The Jami Turman Fan Club: frogjelly:
Did you look at your own map? New Jersey has some of the best schools and is the highest minority. West Virginia has one of the lowest minority and the worst schools. Minnesota is more minority than Alabama and Mississippi. Guess which state has the great schools?

Is there any correlation here at all?

Minnesota does not have a higher percentage of minorities than Alabama or Mississippi. Check the census data. Link (new window)

Mississippi has the LOWEST percentage of whities of any state.

The Jami Turman Fan Club: frogjelly: jaytkay: Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Surprised poor latin american immigrants perform more poorly in reading and math tests? You don't say.....

Did you look at your own map? New Jersey has some of the best schools and is the highest minority. West Virginia has one of the lowest minority and the worst schools. Minnesota is more minority than Alabama and Mississippi. Guess which state has the great schools?

Is there any correlation here at all?

Household income? Parental literacy and educational levels?

If little Braedyn comes from a house where nobody reads (in any language, not just English) he'll be behind the kids that come from houses where the family does read.

sonofagunn: The Jami Turman Fan Club: frogjelly:
Did you look at your own map? New Jersey has some of the best schools and is the highest minority. West Virginia has one of the lowest minority and the worst schools. Minnesota is more minority than Alabama and Mississippi. Guess which state has the great schools?

Is there any correlation here at all?

Minnesota does not have a higher percentage of minorities than Alabama or Mississippi. Check the census data. Link (new window)

Mississippi has the LOWEST percentage of whities of any state.

I'm not saying his chart is correct. I am saying that his chart does not support his conclusion.

Moonfisher: California is probably a bit lower because of all the children who do not have English as a first language. I'm not being snarky, either. The kids i have worked with here who know almost no or no English when they start kindergarten are farked, and they fark the scores for the state averages. The ones that attend our free state preschool program for lower income families fare much better.


The problem is not so much that English is not their first language, but that they tend to form ethnic enclaves in which Spanish is the primary - and often the only language spoken.

Young children (under 9 years or so) are quite adept at learning a new language. I have seen foreign (Vietnamese, in this case) children that spoke not a word of English become extremely fluent in the first year or two - mainly because there were very few people to speak with in their native tongue.

Conversely, I have known Hispanics that have lived in predominantly Spanish speaking areas of CA that have been here for 20-30 years, and barely know a word of English.

They had no need to learn.

This is very divisive, and is not good for assimilation or national unity.


/Celebrate our diversity!
// My ass

You gotta be good to come in 52nd out of 50

To be fair Mississippi is 50% black and learning is considered a white honkey cracker thing.

I cannot believe that jersey is 3rd considering what an abysmal shiathole this place is. I guess the smart ones make a bee-line for elsewhere once they're through school. Wait a minute...I'm still here... DAMMIT!

quickdraw: California is BELOW Arizona. sigh. I remember pre prop 13 when California had one of the best educational systems in the world.

wat

Amos Quito Quote 2011-01-24 08:50:23 PM

Conversely, I have known Hispanics that have lived in predominantly Spanish speaking areas of CA that have been here for 20-30 years, and barely know a word of English.

They had no need to learn.

This is very divisive, and is not good for assimilation or national unity.


>>>


Good for them? Every immigrant population does this, the originals try and hang onto their so-called identity, their children learn to speak the language and assimilate just like everyone else.

and everyone else says "thank goodness for Mississippi!!!

Vanetia: Proud2B_American: Growing up and living in MA, I never had to take those tests (too old). I can say, for those that do choose a career in the supermarket sciences, please learn basic math at least. I was in a local Stop & Shop not long ago, and used a debit card, asked for $40 cash back, it took the cashier a good minute or so to figure out the total and how much change to give me. This all with electronic cash registers. Sad...

My neighbor brought me a bank statement, and asked me to subtract her rent from it. Subtraction. Basic subtraction. I asked her "You can't do that?" She replied "It's hard, you know? There's too many numbers!"

She works at a local grocery store, but I don't think they allow her to actually use the registers. She's pretty much relegated to cart return duty.

But this is the same neighbor that thinks it's healthy to feed her fat (and getting fatter) kids Chipotle all the time. And then complains how she's broke yet refused my suggestion of, you know, making something at home.

Cut her off. She'll infect you with stupid.

Samwise Gamgee: Cut her off. She'll infect you with stupid.

I avoid her as best I can, but sometimes she traps me. I'll go to get my mail and she'll stand in the doorway (and she is LARGE there is no getting around her), or she'll come to my apartment and knock incessantly. I don't answer the door for that, but if it's actually a nice day out so I have my blinds open, and she sees me as she goes by, I'm pretty well farked.

I want so badly to just tell her to fark off, but she seems the like vindictive type. I don't want to be heading out to work one day to find my tires slashed.

zunkus: Hmmm, Nebraska is right in the middle. This doesn't surprise me, not a lot of standout individuals but also not an overwhelming amount of retards.

In other words, flat and boring?

vodka: Ebolatron: Holy fark, these numbers make me feel like some sort of undiscovered genius.

Are you talking about the SAT scores? If you are then you know they changed the scoring system by 2002, correct? SAT's taken after October 2001 have much higher numerical values. Those results are before the change.

To me that chart says that the amount of spending per child makes little to no difference in SAT score.

Yes, I am aware of this - the scoring system changed the year after I sat the exam.

Invisible Pedestrian: A baloo is a bear.

/but deep down you knew that already, didn't you

A yonker is a young man.

keypusher:
Now you tell me: what do Montgomery County whites score?

More than your kid

What do Montgomery County Asians score?

More than your boss's kid

What do Montgomery County Hispanics score?

More than your maid's kid

What do Montgomery County blacks score?

More than your McDonald's server

/aisle seat SVP

less than half the states HAVE tests that report "advanced levels" and in those states the large proportion of positives are elective tests or private schools.


the article has more bullshiat in it than the western hemisphere

bottsicus: We're crippled by massive debt, public corruption, and legislators who've given away the farm to the public employee unions.

Better than giving the farm to unionbusters. Fix the unions from within, not from without. Otherwise you're just asking for whatever irrational hate to be used against those not even in a union.

ParaHandy: /aisle seat SVP

I hope that ain't French, bwah... we don't take kindly to surrender monkeys in these here parts.

English.. psshh.. I don't need English, I'm not going to England!

error 303: Also, let me just throw this thought out there -

We need to spend more of our resources educating the gifted and talented future leaders of this country and less on remedial education for children who have no real future with higher learning.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

I agree. They used to have gifted and talented education in my town, and they cut it off way back when I was in 4th grade.

The money we spend on special education is ridiculous and out of control. When large chunks of town budgets across the country are going to a handful of special ed students, the system isn't working. I don't care if the parents of these students don't want to hear it; no, you're kid is not worth that money and those resources. Having a teacher and an aide dedicated to a kid whose ceiling is being a janitorial assistant is mind numbing.

Amos Quito: phaseolus: Amos Quito: Proof that throwing money at education works.


I hear that argument a lot. I'm skeptical.

Since you brought it up, please show me some evidence that taking money away correlates with better test scores (or some other scale if you prefer.) Or data that shows that bigger class sizes correlates with better outcomes.

I think you're full of shiat, but I'll admit you were right if you can prove it.


I didn't say that 'taking money away correlates with better test scores', and mentioned nothing about class sizes, Mr. Strawman.

Rather, I (sarcastically) implied that throwing money at education does not correlate to improved performance.



Click here for a larger version (new window).

Spending more than doubles, scores remain flat.

Before you attack my source, make note of their sources.

Now, you can either admit that I am right, or break open a fresh bale of straw.

Your choice.

Care to inflation adjust those numbers?

aprentic: Amos Quito: phaseolus: Amos Quito: Proof that throwing money at education works.


I hear that argument a lot. I'm skeptical.

Since you brought it up, please show me some evidence that taking money away correlates with better test scores (or some other scale if you prefer.) Or data that shows that bigger class sizes correlates with better outcomes.

I think you're full of shiat, but I'll admit you were right if you can prove it.


I didn't say that 'taking money away correlates with better test scores', and mentioned nothing about class sizes, Mr. Strawman.

Rather, I (sarcastically) implied that throwing money at education does not correlate to improved performance.



Click here for a larger version (new window).

Spending more than doubles, scores remain flat.

Before you attack my source, make note of their sources.

Now, you can either admit that I am right, or break open a fresh bale of straw.

Your choice.

aprentic: Care to inflation adjust those numbers?


Done. If you look at the chart, you'll see that all figures are given in "Constant 2006-2007 Dollars".

bottsicus Quote 2011-01-24 03:31:05 PM

We're crippled by massive debt, public corruption, and legislators who've given away the farm to the public employee unions.


>>>>>>

I think you mean given away the farm to the wealthy elite who continue to make record profits and record wealth ownership. I'm not sure how the little guy barely making a middle class salary thinks the problem is his fellow man rather than the landed elite. It baffles me every time how easily you are suckers.

The official count of home schoolers is 2 million. They're renown for their poise and maturity and they tend to outscore their schooling peers on aptitiute tests (and they're not even trying - they don't care about those tests). They come from all socio-economic back grounds. Their parents aren't rich; merely supportive. And kids who come from stable supportive home lives also do better in other arenas, like school.

These school people who cry out, "we need more money" are worse than the people who still keep the 6000 year old earth theory in circulation. They are ludicrous. They're ghouls.

goatleggedfellow: Amos Quito: keypusher: goatleggedfellow: keypusher: goatleggedfellow: Amos Quito: goatleggedfellow: Amos Quito: Philip J. Fry: goatleggedfellow: 51. District of Columbia

...

Speaking of "weak shiat," mind explaining how including other NAEP scores would invalidate the Heritage charts? NAEP tests science and math. Would those scores be meaningfully different?

Justify your answer.

What are you rambling about? Did I mistype something or did you misread something? Since I don't know what you're asking, so I'll just answer the question you probably meant to ask...

There is nothing 'invalid' (whatever that means) about the charts. I'm sure the data is real. It's the juxtaposition of the data that I have a problem with. It tricks you into making a connection that the data don't actually support. If you read my post, you'd see that.

You can compare any educational expenditure to the area of learning which that expenditure was focused on. It's doable, but would require a lot of number-crunching to isolate out the relevant expenditure. Further, it should be done if we want to find problem areas in the system.

My complaint was that Heritage did not do that. It deliberately packaged those charts (total spending vs. a single area of study) together to deceive people into making false assumptions. They didn't single out reading-related expenditures for their comparison to reading scores.

Right. That's why I said -- let's factor in the NAEP math and science results. Will the charts look any different?

Well, will they?


Here are a few charts I found under appendix B at the source I cited (new window). Maye they will help to clarify things.

Math and reading scores - by race, 1975-2004



Larger version (new window)



Larger version (new window)


Larger version (new window)


And finally, a chart showing Federal dollars spent, 1985-2007.



Larger version (new window)

/It's a conspiracy

Yes, the data set just got bigger. We still don't have a spending breakdown, but oh well.

We see an increasing trend in math scores, though not among HS seniors. That may be a problem, but it'd take an incredibly exhaustive amount of research to identify the causes and mitigating factors.

Not my area (I'm a chemist), but I'm quite certain that there is university research going on to flesh out the situation.


That was an interesting concession speech.

Problem, bible belt?

FlashHarry: not a lot of RedEmily states up front. gee, i wonder why that is.

Fixed that for maximum dumb.