NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems a loophole in the No Child Left Behind scheme allows schools to ignore the test scores of minority kids under certain circumstances for purposes of determining wheather a school is doing well or poorly. Well, maybe it will teach the non-white kids an important life lesson. They don't really count in the eyes of the Bush administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060418/ap_on_go_ot/no_child_loophole

Bloody hell... that's pretty bad...

I don't think that No Child Left Behind is discriminatory of minorities. It's discriminatory to all children.

It seems a loophole in the No Child Left Behind scheme allows schools to ignore the test scores of minority kids under certain circumstances for purposes of determining wheather a school is doing well or poorly. Well, maybe it will teach the non-white kids an important life lesson. They don't really count in the eyes of the Bush administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060418/ap_on_go_ot/no_child_loophole
Related to this:

I'm sure some of y'all have read all the alarmist stories about how American boys are getting short-changed in the schools. The articles claim that girls are out-performing boys, and this is usually attributed to the schools being biased toward girls.

(Let's ignore, for the moment, the fact that when boys were out-performing girls it was simply concluded that girls are stupid and emotional and that's why they fail. Let's also ignore that the school system we have in place was designed back when girls weren't even allowed to attend most schools.)

The funny thing is that when you look at middle and upper class white kids, there's no such gender gap in educational success. White boys from economically well-off families actually have maintained a slight lead over their female peers. It's when you look at poor kids and boys from racial minorities that you start seeing this gender gap.

I find it telling that people are very eager to leap on the boys-versus-girls thing, while seeming determined to ignore far more dramatic racial and economic elements.

I think that the entire 'no child left behind' underminds our school system. It allows children that haven't learned the level that they need to move on. That is one of the major reasons why our test scores suck.
And in respons to this thread...
Then the minorities are going to come out with a better education for it. They are the lucky ones.

You know, I didn't like Bush before, but this is terrible.

The US needs a full school reform. ASAP.

To be honest with you, this no child left behind deal is a load of crap. Sorry guys. I agree with everyone being given an equal opportunity to receive a good education, but to hold more intelligent kids back because the slower kids had trouble is just as unfair as leaving the slower kids behind just to keep up with the brighter kids. Our school system has a solution to this - remedial teachers available in schools to work one on one with the slower/more disadvantaged kids, to give them the extra push to catch up before hitting secondary (high) school. And once second level starts, classes are split up according to your abilities, and just because you do ordinary level maths doesn't mean that you can't keep with with higher level physics/french/history, etc, etc, etc.

And voila, everyone gets a good education and comes out on the other end with an equal opportunity to get into college/find a decent job, regardless of what your academic abilities were in the beginning. Everyone wins.

Between Iraq, the national debt, Supreme COurt Nominees, Hurricane Katrina, the War on Terror, Classified leaks, wiretaps and now No Child Left Behind it seems like the entire Bush Administration's house of cards is tumbling down.

Which leads me back to what I've been saying for quite some time. What's to criticize? Bush hasn't actually DONE anything! :p

The funny thing is that when you look at middle and upper class white kids, there's no such gender gap in educational success. White boys from economically well-off families actually have maintained a slight lead over their female peers. It's when you look at poor kids and boys from racial minorities that you start seeing this gender gap.

Yep. Schools reward students who are quiet and have impulse control and boys seem to have a genetic disadvantage when it comes to learning to control themselves. When you come from a family which is so poor you have to fight for food and attention and protection instead of it just being given to you on a plate your behaviour probably won't translate well into a school environment.

What the No Child Left Behind act really does is homogenize education and make it 'one size fits all'.

Basically, it teaches children nothing, but defines 'learning' in a way such that they can claim children are learning more than they were before.

Kind of like how Bush reduced the amount of pollution by redefining the word 'pollution'.

Thy really DO need reforms down there...

Yep. Schools reward students who are quiet and have impulse control and boys seem to have a genetic disadvantage when it comes to learning to control themselves.

Nope. The idea that boys are just wired to be hyper is a total myth, unsupported by data.

Research actually suggests that it's more about socialization; boys are allowed far more leeway, are taught that it is good for boys to be physical and dominant and aggressive, and are typically diciplined less often for rude or disruptive behaviors. Girls are taught to be quiet and sweet and obedient, so naturally they are more likely to embody these behaviors in school.


When you come from a family which is so poor you have to fight for food and attention and protection instead of it just being given to you on a plate your behaviour probably won't translate well into a school environment.
Girls would be equally impacted by those factors. Also, there are notable exceptions to the racial-minority-and-poverty gender imbalance (like with many Asian imigrant communities, in which the gender gap is pretty much as non-existent as it is with white middle class kids).

Instead, it is more likely that the disparity is largely due to cultural factors.

For instance, in so-called "ghetto" culture, males who are studious or artistic or quiet are regarded as "less manly." Boys must constantly out-masculine one another, and pursuit of education is often not regarded as masculine. Being obedient to authority is viewed as a weakness, but obedience to authority is required in schools.

There are also pressures that might influence how girls perform. Girls from poor families often realize that many unskilled labor jobs that are available to boys will probably not be options for them. Also, sitting quietly and obeying authority are seen as very feminine behaviors by many of these cultures, so these "feminine" qualities fit nicely with society's demands on them.

Between Iraq, the national debt, Supreme COurt Nominees, Hurricane Katrina, the War on Terror, Classified leaks, wiretaps and now No Child Left Behind it seems like the entire Bush Administration's house of cards is tumbling down.

Which leads me back to what I've been saying for quite some time. What's to criticize? Bush hasn't actually DONE anything! :p

Bush is the lord of classified info... he can't leak anything. If he decides to declassify something, then by definition it isn't a leak. It might be wrong, but it is what it is -- not a leak, if performed by the president.

national debt... big deal. There is no smaller issue that accounts for more bitching from Democrats. Explain the effect on our economy. who will ever make us pay, and would they really want to if they could? (practical question)

Hurricane Katrina -- not his fault. He isn't God and (thus) can't prevent hurricanes. He isn't the governor of Louisiana, nor the mayor of nawlins. He isn't the FEMA head. He named the FEMA head, but it's FEMA's job to work things within their jurisdiction, not his.

War on Terror -- how many thousands of terrorists have we killed? One can argue that this has caused more terrorists to pop up. Fair enough. But while they pop up, we keep killing them or (hopefully, and this had better be happening) getting intelligence from them.

Wiretaps -- Sorry, but I don't want some f'ing terrorist to be able to plan domestic terrorism with an American... with impunity. That isn't a right, imo.

general rants... carry on

Bush is the lord of classified info... he can't leak anything. If he decides to declassify something, then by definition it isn't a leak. It might be wrong, but it is what it is -- not a leak, if performed by the president.

national debt... big deal. There is no smaller issue that accounts for more bitching from Democrats. Explain the effect on our economy. who will ever make us pay, and would they really want to if they could? (practical question)

Hurricane Katrina -- not his fault. He isn't God and (thus) can't prevent hurricanes. He isn't the governor of Louisiana, nor the mayor of nawlins. He isn't the FEMA head. He named the FEMA head, but it's FEMA's job to work things within their jurisdiction, not his.

War on Terror -- how many thousands of terrorists have we killed?

Wiretaps -- Sorry, but I don't want some f'ing terrorist to be able to plan domestic terrorism with an American... with impunity. That isn't a right, imo.
With commentary like this, what room is left for satire? :)

With commentary like this, what room is left for satire? :)

a secondary aim is to entertain. hehe

(hope nobody takes me too seriously when I defend Bush... just playing the dev's adv most of the time)

The US needs a full school reform. ASAP.

I agree. Ditch the Federal Department of education and return it to the states. That is where it should be.

They should reinstitute the draft, and then they could call *that* a No Child Left Behind program.:eek:

With commentary like this, what room is left for satire? :)
Nice, very nice. As for me, I say lets all just tell Bush ":upyours: " and get him the flip out of office.

I agree. Ditch the Federal Department of education and return it to the states. That is where it should be.

That would work.

To be honest with you, this no child left behind deal is a load of crap. Sorry guys. I agree with everyone being given an equal opportunity to receive a good education, but to hold more intelligent kids back because the slower kids had trouble is just as unfair as leaving the slower kids behind just to keep up with the brighter kids. Our school system has a solution to this - remedial teachers available in schools to work one on one with the slower/more disadvantaged kids, to give them the extra push to catch up before hitting secondary (high) school. And once second level starts, classes are split up according to your abilities, and just because you do ordinary level maths doesn't mean that you can't keep with with higher level physics/french/history, etc, etc, etc.

And voila, everyone gets a good education and comes out on the other end with an equal opportunity to get into college/find a decent job, regardless of what your academic abilities were in the beginning. Everyone wins.

You should have a system much like Sitzenbleiben - i.e. if you don't do well in a year, it's you who gets held back, rather than your class. And if you bugger up the same year twice then you get pulled down to the school 'tier' below you.

For example, you did really well at a Gymnasium (the highest level of school), but then buggered up when you were in the 9th year. You get help back a year, and if it happens again then you have to go to Realschule (I think) which is in the middle 'tier' and if you screw up there, then you have to go to a Hauptschule (I may have got Real/Hauptschule the wrong way around, sorry).

There's also "Gesamtschule" which incorporates all levels, but those are pretty uncommon, as it's a crap way to teach people stuff. As you will know if you've ever been to a comprehensive school, as the not-so-bright get in the way of the intelligent, and the intelligent generally act in a 'superior' way, which pisses off the not-so-bright. And the people in the middle just get ignored by the teachers.

Nope. The idea that boys are just wired to be hyper is a total myth, unsupported by data.

Research actually suggests that it's more about socialization; boys are allowed far more leeway, are taught that it is good for boys to be physical and dominant and aggressive, and are typically diciplined less often for rude or disruptive behaviors. Girls are taught to be quiet and sweet and obedient, so naturally they are more likely to embody these behaviors in school.

I agree that enviroment is mucho important. But I'm pretty convinced there are still biologically based differences in behaviour between sexes. When you look at crime rates for every country that keeps statistics you'll find men always outrank women for murder asssult and rape. I find young children of both sexes horrific to deal with when in groups, but the boys do seem to spend more time creating and maintaing dominance hierachies than girls. They put more effort into physical dominance through wrestling and imposing and maintaining dominance verbally. Girls seem to spend less time on this, but can still be complete horrors to have to look after or teach.

Nevermind the fact that the Bush administration left it's No Child Left Behind mandates grossly underfunded. That's why the states so desperately search for loopholes.

I agree that enviroment is mucho important. But I'm pretty convinced there are still biologically based differences in behaviour between sexes.

None of which have ever been conclusively supported by scientific data.


When you look at crime rates for every country that keeps statistics you'll find men always outrank women for murder asssult and rape.

Show me a country with these statistics in which the gender roles I described are not present. Show me this statistical trend in a country where the gender roles are reversed.


I find young children of both sexes horrific to deal with when in groups, but the boys do seem to spend more time creating and maintaing dominance hierachies than girls. They put more effort into physical dominance through wrestling and imposing and maintaining dominance verbally. Girls seem to spend less time on this, but can still be complete horrors to have to look after or teach.
How many children have you worked with who grew up in societies with "reversed" gender roles? How many kids have you dealt with who grew up in societies where girls are taught to be dominant, violent, aggressive, and "masculine," while boys are taught to be sweet and kind and nurturing and submissive?

Show me a country with these statistics in which the gender roles I described are not present. Show me this statistical trend in a country where the gender roles are reversed.

Well I can't prove anything. Perhaps children are treated differently from the second they are born. But what I can do is rear animals and have total control over their evironments and animals show sex based differences in behaviour when their enviroments are controled or uncontroled. I presume humans are the same although it's not ethical to find out for sure.

Bush is the lord of classified info... he can't leak anything. If he decides to declassify something, then by definition it isn't a leak. It might be wrong, but it is what it is -- not a leak, if performed by the president.

national debt... big deal. There is no smaller issue that accounts for more bitching from Democrats. Explain the effect on our economy. who will ever make us pay, and would they really want to if they could? (practical question)

Hurricane Katrina -- not his fault. He isn't God and (thus) can't prevent hurricanes. He isn't the governor of Louisiana, nor the mayor of nawlins. He isn't the FEMA head. He named the FEMA head, but it's FEMA's job to work things within their jurisdiction, not his.

War on Terror -- how many thousands of terrorists have we killed? One can argue that this has caused more terrorists to pop up. Fair enough. But while they pop up, we keep killing them or (hopefully, and this had better be happening) getting intelligence from them.

Wiretaps -- Sorry, but I don't want some f'ing terrorist to be able to plan domestic terrorism with an American... with impunity. That isn't a right, imo.

general rants... carry on

LOL. Thanks for the giggle.

Pssst. You still got some on your chin.

I agree that enviroment is mucho important. But I'm pretty convinced there are still biologically based differences in behaviour between sexes. When you look at crime rates for every country that keeps statistics you'll find men always outrank women for murder asssult and rape. I find young children of both sexes horrific to deal with when in groups, but the boys do seem to spend more time creating and maintaing dominance hierachies than girls. They put more effort into physical dominance through wrestling and imposing and maintaining dominance verbally. Girls seem to spend less time on this, but can still be complete horrors to have to look after or teach.

I'm so happy that you are convinced. But do you have any evidence to proffer to the rest of us?

I agree. Ditch the Federal Department of education and return it to the states. That is where it should be.

Yes. Because the Department of Education does so much harm. :rolleyes:

You have no clue what the Dep't of Education does and doesn't do.

Even in infants, boys are louder and more aggressive. Almost all recent studies agree. They're different biologically, physically and mentally.

Well I can't prove anything. Perhaps children are treated differently from the second they are born. But what I can do is rear animals and have total control over their evironments and animals show sex based differences in behaviour when their enviroments are controled or uncontroled. I presume humans are the same although it's not ethical to find out for sure.
See, here's the problem:

Most non-human animals rely on instinct to a degree that boggles our gigantic forebrains. The fact that animals carry out gender-based programming (along with a crapload of other instinctive programming) doesn't tell us a damn thing about human behavior or human gender typing. The simple fact is that the human brain has developed in such a way that our instinctive programming is all but wiped out (compared to most other mammals). We still have some lingering instincts, but even the ones that we have are dramatically weakened and often largely controlable.

Even in infants, boys are louder and more aggressive. Almost all recent studies agree. They're different biologically, physically and mentally.
Citations.

Citations.

My nephew hits my sister; my niece does not. :p

My nephew hits my sister; my niece does not. :p
Oh yeah? Well, my TEN nieces hit my TEN sisters, but my TEN nephews don't!

Yay for annecdotal evidence!

:)

Yes. Because the Department of Education does so much harm. :rolleyes:

You have no clue what the Dep't of Education does and doesn't do.

Frankly, I got a better education at home than I ever did in a public school during my secondary education life.

Oh yeah? Well, my TEN nieces hit my TEN sisters, but my TEN nephews don't!

Yay for annecdotal evidence!

:)

At least I can spe...I was being silly, sir (or madam).

Frankly, I got a better education at home than I ever did in a public school during my secondary education life.
That's great, but I personally became acquainted with some kids in high school who had been home-schooled up until 9th grade, and they were the most terrifyingly ignorant young people I ever met.

Homeschooling isn't a magic bullet, just like public school isn't automatically going to work beautifully.

Parents who are involved enough to set up a good home-schooling environment are typically also the kind of parents who would be able to find a good public/private schooling situation (if there is one available to them) and would be involved in their kids' education no matter what. The problem is the kids who have parents who don't give a fuck...whether those kids are home-schooled or out-of-home-schooled, they are generally in a tough spot.

Why does a person's objective determine what beliefs they hold in a debate?

If the topic was homosexual brains and their development and lack of 'choice' in the matter, then some of the SAME people who are now trying to pretend that there is no inherent differences between the brain's of the separate genders in humans would be saying something like, gay men have similarities to a woman's brain... like; The anterior preoptic area of the hypothalamus is about half the size of the same part of the brain in heterosexuals... blah blah blah...


But now, when actual gender difference is discussed, all of a sudden a person's gender and hormonal differences can't make a difference in the way the human brain functions? They want citations of proof of behavior differences before believing such hogwash? Puleeeeeeze.



P.s., as to the actual thread topic though.
My son, second grade, well behind what his sister was in reading comprehension at the same age (probably my fault for treating them different from their sex/gender :rolleyes: ), was identified as falling behind in "no Child Left Behind" testing. Because of that, he was given the extra attention of a few minutes a day of one on one with a child reading specialist and within two months he was caught up and surpassing his classmates and was kicked out again to make room for other children needing the help, now he is in advanced classes the very next year. I heartily support the No child Left behind program, it's a damn shame that some school districts in this country are spending their time trying to find loopholes and nit-picks to cry about instead of actually teaching the kids that need additional assistance...

At least I can spe...I was being silly, sir (or madam).
I know, I was being silly back at you.

And you can blame my spelling on public education :). Would you believe that my school system did not teach us the parts of speech (noun, verb, etc) until our junior year in high school? Yeah, English education was not one of our strengths...we had a killer Math Team, though.

I'm so happy that you are convinced. But do you have any evidence to proffer to the rest of us?

Only experience. Oh God, the horror! Babysitting three year olds while their parents went shopping. And I was supposed to be teaching them stuff. All I taught them was how to drive a grown brain in a tank to insanity. And it didn't help that we had the world's strongest three year old. She would walk around picking over children up to show how strong she was. Small adults too. Then there where the blow fly brothers, twins who liked nothing better than to lie on their backs and wave their arms and legs in the air for twenty minutes as if they were flies that had just been sprayed. And then the Japanese kid who would goose me when my back was turned and then prostrate herself on the ground and beg for forgivness. Those were the worst hours of my life. I wonder how many people who have worked there have since had voluntary sterilizations.

Why does a person's objective determine what beliefs they hold in a debate?

If the topic was homosexual brain and devepment and lack of 'choice' in the matter, the some of the SAME people who are now trying to pretend that there is no inhernent differences between the brains of the seperate genders would be saying something like, gay men have a woman's brain... like; The anterior preoptic area of the hypothalamus is about half the size of the same part of the brain in heterosexuals... blah blah blah...


But now, when actual gender difference is discussed, all of a sudden a persons gender and hormonal differences can't make a difference in the way the human brain functions? They want citations of proof of behavior differences? Puleeeeeeze.
It is completely possible that there are gender-based differences that influence behavior. My point was that there is currently NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE that boys' behavior issues are caused by sex-linked genetic traits. It might be so, but it is also entirely possible that this is yet another area in which boys and girls are not innately different in any statistically significant way. The myth that men are beasts and women are nurturers has been around for centuries, but nobody has yet provided any proof that these roles are determined by our genes. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that, in fact, these roles are quite open to chan

We simply don't know, and until we have more information it is irresponsible to cheat our kids by using genetics as an excuse. To blame these problems on genetics is a cop-out, and it hurts both our girls and our boys when we do this.

EDIT: It's also funny that all this is STILL over looking the racial element!!! If these traits are sex linked, then why do these magical gender disparities change radically across ethnic and socioeconomic groups? Why is the difference between lower class boys and middle class boys FAR more dramatic than the difference between middle class boys and middle class girls?

That's great, but I personally became acquainted with some kids in high school who had been home-schooled up until 9th grade, and they were the most terrifyingly ignorant young people I ever met.

Homeschooling isn't a magic bullet, just like public school isn't automatically going to work beautifully.

Parents who are involved enough to set up a good home-schooling environment are typically also the kind of parents who would be able to find a good public/private schooling situation (if there is one available to them) and would be involved in their kids' education no matter what. The problem is the kids who have parents who don't give a fuck...whether those kids are home-schooled or out-of-home-schooled, they are generally in a tough spot.
your right in that it isnt a magic bullet but I have never met a (scholasticly) ignorent homeschooler. I homeschooled for middle school and I learned more than I ever could have from public school, partly from a better enviorment and partly from being able to watch the news and such.

We simply don't know, and until we have more information it is irresponsible to cheat our kids by using genetics as an excuse. To blame these problems on genetics is a cop-out, and it hurts both our girls and our boys when we do this.

I recommend finding out what helps children lead productive and fulfilling lives and then doing it. Perhaps on average boys will need more help controlling violent tendencies than girls. It would be a good idea to do this regardless of what causes the difference. But working out why there is a difference could help us improve our ability to help children. If people of African decent have sickle cell anemia it is not a cop out to blame it on genetics. It is merely information we can use to help make people's lives better.

Personally, after being around both genders all my life, reading scientific and historic books, and watching such channels as the History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic, and the Science Channel, I've come to this conclucsion:

The differences in behavior between boys and girls are one part biological and two parts evironmental(ie; parental, cultural, etc.). Let me explain:

It has been proven that, as a whole, halves of the average straight male brain are less connected than the halves of the average straight female brain. I left out homosexuals because their relatively uncommonness would throw this off. As a result, numerous tests have shown that:
While girls tend to get the big picture more quickly, boys tend to look at the details more. One test put boys and girls in seperate chambers. Fake money was blown into such chambers. The boys got more of it each because they went after individual bills while the girls didn't.

Girls are more socialable than boys. Both genders formed somewhat different cultures. While the boys formed a more loose society, the girls became tightknit. It is my hypothesis that this may have evolved in a dangerous time where women spent more time together due to the fact that they needed to get pregnant alot just to replace their dead fellow tribesman. After all, this is before bricks, electricity, or hospitals. The men did more of the hunting/war making because they were free from the burden of pregnancy and nursing. Because this was far from absolute and many females did partake in leaving the tribal place for food-getting, this was kept in check somewhat. As I said, this is only a hypothesis that I tried to keep as factual as possible, even though this is unproven. Over time, this evolved into the many male-centered societies and militaries that we see today.
Of course, once we were free from the dangers of sabertooth tigers and bears, women were free to take a more active participation in tribe activities once reproducing like mice was no longer vital for specie survival. They had more of a role in areas outside of walking womb, meaning that males could do stuff outside of protection and killing stuff. Don't try to feed me femanazi propoganda on how males are always so oppressive and how they are so useless for things besides living sperm bank.
Maybe that's are only purpose: womb and sperm bank. Both expendable now that we number in the billions. Oh well. Another topic for another thread.

I recommend finding out what helps children lead productive and fulfilling lives and then doing it. Perhaps on average boys will need more help controlling violent tendencies than girls. It would be a good idea to do this regardless of what causes the difference.

Sure. And telling boys, "Well, because you are a boy, you are just programmed to be more violent," is not an effective way to help them learn control. It does the opposite, in fact, by giving them an excuse. Boys should simply be held to the same standard of behavior that girls are. Boys who have trouble meeting these standards should be helped, just as girls who have trouble with them should be helped.


But working out why there is a difference could help us improve our ability to help children. If people of African decent have sickle cell anemia it is not a cop out to blame it on genetics. It is merely information we can use to help make people's lives better.
True. But, as I have said, none of our studies to date have found any proof for the claim that boys are genetically pre-determined to be more violent or hyper than girls.

Levels of different hormones, as well as varying neurotransmitters, have been linked to behavior problems. However, these variations have been found in both boys AND girls. Being born male doesn't necessarily mean that a kid is going to have these traits, nor does being female. If you want to treat the real source of these behavior issues, the worst thing you could do would be to make some radical generalization based on gender! That would be like assuming that ALL African people carry the sickle-cell gene, and medicating them with that assumption. Boys may be more likely to have certain traits, and girls more likely to have others, but to make the leap to saying that BEING A BOY or BEING A GIRL causes the behavioral phenotype would be totally inaccurate.

Related to this, studies have shown that while boys are far more likely to be diagnosed for hyperactivity problems, and are more likely to be medicated for them, this may have to do more with parents' responses to their kids' behaviors than with any sex-determined traits. There was a study (Berringer? Barringer?) done during the late 90s that showed parents were more willing to consider medication options for their sons' psychological problems than their daughters'. This is dangerous for both boys and girls...girls may have physiological problems that go untreated, and boys may end up medicated for problems that have little to do with physiology.

This ties, again, back into the racial thing. Different cultures, often linked to different racial groups, will have different attitudes toward medical and psychological treatment. How do we know that the "gender" differences aren't just artifacts of differing attitudes on how to respond to a child's medical or psychological needs? We don't, at least not yet. We can't afford to rule that out.

When you come from a family which is so poor you have to fight for food and attention and protection instead of it just being given to you on a plate your behaviour probably won't translate well into a school environment.

Ah yes the infamous "if you come from a poor background, that excuses you from any responsibility" arguement

Then how come 95% of the kids at my school who came from a varity of poor and broken homes (I was in poor) settled down and could usually be trusted to sort of pay attention in class and do their work.

And on the fighting for attention, a friend in New Orleans came from a poor black family of 8 kids and no dad, and still ended up as a navigational flight instructer for the US Navy.

Give everyone an equal oppotunity to learn..... those that dont want to...... well its their fault they end up in the gutter.

"Well, because you are a boy, you are just programmed to be more violent," is not an effective way to help them learn control.

Yes I agree that probably wouldn't be very helpful. But if we got to the point where we could scan a person's DNA and then say, "People with your genetic makeup are statistically 22 times more likely to react violently when under extreme stress than average. Stress managment classes have been found to be effective in helping people with similar genetic make up," then that would be helpful. Just as it is more helpful to be able to test people and find out exactly who has the sickel cell anemia gene than to assume all africans are at risk and no caucasions are.

It's one part biological and two parts environmental(ie; parental, cultural, etc.) Boys, as a whole, are more violent than girls. Still, you can still find girls that won't think twice before blowing your head off with a shot gun just as you can find boys who you'd think were gay if it wasn't for their love of girls. You can't say "It's completely biological" or "biology has absolutely nothing to do with it". You just can't.

Ah yes the infamous "if you come from a poor background, that excuses you from any responsibility" arguement

Then how come 95% of the kids at my school who came from a varity of poor and broken homes (I was in poor) settled down and could usually be trusted to sort of pay attention in class and do their work.

And on the fighting for attention, a friend in New Orleans came from a poor black family of 8 kids and no dad, and still ended up as a navigational flight instructer for the US Navy.

Give everyone an equal oppotunity to learn..... those that dont want to...... well its their fault they end up in the gutter.
True but that requires greater personal drive, by no means should we write off poor children. However, kids from stable well funded homes are more likely to have educated parents who teach at home, I learned K-3rd before stepping into a school. On the flip side some parents have money because they don't spend time teaching their children. So it is a double edged sword. But my mother recently started teaching in the Head Start program which was created in the "Great Society" social programs, it is a Pre K for under privileged children and according to her, they know next to nothing scholastic when they come, due to inability due to time or knowlege of their parents to teach.

My point was that there is currently NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE that boys' behavior issues are caused by sex-linked genetic traits.

There are enough logical reasons for why it would be the case, however. We do not know for a fact that evolution took place, but we can make enough logical connections that allow us, for the most part, to accept such an idea. Some logical reasoning for boys being more aggressive than women:

1. In a vast majority of mammals, especially primates, the female is smaller, and larger males exhibit aggressive behavior. This has some genetic basis because it is only the most dominant, strong, or otherwise well-suited male that could defeat competition is mating.

2. There are zero matriarchal cultures that are dominant or widespread in the world today. It may be the case that a matriarchal society is against nature.

3. Prison studies show that males who have an extra "Y" chromosome are often extremely violent, even more so than single "Y" chromosome peers.

4. Studies show a link between aggression and the heavy abuse of steroids, particularly those that are off-shoots of male hormones: "Roid rage". Women who abuse these steroids sometimes develop aggressional problems as well.

5. Conventional wisdom in a variety of circumstances says that boys tend to be more aggressive in various stages of their live than their female peers.

6. David Thiessen, the boy who was raised as a girl following a disastrous circumcision, was once touted as the success of nurture over nature. Only later, when he found out the truth, did he come forward to say that he never felt normal as a girl and was pressured to go against his natural feelings , he was teased by girls for male mannerisms (they called him a "cavewoman") he struggled to for normal relations among female "peers". He received a sex-change operation to right the wrongs of his youth, and eventually married a woman. He eventually committed suicide.

We humans are descended from animals, there is no doubt males in those species are more aggressive. I see no reason that biological instinct is completely devoid from our everyday life. We still have urges to eat, to mate, whathaveyou. We certainly can go against nature, the governments we form are not instinctual. But these are children we speak of, and even when they are beyond comprehension of social norms and values, as infants they still exhibit seeming sex-based traits to at least some degree.

Ah yes the infamous "if you come from a poor background, that excuses you from any responsibility" arguement

Huh? Where did you get that from? If you don't eat much vitamin C you might get scurvy. Some people need more vitamin C than others. Rich people tend to get plenty of vitamin C so pretty much none of them get scurvy. Poor people tend to get less vitamin C so some of the ones who need more vitamin C than average may get scurvy. Where does responsibility come into this? If you substitute attention for vitamin C and impulse control for scurvy it still doesn't have anything to do with responsibility or excusing behaviour. It's just an observation.

Nevermind the fact that the Bush administration left it's No Child Left Behind mandates grossly underfunded. That's why the states so desperately search for loopholes.

With all the funding in the world, schools would still have to look for loopholes, because the program asks them to treat all children the same and keep all children on the same learning progression. Unfortunately for the idiots who came up with the program, children are not little automotons who are all the same.

I'd actually like to point out that there are always exceptions to this. My sister (who's actually younger than me) got suspended for a day after deliberately slamming a door or someone's hand because they insulted her. Violent behaviour, no?

And outside of computer games (Operation Flashpoint, Counter Strike etc.) I avoid violence totally. Even if someone strikes me, I don't strike back, because that makes me as bad as them.

So the female one is a bit of a violent nutter, and the male one is chilled out and non-violent.

None of which have ever been conclusively supported by scientific data.


Show me a country with these statistics in which the gender roles I described are not present. Show me this statistical trend in a country where the gender roles are reversed.


How many children have you worked with who grew up in societies with "reversed" gender roles? How many kids have you dealt with who grew up in societies where girls are taught to be dominant, violent, aggressive, and "masculine," while boys are taught to be sweet and kind and nurturing and submissive?
In fact there is some evidence for sex specific behavior being due to genetics and not socialization. People born with ambiguous gender were in the past often given "reconstructive" surgery to make them appear female, even though they were genetically male (XY sex chromosomes). They were raised and socialized as females, yet always tried to act like boys traditionally would and often felt as if they should be boys, not girls.

This would indicate that traditionally male and female children's behavior has a genetic component and that socialization plays a minor role.

My take:

Gender differences -- both real and perceived -- as well as racial and economic divides are all factors in a system that is focused more on processing students through the system rather than actually delivering a service (education).

Academic tracking has been damaging education far longer than No Child Left Behind, and it uses these same lines of demarcation. For those who don't know, academic tracking assigns students into different levels of education -- college-prep or vocational, "gifted" or "special" -- based on perceived abilities. It is an extremely controversial practice. In over-burdened systems, kids will be put into a track as early as first or second grade, their parents are never informed, the track is never changed, and it follows the student through his or her entire school life. Before they even get a chance to prove what they can do, some bureaucrat has decided they will never get into college, that they have learning disabilities, or even that they are statistically likely to remain unemployed and/or go to prison.

Gender, race, and economic class are major factors in tracking -- obviously, since the track has to be based on something, and the system doesn't wait to see any actual classroom performance. White and Asian children are more likely to be tracked into college-prep ed. Black and hispanic children are more likely to be tracked into vocational ed. A vocational track, in practical terms, translates into no education at all, because, let's be honest, there are no vocations to train them for. School becomes nothing more than a holding pen to keep kids off the streets during the day. In US urban centers, up to 50% of black public high school students and nearly that many hispanic students drop out. Of that group, the majority are boys. I simply do not believe that so many black and hispanic students are not able to finish high school. It is obvious to me that class, race, and gender are being used against these children so that bureaucrats can simply label them for easy processing through the system.

This has been going on for many years. Add No Child Left Behind, which increases the pressure for bureacratic conformity by demanding specific test score levels without any accompanying guidance or assistance for how those scores should be attained, and all you get is more racism, more elitism, more sexism.

And the other old way was SO much better? Inner city high school graduates that can't read or are incapable of even completing a college entry form.

At least today they are trying to catch up across the board. Simple rules, you can't go to second grade unless you've passed 1st grade skill expectations and your teacher can't just 'pass the buck' (as they say). The concept is not flawed, the execution may be flawed in some districts, but the concept and reason for existence is there. Even Clinton supported it.

As to sufficient funding, more is better, shortages suck. But the system of testing to ensure children are keeping up can and does work.

At least today they are trying to catch up across the board. Simple rules, you can't go to second grade unless you've passed 1st grade skill expectations and your teacher can't just 'pass the buck' (as they say). The concept is not flawed, the execution may be flawed in some districts, but the concept and reason for existence is there. Even Clinton supported it.

Now this sounds odd to me. Children learn things in grade one, but not all their mental delvelopment is from learning, it also comes from their brains becoming more mature. Some children you may be currently behind the average in some aspect of brain development but once their brain catches up they do as well as anyone else and so shouldn't be kept back. Others may benefit from repeating the grade. I hope they are careful to distinguish the two. As kids get older this is less of an effect. Mind you, being big enough to beat up all the other kids is pretty neat regardless of your mental development.

right, this is slightly irrelivant but what is the american school system, cos over here in britain its dead simple, state schools (govt funded), public schools (independent schools) and private schools where you pay, you have

primary school: 4-11yo (test at the end of year 6 (11yo) - Key Stage 2

secondary: 12-16 (test in year 9 - KS3, end of yr 11 - GCSE

tertiary, which is 6th form 17-18(test in lower 6th (17yo), AS level, then upper 6th (18yo), A Level

then univeristy or collage.

easy peasy, and yours is...

I think that the entire 'no child left behind' underminds our school system. It allows children that haven't learned the level that they need to move on. That is one of the major reasons why our test scores suck.
And in respons to this thread...
Then the minorities are going to come out with a better education for it. They are the lucky ones.


Bingo!

hehe. the title on the page at the top says,

"Schools omitting minority scores - Yahoo!News"

the bold is what i saw first :D

this does not even affect the fact that NCLB lowers the bar in the first place. . .

i mean, my former elementary school has been on the warning list the whole time. so much for a warning. why havent they been challenged/punished?

And the other old way was SO much better? Inner city high school graduates that can't read or are incapable of even completing a college entry form.

Nope, that wasn't good either.

But the problems with both stem from the same idiotic idea - that there is a certain level that every single child should be at at the exact same age. In the past, those who were behind were sometimes "passed along" even though they were not ready for the new material, because they were "supposed" to be in that higher class. Now, we're either lowering the bar such that those who would be more advanced are held back, or trying to rush those who cannot quite reach the bar and then blaming our teachers when the child cannot make it.

Human beings are not clones. Children are not all the same. Some children will learn and mature and develop faster than others (not necessarily all three together). Any system based on the assumption that there is a set "level" that a child should be at at a given age will fail, because it is based in a stupid assumption.

At least today they are trying to catch up across the board. Simple rules, you can't go to second grade unless you've passed 1st grade skill expectations and your teacher can't just 'pass the buck' (as they say).

And even if the "failing" (I won't actually call it that, since it may not be one) is that of the student, the school and its teachers are punished because they aren't miracle workers. Meanwhile, the teachers cannot possibly give extra time to those who could be more advanced, because they have to make absolutely sure that those who are a bit behind "catch up."

In the end, the only way to assure "no child left behind" is to lower the bar to the absolute lowest amount of learning a child can acheive in a given time point.

As to sufficient funding, more is better, shortages suck. But the system of testing to ensure children are keeping up can and does work.

Testing ensures that children learn how to memorize. It doesn't mean that children learn how to learn. And teachers aren't allowed to truly teach. They simply have to make sure that everyone is ready for an arbitrary test.

poor does not equal stupid. My family isnt the richest yet my daughter pulls in As and Bs...what the problem is parents and lazy students not wanting to do any work. Fix this and that problem should be solved. Parents need to stress the importance of going to school and learning instead of letting them slack off and act like dunderheads. It shouldnt even be a race issue.

poor does not equal stupid. My family isnt the richest yet my daughter pulls in As and Bs...what the problem is parents and lazy students not wanting to do any work. Fix this and that problem should be solved. Parents need to stress the importance of going to school and learning instead of letting them slack off and act like dunderheads. It shouldnt even be a race issue.

It shouldn't be, but that doesn't mean it isn't.

Our schools are increasingly segregated. And guess which are the better schools.

Let's face it: There's no "one-size-fits-all" solution. There's not enough good teachers to solve this problem. There's just too many different cultures/ways of life for any solution to be effective. Right now, there is no single American culture. African American culture is very different from White American culture. They have different role models(the black kids basicly have gangsta rappers to look up to. Most of the successful people have pale skin) They have different ways of life. African Americans survived slavery, segregation, and the current gangsta rap phenomenon. They aren't going to be like Asians, who survived just internment(for the Japanese) and racism. Even those racial cultures are split up further. You have the East, but not that far east, LA blacks. You have the Texan Republican whites. You have the Klan and the black panthers. You have the jocks and the chess club. You have the New Yorkers and the Californians. You have so many ways of thinking and ways of life. Each with a different view of education and life in general. Right now, the whites and Asians are far more studious than the African Americans and Hispanics. The African Americans have horrible role models: pimps, hos, and anyone else portrayed in Gangsta Rap. The Hispanics, in general, come from countries where life is somewhat harder. They're different.

Let's face it: There's no "one-size-fits-all" solution.

And this is exactly why something like NCLB is doomed to fail.

There's not enough good teachers to solve this problem.

Maybe if the profession were a little more lucrative...


The rest is largely stereotyping. There are white/Asian/latino/etc. kids who look up to "gangsta rappers". There are black/Asian/latino/etc. kids who look up to "white" role models. Different groups have a tendency to be segregated, but becaue of our society, are largely unsegregated in many areas.

a secondary aim is to entertain. hehe

(hope nobody takes me too seriously when I defend Bush... just playing the dev's adv most of the time)
... a tear-soaked page from the diary of Corneliu, safe to assume? ;)

... a tear-soaked page from the diary of Corneliu, safe to assume? ;)

Actually, if you read my blogs on my space, you would see that I really am a different person than I am here on NS :D Of course, right now, most of my blogs deal with my spiritual revival :)

Let's face it: There's no "one-size-fits-all" solution. There's not enough good teachers to solve this problem. There's just too many different cultures/ways of life for any solution to be effective. Right now, there is no single American culture. African American culture is very different from White American culture. They have different role models(the black kids basicly have gangsta rappers to look up to. Most of the successful people have pale skin) They have different ways of life. African Americans survived slavery, segregation, and the current gangsta rap phenomenon. They aren't going to be like Asians, who survived just internment(for the Japanese) and racism. Even those racial cultures are split up further. You have the East, but not that far east, LA blacks. You have the Texan Republican whites. You have the Klan and the black panthers. You have the jocks and the chess club. You have the New Yorkers and the Californians. You have so many ways of thinking and ways of life. Each with a different view of education and life in general. Right now, the whites and Asians are far more studious than the African Americans and Hispanics. The African Americans have horrible role models: pimps, hos, and anyone else portrayed in Gangsta Rap. The Hispanics, in general, come from countries where life is somewhat harder. They're different.

Look kids! Stereotyping is fun and easy!

Actually, if you read my blogs on my space, you would see that I really am a different person than I am here on NS :D Of course, right now, most of my blogs deal with my spiritual revival :)

Yeah, well don't hold your breath for us to rush out and read your blog.

Yeah, well don't hold your breath for us to rush out and read your blog.

Dont worry Cat-Tribe, I'm not holding my breath. Though it might do some people good if they did read it. It goes to show that God does give us every opportunity to be with Him.

Dont worry Cat-Tribe, I'm not holding my breath. Though it might do some people good if they did read it. It goes to show that God does give us every opportunity to be with Him.

So does my pooka friend Harvey. You just have to believe.

Actually, if you read my blogs on my space, you would see that I really am a different person than I am here on NS :D Of course, right now, most of my blogs deal with my spiritual revival :)
Oh, you know why i ref'd you. ;)

No child left behind costs schools too much, and is a BAD IDEA. all students arent equally intellegent some will be slower than others and may be "left behind"

No child left behind costs schools too much, and is a BAD IDEA. all students arent equally intellegent some will be slower than others and may be "left behind"

If only the friggin school system can figure this out then we will be in great shape.

If only the friggin school system can figure this out then we will be in great shape.

Gee, and I thought your hero Bush figured in this mess somewhere.

EDIT: Apparently you lack the blind confidence in Rod Paige that have in Donald Rumsfeld.

Gee, and I thought your hero Bush figured in this mess somewhere.

Actually he doesn't.

Actually he doesn't.

That's why the Whitehouse brags about President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Actually the states that have the worse scores are the states that count the Minority Scores. So by being 'fair' they actually fail. And just to get it out of the way.
Bush is the sux!

P.S. The everyone must read thing is pretty stupid.
"Sure they have an IQ of 50, BUT WE'LL MAKE THEM READ SOMEHOW."
Seriously a special Ed class was supposed to take these tests, I would think there would be more important things to teach them, like how to fuction in the world. I ****ing hate this government. Thank you so much voters for having him save us from TEH EBIL GEYS!

Actually he doesn't.
WTF?
I know you like to embarass yourself, but MAN, have some standards! :confused:

Nope. The idea that boys are just wired to be hyper is a total myth, unsupported by data.

Research actually suggests that it's more about socialization; boys are allowed far more leeway, are taught that it is good for boys to be physical and dominant and aggressive, and are typically diciplined less often for rude or disruptive behaviors. Girls are taught to be quiet and sweet and obedient, so naturally they are more likely to embody these behaviors in school.


Girls would be equally impacted by those factors. Also, there are notable exceptions to the racial-minority-and-poverty gender imbalance (like with many Asian imigrant communities, in which the gender gap is pretty much as non-existent as it is with white middle class kids).

Instead, it is more likely that the disparity is largely due to cultural factors.

For instance, in so-called "ghetto" culture, males who are studious or artistic or quiet are regarded as "less manly." Boys must constantly out-masculine one another, and pursuit of education is often not regarded as masculine. Being obedient to authority is viewed as a weakness, but obedience to authority is required in schools.

There are also pressures that might influence how girls perform. Girls from poor families often realize that many unskilled labor jobs that are available to boys will probably not be options for them. Also, sitting quietly and obeying authority are seen as very feminine behaviors by many of these cultures, so these "feminine" qualities fit nicely with society's demands on them.Pretty much sums it up. The "No Child Left Behind" bill is bull. It standarizes edducation in an idiotic way.

That's why the Whitehouse brags about President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Which in theory was fine but in practice, its a whole different issue.

Which in theory was fine but in practice, its a whole different issue.

So you admit Bush is responsible for NCLB fiasco?

P.S. The everyone must read thing is pretty stupid.
"Sure they have an IQ of 50, BUT WE'LL MAKE THEM READ SOMEHOW."
Seriously a special Ed class was supposed to take these tests, I would think there would be more important things to teach them, like how to fuction in the world. I ****ing hate this government. Thank you so much voters for having him save us from TEH EBIL GEYS!
Special ed is not just for mentally retarded students you know.

Just wanted to mention that.

That's why the Whitehouse brags about President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Just a detail, CT -- the Whitehouse didn't brag about NCLB. They paid radio personalities to brag about it for them, hoping that if someone else said it wasn't a total failure, the public would believe it. It was the political equivalent hanging a pork chop around their neck to get their dog to play with them. :)

So you admit Bush is responsible for NCLB fiasco?

Well he did sign it but it was Congress that Passed it so I blame both parties.

What the No Child Left Behind act really does is homogenize education and make it 'one size fits all'.

Basically, it teaches children nothing, but defines 'learning' in a way such that they can claim children are learning more than they were before.

Kind of like how Bush reduced the amount of pollution by redefining the word 'pollution'.

No Child Left Behind teaches kids to take tests. That's the whole point of it.
Take the test, do well on the test, get the money. It doesn't teach kids skills needed to live - like how to make change, how to fill out forms and applications, how to read, write, etc. It doesn't teach the kids practically applicable information. It doesn't teach them how to apply information. It just teaches them to take standardized tests. What a way to prepare kids for life.

http://matthewmeyer.net/images/Artwork/No%20Child%20Left%20Behind.jpg

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. The president did a good job with the no child left behind act. All you laberals are being all laberal. The president is very smart and you should all believe what he says. If people wanted laberals they would vote for them. And they dont. Because they are laberal. Case closed.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. The president did a good job with the no child left behind act. All you laberals are being all laberal. The president is very smart and you should all believe what he says. If people wanted laberals they would vote for them. And they dont. Because they are laberal. Case closed.

and you really are starting to annoy me. I promised the Lord I wouldn't get annoyed easily but frankly, I'm tired of hearing the bolded parts.

And your last sentence just smacks of ignorance.

So you admit Bush is responsible for NCLB fiasco?

Yes. Bush did it. And it is close to the most staggeringly stupid and harmful legislation to impact the classroom ever.

Oh my God. I actually agreed with you. I must be losing it.

Yes. Bush did it. And it is close to the most staggeringly stupid and harmful legislation to impact the classroom ever.

Oh my God. I actually agreed with you. I must be losing it.
SOMEBODY needs a :fluffle:

...good thing we've established who's where in that arrangement, on that camping trip ... ;)

http://matthewmeyer.net/images/Artwork/No%20Child%20Left%20Behind.jpg
Woohoo! I've been told i'm your puppet. So what've i missed so far?

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. The president did a good job with the no child left behind act. All you laberals are being all laberal. The president is very smart and you should all believe what he says. If people wanted laberals they would vote for them. And they dont. Because they are laberal. Case closed.
First, learn to spell "liberal." Second, actually, we won both elections. President Idiot rigged them. Both. And a man who brags about getting Cs is not smart.

First, learn to spell "liberal." Second, actually, we won both elections. President Idiot rigged them. Both. And a man who brags about getting Cs is not smart.

As much as Bushanomics is an idiot, and he's pronouncing things with a southern drall on the internet, the bolded section is 100% false.

As much as Bushanomics is an idiot, and he's pronouncing things with a southern drall on the internet, the bolded section is 100% false.
We won at least the first election. I'd bet we won the second.

We won at least the first election. I'd bet we won the second.

No you won the popular vote in the first election. That doesn't mean you won the election.

And the 2nd election, no you didn't even come close to winning it.