Stark Truth - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 27, 2006

Stark Truth

Date: Apr 27, 2006

Trim the fat wrote:

The Wall Street Journal revealed an astonishing piece of news in today's issue. We are spending twice as much on public education -in inflation adjusted dollars- as 30 years ago,yet educational achievemant is stagnant. I believe we need a significant reduction in public funding of education.

Dear Fat Trimmer,

Consider moving to Mississippi, or staying here if you are already here. Public funding of education (as a percentage of total funding for universities) has been shrinking yearly. That is why tuition costs have increased dramatically. With attitudes such as yours Mississippi can be assured of staying at the bottom of the nation economically and educationally!

Date: Apr 27, 2006

Trim the fat wrote:

The Wall Street Journal revealed an astonishing piece of news in today's issue. We are spending twice as much on public education -in inflation adjusted dollars- as 30 years ago,yet educational achievemant is stagnant. I believe we need a significant reduction in public funding of education.

An article in USA today notes that recent studies show a correlation between wealthier school systems (meaning the average income of residents is higher) and a greater educational budget as compared to less wealthy systems in which less money is spent on education. Not suprisingly, the wealthier systems have beter student performance. Of course, this doesn't tell the whole story . . . . but one thing that certainly does seem true is that the "best" teachers tend to go and stay longer in systems where they get paid more and have better working conditions.

"best" of course, being a relative vlaue.

Date: Apr 27, 2006

stephen judd wrote:

An article in USA today notes that recent studies show a correlation between wealthier school systems (meaning the average income of residents is higher) and a greater educational budget as compared to less wealthy systems in which less money is spent on education. Not suprisingly, the wealthier systems have beter student performance. Of course, this doesn't tell the whole story . . . . but one thing that certainly does seem true is that the "best" teachers tend to go and stay longer in systems where they get paid more and have better working conditions.
"best" of course, being a relative vlaue.

Could it also be that wealthier socioeconomic groups tend to place a higher value on education and are more apt to ask "Why did you make a C?" than "Did you pass?"

Date: Apr 27, 2006

sniper wrote:

stephen judd wrote: An article in USA today notes that recent studies show a correlation between wealthier school systems (meaning the average income of residents is higher) and a greater educational budget as compared to less wealthy systems in which less money is spent on education. Not suprisingly, the wealthier systems have beter student performance. Of course, this doesn't tell the whole story . . . . but one thing that certainly does seem true is that the "best" teachers tend to go and stay longer in systems where they get paid more and have better working conditions. "best" of course, being a relative vlaue. Could it also be that wealthier socioeconomic groups tend to place a higher value on education and are more apt to ask "Why did you make a C?" than "Did you pass?"

I think that is difficult to know . . . . I think the idea that "poor" transates into one simple set of cultural value is probably not accurate . . . .

Date: Apr 27, 2006

I live in a large school district with very, very rich schools/neighborhoods and very, very poor schools/neighborhoods. The teachers at these schools use the same books and the same curriculum. The same amount of money is being spent on each student, independent of the neighborhood where they live. The rich schools do exceptionally well on state mandated tests while the poor schools do not. I asked an administrator why. There were several reasons including the transient nature of families in the poor neighborhoods, the fact that many parents work serveral jobs while the curriculum may be based on parent interaction, students in upper level classes have to work to help support the family, and English as a second language. These are just a few of the reasons given to me.

I don't mind paying taxes for education, as long as it is spent well and not wasted, but clearly there are other issues that need to be addressed to guarantee that all get the best education possible.

Date: Apr 27, 2006

Advocate wrote:

I live in a large school district with very, very rich schools/neighborhoods and very, very poor schools/neighborhoods. The teachers at these schools use the same books and the same curriculum. The same amount of money is being spent on each student, independent of the neighborhood where they live. The rich schools do exceptionally well on state mandated tests while the poor schools do not. I asked an administrator why. There were several reasons including the transient nature of families in the poor neighborhoods, the fact that many parents work serveral jobs while the curriculum may be based on parent interaction, students in upper level classes have to work to help support the family, and English as a second language. These are just a few of the reasons given to me.
I don't mind paying taxes for education, as long as it is spent well and not wasted, but clearly there are other issues that need to be addressed to guarantee that all get the best education possible.

These reasons are very valid explanations of why children from wealthy families do better than children from poorer families even when expenditures are the same. Another factor rarely noted is that wealthy people may be wealthy because they are more intelligent than poorer people. Since intelligence is at least partly inheirited,these families tend to have more intelligent children.

Date: Apr 27, 2006

F.Pierre wrote:

... Another factor rarely noted is that wealthy people may be wealthy because they are more intelligent than poorer people. Since intelligence is at least partly inheirited,these families tend to have more intelligent children.

Good point. Even if the intelligence isn't inherited by the offspring, I would think intelligent parents would tend to demand more of their children and instill in them the importance of education.

Date: Apr 27, 2006

LeftASAP wrote:

F.Pierre wrote: ... Another factor rarely noted is that wealthy people may be wealthy because they are more intelligent than poorer people. Since intelligence is at least partly inheirited,these families tend to have more intelligent children. Good point. Even if the intelligence isn't inherited by the offspring, I would think intelligent parents would tend to demand more of their children and instill in them the importance of education.

"I don't mind paying taxes for education, as long as it is spent well and not wasted, but clearly there are other issues that need to be addressed to guarantee that all get the best education possible."

I'm not sure if the "as possible" is an objective standard (equal opportunity) or means "possible for them."

I hope there is no suggestion here that we should spend less on those who we perceive (as a class, no less!) to be "less intelligent."

I'm also not clear that "intelligence" per se can be translated in terms of class. Perhaps if we are talking about the kinds of intelligence, then that may be something worth discussing.

Your "wealthy people are wealthy because they are more intelligent" also fails to take other things into account (maybe they are also more unscrupulous . . . perhaps they simply know how to play "the game" better because they are born to it; perhaps some of them inherit; perhaps some of them have opportunity haded to them . . .) This comes perilously close, in my view, to equating goodness and virtue with prosperity . . . .

Interesting that many families aquire their wealth rising from poverty (the Kennedy's certainly come to mind). It was the early, most desperate (and most ruthless, if accounts are to be believed) members of the clan who founded the family wealth. You got to wonder what would have happened to the Kennedy boys if they had not had Old Joe and his money to put them through school and support them into politics . . . If you look at that family alone you find quite a few achievers -- you also find quite a few folks who look good on paper; who live well; but who seem to contribute nothing to the gene pool or to the family's growth in wealth . . . . folks who probably would not survive without the support of the weath they have aquired. Michael Skakel didn't have to lift a finger to go to the best schools or get a decent job . . . .

I'd say the percentage of "intelligence" probably isn't vastly different within classes -- there are lots of other factors that impact positively or negatively or whether that "inteligence" manifests itself . . .

Date: Apr 27, 2006

stephen judd wrote:

LeftASAP wrote: F.Pierre wrote: ... Another factor rarely noted is that wealthy people may be wealthy because they are more intelligent than poorer people. Since intelligence is at least partly inheirited,these families tend to have more intelligent children. Good point. Even if the intelligence isn't inherited by the offspring, I would think intelligent parents would tend to demand more of their children and instill in them the importance of education. "I don't mind paying taxes for education, as long as it is spent well and not wasted, but clearly there are other issues that need to be addressed to guarantee that all get the best education possible." I'm not sure if the "as possible" is an objective standard (equal opportunity) or means "possible for them." I hope there is no suggestion here that we should spend less on those who we perceive (as a class, no less!) to be "less intelligent." I'm also not clear that "intelligence" per se can be translated in terms of class. Perhaps if we are talking about the kinds of intelligence, then that may be something worth discussing. Your "wealthy people are wealthy because they are more intelligent" also fails to take other things into account (maybe they are also more unscrupulous . . . perhaps they simply know how to play "the game" better because they are born to it; perhaps some of them inherit; perhaps some of them have opportunity haded to them . . .) This comes perilously close, in my view, to equating goodness and virtue with prosperity . . . . Interesting that many families aquire their wealth rising from poverty (the Kennedy's certainly come to mind). It was the early, most desperate (and most ruthless, if accounts are to be believed) members of the clan who founded the family wealth. You got to wonder what would have happened to the Kennedy boys if they had not had Old Joe and his money to put them through school and support them into politics . . . If you look at that family alone you find quite a few achievers -- you also find quite a few folks who look good on paper; who live well; but who seem to contribute nothing to the gene pool or to the family's growth in wealth . . . . folks who probably would not survive without the support of the weath they have aquired. Michael Skakel didn't have to lift a finger to go to the best schools or get a decent job . . . . I'd say the percentage of "intelligence" probably isn't vastly different within classes -- there are lots of other factors that impact positively or negatively or whether that "inteligence" manifests itself . . .

I agree completely with you that society has an obligation to do its very best to educate everyone,including equal funding. I disagree completely when you say intelligence isn't vastly different within (? between) classes.This has been shown repeatedly in various studies.Achievement has an environmental and an heriditary component. Most people recognize the environmental factors but are uncomfortable acknowledging heriditary differences.

Date: Apr 27, 2006

stephen judd wrote:

I think that is difficult to know . . . . I think the idea that "poor" transates into one simple set of cultural value is probably not accurate . . . .

Yes, but have you ever heard of correlation? It is this type of equivocal response that leads us to our present conundrum: nobody wants to have absolutes anymore. "The sky is blue," says one. "No, no! The sky is gray!" says another.

Date: Apr 27, 2006

F. Pierre wrote:

I agree completely with you that society has an obligation to do its very best to educate everyone,including equal funding. I disagree completely when you say intelligence isn't vastly different within (? between) classes.This has been shown repeatedly in various studies.Achievement has an environmental and an heriditary component. Most people recognize the environmental factors but are uncomfortable acknowledging heriditary differences.

I completely agree that IQ accounts for some of the variance in achievement, but it is also important to note that IQ exists within a reaction range. Two identical babies born into a rich versus poor family are likely to exhibit at adulthood notably different scores on IQ measures, due to diet, environmental enrichment, and so on (well replicated in animal models of cognition). The debate about why richer folks have, on average, slightly higher IQs than lower SES folks, on average, is an old one. But keep in mind that one wouldn't expect big differences between the groups based primarily on heritability factors due to the phenomenon of regression to the mean and the general principles of population genetics. This is especially true as it becomes easier for the individual to transition between "classes" (up or down), due to less rigid social mores and legal constraints to maintaining discrete and self-perpetuating social classes.

Date: Apr 27, 2006

Statistical wrote:

Yes, but have you ever heard of correlation? It is this type of equivocal response that leads us to our present conundrum: nobody wants to have absolutes anymore. "The sky is blue," says one. "No, no! The sky is gray!" says another.

I teach stats, and I am not at all sure what you mean by your post. Correlation has little to do absolutes (there are few perfect r = 1.0 correlations in human experience). In fact, use of correlational analyses is a bit like describing the gray areas. Most important, the relatedness of variables alone can not be used to support causal statements--and correlational research opens the door to all sorts of gray areas involving alternative explanations (even in SEM).

I think it was kind of cool of you to try to tie stats to the notion of moral relativism, but in this case it isn't the best example.

Date: Apr 27, 2006

F. Pierre wrote:

I agree completely with you that society has an obligation to do its very best to educate everyone,including equal funding. I disagree completely when you say intelligence isn't vastly different within (? between) classes.This has been shown repeatedly in various studies.Achievement has an environmental and an heriditary component. Most people recognize the environmental factors but are uncomfortable acknowledging heriditary differences.

You begin with a false premise. I had hoped you were building to a proof by negation, but that was also not forthcoming.

Society absolutely does not have an obligation to "do its very best to educate everyone." What society has an obligation to do is to provide reasonable equal opportunity. Does this mean that society should provide avenues for socioeconomically challenged students who are achievers to borrow money at low interest rates so that they can attend college? Yes. Does this mean that socioeconomically challenged students should get moved to the front of the line? No. Does this mean that society owes everyone an education? No. Society owes everyone the opportunity to become educated. However, if one chooses to follow another path, then that individual has the free will to do so. If, at age 16, one chooses to drop out of high school and join a garage rock band, then that is that individual's choice. When individuals make choices such as that, it is not society's burden to come back ten years later and undo those choices by providing an "out" for that person. If that person chooses to avail himself or herself of opportunities that are available to everyone else, then fine. What society absolutely does not have is a responsibility to provide an free, magic "undo" button to erase bad decisions.

Erasing bad decisions is why most young people have no respect for law, tradition, authority, or socially acceptable behavior; their parents have been teaching them that their way is better than society's way all their lives. Why, then, is it surprising that students will exhibit disrespectful behavior to other students, professors, staffers, etc.? After all, you work for them, don't you????

Date: Apr 27, 2006

Trim the fat wrote:

The Wall Street Journal revealed an astonishing piece of news in today's issue. We are spending twice as much on public education -in inflation adjusted dollars- as 30 years ago,yet educational achievemant is stagnant. I believe we need a significant reduction in public funding of education.

I'm not sure how "stark" this "truth" is, and I'd want to see how it was presented in the original article--is there a link?

30 years ago, many of the educators in the lower grades were women making much less than they would now, far fewer people were going on to post-secondary education, and many of the professors there were part of the mostly-vanished old-money who consequently needed less salary.

On the other hand, it may be true that we're spending more on education now than in the 70s, the me-decade. It was the end of the Vietnam War, when there was no more need for a draft deferment, and classes shrunk both at the university level (90% of PhDs in the late 70s couldn't get a university job) and also in the lower grades because baby boomers thought it was impious to have children. I'm not sure what we're comparing here.

I know for certain that there was FAR more funding for education in the public schools of California when I grew up in the 60s than there was after legislation stripped out most of the tax base, and the schools have suffered accordingly. And I'm nervous every time I hear a politician call for "accountability" from people who are already overworked and underpaid rather than calling for a realistic commitment to the future. If we're paying more for education now than in the 70s, maybe it's because we realized finally that we were killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

JL

Date: Apr 27, 2006

Stats Teacher wrote:

I teach stats, and I am not at all sure what you mean by your post. Correlation has little to do absolutes (there are few perfect r = 1.0 correlations in human experience). In fact, use of correlational analyses is a bit like describing the gray areas. Most important, the relatedness of variables alone can not be used to support causal statements--and correlational research opens the door to all sorts of gray areas involving alternative explanations (even in SEM).
I think it was kind of cool of you to try to tie stats to the notion of moral relativism, but in this case it isn't the best example.

I don't really need a stats lesson here. My correlation remark was in response to the statement by S. Judd that, "I think the idea that "poor" transates into one simple set of cultural value is probably not accurate." I cannot observe values. I can only observe actions, and there is quite a bit of data to suggest that socioeconomic status is highly correlated with educational achievement, even when that educational achievement is simply free public education.

The rest of my statement was in reference to the fact that there's a whole lot of wishy-washiness on the board lately. There is no right, there is no wrong, yada yada yada.

Date: Apr 27, 2006

stephen judd wrote:

"I don't mind paying taxes for education, as long as it is spent well and not wasted, but clearly there are other issues that need to be addressed to guarantee that all get the best education possible." I'm not sure if the "as possible" is an objective standard (equal opportunity) or means "possible for them."

Stephen -- it seems to me that you are mixing messages from two different posters. I never said anyting about correlating wealth and intellengence. I did, however, say that I wanted to "guarantee that all get the best education possible." I do NOT mean that the poor are not entitled to as good of an education as the rich. Maybe just different or whatever it takes to make sure they succeed at the highest level possible for all. However, I do think that if their parents can't speak English, or if their parents work the night shift and can't help with homework, we need to make sure that their curriculum meets their needs. I'm not in education and I know there must be issues with treating kids differently, etc., but we have to change something because what we are doing now isn't working.

I'll give you an example. A few years ago I was working with an minority internship program when I was in the business world. They take a high school student and he/she interns with the corporation every summer until they graduate from college. My young intern had to take remedial math at community college before he was accepted at a university because he did so poorly on the SAT exam. However, he managed to make a 3.85 at a state university (not in Mississippi) and was hired by Price Waterhouse when he graduated with a double major in Accounting and Finance. I've always thought Price Waterhouse hired pretty sharp people, but in high school this kid couldn't pass the SAT. Why? Because his minority/majority school did a poor job of preparing/teaching him.

I believe in "equal opportunity" but if we give them "equal education" when their homelife isn't equal, it doesn't quite work out. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm saying that I personally am willing to pay more taxes in education so that everyone gets the best possible education available to anyone.

Date: Apr 28, 2006

IQ does affect outcomes just as physical ability affects outcomes. However, much of the success of individuals is due to their investment in human capital, now know as education and training. The investment is split into two components in the U.S. One is the investment by the state and/or the parents in providing resources that facilitate education and the other is the investment by the person being educated. Historically, there were scant resources of the first type. Publicly funded education was created to increase the investment by society. We soon learned that many would not voluntarily avail themselves of the public investment so we made school compulsory. This increased the level of human capital in this country. Since it was successful, many believed that more investment by the state would increase the level even more. Alas, the point of diminishing returns was soon reached. After the 60s there was a feverously held belief that more funding would increase the education level. What was ignored was (is) that investing in education is hard work and many people detest hard work, and also have a short time horizon. Nonetheless, there was and is a zeal to continuously increase the investment in education without increasing the commitment of the individual being educated. One only need examine the behavior of USM students to see how little many students are willing to invest in time and effort to become educated. Their attitudes reveal that education is something that will be given to them rather than earned. Of course the reality is that one cannot be given an education, it is earned.

Date: Apr 28, 2006

An formal education does not ensure that one has common sense.

Date: Apr 28, 2006

Mama told me wrote:

An formal education does not ensure that one has common sense.

Mama also told me that having a Ph.D. does not ensure that one has common sense. That was after I received mine.

Date: Apr 28, 2006

LeftASAP wrote:

F.Pierre wrote:
... Another factor rarely noted is that wealthy people may be wealthy because they are more intelligent than poorer people. Since intelligence is at least partly inheirited,these families tend to have more intelligent children.
Good point. Even if the intelligence isn't inherited by the offspring, I would think intelligent parents would tend to demand more of their children and instill in them the importance of education.

I'm not aware of any reputable scientist who believes that heredity plays no role in intelligence. Most believe it is more significant than enviornment but this is sometimes disputed.

Date: Apr 28, 2006

Note also that intelligence doesn't always predict success with the SAT or other standardized tests. From what I understand, the language of these tests is most comprehensible to the white upper middle class. Perhaps Invictus can tell us more. JL

Date: Apr 28, 2006

Note also that intelligence doesn't always predict success with the SAT or other standardized tests. From what I understand, the language of these tests is most comprehensible to the white upper middle class. Perhaps Invictus can tell us more. JL

There is a reason for that. White upper middle class folks have a volcabulary that far exceeds 500 words. These gives them an unfair advantage over those who limit the number of words they know and understand.

Date: Apr 29, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Note also that intelligence doesn't always predict success with the SAT or other standardized tests. From what I understand, the language of these tests is most comprehensible to the white upper middle class. Perhaps Invictus can tell us more. JL There is a reason for that. White upper middle class folks have a volcabulary that far exceeds 500 words. These gives them an unfair advantage over those who limit the number of words they know and understand.

I'm sure Jameela can fill us all in here but it wasn't until after Shakespeare's time that the English language was actually completely formalized . . . up until that period it was a field of common understandings, conventions and extremely wide open to the inventiveness of individual speakers, writers, etc.

I'm not about to make the case that we don't need a common language as a culture. However, if you pay attention to the black community at all you know that language in that community is extremely inventive and that it actually provides not only a common understanding for many blacks but also captures a costantly evolving set of individual and cultural experiences. This same thing is true in all minority communities. In short, the vocabularies of many minority groups are far richer than 500 words -- they just aren't always part of the dominant culture.

And frankly, having taught at Duke which is pretty full of upper middle class students -- the poverty of a conventionally large vocabulary isn't limited to the lower classes . . .

Date: Apr 29, 2006

stephen judd wrote:

... I'm not about to make the case that we don't need a common language as a culture. However, if you pay attention to the black community at all you know that language in that community is extremely inventive and that it actually provides not only a common understanding for many blacks but also captures a costantly evolving set of individual and cultural experiences. This same thing is true in all minority communities. In short, the vocabularies of many minority groups are far richer than 500 words -- they just aren't always part of the dominant culture. And frankly, having taught at Duke which is pretty full of upper middle class students -- the poverty of a conventionally large vocabulary isn't limited to the lower classes . . .

Man that Stephen is real "bad". He is the "badest" on this board.

Stephen, don't you think "richness" of a language is less important than "precision"?

This reminds me of the story about the captain of Tulane's football team writing a letter to alumni asking for support. He used the word "bad" as I did above and said something like "This year Tulane may have the badest team in C-USA." The university proof reader reviewed the letter before the mailing and changed "badest" to "worst". Of course the alumni were in an uproar over such a negative letter form the captain of their football team.

Date: Apr 29, 2006

I agree with both Joker that precision is important and with Stephen that the speech of certain disenfranchized communities can be marvelously inventive. What I object to is the assumption that race automatically insures success in academe.

Ironically, as much as I object to using the SAT as an uncritical measure of intelligence, it has historically permited minorities into universities by challenging the assumption that Anglo-Saxon protestants somehow had "native intelligence." It turned out that Jewish, Asian, and other non-WASP students were getting higher test scores. Blimey!

I knew a psychometrician once who told me that the sole predictor for success in on the SAT math portion was how many years of math one had in high school. That would explain my high standardized math scores despite the fact that in algebra I was usually a month behind the rest of the class, and often in tears. I also understand that the biggest predictor of success in ETS verbal portions is parental income, presumably because one's parents are college graduates and one grows up hearing a more precise vocabulary. But I taught rich kids in a private high school who were less than fully articulate. The crown, as Solomon said, does not endure to all generations.

JL

Date: Apr 29, 2006

Note: the higher test scores I referred to just now were among students who actually STUDIED. I'm still not claiming that race is any predictor, just that effort is. JL

Date: Apr 29, 2006

Jameela Lares wrote:

I agree with both Joker that precision is important and with Stephen that the speech of certain disenfranchized communities can be marvelously inventive. What I object to is the assumption that race automatically insures success in academe. Ironically, as much as I object to using the SAT as an uncritical measure of intelligence, it has historically permited minorities into universities by challenging the assumption that Anglo-Saxon protestants somehow had "native intelligence." It turned out that Jewish, Asian, and other non-WASP students were getting higher test scores. Blimey! I knew a psychometrician once who told me that the sole predictor for success in on the SAT math portion was how many years of math one had in high school. That would explain my high standardized math scores despite the fact that in algebra I was usually a month behind the rest of the class, and often in tears. I also understand that the biggest predictor of success in ETS verbal portions is parental income, presumably because one's parents are college graduates and one grows up hearing a more precise vocabulary. But I taught rich kids in a private high school who were less than fully articulate. The crown, as Solomon said, does not endure to all generations. JL

Good points, Jameela. Wealth can "spoil" students into unmotivated, "me centered" individuals, and poverty can be a motivating force for hard work. It's always evolving as the poor become richer and two generations later spoil their young.

Date: Apr 29, 2006

Jameela Lares wrote:

Note: the higher test scores I referred to just now were among students who actually STUDIED. I'm still not claiming that race is any predictor, just that effort is. JL

On SAT testing and on intelligence testing ,Asians score highest,whites next,then blacks. This holds true even when adjustments for household income are made. Obviously,there are individual exceptions within the groups.