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

All I know is a double negative in English is negative. But a double negative in math is positive.

(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

 

This is a study from a conservative think tank so it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Other studies do show a correlation: https://blogs.worldbank.org/impacte...that “a 10,0.05 to 0.09 standard deviations.”

I'm not here to get into this debate, I'm only saying money is one, but not the only factor.

 

The idea that "if one person can do it, then everyone else can do it too," is a false narrative.

 

Wow what a disingenuous piece of **** study. That study is trying to pull a fast one by claiming that federal spending is near equal across the board but leaves out a very important tidbit:

The average schools district gets around 5% of its funding from the federal government. 90% is from local property taxes which means districts in poor neighborhoods with low property values have less funding.

Hence:
"How School Funding's Reliance On Property Taxes Fails Children : NPR"


And this:

"Report finds $23 billion racial funding gap for schools - The Washington Post" https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html?outputType=amp

And yes the population pools are very similar in size between the two groups.

So go **** off with your shitty lack of intellectual curiousty and just clinging on to anything that resembles your preconcieved biases.

 

You should calm down. If what he posted is factually wrong, pointing that out is enough without attacking him.

This is a quote from one of the links in the article he posted:

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/issues-2020-us-public-school-spending-teachers-pay#notes

“Although local school spending relies heavily on property-tax revenue, state and federal spending ensure that a state’s per-pupil spending is comparable across race and socioeconomic status.”

Are you saying that statement is factually wrong?

 

You are misreading the article. They are not claiming that federal spending is equal across the board. They are claiming that federal spending disproportionately goes to places that have less local spending, which equalizes them with the places with high local spending. So they get less money from property taxes, but more money from federal spending. The takeaway is that with ALL spending accounted for, kids in the same district, state, etc. tend to end up with equal funding without racial or socio-economic differences. The big differences in spending are in state to state comparisons, but are largely accounted for by cost of living differences and the state to state funding differences do not equate to differences in performance. Whether the article is correct or not, I could not tell you, but the sources they are drawing this particular fact from are the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, both center-left think tanks. Perhaps you should actually read the article instead of launching ad hominem attacks.

 

Except the map I showed accounts for all levels of spending and there is still a +/- 33% discrepancy in most extreme cases towards the median and if you look at the red it's mostly urban minority neighborhoods and there also is a 23 billion dollar gap between white majority neighborhoods and minority neighborhoods with near equal population.

 

Yes. The subsidizing doesn't equalize the finding. There still are massive gaps in funding.

 

What’s critical is the SES of the child’s family. Those families tend to live in better performing districts with higher property taxes and thus more funding. But the higher funded schools is just a byproduct of the more affluent family which is the defining factor.

Families with means are stable and their children are able to move up Maslows hierarchy not worried about what will I eat, or where will I sleep, etc. Those children get tutoring, mental and basic healthcare, extracurriculars, etc. Their parents feed them, make them go to bed on time, check their homework and make them accountable for their grades. Anyone with kids knows a great deal of parenting is hounding your kids to do their chores, brush their teeth, finish their homework, etc. Non affluent families are too focused on the basics to always do that. Back to Maslow.

Government should focus on raising the quality of living for families which in turn will raise local funding as incomes rise. Let’s get the WPA infrastructure plan going and create some actual good paying blue collar jobs.

 

Can you cite the figure that shows when you include federal funding there is still a wide disparity on a per-student basis? The Washington Post article you linked to refers to a study that does not even consider federal funding. It's also looking at something that seems to be subtley different -- per-student disparity for mostly-white vs mostly-nonwhite districts nation wide, rather than per-student disparity for white student vs nonwhite students in each state.

 

Click the blue title as it directs to the actual article. They measure amount spent per student for each school district which accounts for all funding from all levels.

And it's the per student funding that actually matters obviously.

 

I did skim over that, but it doesn't provide average per-student numbers that would contradict the numbers cited in the other article. It shows that there is huge variation in per-student spending. But the specific point made by the other article -- within each state, per-student funding averages along racial lines is about the same after federal dollars are accounted for -- is not addressed.

 

The numbers in the NPR article state it's total funding accounting for all levels spent per student in each district.

There is a near 66% difference between the poorest districts and the wealthiest in funding per student.

 

These are different claims -- aren't they?

(1) No correlation nation-wide between per-student funding for a school district and the fraction of white students it has

(2) No correlation in each state between per-student funding and whether the student is white or not.

As far as I can tell, the articles you're posting are arguing against (1), while the article posted by @StupidMoniker is arguing (2).

 

Well the WaPo article states a 23 billion dollar gap and that's with similar population numbers for minority districts and white districts.

 

Yes -- which is arguing against (1) (and, as already stated, it's numbers intentionally exclude federal funding).

 

It doesn't though.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html?outputType=amp

"The analysis does not include federal dollars, much of which is targeted to the poorest communities."

 

Except the article does address that, and points out that there are large differences between the states, because New York, for example, spends twice as much per student as Utah, but there is no attendant difference in student outcomes because everything is much cheaper in Utah, cost of living is less so faculty and staff costs are lower, land costs are lower, utility costs are lower, etc. You cannot compare to a nationwide median because it makes no sense to do so. You can't be a teacher in Manhattan on the salary of a teacher in New Hebron, Mississippi, because you wouldn't be able to afford things like rent and food.