A Fine Example of Print Journalism

[The Mockingbird]

Thanks for the insight, Wall Street Journal! (http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531)

Intelligence in the Classroom
Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them. No... really? Say it ain't so, Charles Murray!

[ January 17, 2007, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: The Mockingbird ]

[Jane Craig]

That's not true in Lake Woebegon, where ALL the children are above average.

[Diplomat]

Very thoughtful piece.

[Spike]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
Thanks for the insight, Wall Street Journal! (http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Intelligence in the Classroom
Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them. No... really? Say it ain't so, Charles Murray!</font>[/QUOTE]You didn't actually read the artical, did you? The obviousness of the statement was the whole point.

[Another side]

If he's right, what is his point? That we should concentrate on the upper 50 percent and just shrug off the lower 50 percent by giving them an E for effort? I don't understand.

[The Mockingbird]

Murray argues that genetic predisposition against intelligence is the cause of our educational problems; that it's nature, not nurture, to blame for the cycle of poverty and ignorance.

That he starts out by making a comment about intelligence that's supposed to be clever, but is really just banal, shows a lot about the author.

The educational problems in our society, in ranking order (imho):

1) Money. We simply don't spend enough, except in the wealthiest of communities. This leads to a lot of the other problems.

2) Limited Candidates. Unlike television, which strings the young along for years on the hopes of getting "a big break", there's little incentive to draw the teachers of tomorrow to the field, unless it be job satisfaction, and frankly, those kind of saints are not common enough in our society. Kudos to the ones who stick it out anyway, but there aren't that many.

3) Teacher to Student Ratio. One of the reasons children get left behind is because they don't get enough individualized instruction. Not everyone learns the same way.

4) Proper Learning Materials. Whether it be history books that go beyond 1970, or computers in the classroom, the poorest schools aren't getting these essential tools to teach kids to get ahead in life.

5) Learning environment. This includes the school, the home, and the social structures involved with kids of learning age. It's a sociological problem. Kids are like animals in a lot of ways: surround them in an environment with no discipline, and no incentive to learn, and, odds are, they won't.

When you say "the kids who are doing bad have low IQ's, we can't help them much anyway," you are arguing the rationalization for people to not give a damn.

[Consider This]

If his point is that we should not try to turn mentally retarded people into physicists, I agree. But he seems to be saying instead that people will be stupid regardless of what we do so we shouldn't educate them at all.

He writes: "To say that even a perfect education system is not going to make much difference in the performance of children in the lower half of the distribution understandably grates." That's because the premise is wrong. Just because someone is not destined to go to college does not mean that education is wasted on him.

[The Mockingbird]

But... the education to work cycle is one of the things that makes me want to scream at people who talk about education as the best way to get ahead.

That plan does work for the individual; however: what if everyone did?

Let's imagine a society with our technological level, where everyone, and I mean everyone graduated from college, and did adequately well, if not better.

Who cleans the restrooms and runs the fast food places?

Once we've answered that question, we can talk about compensation.

[News Is Broken]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
Who cleans the restrooms and runs the fast food places?The illegals do. It said so on those signs they were marching around with last summer.

[Another side]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
But... the education to work cycle is one of the things that makes me want to scream at people who talk about education as the best way to get ahead.

That plan does work for the individual; however: what if everyone did?

Let's imagine a society with our technological level, where everyone, and I mean everyone graduated from college, and did adequately well, if not better.

Who cleans the restrooms and runs the fast food places?

Once we've answered that question, we can talk about compensation.I'm not certain what your point is, but I guess my answer would be the same people who perform those duties now -- the young, the senior citizens, the otherwise unemployable and those without ambition, work-ethic, or a sense of responsibility.

[wxgeek]

Originally posted by News Is Broken:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
Who cleans the restrooms and runs the fast food places?The illegals do. It said so on those signs they were marching around with last summer.</font>[/QUOTE]Best....answer.....ever.
graemlins/icon_pray.gif

[ January 18, 2007, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: wxgeek ]

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
But... the education to work cycle is one of the things that makes me want to scream at people who talk about education as the best way to get ahead.

That plan does work for the individual; however: what if everyone did?

Let's imagine a society with our technological level, where everyone, and I mean everyone graduated from college, and did adequately well, if not better.

Who cleans the restrooms and runs the fast food places?

Once we've answered that question, we can talk about compensation.I'm not certain what your point is, but I guess my answer would be the same people who perform those duties now -- the young, the senior citizens, the otherwise unemployable and those without ambition, work-ethic, or a sense of responsibility.</font>[/QUOTE]If you're not certain, maybe you shouldn't respond to it, then.

The point is, when we're talking about improving the standard of living for people, and the only thing we do is dangle the carrot of education and big money jobs.

Except ultimately, that won't work, the current system has built in a certain percentage of the population who MUST live in abject poverty.

I'm not talking about people who won't work, or people with no ambition. I'm saying our society currently requires some people to be underpaid and overworked, and that's probably not a good thing.

To reiterate: If somehow, magically, everyone were to *poof* become educated, motivated, and a legal citizen today, we'd still have to force them into crappy jobs with a low standard of living, we just wouldn't have the all-too-easy rationale to justify their position in life.

[facts]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Intelligence in the Classroom
Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them. No... really? Say it ain't so, Charles Murray!</font>[/QUOTE]Er, this isn't right in the first place. Half the MEDIAN are above, half below.. but not the MEAN (or average).

[Spike]

Originally posted by facts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Mockingbird:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Intelligence in the Classroom
Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them. No... really? Say it ain't so, Charles Murray!</font>[/QUOTE]Er, this isn't right in the first place. Half the MEDIAN are above, half below.. but not the MEAN (or average).</font>[/QUOTE]Mathematically you're technically correct. But IQ tests are designed to produce a Gaussian distribution (bell curve), which puts the mean and median in roughly the same place, 100, so that roughly half the population are above 100 and half are below. The author most likely is tacitly assuming that test results do follow the bell curve the tests were designed to produce.

[Another side]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
[QUOTE]If you're not certain, maybe you shouldn't respond to it, then.

The point is, when we're talking about improving the standard of living for people, and the only thing we do is dangle the carrot of education and big money jobs.

Except ultimately, that won't work, the current system has built in a certain percentage of the population who MUST live in abject poverty.

I'm not talking about people who won't work, or people with no ambition. I'm saying our society currently requires some people to be underpaid and overworked, and that's probably not a good thing.

To reiterate: If somehow, magically, everyone were to *poof* become educated, motivated, and a legal citizen today, we'd still have to force them into crappy jobs with a low standard of living, we just wouldn't have the all-too-easy rationale to justify their position in life.I'm out of time this morning but I'll respond briefly:

If we all limited our responses to certanties around here, you'd hear very little from any of us on anything. Moreover, in my own writing, whens someone says they don't understand, I consider it MY problem for not writing clearly. I certainly don't get defensive and snooty with them.

That aside ... your premise --all we offer as a carrot on a stick is education -- is shaky. You also improve your quality of life (with or without a degree by being active in the community, by volunteering in your community and church, by voting for competent leaders, by staying knowing what the local issues are and having your say, by supporting needed change and by having the same respect for your neighbors and fellow residents that you seek for yourself.

And if everyone were equally educated,then those without a work-ethic or ambition or a sense of responsibilty would man the drive-throughs and cleaning equipment -- the market might demand they get paid more, but they'd man them, nonetheless.

[Rosenblum]

A low IQ, limited intelligence and lack of intellectual curiosity is not always a harbinger of failure later in life. Just look who's in the White House.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
If you're not certain, maybe you shouldn't respond to it, then.

The point is, when we're talking about improving the standard of living for people, and the only thing we do is dangle the carrot of education and big money jobs.

Except ultimately, that won't work, the current system has built in a certain percentage of the population who MUST live in abject poverty.

I'm not talking about people who won't work, or people with no ambition. I'm saying our society currently requires some people to be underpaid and overworked, and that's probably not a good thing.

To reiterate: If somehow, magically, everyone were to *poof* become educated, motivated, and a legal citizen today, we'd still have to force them into crappy jobs with a low standard of living, we just wouldn't have the all-too-easy rationale to justify their position in life.I'm out of time this morning but I'll respond briefly:

If we all limited our responses to certanties around here, you'd hear very little from any of us on anything. Moreover, in my own writing, whens someone says they don't understand, I consider it MY problem for not writing clearly. I certainly don't get defensive and snooty with them.

That aside ... your premise --all we offer as a carrot on a stick is education -- is shaky. You also improve your quality of life (with or without a degree by being active in the community, by volunteering in your community and church, by voting for competent leaders, by staying knowing what the local issues are and having your say, by supporting needed change and by having the same respect for your neighbors and fellow residents that you seek for yourself.

And if everyone were equally educated,then those without a work-ethic or ambition or a sense of responsibilty would man the drive-throughs and cleaning equipment -- the market might demand they get paid more, but they'd man them, nonetheless.</font>And if everyone were equally educated,then those without a work-ethic or ambition or a sense of responsibilty would man the drive-throughs and cleaning equipment -- the market might demand they get paid more, but they'd man them, nonetheless. That's naivete at its finest. If you really think that letting market forces take their course is going to help Americans, then you are sadly mistaken. Fact is, life is pretty darn cheap on good ol' Mother Earth these days.

In Iraq, a human life is apparently worth $2500. In Zimbabwe, it's somewhere around 50 bucks.

Cheap life equals cheap labor. And "market forces" are doing their damndest to streamline the system so that intelligent or skilled people are NOT required. (cough, Rosenblum)

Now finally, to repond to your response of my reponse about responding to subjects: if you don't know what someone is saying, how can you respond and not sound like a telemarketer reading a script?

To sum up: I said that it's easy to dismiss people stuck in menial unskilled jobs to a lifestyle of poverty even if they're working hard, with the flawed argument that it's their own fault because they didn't get an education.

Your Response: It's their own fault because they didn't get an education.

Well gosh, thank you for your contribution to this discussion, that really did shed new light on the topic.

[facts]

I think this is the nugget in the article.. and should have been up higher:

What IQ is necessary to give a child a reasonable chance to meet the NAEP's basic achievement score? Remarkably, it appears that no one has tried to answer that question.

He's asking -- if we're expecting children to reach some certain test grade -- but we have no idea if that test grade is even realistic -- why are we bothering in the first place?

Put another way, if we expect children to run the 100 meter dash in X seconds, and children who fail to do so are labeled "out of shape", one would expect that we had some pretty good research that X seconds was a reasonable time to shoot for in the first place.

[The Mockingbird]

The problem is that I.Q. and academic achievement don't really correlate. It also doesn't help that I.Q. isn't a particularly good metric, anyway, since almost no test accounts for all the different categories of intellectual ability (i.e. spatial awareness, computational ability, verbal ability, etc.).

Honestly, it could be argued the entire field of psychometrics is inherently flawed, and possibly will be viewed someday in the near future in the same category as Phrenology or Freudianism.

[Another side]

We're clearly not understanding what the other is saying. No big deal ... I'll bow out of your thread.

[Down The Highway]

As someone who is "gifted", it's not all sh1ts and grins either. Half the world may be below average-that instantaneously lets them fit in. The top ten percent are frequently as excluded as the bottom ten percent. I know from experience. What you can achieve by having a "gift" is well negated by folks hating you.

[The Mockingbird]

Not at all, because social intelligence is one of the factors of intelligence, and it doesn't measure well on a test.

[NewsMom]

This thread touches a nerve, as the parent of a kid labelled "exceptionally gifted" which makes oh-so- many people resent the situation, for no good reason.

One of the current educational problems is the excessive emphasis on mainstreaming. Lump 'em all together, regardless of capabilities. That way, the slower-learners benefit from the quicker ones, and everyone learns to live in a diverse intellectual society.

The slower and the quicker ones try to get along in a middle-speed world. The slower ones get lost, the quicker ones tune out, and what's left is teaching for the ones in the middle. Factory-style teaching.

In my utopian educational world, we'd have many classes with small groups, grouped by capability. And a few classes with mixed groups, to enable the students to develop discussion/social skills, in addition to information imprinting.

The public schools where I live offered ZERO support for the gifted----nothing, absolutely nothing, not even pull-out sessions in elementary school, or advanced courses in middle school. They conformed to the testing protocols, and properly labelled kids, but that's as far as they went. If we wanted to pursue magnet programs far, far away in the county, well, good luck with that. There were very few spaces (despite acknowledgment that many students qualified--i.e. NEEDED that level of education). And there was NO transportation service.

Students need APPROPRIATE education, usually in classes of small numbers.

It is not always a pure correlation of money spent = value to students. Only a naiive person who knows nothing about bureaucracy would think that.

[The Mockingbird]

Yes, pouring money into a problem won't necessarily cure problems in a given educational system.

But it's a hell of a lot more likely to happen than if you don't, and only an even more naive person would think otherwise.

Classes of small numbers tailored to student needs is a good start. How do you get that?

By hiring more teachers.

How do you do that? That's right, you spend more money.

[Mr. Rugen]

My daughter's kindergarten is in a very wealthy area of a moderately wealthy district. She gets special instruction once a week for her gifted and talented program. Math, science, art, reading even music. She gets to go to that school because my wife teaches across the street. At my wife's previous school there was no gifted and talented program, no music, no art and very little in the way of athletics. That was a very poor, mostly minority district.

Money matters a great deal. What matters even more is parents that care enough to stick their nose into the school's business everyday. My wife and I cannot donate time or money the way most of these wealthy, jogging suit wearing, Hummer driving stay at home moms can, but I'm glad they're there to make a difference in the school system. I'm not glad they're there when they try to get the only african-american in my daughter's class removed because they think he's disruptive.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Count Rugen:
I'm not glad they're there when they try to get the only african-american in my daughter's class removed because they think he's disruptive.Is he disruptive?

[The Mockingbird]

My wife and I cannot donate time or money the way most of these wealthy, jogging suit wearing, Hummer driving stay at home moms canOnly 29,345 people in America drive Hummers, that may be a little hyperbolic. I get the visual image you're trying to conjure, but the vast reality is, it'd be pretty rare to see more than a handful in any community, unless you live somewhere EXTREMELY metropolitan.

We rarely see them in D.C. unless they are covered in camouflage, they just aren't practical with our traffic.

[Mr. Rugen]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My wife and I cannot donate time or money the way most of these wealthy, jogging suit wearing, Hummer driving stay at home moms canOnly 29,345 people in America drive Hummers, that may be a little hyperbolic. I get the visual image you're trying to conjure, but the vast reality is, it'd be pretty rare to see more than a handful in any community, unless you live somewhere EXTREMELY metropolitan.

We rarely see them in D.C. unless they are covered in camouflage, they just aren't practical with our traffic.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't know where you got your numbers. You may have thought I meant only H1's. There are no less than three H2's parked outside my daughter's school everyday at 2:30. Maybe I should have been more specific. I see no less than ten H2's a day. That may be because I live near a pretty rich part of Dallas.

[Mr. Rugen]

Originally posted by Spike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Count Rugen:
I'm not glad they're there when they try to get the only african-american in my daughter's class removed because they think he's disruptive.Is he disruptive?</font>[/QUOTE]Doesn't matter. It's a public school. If they wanted to control who is in their class they should've put their kid in private schoolm something they could probably afford, but then they wouldn't be able to afford the second nanny.

for the record, yes he is disruptive and no, he's not anymore disruptive than the other kids, it's just easier to see him being disruptive because he isn't a clone of the other kids.

[Diplomat]

All disruptive kids should be treated equally. If some are penalized for being disruptive, all should be.

Spending more money isn't necessarily the answer to improving education. Yes, it is good to have more teachers. It is not necessarily a good thing, and in many cases a bad thing, to have too many administrators. Eliminate the unnecessary bureaucrats who don't really care about education and only about themselves, and you'll have enough money for more teachers and still save the taxpayers money.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Count Rugen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My wife and I cannot donate time or money the way most of these wealthy, jogging suit wearing, Hummer driving stay at home moms canOnly 29,345 people in America drive Hummers, that may be a little hyperbolic. I get the visual image you're trying to conjure, but the vast reality is, it'd be pretty rare to see more than a handful in any community, unless you live somewhere EXTREMELY metropolitan.

We rarely see them in D.C. unless they are covered in camouflage, they just aren't practical with our traffic.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't know where you got your numbers. You may have thought I meant only H1's. There are no less than three H2's parked outside my daughter's school everyday at 2:30. Maybe I should have been more specific. I see no less than ten H2's a day. That may be because I live near a pretty rich part of Dallas.</font>[/QUOTE]No, it's because you live in a rich part of Texas, which is still almost part of the Southwest.

As opposed to the East, where it's a lot more crowded. Or the Midwest, where people are a lot more conservative.

[NewsMom]

It sometimes takes a squeaky wheel to get the best public education for your child.

For those who don't have the time to pursue it, nor the time to wait while the public schools study the feasibility and consider implementing a gifted/talented program......

There are private schools.

Yes, that means "throwing money" to solve the problem, but I'm not convinced the actual cost per student has to be higher to get things done well.

(Note that I live in one of the wealthiest areas of the country, and still the public schools are like mass-production assembly-lines.)

So let's talk vouchers: in the long run, they undermine the public schools. But for those kids who get them, they are the way out of the muck, and into decent education.

[The Mockingbird]

Yes, that means "throwing money" to solve the problem, but I'm not convinced the actual cost per student has to be higher to get things done well.If you hire more teachers, that's going to increase the cost per student, unless you're somehow recruiting robots from the future, which admittedly is always a possibility.

Studies have shown that teacher to student ratio makes a difference. What's the big disconnect?

[NewsMom]

Yes, I want more teachers---capable ones. But I think we can find a fair amount of funding within the system, where it's wasted left and right.

[News Is Broken]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
If you hire more teachers, that's going to increase the cost per student, unless you're somehow recruiting robots from the future, which admittedly is always a possibility.If the robot teachers from the future look something like this, I'll be cool with it:

http://www.northarc.com/images/chobits/kyogokutakamasa-img499x359-1031335997chobits-tcsp15.jpg

Note: The preceding statement is a very obscure humorous reference. Please do not be alarmed if you do not get the joke. If you do get the joke, then you most likely qualify as a geek, or at the very least have serious geek-like tendencies. That is all.