Florida Adopts Different Standards For Students Based On Race

Why do we track race at all? Why don't we completely eliminate it from the application process and statistical categories. How can we eliminate racism when we are placing lower standards on people just to have higher graduation rates. How does that help? Why don't we focus on making every school great. At the very least, pull the low-income schools up to a reasonable level, but don't just lower their standards so they can pump more people in and out, that's not education, that's handing someone a piece of paper (aka a diploma) and saying you're prepared for life! No, you're not and now we are going to be stuck footing the bill when these people can't find jobs.

 

The answer to your 1st question can be answered with what I bolded. These things are tracked and standards aren't the same because we don't make the investments to ensure every school is great, that every kid has a fair shot, etc.

 

Why do we have to track race to see people are failing?

 

How does having less data help anything? If we just don't know that there are problems by race, does that make them go away?

 

You don't need to track race to see people are failing. You have to track race (and other things) to figure out WHO and WHY people are failing.

Let's say you have a low income school that is 70% white and 30% black, and let's say 30% of the kids there are failing. The policy response should be very different in the following two scenarios:

A: 30% of the white kids are failing and 30% of the black kids are failing (30% total)
B: 0% of the white kids are failing and 100% of the black kids are failing (30% total)

If you don't track that data, all you do is make it impossible to actually see what is happening and, thus, how to fix ti.

 

Does Florida have standards for athletic performance?

 

I don't know that they are holding the students to different standards. It sounds like they are trying to close the achievement gap where students from certain populations aren't meeting the grade level standards.

That's fine, and it's important to know which groups aren't succeeding so that you can adapt the way material is being taught to those students. The standards should be the same for everyone.

 

How does having more data that divides us help us? There aren't problems by race, there are problems by income levels. They aren't failing because they are black, they are failing because they are coming from low income houses who don't stress education and who go to schools in low income areas that reflect the struggles of the neighborhood.

If you see that 45% of your senior class is failing, what good is it to know that 70% of those people are black? Honestly, what can this information do? Can we tailor programs to black people? No, that would be racist. Can we do it for Hispanics? No, that would be racist. So why not look at the school and determine if the school in general is failing. If 20% or more of your school is failing, someone is wrong with the school, we don't need to break it down by race to determine that.

 

Actually there are problems by race.

As a teacher, it's important to differentiate the material to reach the students that aren't meeting the standards. The information that groups who share a cultural heritage or different use of Standard English Language is huge to any teacher who's going to help everyone meet grade level standards.

Just teaching one way doesn't cut it anymore. Teaching needs to be varied to reach all learners. The more you know about hose learners the more it will help the teaching.

 

And what policy differences would there be if white kids are failing or black kids are failing. Kids are failing, white, black, Hispanic, and even Martian children are failing! What policy differences could there be and why are we treating kids different based on their race?

Sure, when these statistical policies were implemented they were necessary as we were struggling mightily to achieve equality. However, for the most part education quality based on race is pretty even. Schools are not even, but that's not because they are heavily minorities, it's because they are stuck in a vicious cyclical motion, you can't move out because you can't get a good education, you can't get a good education because you can't move out, you can't improve your school because you can't improve the neighborhood, and you can't improve the neighborhood because you can't improve the school!

Seems to make more sense to look at schools on a general stat: Are the succeeding or failing? They being the kids, not a particular race.

Do you get where I am coming from?

 

How does the stat that 70% of Hispanics are failing at a school help a teacher? Are teachers going to start tailoring their classes to a particular group that is failing? I still don't understand how knowing that 80% of your black kids are failing helps more than knowing in general that your students are failing. Why do we need statistics to show what the teachers should already know.

If you start at a pre-K level, with quality, public education with GOOD, not decent, teachers, wouldn't more people be on or above par when they move on to the next grade?

 

How are you closing the achievement gap by lowering the benchmark to pass?

 

You don't lower the benchmark to pass. The standards for passing should be the same. You close the achievement gap by targeting groups that aren't passing, and setting the goal for an improved percentage of those students to pass. Each group may have a goal of differing percentages set for them based on previous data.

 

Data doesn't divide people. Not measuring reality doesn't help the situation any.

This is partly true, but partly false. We know that because we have the data.

That's not true. Different races and different cultures emphasize different things.

Yes, you absolutely can. You look at what's different in the two groups to see what is causing the higher failure rate. This is what sociology is all about - it's done all the time.

This is true. But if you want to fix the problem, you better know why the failure is happening and who it's affecting - and that is where the data comes into play.

 

GOOD teachers know that they have to vary the way they teach. Knowing that 70% of a particular group will help the teacher tailor their lessons and make revisions to help that group achieve grade level standards.

Being culturally aware, can be a huge help in getting students in that group to meet grade level standards. Understanding different linguistic patterns taught to students of various groups, and using that knowledge to help instruction for those learners to meet grade level standards is huge.

Ignoring that and acting like a one-size fits all method of instruction isn't good teaching or even decent teaching.

 

If everyone is failing equally, then you know the problem is an income problem. If not, then you know there is a different factor causing it. Perhaps there's institutional racism, for example, and white kids are being treated differently. Or perhaps there is something culturally different within the black and white households. There are any number of possibilities - it's essential to have the data to figure out what those might be.

You wouldn't even know this if not for the data you wish we didn't have. The reason to have that data is, in part, to measure the exact progress you're talking about.

I understand your underlying logic. But as you said above, "for the most part" is important. The reason to have data is to confirm or challenge what you believe to be true. Suppose you're right and that education is equal for all races. If you don't keep track of that data, how will you know if that changes in 5 or 10 or 20 years? How will you identify the pockets of schools where that isn't true?

Data is never a bad thing - how you use it may be, but having that data is absolutely essential to identifying and fixing problems.

 

The thread title and the blog are both misleading, if I've properly cut through the BS. From what it sounds like, the standards for students don't change, but the standards for the school do. The USA Today article on it is much more clear:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...m_campaign=Feed:+newsmain2+(News+-+Flipboard)

The idea is to recognize that there are real differences in student achievement by race, and they're setting a roadmap to try to close the gap by setting converging targets by race for what makes a school's performance 'acceptable.' But, a kid who doesn't pass a test still doesn't pass, even if he's black. It doesn't change the standard for students. And, it's sad because I'd say it's inevitable that they fail to hit their marks.

(And, I think this is a bad idea because it could create perverse incentives in where a school focuses it's resources.)

But, OP, please stop reading that blog, the author of which has either a serious reading comprehension problem, a communication problem, or is intentionally race-baiting.

 

Well perhaps I misunderstood the OP, but I was under the impression they were lowering the required reading levels on certain ethnic groups.

Why do we have to target blacks, or hispanics, or whites, or asians? Why can't we target failing kids and then on an individual basis determine what will help that kid succeed. I don't think it is beneficial to the kids to group them into educational standards based on their race.

I agree teachers need to be able to tailor their lessons to help students understand material, but when you are setting lower standards to particular group because their ethnic group has more students failing, aren't you hurting that ethnic group in the end?

I feel it would be more beneficial to society in general if we RAISED our standards on everyone and began public education at a quality pre-k level.

You still have the data on the number of students failing, isn't that the big concern, helping everyone? Why do we need to look at it at a micro level? Teachers of course should. But how does it help a teacher to know what everyone knows, people from low income areas are much further behind. By measuring race we are throwing in upper, middle, and lower class students of the same ethnicity. The real statistic should be what income level they come from, not the color of their skin.

We have the data that shows certain ethnic groups tend to be from lower income families, but that doesn't mean they are at that income level because of their race. So why does the student's race have any factor on their educational level.

I agree, but how does this help with education standards and statistics?

How can a school district look at this data and determine policies based on race? You would cause just as much damage. On an individual basis I agree, you need to tailor your class lessons to the students, like drug math on The Wire! JK bad idea (great show though!)

I agree that we need to know who is failing and why, but I don't think looking at it by race proves anything. There is nothing about a black (replace with any race) person's genetics that puts them at a disadvantage in a learning environment, is there?