Brown’s overhaul of California school finances sparks infighting over details (redistribution)

Sacramento Bee ^ | December 8, 2013 | Dan Walters

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Gov. Jerry Brown

[Carry_Okie]

OK. The long-term welfare populations, of either race, are from the low-IQ tail of the bell curve.

So much for genetics, which was your assertion.

Over time, high-IQ individuals leave the population, leaving the low-IQ individuals behind to marry others from the welfare class, reinforcing the low-IQ genetic aspects.

Stating a hypothesis is not a proof.

[PapaBear3625]

The poverty of the students and insufficient funding of the school system was not an excuse for lack of education in the American of the early 1900’s. The poor farmers of a century ago were able to band together to ensure a finer education for their children than the urban school systems of today with their technology, highly paid bureaucrats, and billions of dollars in federal money. Schools fail today because our culture no longer sets any expectations, the parents don’t care and aren’t involved, and the educators are propagandists not teachers.

The experience of the Vietnamese boat people who arrived here in the 70's with nothing, and within a generation produced valedictorians, is a strong example.

[PapaBear3625]

So much for genetics, which was your assertion.

You seem to be operating off the straw-man that I'm saying that all white kids are inherently smarter than any black kids. I'm not. I'm saying that parents who have well-below-average IQs are more likely to produce below-average-IQ kids than above average kids.

Thus the kids of multi-generational white underclass of England are likely to be of lower IQ than any kids which Thomas Sowell would produce.

[BenLurkin]

It’s ok.

My question is your answer.

[Carry_Okie]

You seem to be operating off the straw-man that I'm saying that all white kids are inherently smarter than any black kids.

The performance of adopted children belies that contention. Any population can produce very bright people with the right education, as Jamie Escalante proved.

[PapaBear3625]

The performance of adopted children belies that contention.

Check out the link at my post #18. Black children adopted into middle-class white families did NOT do dramatically better. They did a little better due to the environment, but not dramatically better.

[abb]

Government schools are a jobs program. Have been for a long time.

[PapaBear3625]

Any population can produce very bright people with the right education, as Jamie Escalante proved.

You are entirely correct. I'm not disputing that.

In his time at Garfield High School in LA, Escalante did a great job with his calculus class:

Escalante continued to teach at Garfield, but it was not until 1978 that Escalante would instruct his first calculus class. He hoped that it could provide the leverage to improve lower-level math courses. To this end, Escalante recruited fellow teacher Ben Jiménez and taught calculus to five students, two of whom passed the A.P. calculus test. The following year, the class size increased to nine students, seven of whom passed the A.P. calculus test. By 1981, the class had increased to 15 students, 14 of whom passed.

Garfield High has an enrollment of over 4,000 students, and is 99% Hispanic. At his peak, Escalante found 73 kids out of that large student body who he could get to pass calculus. At his peak essentially selected the top 10% of the student body, in terms of math aptitude, and put them through a 4-year program of rigorous instruction in Algebra thru Calc.

What he demonstrated was that he could take the top 10% of the Garfield population, and have them achieve.

[PapaBear3625]

If in fact the people in a particular school district were innately incapable of managing their school and producing students who excel — then state funding, and indeed control, would be justified since the posited “untermensch” in the district would unable to fund or administer their own schools, correct?

Given the performance of schools in underclass areas, which are managed by school boards elected by the locals, the answer to your question is evident. Plus you fail the argument by Godwin's Law

[BenLurkin]

It’s okay.

This isn’t an argument.

[Carry_Okie]

You have no proof that the top 10% of Garfield High were of superior heritable intelligence.

None.

No sale.

[PapaBear3625]

You have no proof that the top 10% of Garfield High were of superior heritable intelligence.

I'm getting the feeling that there is no level of evidence that will convince you, but here goes:

Do you suppose that the least intelligent students took the calculus class? Would he have allowed anybody who had not done well in the prerequisites (Algebra 1 & 2) to take the class?

[Carry_Okie]

I'm getting the feeling that there is no level of evidence that will convince you, but here goes:

No level of evidence will prove to me that average kids cannot do excellent work. You're right. Obsessing about IQ and genetics is a waste of human talent when there are many other variables that can overshadow differences in that metric. I had seven year old kids factoring quadratics in their heads and doing calculus at 11 years old.

I don't buy this BS about IQ.

Would he have allowed anybody who had not done well in the prerequisites (Algebra 1 & 2) to take the class?

Indeed he did, depending upon his intuition about the will of the kid and the barriers to be overcome. In some of those cases the barrier was language, so he taught them English.