At 08:59 AM 9/17/2007, Craig Hancock wrote:
>1) I have been told repeatedly from admissions officers that high school
>average is a much better predictor of college success than SAT or ACT
>scores. . . .

DD: It was also true back in the dim dead days of long ago, when I 
was studying the issue. It also correlated highly with IQ. Lumped 
together, it improved the prediction significantly. At that time.

>3) Even when average scores for a group are higher or lower than averages
>for other groups, that can not and should not be used as a predictor of
>how any one member of that group might perform. In other words, many
>African-Americans score very high on those tests. Many Caucasions score
>very low. Group identity, especially one as rough as "race", is not a
>particularly good predictor of ability or of individual success. . . .

DD: Don't know of any studies that used race as a dummy variable, but 
I have been out of the interested group for a long time.

>4) We all need to admit that some groups are underperforming in very
>painful ways. High school graduation rates in the inner cities are
>woefully low, something that should trouble all of us. . . .

DD: Why should it trouble me? Or any but their parental units, or 
them? Come on now, they graduate those with basically certificates of 
completion for showing up for some acceptable percent of the time. 
Leave no child behind implies that all children must graduate from 
high school, and if they don't it isn't their fault, it is the local 
school system that must them be, "Punished." Let those that rule in 
the inner cities decide on that.

>We need to do a
>much better job of addressing that problem. Many of our schools are now
>more deeply segregated than they were in the 1950's, and we now have deep
>pockets of poverty in a relatively rich country.

DD: No change there.

>For years now, New York
>state has been defying court orders to equalize spending in its schools.
>(They might say "slowly complying".) Because we fund our schools largely
>through property taxes, wealthy districts have tended to have more money
>available for their schools, though poor districts have the greater need.
>This is a national issue, not a local one.

DD: Why?


>5) We need to think of all our citizens as important resources for the
>future of this country. And we will do a much better job of educating all
>those citizens if we approach the task with high expectations. In my
>program at least, I can say that high expectations have been highly
>realistic.

DD: A nice change of topic, but I agree with the self fulfilling 
prophecy concept. Works in the Military, Basic Training. Think Forrest Gump.


>6) None of this means that we should conspire toward a lowering of
>standards. Standards mattter. I believe we should make standards far more
>explicit and that we should have programs in place to help all students
>along that path. To me, that means much more explicit understanding of
>what literacy entails, and a much more explicit mentoring into those
>literacy roles. If we want to be honest and not just politically correct,
>then let us celebrate success when we find it and be honest about our own
>deep failures.

DD Succinctly phrased, "Lets have a clear and operationally define 
statement of the mission."  

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/