Florida's plan to measure students by race riles education experts

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

A new policy by Florida educators to set student goals in math and reading based on their race is an “ill-advised” plan that is destined to fail, education analysts told FoxNews.com.

By 2018, Florida’s Department of Education wants 90 percent of its Asian students to be reading at or above grade level, compared to 88 percent of white students, 81 percent of Hispanic pupils and 74 percent of African-American children. In math, state educational officials want that figure to be 92 percent for Asian students, or 18 percent higher than that of African-American students and 11 percent higher than their American Indian counterparts.

“Separate but equal is not,” said Kris Amundson of Education Sector, an independent education think tank based in Washington. “I understand that this is recognition that students are beginning at different places — and that’s honest — but I think it is, at best, ill-advised to set different learning standards for students based on the color of their skin.”

Amundson, a former chairwoman of the Fairfax County School Board in Virginia, said the plan “sends the wrong message” to children, adding that the lower standards for minorities closely reflects what President George W. Bush once dubbed the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”

“It’s better to say 80 or 90 [percent], or whatever your number is, and then acknowledge that schools aren’t hitting targets because of certain populations,” she said. “That’s more honest than creating a system where everyone gets a trophy.”

The 24-page strategic plan, which was approved in October, also sets differing goals for students who are economically disadvantaged, those with disabilities and children who are still learning English. Florida Department of Education officials were unavailable for comment Monday, but chairwoman Kathleen Shanahan has said the goals are needed to comply with terms of a waiver that Florida and 32 other states have within provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

According to state statistics, 69 percent of white students in Florida scored at or above grade level in reading during the 2011-2012 school year, compared to 53 percent of Hispanic students and 38 percent of their African-American classmates.

Dr. Wayne Blanton, executive director of the Florida School Board Association, said the state’s plan has been designed in mind to shrink that sizable gap.

“The message could have been portrayed a little clearer, but as far as racism, I see nothing in wanting to raise test scores that would be racist,” he said. “You’re trying to raise all test scores, not just in one particular group.”

Blanton said his agency has no official stance on the new policy as of Monday, but said Florida School Board Association officials will discuss the matter at its meeting next month.

Neal McCluskey, an education analyst at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based think tank, said Florida education officials are recognizing that some segments of students start at different levels than others. Doing otherwise would be illogical, he said. Still, he understands the justifiable concerns of an African-American parent upset that his or her child won’t get the “same push” as other students in the state.

“The root problem here is that it can’t deal with kids as individuals, it has to deal with them as groups,” McCluskey said. “This is again why we need to move to a system that is rooted in individual kids.”

The final result, he said, is that some children won’t get the same educational attention due to the color of their skin.

“If you’re an African-American or Hispanic student, the first message is: ‘I don’t have to do that well,’” he said. “There’s clearly a negative message being sent to kids based on what racial or ethnic groups they belong to.”

A better indicator of potential academic performance, McCluskey said, is perhaps income rather than race.

“We’re talking about unique, individual kids,” he said. “We have to get to a system that deals with students as individuals, not as members of groups, which means attaching funding to students themselves and letting the parents choose any school they want.”

Any time race is mentioned regarding education, people become rightfully sensitive and concerned, Andy Ford, president of the Florida Education Association, told FoxNews.com. But recognizing that not all students are on equal ground is a key part of the puzzle, he said.

“It’s really an opportunity gap that we’re looking at,” Ford said. ‘This is just a recognition of where kids are today. I would like to live in world where race and economic status do not matter, but we’re not there yet as a society.”

Another national education official, meanwhile, disagreed with the new policy, saying it was well-intentioned but missed the mark.

“The intent is probably honorable, but the execution is kind of insensitive, perhaps to the very groups they are trying to help,” said Daniel Domenech, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators. “Certainly the intent to get some groups to higher standards should remain, but it does show a degree of insensitivity.”

Domenech suggested that the state reconsider and analyze a system that rewards the year-to-year growth of each student.

“The expectations should be the same for all students,” he said. “Let’s not dilute that powerful objective.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/15/florida-ill-advised-plan-to-measure-students-by-race-riles-education-experts/?test=latestnews#ixzz29QEB8Ogb

Have some state board of educations lost their minds? RFID tags and now this..

**whembly**

THis is so wrong...

Doesn't matter what color your skin... a brilliant mind is color blind.

**Testify**

I guess if you set a state-wide level, it ignores demographics.

So, a school that has mainly hispanic students would have no problem meeting an 85% target, whereas a school with mainly black students would be penalised, though they could have acheived more from a lower base.

**dogma**

Testify wrote:
I guess if you set a state-wide level, it ignores demographics.

So, a school that has mainly hispanic students would have no problem meeting an 85% target, whereas a school with mainly black students would be penalised, though they could have acheived more from a lower base.

Indeed, there is a certain rationale here in terms of budget allocation. A school that has a history of low performance can be rewarded for performing better while not meeting the highest possible standard, otherwise you end up with schools full of privileged kids getting all the money.

Of course the best way to do this would be according to a percent change metric, but that would require work and intelligence.

**Frazzled**

even better all schools get the same funding per student. Anything is naturally biased in some form or another.

**Bromsy**

The simpsons did it.

Bart: Let me get this straight: we're behind the rest of our class and we're going to catch up to them by going slower than they are? Coo Coo!

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
even better all schools get the same funding per student. Anything is naturally biased in some form or another.

That naturally reinforces poor results.

**KalashnikovMarine**

This seems... ill advised

**Squigsquasher**

Well this sounds like a recipe for utter disaster. Seriously, what the hell? Smells like institutional racism.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
even better all schools get the same funding per student. Anything is naturally biased in some form or another.

That naturally reinforces poor results.

Horse gak. Allocating funds based on "race" contravenes the US Constitution on its face. Brown v. Board of Education, Civil Rights legislation, and the 82rd Airborne insured an end to that hateful practice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Squigsquasher wrote:
Well this sounds like a recipe for utter disaster. Seriously, what the hell? Smells like institutional racism.

Thats because it is. A lawsuit will clear it up soon enough.

**kronk**

dogma wrote:

Of course the best way to do this would be according to a percent change metric, but that would require work and intelligence.

What happens to the continuously high performing schools? Does their funding get cut?

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

Horse gak. Allocating funds based on "race" contravenes the US Constitution on its face. Brown v. Board of Education, Civil Rights legislation, and the 82rd Airborne insured an end to that hateful practice.

I'm not talking about allocating funds according to race. If you give all schools the same amount of money regardless of performance you incentivize poor performance.

kronk wrote:

What happens to the continuously high performing schools? Does their funding get cut?

Increases with inflation. Maybe add funding to civics courses.

**Grey Templar**

kronk wrote:
dogma wrote:

Of course the best way to do this would be according to a percent change metric, but that would require work and intelligence.

What happens to the continuously high performing schools? Does their funding get cut?

Yup, basically this idea would encourage mediocrity. High performing schools would have no incentive to continue to be high performing, and low performing schools would still only have incentive to just squeek by.

Funding should be a flat rate per student, regardless of test scores. Only have it based on attendence. If your students aren't showing up for class, too bad.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Horse gak. Allocating funds based on "race" contravenes the US Constitution on its face. Brown v. Board of Education, Civil Rights legislation, and the 82rd Airborne insured an end to that hateful practice.

I'm not talking about allocating funds according to race. If you give all schools the same amount of money regardless of performance you incentivize poor performance.

kronk wrote:

What happens to the continuously high performing schools? Does their funding get cut?

Increases with inflation. Maybe add funding to civics courses.

If you lower the amount of money based on performance you short change good students stuck in a bad school.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
kronk wrote:
dogma wrote:

Of course the best way to do this would be according to a percent change metric, but that would require work and intelligence.

What happens to the continuously high performing schools? Does their funding get cut?

Yup, basically this idea would encourage mediocrity. High performing schools would have no incentive to continue to be high performing, and low performing schools would still only have incentive to just squeek by.

Funding should be a flat rate per student, regardless of test scores. Only have it based on attendence. If your students aren't showing up for class, too bad.

Indeed. Funding is the wrong way to look at it. Bonuses and opportunities for management to seek new career paths are the way to go.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

If you lower the amount of money based on performance you short change good students stuck in a bad school.

Yep, too bad for them. Their parents should move to a better district, put them in private school, homeschool them, or get a library card.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

If you lower the amount of money based on performance you short change good students stuck in a bad school.

Yep, too bad for them. Their parents should move to a better district, put them in private school, homeschool them, or get a library card.

No. Too bad for the mouthbreathers. I could sue your brains out for funding anything other than equal amounts without very specific circumstances.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
I could sue your brains out for funding anything other than equal amounts without very specific circumstances.

Good luck winning a case where funding reduction occurs due to the absence of an inflation based increase.

**Bran Dawri**

The only kind of disparate funding that might positively impact anything is funding based on the student's financial situation; if the kid's parents are poor, more money is made available for him to deploy his potential.
It's mentioned offhand in the article, but it seems a good idea to me.
So schools that cater to students from low-income backgrounds (should) get more money from the state than private schools that get loads of dosh from the Richie Rich's already anyway.
'Course, that does taste a little bit of socialism, and checks and balances need to be put in place to ensure the kid (or his parents, or the school) don't abuse the system to get more money.

**SilverMK2**

I'd be interested to know what the SI unit of race is.

**Grey Templar**

I wonder how the Supreme Court affirmative action case will effect this. Having test score requirements be different for different races would definitly qualify. Heck, I'd call it outright discrimination. Requiring Asians and Whites to have higher scores then other races is silly.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I could sue your brains out for funding anything other than equal amounts without very specific circumstances.

Good luck winning a case where funding reduction occurs due to the absence of an inflation based increase.

If other parties get an increase, then thats discrimination. I'll send my bill in the morning.

Again, funding reductions have nothing to do with performance. Its about management and proper employee motivation.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I could sue your brains out for funding anything other than equal amounts without very specific circumstances.

Good luck winning a case where funding reduction occurs due to the absence of an inflation based increase.

If other parties get an increase, then thats discrimination. I'll send my bill in the morning.

Again, funding reductions have nothing to do with performance. Its about management and proper employee motivation.

If there's any disparate funding... ouldn't cost of living factor into this?

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I could sue your brains out for funding anything other than equal amounts without very specific circumstances.

Good luck winning a case where funding reduction occurs due to the absence of an inflation based increase.

If other parties get an increase, then thats discrimination. I'll send my bill in the morning.

Again, funding reductions have nothing to do with performance. Its about management and proper employee motivation.

If there's any disparate funding... ouldn't cost of living factor into this?

Not per se. You can have extra programs for at risk etc. but a direct funding based on income of the student? Its a poor metric thats been used to discriminate against poor people, well forever.

**whembly**

eh... good point.

Come up with a standard per $$ per kid... then go to the district... here you go, work with it.

Hey... that's exactly how Medicare/Medicaid works with reimbursments to healthcare providers!

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

Again, funding reductions have nothing to do with performance. Its about management and proper employee motivation.

Funding leads to higher salaries. I'm not going to express effort if I'm earning ~40k USD with ~60-70k USD in loans.

**Alfndrate**

kronk wrote:
dogma wrote:

Of course the best way to do this would be according to a percent change metric, but that would require work and intelligence.

What happens to the continuously high performing schools? Does their funding get cut?

In the state of Ohio, yes actually it does. A school is expected to perform higher and higher and higher each year. Eventually you do reach a point where you cannot go up due to Bell Curve or other factors. The City of Lakewood, Ohio recently dealt with this. The school had a large influx of students that are considered Pacific Islanders, who are English Language Learners, and are under performing due to the many language barriers. The school had been improving and had reached a point where the school could not improve any more and then these students came in and the school's rating dropped from Excellent. Yes the school is doing all they can to bring these students up to the level they could achieve at a school in their native language, but until that point, the rest of the teachers are expected to push their students so cover that gap while the teachers that primarily interact with the ELL students have to reach achievable goals every year.

If students are measured by race, is it a form of racism? Yes, but it is also a way to help target problem areas and work specifically to correct it. If I have a school with a large population of blacks that consistently under perform in Math and Science, then I as an educator would want to help my students as much as possible, the problem is that I have state standards to teach to, and then must get my students to strive for those standards. If a student is taught to the 95th percentile all four years of high school, but only expected to achieve to the 80th percentile in year one, 85th percentile second year, 90th percentile during the third year, and 95th percentile by senior year, you'll have a better ground work of students rather than just saying, Well I'm going to teach to the 95th percentile year 1 through 4, and expect my students to only achieve that point, and anyone that doesn't achieve it is lazy or some other reason.

But in true OT fashion, I was sadly too busy to read the full article. I had to skim during the end of my lunch break.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Its a poor metric thats been used to discriminate against poor people, well forever.

Yep, its a shame that poverty tends to breed less intellectual people. That doesn't mean working class people are bad, it just mean they're disposed to a different set of skills. I can analyze me some data, but I can't rebuild an engine.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Again, funding reductions have nothing to do with performance. Its about management and proper employee motivation.

Funding leads to higher salaries. I'm not going to express effort if I'm earning ~40k USD with ~60-70k USD in loans.

No. They can be completely separate items. You're playing mix and match with basic formula here. Again any "formula" spending differential, absent very limited circumstances is going to get you on the business end of a losing lawsuit, and rightfully so. Its screamingly unconstitutional in most circumstances. People have died over this gak.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Its a poor metric thats been used to discriminate against poor people, well forever.

Yep, its a shame that poverty tends to breed less intellectual people. That doesn't mean working class people are bad, it just mean they're disposed to a different set of skills. I can analyze me some data, but I can't rebuild an engine.

Wow. The EPIC FAIL in that post just screams like a GE jet engine. I didn't peg Dogma as a social Darwinist...I feel my inner revolutionary coming out.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:

No. They can be completely separate items.

They can, but they usually aren't.

Frazzled wrote:

Again any "formula" spending differential, absent very limited circumstances is going to get you on the business end of a losing lawsuit, and rightfully so.

A formulaic differential predicated on anything other than race, gender, or religion will stand a Constitutional test.

Frazzled wrote:

Wow. The EPIC FAIL in that post just screams like a GE jet engine. I didn't peg Dogma as a social Darwinist...I feel my inner revolutionary coming out.

I'm not a Social Darwinist. I guess I should be clear in saying that being intellectual doesn't mean being bright. There are many very smart mechanics, and equally many dumb lawyers.

**Frazzled**

I feel a speech about Gods and Clods coming on.