Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Academic Abrogation: Standardized Test Scores vs Socio-Economic Solvency

Let's examine if, as alleged, money in the home and the homes' location predicates academic outcomes. 
The location of a building/school, the building's design and attractiveness, the components within the building - desks, chalkboards, cafeteria, auditorium seating, vary. Some are newer and contain the latest technologies. Others not so much.
Teachers are usually assigned to a school.  The younger more energetic teachers will be placed in the older, uglier schools, serve their time, acquire tenure, and finally move on to the nice new school when they are exhausted from teaching and less enthusiastic. So, from a practical perspective, new schools ought to have a less enthusiastic faculty.
So what explains the disparity of grades and test scores among students?  These are significant.  Progressives and their useful idiots believe the age of a school, it’s location, the average family income of the school's students - have a direct bearing upon academic performance. This belief is gratuitous and repeatedly proven untrue.  Causality for performance is not attendant income in the home or the condition of the school building. 
Let’s examine some statistics.
Students in the same buildings, students in the same classroom, do not score the same - ever.  A broad spectrum of scores is evident in each school – usually in each class. Students from the wealthiest families do not often score well, or at the apex. 
Money in the home and the location of homes does not assure superior performance.  The same is true in the old school.  Some students in the old schools score extremely well when tested.  These students are presumed to live in shabby old homes, located in shoddy older neighborhoods, and the family income must be lower accordingly.  Within the old school district, there may be a large percentage of students scoring poorly. We must note the same outcome may be true in the new school.  
It could happen, but usually does not. Your author knows from personal experiences the disparity in a classroom.  My high school was the best in town and populated with the children of the most affluent adults in the community.  Many of their children did not score well in school.  Some dropped out.  Others excelled. 
The correlate between scores and the age/condition of a school are not causal or comparative.  Nor is money or access to money causal.  
So what is – causal?

Direct Primary Causalities:
Determination is an essential causality.  All the IQ in the world will not realize a good score if the student doesn’t apply himself - see your author.  The smarter may need less time to learn, but they still must examine the study material.
IQ is the second causality factor.  IQ typically increases an average passing score.
However - The low IQ will defeat all the determination in the world.

Teacher: A Teacher is potentially causal -if we assume the teacher is competent and not belligerent against students – unfairly scores work assignments, uses personal or ideological bias in the classroom.  
Peers: A student’s peers/friends can influence a student positively and negatively.  The Community where learning occurs may moderately impact a student’s score. That only obtains if the student permits it to impact them. Some dullards negatively influence their peer group.
Parents: Parents can rate higher - as high as #2 - but they must value education, demand determination, and help the student. 

What is REALLY causal - few want to learn or know.  A majority of parents surely do not want to know, because so doing will negatively reflect upon them!  Genetics are shown to be the primary causality for IQ – high or low. Parents and their genetic legacy determines a child’s intellectual potential.  No parent wants to learn their stupidity directly retards their child's abilities. Ergo, "educators" lie and obfuscate. Recall determination is vital.  However, determination must accompany an average IQ.  Determination maximizes potential, but... it cannot increase potential.  All factors being equal - a child’s IQ determines their scores – EVEN in PoorSchools!!!

SO, why do students in older schools score poorly?
Progressives, as usual, have the equation backwards.  Intellect creates wealth.  Wealth does NOT create intellect.  Smart people are more often successful people. They earn more money. 
The offspring of smarter parents are usually smarter students.  Smart parents place a high value on school and study = good grades and high test scores.
ERGO- Smart people live in nicer, wealthier neighborhoods.  Nice neighborhoods have nicer schools because they are NEW, not because of the parent's wealth.

The offspring of dumb parents are dumb students.  Dumb parents place little or no value on school and study. That yields poor grades and lower test scores.   Dumb people are often less successful people – less money. 
ERGO - Poor people live in older delapidated neighborhoods.  Poor neighborhoods usually have older schools because the neighborhood is OLDER. 

The above explains WHY increased spending on education has NOT moved the student academic performance dial whatsoever.

Anecdotes:
(Supporting Causality)

In the 1980s - A judge in or near St Louis, MO believed this tripe - wealth/prettier schools caused better student performance.  Racial animus was also blamed for poor test scores.  When a case came before him alleging the school building made some students dumb  perform poorly, he ordered the school system to build several new schools – state of the art schools - with better gadgetry and superior athletics arenas than the schools in the wealthiest St Louis neighborhoods.  The schools were built.  They were impressive and costly – several billion dollars worth of schools.  Student performance was measured the next few years.

Student performance in the new schools – DECLINED! A greater percentage of students dropped out of school.  The results were not published.  The judge was not charged for wasting tax dollars, nor was he removed from the bench - as should be the case whenever a moron judge enters the social engineering fray.

EXAMPLES of SUCCESS: LOW-INCOME - UNEDUCATED - HIGH IQ - 
(VERY POOR) John D Rockefeller – the richest man ever – didn’t graduate from high school.
(DIRT POOR) Henry Ford – virtually NO education – His father told him he would be a farmer and saw no need for education. 
(Hill Billy POOR) Abe Lincoln – attended a decrepit, ugly one-room log cabin prairie school for a couple years.  He taught himself with any book he could get his hands upon.
Mark Twain – left school age 11 – another crappy one-room prairie school
(POOR) Albert Einstein – dropped out of high school and could not pass the version of the SAT in his day.  He too took up the study of physics on his own.  He published one of his greatest discoveries before being accepted to college.

These examples prove innate IQ will triumph over adversity and lack of income in the home.  

Correlates? 
Asia and Indian immigrants typically score higher than Low-Income Americans.
IMPORTANTLY - they score higher while attending the same OLD schools, same teachers, AND... overcome language/cultural barriers. 


The Stupid choose behaviors that keep them STUPID
1.     They have very high self-esteem – contrary to popular fiction.
2.     They think they are better than others
3.     They think they are so superior they needn’t work to advance – Study is for suckers.
4.     They think they have all the answers and needn’t study
5.     They avoid anyone doesn’t agree with them
6.     They are obsessed with image – Bling!  Name Brands
7.     They underestimate obstacles – See #3
8.     They stubbornly rely on what worked for them in the past – doing nothing
9.     They blame society/others - out to get them, keep them down, for their failures







No comments:

Post a Comment