|
|
| Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success (896721) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Concourse Express on Sun Jan 8 17:37:11 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by JayMan on Sat Jan 7 11:24:55 2012. Forgive the late response; I had a busy Saturday and I was in church earlier today. I must say that this convo's been quite stimulating; though further responses may be fewer and farther between (for now) due to other responsibilities I must tend to. That said...In a way, the KIPP schools perform this function. The reason that KIPP schools work (and they don't work anywhere near as well as you might think) is not because of the long hours or the pledges they make kids do or any of that rubbish, it is that the KIPP draws from a select group of kids. Parents who have heard about KIPP schools make an effort to get their kids in. These families will no doubt have higher IQs and greater consciousness than the average ghetto family. Except this "select group" is mostly drawn from a population of disadvantaged youth. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the pool of potential KIPP students would have higher average IQs than that of the remaining population because low-IQ families lack the initiative needed to apply. Wouldn't the same be said for applying and/or testing into specialized schools and gifted programs? This brings me to... As well, for students that just miss the mark on entrance exams, many of them may well be better off not going to a gifted program, because their place in the academic pecking order would plummet; the kids go from being at the top of their class at normal schools to the very bottom in a gifted class. That might serve to demotivate them to achieve more. ...your next point. Certainly, a student who struggles through a gifted class may become discouraged and demotivated. However, I'm not sure they'd all be at the bottom, since curricula in the gifted programs at normal schools (save for AP courses) may not be as rigorous as those at specialized schools. In short, it may still be possible for students who narrowly miss the cutoff for specialized middle or high schools to do well in a gifted program at a normal school. Even absent additional gifted programs, however, the "standard" curricula at normal schools should still consist of more than just rudiments or glorified test prep. Bear in mind that for the most part, very few children in a typical ghetto would qualify as "gifted" by White standards (i.e., IQ ≥ 130; I am one of those few), by virtue of the lower mean and lower standard deviation of the Black IQ curve (μ = 85, σ = 12), much less than 1%. Do we have a junior genius/genius in our ranks? Out of curiosity, are you involved with any of the high-IQ societies (such as Mensa)? FTR, I don't know my exact IQ score and I can't remember whether some of the evaluations I took as a child were in fact IQ tests (though I've every reason to believe it's at least above average)... As for the Black IQ curve, I thought σ was set to 15 (or is that just for Whites)? I have a principle of taking care of everyone as much as possible. But when you consider the likes of Gingrich or Santorum, White Americans are aware of the overrespresentation of Blacks and Latinos on welfare rolls are unlikely to want to continue to support it. This is quite likely to become more acute of a problem if knowledge of race differences became well known. Yes, I have considered; it's pretty scary that potential candidates for President are essentially saying "We don't want to help blacks" (not to mention the stereotyping). Now, you stated in a previous reply that you were "one of the few liberal believers in HBD." Maybe I haven't paid close attention to the arguments in the media, but is there a concerted effort among conservatives to use HBD to justify cutting some social programs based on (1) the overrepresentation of Blacks/Latinos and (2) the perception that "most" of them may be perpetually dependent on such? But a "freer" society mitigates that. Before the sexual revolution, when marriage was much more of a stricter requirement for children and to a lesser extent sex, the level of Black illegitimacy was much lower than today. However, society isn't going to go back to the 1950s, and a liberated society that allows all people to live as they choose leads people to pursue their genetic proclivities more. I sure as heck wouldn't want society to regress to that of the 1950s (especially given that segregation was still legal and interracial marriage still wasn't)! I guess this means any hope of fostering temperance (not just sexual) will depend a person's (or group's) willpower and/or understanding of risks and consequences, which I suppose brings us back to IQ... I think it's safe to say, on the average, that by the time a person settles to his/her genetic IQ, he/she will no longer be dependent on parents. Moreover, since a child's environment may indeed give him/her a leg up, shouldn't we encourage a stable home environment? I think you're missing something important. Allow me to illustrate: If a person is a born with a "genetic" IQ of 80, and is given some sort of intervention early on (like Head Start, for example), he will initially test higher than this during his childhood. But slowly but surely, as he gets older, his tested IQ will fall and approach 80; that is, he will have had retained no lasting benefit from the earlier intervention, and will perform as does a person with an IQ of 80. The reverse is true of a smarter person who is held back from enrichment opportunities early on. His tested IQ will rise to his genetic potential IQ. Mayhap I did miss it; though I'd still advocate for a stable/positive home environment on account of morale and/or self-esteem during youth. As a matter of educational policy, I'd invest more resources in the initiatives that I mentioned before (gifted programs, music/arts, etc.) than in programs like Head Start since I believe the former will achieve a similar (likely greater) effect than the latter. As far as behavioral genetics is concerned, the different contributions to IQ in adulthood are heredity: 80%, shared environment: 0%, unique environment and measurement error: 20%. In youth, the shared environment term is larger and the heredity term is lower, but the shared environment quickly falls to 0 as children age. So as far as environmental effects are concerned, a person's peers will have more influence (especially at adulthood) than family/parents; this does not surprise me. Interestingly, the paper you linked to stated that teaching to the test "has the effect of denuding a test of its g-loading." This, to me, means that teaching to the test renders the test less effective at gauging student's aptitude and cognitive ability (and possibly real understanding of material as well) - which is exactly why I oppose test-based curricula and the lowered standards it often comes with! As SP pointed out, waiting for the optimal solution is often not the optimal solution (statisficing). One has to think statistically. If a program of incentivized voluntary sterilization was offered those whose progeny are most likely require social spending (be it either from welfare or prisons), would there be more such children or fewer of them than the status quo? What about in the future? "Statisficing," eh? Just learned a new word! :) Anyhow, I don't have the answer regarding more or less such children (though I'm guessing not much different from status quo); I suppose you're saying we should try this... This would end the issue of funding "welfare queens"; welfare moms would only be paid welfare if they agree to undergo sterilization once they become pregnant with their third child or remain on the dole longer than five or six years, whichever comes first. ...because it could also act as a deterrent to being a so-called "welfare queen" (e.g. "motivate" individuals to seek employment or other routes through which they can better themselves) and/or being sexually reckless (at least where pregnancy risk is concerned; as I said earlier sterilization doesn't preclude this). my blog |
|
|
|