Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (94164)	9/1/2012 1:51:15 AM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 219940

The achievement gap is not between rich and poor. The achievement gap is between children with intelligent mothers and those with unintelligent mothers. < The idea has been endorsed by the Education Trust, an advocacy organization dedicated to eliminating the achievement gap between poor and privileged children. > There is some correlation with "poor versus privileged" but it's not as good as with "intelligent versus unintelligent". Unintelligent people mistake correlation for causation which is why they think that poor children have a hard time. The reason poor children do badly is because they have unintelligent mothers who did not select intelligent fathers for their children. The reason they are poor is because unintelligent fathers and mothers can't earn much money and if they do get money, mess it up and waste and lose it. The solution is for more eugenics, which women work tirelessly at doing. Mqurice

To: TobagoJack who wrote (94164)	9/1/2012 1:55:11 AM
From: marcher	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 219940

most of this would be solved by using family wealth/income as the sorting variable. it was bracey's last stand: The problem is poverty: Evidence from Gerald Bracey Stephen Krashen The entire basis for the national standards/testing movement is our low scores on international tests when compared to other countries. Our scores, however, are only low because we have such a high percentage of children in poverty, compared to other countries that participate in international tests. When we consider only middle-class children who attend well-funded schools, our math scores are near the top of the world (Payne and Biddle, 1999). Here is another analysis, using reading test scores, that comes to the same conclusion. The PIRLS test was given to ten year olds in 35 countries in their own language. Bracey (2009) presented this data, along with relevant socio-economic data on the poverty level of the schools American children attended (defined as participating in free or reduced price lunch programs): American students attending schools with - less than 10 percent in poverty averaged 589 (14% of students). - 10-24.9% in poverty averaged 567 (20% of students) - 25 to 49.9% in poverty averaged 551 (30% of students) - 50 to 74.5% in poverty averaged 519 (21% of students) - 75% or more in poverty averaged 485 (15% of students) Clearly, students in schools with lower levels of poverty did better. Of great interest to us is the fact that American children attending low poverty schools (25% or less) outscored the top scoring country, Sweden (561). Bracey also points out that "if the students in schools with 24-49.9% poverty constituted a nation, it would rank fourth among the 35 participating nations" (p. 155). The problem is poverty, not our teachers, our unions, the parents, or the children. The solution is to protect our children from the disadvantages of poverty, through health care, nutrition, and access to books. Geoffrey Canada claims that his approach is to attempt to do just that in the Harlem Children's Zone schools (NY Times, October 12, 2010; but see Krashen, 2010a,b). Thus far, the Arne Duncan department of education has chosen to ignore this route (while praising the Harlem Children's Zone), and spend billions on useless national standards and national tests, focusing on measuring rather than helping. schoolsmatter.info