Officials: 80 Percent Of Recent NYC High School Graduates Cannot Read

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.

**Frazzled**

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/officials-80-percent-of-recent-nyc-high-school-graduates-cannot-read/

Officials: 80 Percent Of Recent NYC High School Graduates Cannot Read
To Combat Problem, CUNY Starts Low-Cost Immersion Remedial Program
March 7, 2013 10:55 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — It’s an education bombshell.

Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

The number of kids behind the 8-ball is the highest in years, CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer reported Thursday.

When they graduated from city high schools, students in a special remedial program at the Borough of Manhattan Community College couldn’t make the grade.

They had to re-learn basic skills — reading, writing and math — first before they could begin college courses.

They are part of a disturbing statistic.

Officials told CBS 2′s Kramer that nearly 80 percent of those who graduate from city high schools arrived at City University’s community college system without having mastered the skills to do college-level work.

In sheer numbers it means that nearly 11,000 kids who got diplomas from city high schools needed remedial courses to re-learn the basics.

**Ouze**

The thread title does not match the article (granted, it's copy from the article, so you're not the sloppy writer here).. 80% of high school students in NY is nearly 900,000 people. The article indicates that the number of students who arrive at CUNY from an NYC school that need remedial work is 11,000.

A more accurate headline might be "2.2% of CUNY's students need remedial work upon entering college". I bet that would pull a lot less page hits, so they went with the trololol one instead.

**Frazzled**

The article itself says 80%. Maybe the reporter graduated from NY publlic schools and can't figure out 80% of X = Y.

**Ouze**

I know. When I say the article does not match the title, I mean the article itself, not your post.

CUNY only has around 550,000 students. if 11,000 of those students needed to go to remedial courses, that's around 2.2% of students. Perhaps 80% of those students are from NYC schools, but clearly the headline is intended for the reader to take away the idea that NYC is graduating nearly one million students per year despite them being illiterate. Because, that's where page page hits come from, and judging by the comments section of that site, there aren't exactly a lot of discerning readers who are picking up on this disparity.

I'd post some of the comments here, but suffice it to say many of them would revert in a ban from DakkaDakka.com.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
I know. When I say the article does not match the title, I mean the article itself, not your post.

CUNY only has around 550,000 students. if 11,000 of those students needed to go to remedial courses, that's around 2.2% of students. Perhaps 80% of those students are from NYC schools, but clearly the headline is intended for the reader to take away the idea that NYC is graduating nearly one million students per year despite them being illiterate. Because, that's where page page hits come from, and judging by the comments section of that site, there aren't exactly a lot of discerning readers who are picking up on this disparity.

I'd post some of the comments here, but suffice it to say many of them would revert in a ban from DakkaDakka.com.

Except of course it directly says:

Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Except of course it directly says:

Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

I guess I'll try this again.

Title: Officials: 80 Percent Of Recent NYC High School Graduates Cannot Read

Article: Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

Do you see that those are not the same things?

**Asherian Command**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Except of course it directly says:

Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

I guess I'll try this again.

Title: Officials: 80 Percent Of Recent NYC High School Graduates Cannot Read

Article: Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

Do you see that those are not the same things?

I kind of think that is cherry picking. But thats just me.

Understandable.

Also people that are illiterate make me

several times before my face goes red and hand print is left on my face for a good hour/

**timetowaste85**

Guy graduated with my sister who couldn't read his own name. Teachers passed him because he was a football star. Friendly guy, just dumb as a post.

**pretre**

Yeah, that article title is pretty bad. Also, needing remedial help is not the same as not being able to read.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck, when I went back to school a year or two ago, I had to take a pre-college level math class (Math090 or some such) to catch back up based on my placement test. Does that put me in this 80% (not from NYC)?

**Manchu**

Well, the article's a mess. Not being able to read is one thing but that's doesn't seem to actually be the case. Needing "remedial courses" could mean anything -- what is meant by "the basics"? The articles claims it's reading, writing, and math. But it also says reading, writing, and math for the purpose of college-level work. That's hardly basic. So, even taking the swollen statistic at it's face value, should we really be shocked that 80% of a population is not prepared to go to college? Regardless of how many actually do go, I'm not sure there is a real need for more than 20% of the population prepared to do advanced academic work. IME, many undergraduate programs basically are remedial courses.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
Well, the article's a mess. Not being able to read is one thing but that's doesn't seem to actually be the case. Needing "remedial courses" could mean anything -- what is meant by "the basics"? The articles claims it's reading, writing, and math. But it also says reading, writing, and math for the purpose of college-level work. That's hardly basic. So, even taking the swollen statistic at it's face value, should we really be shocked that 80% of a population is not prepared to go to college? Regardless of how many actually do go, I'm not sure there is a real need for more than 20% of the population prepared to do advanced academic work. IME, many undergraduate programs basically are remedial courses.

Well it supports my argument that the author may be one of the 80%.

When Frazzled was but a few hundred years old he went off to community college in Cali as thats all poor Frazzled could afford (yee old boostrap CC for two years then finish at a university). I had to take an English and math placement test, and blew them out. I was told half of the entrants had to take substantial remedial English and Math. I was shocked. Later I had to deal with some elementary school teachers in HISD (Houston ISD). My shock was replaced by sadness about public education.

Education (and a Kentucky rifle) is the ultimate equalizer and makes every man six feet tall. Every US citizen has the absolute right to quality education, the scholastic equivalent of a colossus bestriding the known world. The fact we have failed in that regard is staggering.

**Rented Tritium**

It doesn't mean they can't read, it means they failed the placement tests and have to take remedial classes before they can take english/math 101.

Which is still pretty bad, because those placement tests are impossibly easy, but it doesn't mean "cannot read"

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Every US citizen has the absolute right to quality education, the scholastic equivalent of a colossus bestriding the known world. The fact we have failed in that regard is staggering.

Indeed, on that we can agree. While we haven't quite gotten to the part where every citizen can get medical care, although we're getting there, I think we're certainly at the point where pretty much any citizen can get a good education, if they so desire, generally regardless of their ability to pay. Hell, in most cases regardless of their ability.

My job offers tuition reimbursement, and when I submit my forms the HR lady always remarks that nearly no one every takes classes. It's kind of sad, really. But I guess you can't really incentivize it any more then has already been done.

edit: 3 quotefails in a row, wtf. I better go to bed.

**pretre**

Ouze wrote:
I think we're certainly at the point where pretty much any citizen can get a good education, if they so desire, generally regardless of their ability to pay. Hell, in most cases regardless of their ability.

I think there are some locations still in this country where it is much more difficult to get a good K-12 education than it should be.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Every US citizen has the absolute right to quality education, the scholastic equivalent of a colossus bestriding the known world. The fact we have failed in that regard is staggering.

Indeed, on that we can agree. While we haven't quite gotten to the part where every citizen can get medical care, although we're getting there, I think we're certainly at the point where pretty much any citizen can get a good education, if they so desire, generally regardless of their ability to pay. Hell, in most cases regardless of their ability.

My job offers tuition reimbursement, and when I submit my forms the HR lady always remarks that nearly no one every takes classes. It's kind of sad, really. But I guess you can't really incentivize it any more then has already been done.

edit: 3 quotefails in a row, wtf. I better go to bed.

I disagree. I think we're a hella long way from every citizen can get a quality education.

**Rented Tritium**

I actually think that the demand for more education is the problem. Every time someone wants to improve education, that means they want MORE education. Universal Pre-K, College for everyone, etc.

I would much rather improve the education people ARE getting than give them MORE on top of the bad.

If we took the money we spend on the entire federal student loan program and put it into making, for instance, 3rd grade better, we would most likely end up with dramatically better results 10 years later than we do by sending unprepared kids to cheap college without dreams.

**Frazzled**

Maybe. Although statistically arguable, the claim can be made that the US spends the highest amount per pupil in the First World (overall).

EDIT: The problem is
1. Some districts get substantially more than others.
2. Many districts who spend a lot (Chicago is the pemultimate example) are overrun with bureaucracy and union pay/pension spending. The money that actually gets to the pupil is minimal, and union contracts insure that the best and brightest don't rise to the top. Translation - administration is bloated and crap, and union contracts keep crappy teachers in, without rewarding good teachers.

If I didn't have to deal with kids it'd be the perfect job for me!

**streamdragon**

Frazzled wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Every US citizen has the absolute right to quality education, the scholastic equivalent of a colossus bestriding the known world. The fact we have failed in that regard is staggering.

Indeed, on that we can agree. While we haven't quite gotten to the part where every citizen can get medical care, although we're getting there, I think we're certainly at the point where pretty much any citizen can get a good education, if they so desire, generally regardless of their ability to pay. Hell, in most cases regardless of their ability.

My job offers tuition reimbursement, and when I submit my forms the HR lady always remarks that nearly no one every takes classes. It's kind of sad, really. But I guess you can't really incentivize it any more then has already been done.

edit: 3 quotefails in a row, wtf. I better go to bed.

I disagree. I think we're a hella long way from every citizen can get a quality education.

100% agreement with Frazz here. There are many, MANY areas where schools are simply woefully underfunded. It was brought up on another forum I read the vast divide between some school districts. Some schools, for instance, give each student an iPad with all their books on it. Some schools, on the other hand, don't even have enough books to send home with their students as they don't have enough to give each student one; what books they do have are usually woefully out of date as well.

I was lucky. I went to Fairfax Co. Virginia schools back when they were some of the best public schools in the nation. Now I live in Maryland, which has the best counties in the country for education (Montgomery and Howard). But I don't even begin to fool myself that schools in places like Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana or the ghettoes of New York City or Boston are anywhere on the same level as the schools I went to.

**GalacticDefender**

Don't just blame it on the schools/lack of funding. There is a motivation problem among teens these days that is simply abhorrent. Every day I see people who simply do not care about what happens to their life after high school, and have no plans whatsoever for their future.

**pretre**

GalacticDefender wrote:
Don't just blame it on the schools/lack of funding. There is a motivation problem among teens these days that is simply abhorrent. Every day I see people who simply do not care about what happens to their life after high school, and have no plans whatsoever for their future.

I think you're confusing motivational problems for some students with lack of opportunity problems for others.

Motivation doesn't matter if your school is a gak-hole.

**DutchKillsRambo**

pretre wrote:
GalacticDefender wrote:
Don't just blame it on the schools/lack of funding. There is a motivation problem among teens these days that is simply abhorrent. Every day I see people who simply do not care about what happens to their life after high school, and have no plans whatsoever for their future.

I think you're confusing motivational problems for some students with lack of opportunity problems for others.

Motivation doesn't matter if your school is a gak-hole.

Don't you know? This is the FIRST time in history that teenagers haven't cared about high school. Every generation before this one was full of hard workers, while this one is a bunch of layabouts.

**KalashnikovMarine**

I'm glad Bloomberg is ignoring minor things like this and focusing on what really matters. Soda consumption.

Soda pop is all a plot to dilute our precious fluids!

**Sir Pseudonymous**

It's conflating the two meanings of illiterate. Or rather, it's using one meaning as a tagline when the actual situation involves the other, so it's more a matter of just being obtuse and deceptive for the sake of being sensationalist.

Illiterate can mean either "cannot read", or it can mean "doesn't possess what is considered a high school education". I don't know where the second meaning came from, exactly, and it seems rather esoteric, but that's the "legal" definition of illiteracy, so far as I know.

**Cheesecat**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
pretre wrote:
GalacticDefender wrote:
Don't just blame it on the schools/lack of funding. There is a motivation problem among teens these days that is simply abhorrent. Every day I see people who simply do not care about what happens to their life after high school, and have no plans whatsoever for their future.

I think you're confusing motivational problems for some students with lack of opportunity problems for others.

Motivation doesn't matter if your school is a gak-hole.

Don't you know? This is the FIRST time in history that teenagers haven't cared about high school. Every generation before this one was full of hard workers, while this one is a bunch of layabouts.

Everyone knows knows that hippies from the 60's were really into working hard at school so they can get good-paying jobs that's why they all became well-paid middles class workers in there later life.

**Silverthorne**

The problem is that we left out the instruction in willpower that used to be taught through early life experience, frequently in the home. Having an iron willpower in the long run is worth dozens of IQ points. Give me the choice to invest in some freak show Navy SEAL type willpower guy with an 85 IQ and some cottontop who can't work for more than 30 minutes straight but has a 130 IQ and guess which one I'm putting all my money on.

School, especially pre-bacc schooling, should be primarily moralistic, IE instilling work ethic, willpower, and the ability to make sound, rational, just decisions. That, a basic understanding of math and science, an exposure to artistic techniques, a brief tour of history and literature, and the ability to express yourself in words is what the curriculum should be based on. Knowledge isn't even a fraction as powerful a predictor of future success as will power.

**Peregrine**

Silverthorne wrote:
School, especially pre-bacc schooling, should be primarily moralistic, IE instilling work ethic, willpower, and the ability to make sound, rational, just decisions. That, a basic understanding of math and science, an exposure to artistic techniques, a brief tour of history and literature, and the ability to express yourself in words is what the curriculum should be based on. Knowledge isn't even a fraction as powerful a predictor of future success as will power.

Which is fine if you want to produce lots of low/medium-skill labor, and don't really care about knowledge beyond the basics required to function in everyday life. If you want to have things like science and engineering you need to go way beyond basic math and science by the end of high school, otherwise you're going to have undergraduate science and engineering programs that take ten years or more to produce qualified graduates.

**Silverthorne**

I don't agree. What I described is the classical model of education. Many of the greatest thinkers of all time were so educated. It's a bootstrap issue. If you give someone willpower, he can give the rest to himself. If you have finished instilling willpower by 8th grade (my timeline, sorry if that was unclear) then you are able to get a ton more work out of people in the more productive time period of high school. I'm always a little taken aback when you look at how little people learn in elementary and middle school, given the virtually logarithmic progression of learning possible at young ages.

It shouldn't take till your 18 to culture willpower in kids. By 6th grade it should be there, and after that it is just maintenance and you can focus on whatever other educational goals you have.

**Peregrine**

Silverthorne wrote:
Many of the greatest thinkers of all time were so educated.

Many of the "greatest thinkers of all time" also lived at a time when there was a lot less knowledge. Now we've reached the point where even a basic science/engineering education (IOW, an undergraduate degree) requires that you start day one of college with calculus/engineering physics/etc or you won't be able to finish even the basics in four years. And TBH current standards are already too low, cutting back even more on pre-college math and science in favor of "willpower" would be a disaster.

**Sir Pseudonymous**

Peregrine wrote:
Silverthorne wrote:
Many of the greatest thinkers of all time were so educated.

Many of the "greatest thinkers of all time" also lived at a time when there was a lot less knowledge. Now we've reached the point where even a basic science/engineering education (IOW, an undergraduate degree) requires that you start day one of college with calculus/engineering physics/etc or you won't be able to finish even the basics in four years. And TBH current standards are already too low, cutting back even more on pre-college math and science in favor of "willpower" would be a disaster.

That's not what he's saying. He's talking about refocusing earlier education into more openly and efficiently doing what is in many respects the only valuable part of much of schooling: the discipline to do something pointless, arduous, and useless because doing so benefits you for unintuitive reasons. If you teach people to shut up and focus when they're children they'll be finishing calculus before they're halfway through high school, in addition to the general good this will do society at large.

**Peregrine**

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
If you teach people to shut up and focus when they're children they'll be finishing calculus before they're halfway through high school

This seems like a pretty big assumption to make. Is there any credible evidence to support the idea that average students (not just a few exceptional ones) can finish calculus halfway through high school? When you answer, keep in mind that calculus for science and engineering is a three-semester subject in college.