates are generally representative of TP folks, or that they did so with any knowledge or expectation of anti-diversity policies being high on the agenda. The articles to which I've linked, however, generally make that case. If "the TP" can't ever be held responsible because they're not united, that in itself is something of a dangerous development. In any case, the press is making this look like a case of TP racism. Is that justified? You decide.

My point is simply this: if you're a TP-backed candidate, and you want the TP to grow in power and prestige, and not suffer from suspicions/charges of racism, making this policy change your first order of business is probably not a bright idea.

Which of the two statements at the top is true? It's number two.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Jan 2011, 10:22 am

I am all for integration, in fact, I moved where I did because (in large part) I wanted a racially diverse school for my kids instead of an all white school. I am also against this new plan. That being said however, I do see the logic behind it (but only to a point, remember I am against it!!!)

The scores on the math test posted show you can better the poor students grades a good deal by moving them to a better school (and as such is why I approve) but the problems you almost certainly face are not mentioned, by moving the poorer kids with less parental involvement, you also are going to drop the averages of that better school. Dumbing down the entire group in order to serve the minority group, socialism in an educational situation. I of course have no facts on this statement but it sure does look to be the case. You will also see violence go up in the better schools while violence will drop in the lesser schools.

Creating magnet schools to attract the wealthier kids to an inner city school seems to be an expensive proposition as well, I am assuming costs can go down with their new plan? Seems to me if they can create a magnet school that seems to be attracting suburban kids to the inner city, they can also turn around the inner city school as well? And once again, let me remind you I am not for this plan, but it isn't so incredibly easy to dismiss their plan when you consider the entire picture. No way in hell would I have my kids go to the local public high school in the city where I live. The scores and violence are FAR worse than any suburban school. Putting myself in their situation, can I really blame them? They are affluent and want the best for their kids. If forced into this situation and they could not get the better school, I would move to a new school district and the key to a thriving area is to have people want to live there and not move out, driving home values lower. This is a "not in my backyard" problem but I can see their point and I would fight to keep the city and suburban schools from merging in my area!!!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Jan 2011, 10:32 am

The one thing I can't understand in this is WHY they wish to change? Nobody (in the links) explains the reason why they wish to do this. I would like to have some sort of reasoning. The links all say the school is a model school district, it has higher scores, and so on. This could be true, it could be all one sided opinions? If these are all true, then WHY is this being done???

It seems too easy to bash them but so far all we see is the one side and that is no way to decide an issue, all we can do is conjecture and guess and complain.
There are two sides to every story, hearing this one side we would all side with them in condoning this decision (I condone it myself!) but how can we really decide without knowing the entire story? Yes, the links try to fill us in and give us facts, but all facts are from the same position.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 16 Jan 2011, 11:54 am

GMTom wrote:Dumbing down the entire group in order to serve the minority group, socialism in an educational situation.
I know that you guys can define words to mean whatever you want them to, but you are not actually describing socialism, or socialist educational aims. It would actually be to raise up as many as possible so that all (regardless of their background) have the same access to knowledge as anyone.

Indeed, as far as I am concerned, socialism derives in part from the ideas of the Levellers. They were keen to point out that the Levelling they wanted to see was 'levelling up', not 'levelling down'. It should also be blind to colour and class.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 8486
Joined: 01 Mar 2002, 9:37 am

Post 16 Jan 2011, 1:28 pm

Being blind to color has nothing to do with the difference between socialism and other economic systems. As for being blind to class, that's a peculiar deal: capitalists never talk about classes, only socialists do. Socialists make a special effort to ensure that membership in a class that's been traditionally advantaged is no advantage, and membership in one that's been disadvantaged is no disadvantage. Is that being blind to class? You may define "blind" however you want.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 2:05 am

Min X. On Race, yes. Economic systems don't discriminate on race, people do.

On Class, well, we all recognise different class levels, whether we admit it or not. The idea you are shonky about is that individuals should not be treated differently due to the class they are in.

And on being 'blind' I mean in the same sense as justice is meant to be blind. We all can see racial differences, and class differences may be apparent (or not), but even recognising that they exist, we don't want to see a judicial system that treats people any differently as a result. It should take each individual as it finds them.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 8486
Joined: 01 Mar 2002, 9:37 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 8:23 am

Judicial system? Boy, your brand of socialism must be very different than the ones I've learned about. You seem to find it very difficult to admit that socialism is class-conscious at the economic level. How about this: it's very conscious of class as a matter of history, but (at its best) tries to ignore it in practice. [While on the other hand, at its worst, capitalism ignores class history but pays a lot of unspoken attention in practice!]
:smoke:
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 9:03 am

I used the term "socialism" not in it's purest form But it is somewhat true (by US standards anyways) You have here a situation that strives to increase the overall average. The low end rises but the high end drops, the result is hopefully a slightly better overall average but it could also be a matter of getting the low end to a more accepted level while the higher end suffers. While this is certainly class oriented and not a racial issue ...is it? Blacks would dominate that "lower class" demographic more so than whites, while not race targeted, it does a pretty good job "targeting" just the same. I do not like the idea but I can certainly understand the reasoning IF (and I am assuming only!) this were the case where the better students are being brought down while the lesser students are raised up.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 8486
Joined: 01 Mar 2002, 9:37 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 9:11 am

GMTom wrote:...WHY is this being done???

Tom, regarding your failure to understand the board members' desire to change the policy, and inability to come up with any documents that provide a legitimate explanation: maybe they're just racists. Such beings do exist, you know. There seems to be an enormous unwillingness in the USA these days to accuse anyone of racism. I think the moral crusade against racism has been so successful (in a semantic though not necessarily practical sense) that we've come to see the characteristic as utterly execrable. We'd now more readily, on weak evidence, call someone a pedophile, traitor or Nazi. I have been amazed to read in these (or, more accurately, the former) forums comments to the effect that there's no more racism in America, or no more than "trace elements" of it measurable in parts per million.

I don't know for certain that any of the board members are racists. Thus, if I were to accuse them of it I'd be setting myself up for immense abuse. But have we never heard the NAACP called racist? Or of reverse racism? For some, it seems reasonable to make that charge without proof positive, simply because some people are acting in a way that seems to disadvantage whites. Here we have some people acting in a way that seems to disadvantage blacks, but there's immense reluctance to label them as racists.

It's odd. On the one hand, it's great that we've made racism such a serious moral crime. God forbid it should be something we tolerate or take lightly. On the other hand, because we've invested the word with such negative connotations, we're no longer "allowed" to apply it except in the most extreme circumstances. This makes it difficult to actually combat the considerable amount of racism that remains. If we're unwilling to name it - to ever level the charge - it amounts to a waiver of immunity for all but the most unreconstructed. For instance, if these board members in Wake County were to produce even a threadbare explanation claiming everyone will benefit (and in fact they have done so) we'd feel we can't charge them with racism.

The only group that feels little compunction about applying the word is the NAACP (and others like them no doubt). In like manner, only the Anti-Defamation League and a few like them freely use the word "antisemite". It seems that it's much worse to falsely charge that someone is a racist or antisemite than it is to actually be one. And so the NAACP and ADL are the ones who get lambasted. As a result, it's even harder to make either charge stick and even easier to get away being a racist or antisemite.

I'd be in favor of this proposal: just here - just at Redscape (don't try this at home, children) - it will be relatively acceptable from now on to call someone a racist or antisemite. It will be considered no more
offensive to lightly throw about those charges than to call someone anything else even slightly derogatory, such as "flamer" or "troll" or "knee-jerk liberal" or "redneck" or "zionist". What do you think would happen? Would this encourage more racists and antisemites to emerge from the woodwork, make their feelings known, and feel it's legitimate to do so? Or would it make all of us just that much more sensitive to the racist and antisemitic nature of some of our thinking, lest we speak just a bit rashly and earn the label?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 8486
Joined: 01 Mar 2002, 9:37 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 9:12 am

GMTom wrote:I used the term "socialism"....

Not sure what you're getting at. I was talking to Danivon about this and was unaware that you'd gotten involved or might feel you were being addressed.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 10:12 am

I was the one who brought the term up to start with!

As far as the board being racist, I have no problem with you guessing this to be the case, we really do not know the whole story, only a few (obviously) one sided reports. All stories have two sides and I would like to hear their reasoning and barring no real reasons, I would agree racism might be the case. However, I can't believe the entire board, or even the majority would be so racist. Not so outwardly at any rate, they must have SOME sort of reasoning to "explain this away"? Their is zero room for racism, especially in education of all places, leveling such a charge is maybe inappropriate but we are guessing here and hell, it could certainly be the case?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 11:32 am

I'm confused myself, Min X. I was responding to GMTom by clearly quoting his use of the word.

Judicial system? Boy, your brand of socialism must be very different than the ones I've learned about.
I was comparing the concept of all being equal in the eyes of the court to the concept of all being equal in other respects, such as in the eyes of educators. Not sure how different that would make it. Mind you, I am still unsure as to what you actual exposure has been to the different, um, brands, has been.

You seem to find it very difficult to admit that socialism is class-conscious at the economic level
No, I am not. The recognition that there are different classes and that they have competing interests is not new or confined to socialism, but the desire to reduce those differences is a large part of what inspired it.



How about this: it's very conscious of class as a matter of history, but (at its best) tries to ignore it in practice.
Not far from what I was trying express. I would perhaps change "history" to "describing the state of society and the flaws it has", and "in practice" to "when looking at what society ought to be like".

While on the other hand, at its worst, capitalism ignores class history but pays an lot of unspoken attention in practice
Interesting corollary that you propose here, even if preceding a smilie. I am not sure that it is devoid of that view of history, at least not it the early idealist phase, when Adam Smith and others were working out their ideas, it was in no insignificant part as a challenge to the status quo, where hereditary wealth and power were holding back the ingenuity and abilities of lower classes through hoarding or monopoly.

I still don't know enough about this particular detailed issue to say much that has not already been - it sounds odd, there's been little in the way of justification for change, and some people complain that it will be unfair.

On the wider point, I wonder where the real inequalities in US education are. Is it between 'rich' and 'poor' kids in the public system? Between 'rich' and 'poor' areas in the public system? Or between the top private schools and the public system?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 11:41 am

Minister X wrote:I'd be in favor of this proposal: just here - just at Redscape (don't try this at home, children) - it will be relatively acceptable from now on to call someone a racist or antisemite. It will be considered no more
offensive to lightly throw about those charges than to call someone anything else even slightly derogatory, such as "flamer" or "troll" or "knee-jerk liberal" or "redneck" or "zionist". What do you think would happen? Would this encourage more racists and antisemites to emerge from the woodwork, make their feelings known, and feel it's legitimate to do so? Or would it make all of us just that much more sensitive to the racist and antisemitic nature of some of our thinking, lest we speak just a bit rashly and earn the label?
Shirley you can't be serious? I recall shortly before the transmutation of Redscape that we had a member who complained that he'd been called a bigot in the thread about Gay Marriage/DADT. On trawling through the thread, I saw only three places the word had been used, none as an accusation against him, or even his side of the argument, indeed, not really accusing anyone of being one.

I'm not sure we want to encourage that kind of stuff. I did try to draw attention to examples of Godwin's Law for a while, because I noticed that there did seem to be a tendency bring comparisons to the Nazis into the debate when it wasn't called for.

It is actually what I have been pointing at all through - a willingness to accuse others of the worst things in political debate is not actually a way of keeping that debate rational.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 8486
Joined: 01 Mar 2002, 9:37 am

Post 17 Jan 2011, 1:34 pm

I find what you leave out so instructive!
danivon wrote:The recognition that there are different classes and that they have competing interests is not new or confined to socialism, but the desire to reduce those differences is a large part of what inspired it.

Reduce the differences? How gentle and nice. How innocent. I always thought that a large part of the original motives of socialism were to reverse, not reduce, the differences; that socialism was (and has always been?) hostile to the upper classes. Not so? I'm misinformed?
 

Post 17 Jan 2011, 2:01 pm

Shouldn't we be doing more to ensure that kids have equal access to good schools given the data MX cited (and other studies)?

By the way, I think we need to distinguish between "conscious" racism and "unconscious" racism. I am not sure that the Board is being consciously racist but there is a good chance they are acting based on stereotypes, baises, etc. that may not be entirely conscious. There are psychological tests that measure associtions between positive attributes and a certain race and just about everyone manifests these unconscious biases. There is kind of this assumption that since most people are not consciously racist (they do not think other races are inferior) that racism is gone except with a few exceptions. However, our brain is not that simple and just because we think we are entirely prejudice free, does not make it so.