|
|
| Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success (895718) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Jan 5 14:45:48 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Concourse Express on Thu Jan 5 13:34:43 2012. Good point, but it's exactly this secret that bolsters my argument - namely, that the current state of education lends itself to mediocrity. The current policies that encourage watered-down curricula implicitly hold back the gifted (high IQ) students by not giving them the opportunity to attain higher-level knowledge when they're clearly ready for it. In the Atlanta cheating thread we discussed IQ and motivation; would a gifted student be motivated to learn in an environment where they're unable to demonstrate their gift? Would they not become bored and indifferent due to the fact that they're not being challenged?So basically what you're saying is that we need a better way of identifying gifted students that happen to be in impoverished districts and getting them out of there. I whole-heatedly agree. While IQ tests are somewhat less reliable in young children (since the heritability of IQ increases with age), bright children in a low-IQ background will stand out. I'm in favor of setting up specialized middle schools, like Bronx Science and the rest, only at the middle school level. Allowing for more gifted/talented programs and bringing back music, the arts, etc. (along with related extracurriculars) will give them the opportunity to explore their talents and gifts; I believe re-opening these channels will enable more students (especially those of low SES and/or IQ) to succeed. (And yes, I know some simply won't make the cut even then, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go for it.) All for it. That's a matter of convincing government to fund education more and stop wasting money on NCLB and Race to the Top and all that rubbish. however in my (brief) research of IQ tests I found that there are some that are more culturally sensitive (i.e. the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS)) than others (i.e. Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices). If one took different IQ tests and obtained (slightly) different results, which would be more accurate (or do we simply take a weighted average of results)? You get a score of whatever test you took (which is always scored on a relative scale; i.e., your z-score is converted to an IQ score with μ = 100 and σ = 15). The IQ test isn't perfect and in any one individual there will be a degree of noise in the data, as all sorts of things (how you feel that day, dumb mistakes in filling in, etc...) can influence the result. That said, more culture fair tests (like the Ravens) increases the gap between racial groups. Actually, oddly enough, people in lower SES's are in poorer health only partly because of poorer access to healthcare (though in the States especially this is a major problem), they are in poorer health also because they have low IQs and are less able to properly take care of themselves. While the PISA results indeed demonstrate that all races in America perform better on the average than elsewhere, wouldn't this be more of a testament to IQ than to the strength of American education, based on your evidence? It doesn't necessarily mean that the American education system itself is better or that it doesn't need improvement. I suspect that this is due to both the American education system and the high standard of living in American society. As well, it's hard to know what the test taking attitude is all these countries, as while it's not so easy to score higher on tests, it's very easy to score lower. Yet economic disparities are widening. The playing field may have become more "level" in terms of opportunities, but in terms of earning potential it's not. Of course. Equality of opportunity does not translate to equality of outcome. Having higher IQ (and other heritable traits relevant to income and success) compounds in a way, as the benefits of wealth and talent work together. As well, the lower-IQ segment of the population is the fastest growing, meaning that proportionally more people are born without the goods to succeed. Mayhap it's time to encourage creation of opportunities - exploration of gifts - SOMETHING to make a positive impact on communities, especially those riddled with poverty (like the very borough I live in, which STILL has one of the highest poverty rates in the NATION). As a expat. of the South Bronx myself, I can tell you that the Bronx is poor not because of a lack of opportunities, but because of a lack of ability. It would not surprise me if the average IQ of the population south of Fordham Rd is in the 70s, especially when I was growing up there. What's more insidious, the more ways out you give the smart kids, the worse off the neighborhood becomes. Draining impoverished areas of their smartest members only lowers the genetic potential of the people who remain, further consigning them to poverty. Though I can tell you from my visits there that the S. Bronx is far better than it was in its darkest days in the 70s, 80s and 90s, but I suspect that this is due to the mass imprisonments that resulted from the police crackdown of the Giuliani era. As I'm sure you've seen in the media, there is a concerted effort to slash these programs in the name of cost-savings. While there are abuses (i.e. people who "game" the system) that must be curtailed, full-on elimination of these programs and initiatives is something we cannot afford to let happen. This is particularly true of healthcare reform, since evidence suggests that SES (and I guess IQ, according to Jensen) is a significant determinant in assessing child health and predicting their well-being into adulthood. I've seen. The many elements of White majority no longer want to pay for the welfare-bound underclass, and justify it by believing that shutting off the pipeline will get them to behave like Whites. Unfortunately, that's a pipe dream. Indeed, it is the presence of NAMs (non-Asian minorities), as well as America's heterogeneous history that prevents social welfare programs from taking root here. |
|
|
|