[John McWhorter] Is it racist to expect black kids to do math for real?

Yes, I think you don't understand why that is non-responsive. Utah spends less per pupil that any other state. That is why it has the most red and a lot of Orange. New York spends the most per pupil of any state. That is why it is all dark green. Massachusetts is right up there. Also dark green. Cost of living in New England is sky high. Cost of living in Utah is very low. So of course, compared to a National Average, Utah is going to be less than New York in spending per pupil. New York's average student achievement is 73.2 and Utah's is 74.3. State Grades on K-12 Achievement: Map and Rankings (edweek.org) This is based on a combination of meeting 4th grade math and reading standards, meeting 8th grade math and reading standards, high school graduation rates, and high AP score rates, as well as improvement from the prior year and a low/shrinking poverty gap in meeting standards. So Utah is doing better spending the least per student and New York is about average spending the most per student. So yes, obviously different districts have different per student spending, and no one claimed otherwise. What studies have found is that within districts, federal spending subsidises the poorer schools to even out per student spending with the richer schools and that spending differences between different districts do not correlate with achievement. So, no matter how big the spending gap is between districts, you and NPR are looking at the wrong issue.

Spending is not the problem. We spend more per pupil on education in the US than almost any other country (there are a couple outliers above us like Luxembourg where the per capita GDP is like $150,000), but we do not get the same results.

 

And picking and chosing single examples for a correlation is a fundamental misunderstanding of correlation. Obviously there are confounding factors outside of money such as poorer children tend to have more burdens and responsibilities such as helping raise younger siblings due to a single parent working 50+ hours and not being able to afford daycare where those children have less time to care about their futures than suburban kids. However there doesn't mean money in poorer neighborhoods isn't an issue.

I can also point out where most of the orange and red are in poor neighborhoods with bad outcomes like in HISD, or look at Alabama and Mississippi. And Massachusetts is a bad example to bring up for your case as Massachusetts literally is ranked by multiple sources and metrics as the best state for public k-12 education. Same goes for a state like Connecticut that is all green there and also is ranked near the top in k-12 education.

And bringing up overall spending is disingenuous in this case when the United States heavily relies on a federal system of funding that results in up to 66% differences in funding between a poor and wealthy district compared to other countries that have more uniform methods of spending. The United States doesn't have a education issue overall. It has a education inequality issue.

 

Do Poor Kids Get Their Fair Share of School Funding? (urban.org) "We find that poor students attend school districts that are about as well funded as the districts nonpoor students attend in their state." This is actually slightly deceptive. Outside of a couple examples, poor students are better funded than non-poor students within a state (when local, state, and federal funding are all considered, with only Wyoming, Illinois, and Nevada bucking the trend, and only Illinois to any significant degree.
Racial Disparities in Education Finance: Going Beyond Equal Revenues | Full Report | Tax Policy Center
"While evidence generally shows that school finance reforms have narrowed the spending discrepancies within states and, to an extent, across states (Murray et al. 1998), the evidence of how student outcomes have changed following these reforms is murky. Downes (1992) looks at the California experience following Serrano. He finds greater equality in spending was not accompanied by greater equality in measured student performance. Using nationwide individual student data, Downes and Figlio (1997) find court-mandated school-finance reforms do not significantly change either the mean level or the distribution of student performance on standardized tests. They do find, however, that legislative reforms that are not a result of a court decision lead to higher test scores in general; the estimated effect is particularly large in initially low spending districts. Hoxby (2001) finds little evidence that school finance would significantly affect the high school dropout rate. Finally, Card and Payne (1998) focus on the impact of finance reform on SAT scores. They conclude that the evidence points to a modest equalizing effect of school-finance reforms on the test score outcomes for children from different family backgrounds, though they would agree that the evidence is not decisive."

Those were just examples. You can also look at Delaware, Wyoming, Alaska, and Nebraska vs. Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and North Carolina. The first four more well funded, similar or worse performance that the latter four. The confounding factors swallow the differential funding. Kids who have had a CPS investigation, even when no finding was made, meet third grade reading standards at half the rate of kids without CPS investigations.

Look at Alaska. Almost all green, one of the worst performing states. Maybe there are other factors present in HISD, Alabama, and Mississipi that are less common in Utah, Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida.

I never said it wasn't highly ranked. I said that it is more highly funded because it is a more expensive state. I didn't claim higher funding prevented a state from achieving well.

Yes, there are states funded above the national average that perform well and states funded above the national average that perform poorly. There are states funded below the national average that perform well and states funded below the national average the perform poorly. It is almost as though comparing funding to the national average does not directly correlate to performance.

You have not proven that these district funding differences translate to performance differences nor that they are even inequitable. Educational performance varies wildly. The biggest factors correlated with educational performance are childhood trauma, having a two parent household, and socio-economic status. Socio-economic status, childhood trauma, and having a two parent household are not affected by school funding systems. It is the behavior of the parents that is most likely to determine the outcomes for their children, which should surprise no one.

 

cross-posting, didn't remember this thread

 

https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/what-it-means-to-be-“woke”.315577/#post-14056498

 

As tiring as wokism is, anti-wokism is just as.

Is math itself racist? No. Obviously not.

Is the way the field functions and the way it is taught racist? Maybe. I could certainly see maybe sexist. Certainly it's not as welcoming. But the fundamentals of math itself are not racist.

 

Not really.

"Wokeism" is someone writing an article that might express new progressive ideas that maybe aren't ready for the mainstream on some Tumblr blog or in an academic setting in some academic paper


Anti-wokiesm is a capitalist industry full of grifters that find these type of pieces and spam them to farm outrage.

 

I don't agree but whatever, it's my opinion so we shouldn't have to argue that.

 

I understand that it is your opinion. What is the point in addressing that?

Arguing opinions outside of basketball is like the central premise of this sub forum lol.

 

Knowledge is power...White Power

 

Ummm, no. You can't argue opinions.

I like cake

No, you don't!

 

British people are better at Math than WOKE AMERICANS
@Os Trigonum
@J.R.