It was no surprise earlier this week when the long awaited University of California Diversity Report came out and found that enrollment of minorities and underrepresented students have fallen well behind their statewide representation in the population as a whole.
Overall advances in UC diversity in the 1980s and early 1990s have reversed direction, the report states, and any small gains have been concentrated at a few campuses. Women and non-Asian minorities continue to have particularly low levels of representation in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, the report noted.
It is also no surprise that the board of Regents which met this week on the UC Davis campus would embrace this study and vow to take aggressive and concrete steps to address the diversity crisis facing the premier public university system in the world.
One of the most stunning bits of information that emerged from this discussion was that only 30 percent of high schools offer the A-G courses–core curriculum–that are required for UC admissions.
Frankly that piece of information alone should be headline grabbing, alarming information. And folks, as you might guess, that has nothing at all to do with UC. That has nothing to do with Proposition 209. That is an indictment of our public school system.
In light of that finding it was also refreshing to hear that California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez who serves as an ex-officio member, urged the board not to lower the bar for academic requirements to attend a UC campus but rather find solutions that will increase diversity while at the same time maintaining the current levels of standards.
Another regent, Sherry Lansing, suggested partnering with the CSU system to create outreach programs to encourage more high schools to offer the A-G courses (the CSU system also requires A-G courses).
Embattled UC President Robert Dynes forcefully said:
“I reject the idea that we can’t change K-12. We can. No one else will.”
It was remarkable to me on the other hand to read the comments from Oiyan Poon, the President of the University of California Student Association.
In her comments to UC Regents before they voted to support the recommendations of the study group recommendations she said among other things:
“In order to begin addressing this crisis, students ask that Regents 1) ensure that academic preparation programs receive at least $33 million for the 2008-2009 school year; 2) eliminate or at least decrease the use of SAT I, SAT II and GRE scores as eligibility requirements; and 3) reevaluate admissions eligibility requirements, especially A-G required courses.”
I have no problem with the first recommendation. I’ve long believed that admissions process was too reliant on standardized tests, but I certainly cannot support the third recommendation there. I do not believe the solution to this problem is to water down the admissions process, I think it is to bring the high schools across this state up to the level that is needed for their students to attend UC and CSU.
We wish to put this on the UC Regents, and they certainly bear responsibility here, but to me this is an indictment on the state legislature and the state as a whole. Students should be protesting next week in front of the state Capital demanding that the legislature mandate and fund college prep programs at all high schools across the state.
The UC Regents have acknowledged the problem that exists and that everyone can see. It is always said of course that the first step to solving a problem, is to acknowledge that one exists. However, in this case, the problem itself is going to take a tremendous amount of political will across jurisdictions. If however, UC and CSU are willing to partner to take the lead on this, perhaps it is possible that things can be improved. If not, then the UC system will become ever more of an elite institution and move away from the vision of public higher education that has embodied it for so long.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
The problem is elementary schools that move students on to the next grade without learning. This shouldn’t be a UC failing, but UC might be able to help if given funding to help the failing elementary schools.
If UC would give tuition waivers to students in return for teaching at failing elementary schools, the poor students could be helped. But what if this effort does not produce UC qualified students? Should UC be destroyed to allow students who can’t read and comprehend to be given a UC degree?
The last numbers I saw for Cal State Hayward were that only 30% of the students graduating with teaching credential were able to pass a CBEST test, a test for 8th grade reading and math abilities. How would it help anyone to give these students a UC degree?
The problem is elementary schools that move students on to the next grade without learning. This shouldn’t be a UC failing, but UC might be able to help if given funding to help the failing elementary schools.
If UC would give tuition waivers to students in return for teaching at failing elementary schools, the poor students could be helped. But what if this effort does not produce UC qualified students? Should UC be destroyed to allow students who can’t read and comprehend to be given a UC degree?
The last numbers I saw for Cal State Hayward were that only 30% of the students graduating with teaching credential were able to pass a CBEST test, a test for 8th grade reading and math abilities. How would it help anyone to give these students a UC degree?
The problem is elementary schools that move students on to the next grade without learning. This shouldn’t be a UC failing, but UC might be able to help if given funding to help the failing elementary schools.
If UC would give tuition waivers to students in return for teaching at failing elementary schools, the poor students could be helped. But what if this effort does not produce UC qualified students? Should UC be destroyed to allow students who can’t read and comprehend to be given a UC degree?
The last numbers I saw for Cal State Hayward were that only 30% of the students graduating with teaching credential were able to pass a CBEST test, a test for 8th grade reading and math abilities. How would it help anyone to give these students a UC degree?
The problem is elementary schools that move students on to the next grade without learning. This shouldn’t be a UC failing, but UC might be able to help if given funding to help the failing elementary schools.
If UC would give tuition waivers to students in return for teaching at failing elementary schools, the poor students could be helped. But what if this effort does not produce UC qualified students? Should UC be destroyed to allow students who can’t read and comprehend to be given a UC degree?
The last numbers I saw for Cal State Hayward were that only 30% of the students graduating with teaching credential were able to pass a CBEST test, a test for 8th grade reading and math abilities. How would it help anyone to give these students a UC degree?
It isn’t really stunning that many high schools don’t offer the full A-G required courses. DSIS doesn’t. It’s expected that students interested in UC will fill in the gaps at community college if necessary.
Here are the A-G:
Required “A-G” Courses
a History/Social Science – 2 years required
b English – 4 years required
c Mathematics – 3 years required, 4 years recommended
d Laboratory Science – 2 years required, 3 years recommended
e Language Other than English – 2 years required, 3 years recommended
f Visual and Performing Arts (VPA) – 1 year required
g College-Preparatory Electives – 1 year required
I see nothing wrong with UC modifying these. Why have a VPA requirement for UC? Why two years of foreign language? These aren’t what we think of as core curriculum. Flexibility on what is accepted as “college-preparatory electives” might enable more students to apply.
It isn’t really stunning that many high schools don’t offer the full A-G required courses. DSIS doesn’t. It’s expected that students interested in UC will fill in the gaps at community college if necessary.
Here are the A-G:
Required “A-G” Courses
a History/Social Science – 2 years required
b English – 4 years required
c Mathematics – 3 years required, 4 years recommended
d Laboratory Science – 2 years required, 3 years recommended
e Language Other than English – 2 years required, 3 years recommended
f Visual and Performing Arts (VPA) – 1 year required
g College-Preparatory Electives – 1 year required
I see nothing wrong with UC modifying these. Why have a VPA requirement for UC? Why two years of foreign language? These aren’t what we think of as core curriculum. Flexibility on what is accepted as “college-preparatory electives” might enable more students to apply.
It isn’t really stunning that many high schools don’t offer the full A-G required courses. DSIS doesn’t. It’s expected that students interested in UC will fill in the gaps at community college if necessary.
Here are the A-G:
Required “A-G” Courses
a History/Social Science – 2 years required
b English – 4 years required
c Mathematics – 3 years required, 4 years recommended
d Laboratory Science – 2 years required, 3 years recommended
e Language Other than English – 2 years required, 3 years recommended
f Visual and Performing Arts (VPA) – 1 year required
g College-Preparatory Electives – 1 year required
I see nothing wrong with UC modifying these. Why have a VPA requirement for UC? Why two years of foreign language? These aren’t what we think of as core curriculum. Flexibility on what is accepted as “college-preparatory electives” might enable more students to apply.
It isn’t really stunning that many high schools don’t offer the full A-G required courses. DSIS doesn’t. It’s expected that students interested in UC will fill in the gaps at community college if necessary.
Here are the A-G:
Required “A-G” Courses
a History/Social Science – 2 years required
b English – 4 years required
c Mathematics – 3 years required, 4 years recommended
d Laboratory Science – 2 years required, 3 years recommended
e Language Other than English – 2 years required, 3 years recommended
f Visual and Performing Arts (VPA) – 1 year required
g College-Preparatory Electives – 1 year required
I see nothing wrong with UC modifying these. Why have a VPA requirement for UC? Why two years of foreign language? These aren’t what we think of as core curriculum. Flexibility on what is accepted as “college-preparatory electives” might enable more students to apply.
The biggest problem — which is becoming more severe — is the steep increase in the cost of attending UC’s. I find it quite amazing that UC’s want to spend oodles of money on college prep outreach, while the costs for students to attend UC’s increase at more than double the rate of inflation every year. There is no doubt that the cost increases are disproportionately affecting underrepresented minorities. Yes, there are also serious problems in K-12 education in this state. Both of these problems need to be addressed.
The biggest problem — which is becoming more severe — is the steep increase in the cost of attending UC’s. I find it quite amazing that UC’s want to spend oodles of money on college prep outreach, while the costs for students to attend UC’s increase at more than double the rate of inflation every year. There is no doubt that the cost increases are disproportionately affecting underrepresented minorities. Yes, there are also serious problems in K-12 education in this state. Both of these problems need to be addressed.
The biggest problem — which is becoming more severe — is the steep increase in the cost of attending UC’s. I find it quite amazing that UC’s want to spend oodles of money on college prep outreach, while the costs for students to attend UC’s increase at more than double the rate of inflation every year. There is no doubt that the cost increases are disproportionately affecting underrepresented minorities. Yes, there are also serious problems in K-12 education in this state. Both of these problems need to be addressed.
The biggest problem — which is becoming more severe — is the steep increase in the cost of attending UC’s. I find it quite amazing that UC’s want to spend oodles of money on college prep outreach, while the costs for students to attend UC’s increase at more than double the rate of inflation every year. There is no doubt that the cost increases are disproportionately affecting underrepresented minorities. Yes, there are also serious problems in K-12 education in this state. Both of these problems need to be addressed.
Great reporting David. I don’t think people realize how behind California’s K-12 system is.
Great reporting David. I don’t think people realize how behind California’s K-12 system is.
Great reporting David. I don’t think people realize how behind California’s K-12 system is.
Great reporting David. I don’t think people realize how behind California’s K-12 system is.
As usual Greenwald has left out the very first building block in the equation, THE PARENT(S). Where are the parents of these kids who are under represented? The parent is the primary force behind the success of a child.
To put the blame on the school system and the U.C. system is again another load of crap from the Greenwalds davis vanguard. Believe it or not the state’s taxpayers are not only taxed beyond what is reasonable and the STATE aka the taxpayer is almost broke here in California. You can blame the system, but when you hear a loud pop it will be the davis vanguard pulling it’s collective head out of it’s ass and seeing where the real truth lies.
As usual Greenwald has left out the very first building block in the equation, THE PARENT(S). Where are the parents of these kids who are under represented? The parent is the primary force behind the success of a child.
To put the blame on the school system and the U.C. system is again another load of crap from the Greenwalds davis vanguard. Believe it or not the state’s taxpayers are not only taxed beyond what is reasonable and the STATE aka the taxpayer is almost broke here in California. You can blame the system, but when you hear a loud pop it will be the davis vanguard pulling it’s collective head out of it’s ass and seeing where the real truth lies.
As usual Greenwald has left out the very first building block in the equation, THE PARENT(S). Where are the parents of these kids who are under represented? The parent is the primary force behind the success of a child.
To put the blame on the school system and the U.C. system is again another load of crap from the Greenwalds davis vanguard. Believe it or not the state’s taxpayers are not only taxed beyond what is reasonable and the STATE aka the taxpayer is almost broke here in California. You can blame the system, but when you hear a loud pop it will be the davis vanguard pulling it’s collective head out of it’s ass and seeing where the real truth lies.
As usual Greenwald has left out the very first building block in the equation, THE PARENT(S). Where are the parents of these kids who are under represented? The parent is the primary force behind the success of a child.
To put the blame on the school system and the U.C. system is again another load of crap from the Greenwalds davis vanguard. Believe it or not the state’s taxpayers are not only taxed beyond what is reasonable and the STATE aka the taxpayer is almost broke here in California. You can blame the system, but when you hear a loud pop it will be the davis vanguard pulling it’s collective head out of it’s ass and seeing where the real truth lies.
Actually anon, a student’s economic background is the number one determinant of academic success.
I would say its a failure of the system if only 30% of high schools actually have the courses required to get students into a UC.
I also do not believe the vanguard is advocating a tax increase. There is lots of money in our education system, but it is not being used efficiently. Again, a systemic problem.
And you even point out the…that while the parents are ultimately responsible for the child’s success…the average California is broke, or specifically makes $36K a year and has little to no health insurance or savings. The children of these families probably have jobs which affect their grade point average and the high school they attend does not prepare them for college. There is no one solution, but fixing the quality of high school education is a good start.
But I am glad that you like to tell people to pull their heads out of their asses anonymously. Must be cool to be you.
Actually anon, a student’s economic background is the number one determinant of academic success.
I would say its a failure of the system if only 30% of high schools actually have the courses required to get students into a UC.
I also do not believe the vanguard is advocating a tax increase. There is lots of money in our education system, but it is not being used efficiently. Again, a systemic problem.
And you even point out the…that while the parents are ultimately responsible for the child’s success…the average California is broke, or specifically makes $36K a year and has little to no health insurance or savings. The children of these families probably have jobs which affect their grade point average and the high school they attend does not prepare them for college. There is no one solution, but fixing the quality of high school education is a good start.
But I am glad that you like to tell people to pull their heads out of their asses anonymously. Must be cool to be you.
Actually anon, a student’s economic background is the number one determinant of academic success.
I would say its a failure of the system if only 30% of high schools actually have the courses required to get students into a UC.
I also do not believe the vanguard is advocating a tax increase. There is lots of money in our education system, but it is not being used efficiently. Again, a systemic problem.
And you even point out the…that while the parents are ultimately responsible for the child’s success…the average California is broke, or specifically makes $36K a year and has little to no health insurance or savings. The children of these families probably have jobs which affect their grade point average and the high school they attend does not prepare them for college. There is no one solution, but fixing the quality of high school education is a good start.
But I am glad that you like to tell people to pull their heads out of their asses anonymously. Must be cool to be you.
Actually anon, a student’s economic background is the number one determinant of academic success.
I would say its a failure of the system if only 30% of high schools actually have the courses required to get students into a UC.
I also do not believe the vanguard is advocating a tax increase. There is lots of money in our education system, but it is not being used efficiently. Again, a systemic problem.
And you even point out the…that while the parents are ultimately responsible for the child’s success…the average California is broke, or specifically makes $36K a year and has little to no health insurance or savings. The children of these families probably have jobs which affect their grade point average and the high school they attend does not prepare them for college. There is no one solution, but fixing the quality of high school education is a good start.
But I am glad that you like to tell people to pull their heads out of their asses anonymously. Must be cool to be you.
“As usual Greenwald has left out the very first building block in the equation, THE PARENT(S).”
Apparently the report left it out as well, not that you read it.
BTW, when were the other times when Greenwald has left parents out of the equation.
“As usual Greenwald has left out the very first building block in the equation, THE PARENT(S).”
Apparently the report left it out as well, not that you read it.
BTW, when were the other times when Greenwald has left parents out of the equation.
“As usual Greenwald has left out the very first building block in the equation, THE PARENT(S).”
Apparently the report left it out as well, not that you read it.
BTW, when were the other times when Greenwald has left parents out of the equation.
“As usual Greenwald has left out the very first building block in the equation, THE PARENT(S).”
Apparently the report left it out as well, not that you read it.
BTW, when were the other times when Greenwald has left parents out of the equation.
the lack of diversity is a symptom of systemic problems that run society-wide. tooling with the admissions standards applies a thin layer of paint over a serious structural crack in the foundation.
tuition should be free in exchange for firm academic standards. public schools at the primary and secondary level should all offer the minimum standard for UC admission to every student in the state. the state should build new campuses at a rate that matches the rate of primary student growth. this state squanders its human resources in a manner far more profligate than any bureaucracy – public or corporate – has ever wasted money. it is a deep shame and an embarassment that our once-great public educational system has become a de facto private school for the affluent in well-funded school dictricts.
the regents have made a bad situation far worse with their tuition hikes, but you are correct that they are far from the only cause at work here.
the lack of diversity is a symptom of systemic problems that run society-wide. tooling with the admissions standards applies a thin layer of paint over a serious structural crack in the foundation.
tuition should be free in exchange for firm academic standards. public schools at the primary and secondary level should all offer the minimum standard for UC admission to every student in the state. the state should build new campuses at a rate that matches the rate of primary student growth. this state squanders its human resources in a manner far more profligate than any bureaucracy – public or corporate – has ever wasted money. it is a deep shame and an embarassment that our once-great public educational system has become a de facto private school for the affluent in well-funded school dictricts.
the regents have made a bad situation far worse with their tuition hikes, but you are correct that they are far from the only cause at work here.
the lack of diversity is a symptom of systemic problems that run society-wide. tooling with the admissions standards applies a thin layer of paint over a serious structural crack in the foundation.
tuition should be free in exchange for firm academic standards. public schools at the primary and secondary level should all offer the minimum standard for UC admission to every student in the state. the state should build new campuses at a rate that matches the rate of primary student growth. this state squanders its human resources in a manner far more profligate than any bureaucracy – public or corporate – has ever wasted money. it is a deep shame and an embarassment that our once-great public educational system has become a de facto private school for the affluent in well-funded school dictricts.
the regents have made a bad situation far worse with their tuition hikes, but you are correct that they are far from the only cause at work here.
the lack of diversity is a symptom of systemic problems that run society-wide. tooling with the admissions standards applies a thin layer of paint over a serious structural crack in the foundation.
tuition should be free in exchange for firm academic standards. public schools at the primary and secondary level should all offer the minimum standard for UC admission to every student in the state. the state should build new campuses at a rate that matches the rate of primary student growth. this state squanders its human resources in a manner far more profligate than any bureaucracy – public or corporate – has ever wasted money. it is a deep shame and an embarassment that our once-great public educational system has become a de facto private school for the affluent in well-funded school dictricts.
the regents have made a bad situation far worse with their tuition hikes, but you are correct that they are far from the only cause at work here.
“…public schools at the primary and secondary level should all offer the minimum standard for UC admission to every student in the state.”
Why? We have over a hundred community colleges in California, and 23 CSU campuses. UC’s mission is both research and teaching. Not every high school needs to graduate prepared for the University of California. I think this would muddle the mission of the UC system.
“…public schools at the primary and secondary level should all offer the minimum standard for UC admission to every student in the state.”
Why? We have over a hundred community colleges in California, and 23 CSU campuses. UC’s mission is both research and teaching. Not every high school needs to graduate prepared for the University of California. I think this would muddle the mission of the UC system.
“…public schools at the primary and secondary level should all offer the minimum standard for UC admission to every student in the state.”
Why? We have over a hundred community colleges in California, and 23 CSU campuses. UC’s mission is both research and teaching. Not every high school needs to graduate prepared for the University of California. I think this would muddle the mission of the UC system.
“…public schools at the primary and secondary level should all offer the minimum standard for UC admission to every student in the state.”
Why? We have over a hundred community colleges in California, and 23 CSU campuses. UC’s mission is both research and teaching. Not every high school needs to graduate prepared for the University of California. I think this would muddle the mission of the UC system.
“Not every high school needs to graduate”
Not every high school student needs to graduate prepared for UC.
And it isn’t realistic or necessary for that to be one of our educational goals in this state.
“Not every high school needs to graduate”
Not every high school student needs to graduate prepared for UC.
And it isn’t realistic or necessary for that to be one of our educational goals in this state.
“Not every high school needs to graduate”
Not every high school student needs to graduate prepared for UC.
And it isn’t realistic or necessary for that to be one of our educational goals in this state.
“Not every high school needs to graduate”
Not every high school student needs to graduate prepared for UC.
And it isn’t realistic or necessary for that to be one of our educational goals in this state.
Don: As I clearly indicated CSU has the same A-G requirement. I agree not every student needs to go to a UC or a CSU out high school, but I think everyone should have the courses offered to do so if that’s their goal.
Don: As I clearly indicated CSU has the same A-G requirement. I agree not every student needs to go to a UC or a CSU out high school, but I think everyone should have the courses offered to do so if that’s their goal.
Don: As I clearly indicated CSU has the same A-G requirement. I agree not every student needs to go to a UC or a CSU out high school, but I think everyone should have the courses offered to do so if that’s their goal.
Don: As I clearly indicated CSU has the same A-G requirement. I agree not every student needs to go to a UC or a CSU out high school, but I think everyone should have the courses offered to do so if that’s their goal.
“Actually anon, a student’s economic background is the number one determinant of academic success.”
This is incorrect. Look up the studies on the subject. A child of Korean heritage whose family income is lower than the poverty rate in California will enter the UC at three times the rate of a black child whose family makes double the poverty rate income. The same is true for most other Asian ethnicities.
The difference is not only broadly cultural, where some groups have a greater stress on educational achievement. The difference is also that the smartest, highest-income earning African-American and Latino families have one or two children each, while the dumbest, least educated, most dysfunctional “underrepresented minority” families have 5 or more kids each. If the reverse were true, where smart black and Latina women made lots of babies while dumb ones made few, black and Latino representation at the UC would go up dramatically.
In a sense, the inability to see this reality is due to our founding myth, “All men are created equal.” They aren’t. Some are born sharp, some are born dull. And to expect dullards to produce and raise sharp kids is folly.
“Actually anon, a student’s economic background is the number one determinant of academic success.”
This is incorrect. Look up the studies on the subject. A child of Korean heritage whose family income is lower than the poverty rate in California will enter the UC at three times the rate of a black child whose family makes double the poverty rate income. The same is true for most other Asian ethnicities.
The difference is not only broadly cultural, where some groups have a greater stress on educational achievement. The difference is also that the smartest, highest-income earning African-American and Latino families have one or two children each, while the dumbest, least educated, most dysfunctional “underrepresented minority” families have 5 or more kids each. If the reverse were true, where smart black and Latina women made lots of babies while dumb ones made few, black and Latino representation at the UC would go up dramatically.
In a sense, the inability to see this reality is due to our founding myth, “All men are created equal.” They aren’t. Some are born sharp, some are born dull. And to expect dullards to produce and raise sharp kids is folly.
“Actually anon, a student’s economic background is the number one determinant of academic success.”
This is incorrect. Look up the studies on the subject. A child of Korean heritage whose family income is lower than the poverty rate in California will enter the UC at three times the rate of a black child whose family makes double the poverty rate income. The same is true for most other Asian ethnicities.
The difference is not only broadly cultural, where some groups have a greater stress on educational achievement. The difference is also that the smartest, highest-income earning African-American and Latino families have one or two children each, while the dumbest, least educated, most dysfunctional “underrepresented minority” families have 5 or more kids each. If the reverse were true, where smart black and Latina women made lots of babies while dumb ones made few, black and Latino representation at the UC would go up dramatically.
In a sense, the inability to see this reality is due to our founding myth, “All men are created equal.” They aren’t. Some are born sharp, some are born dull. And to expect dullards to produce and raise sharp kids is folly.
“Actually anon, a student’s economic background is the number one determinant of academic success.”
This is incorrect. Look up the studies on the subject. A child of Korean heritage whose family income is lower than the poverty rate in California will enter the UC at three times the rate of a black child whose family makes double the poverty rate income. The same is true for most other Asian ethnicities.
The difference is not only broadly cultural, where some groups have a greater stress on educational achievement. The difference is also that the smartest, highest-income earning African-American and Latino families have one or two children each, while the dumbest, least educated, most dysfunctional “underrepresented minority” families have 5 or more kids each. If the reverse were true, where smart black and Latina women made lots of babies while dumb ones made few, black and Latino representation at the UC would go up dramatically.
In a sense, the inability to see this reality is due to our founding myth, “All men are created equal.” They aren’t. Some are born sharp, some are born dull. And to expect dullards to produce and raise sharp kids is folly.
Anon-
The number one factor across the board is economic background. The second is cultural background.
If you only examine economic class, students from lower economic backgrounds perform at a lower level. If you factor in race, white and asian students perform better over black and latino students, regardless of economic status. In other words even in higher income brackets, high income white and asian students perform better than high income black and latino students.
And you are coming out of left field saying that families with five kids are dumb.
Also the phrase “all men are created equal” is meant to create context, as in everyone should be given an equal opportunity to succeed and not be prejudged.
DON-
So how should California choose which schools should have A-G and which should not?
Anon-
The number one factor across the board is economic background. The second is cultural background.
If you only examine economic class, students from lower economic backgrounds perform at a lower level. If you factor in race, white and asian students perform better over black and latino students, regardless of economic status. In other words even in higher income brackets, high income white and asian students perform better than high income black and latino students.
And you are coming out of left field saying that families with five kids are dumb.
Also the phrase “all men are created equal” is meant to create context, as in everyone should be given an equal opportunity to succeed and not be prejudged.
DON-
So how should California choose which schools should have A-G and which should not?
Anon-
The number one factor across the board is economic background. The second is cultural background.
If you only examine economic class, students from lower economic backgrounds perform at a lower level. If you factor in race, white and asian students perform better over black and latino students, regardless of economic status. In other words even in higher income brackets, high income white and asian students perform better than high income black and latino students.
And you are coming out of left field saying that families with five kids are dumb.
Also the phrase “all men are created equal” is meant to create context, as in everyone should be given an equal opportunity to succeed and not be prejudged.
DON-
So how should California choose which schools should have A-G and which should not?
Anon-
The number one factor across the board is economic background. The second is cultural background.
If you only examine economic class, students from lower economic backgrounds perform at a lower level. If you factor in race, white and asian students perform better over black and latino students, regardless of economic status. In other words even in higher income brackets, high income white and asian students perform better than high income black and latino students.
And you are coming out of left field saying that families with five kids are dumb.
Also the phrase “all men are created equal” is meant to create context, as in everyone should be given an equal opportunity to succeed and not be prejudged.
DON-
So how should California choose which schools should have A-G and which should not?
“And to expect dullards to produce and raise sharp kids is folly. “
What is this elitist crap?
“And to expect dullards to produce and raise sharp kids is folly. “
What is this elitist crap?
“And to expect dullards to produce and raise sharp kids is folly. “
What is this elitist crap?
“And to expect dullards to produce and raise sharp kids is folly. “
What is this elitist crap?
Project America, a non-partisan education NGO did a study that demonstrated that schools are the PRIMARY factor in education success. Teacher involvement and motivation along with admininstrative leadership led to decidedly different outcomes with the other factors constant. Parents and family were not the determinative factor. Our own Valley Oak Elementary fit in quite well with Project America’s findings.
Project America, a non-partisan education NGO did a study that demonstrated that schools are the PRIMARY factor in education success. Teacher involvement and motivation along with admininstrative leadership led to decidedly different outcomes with the other factors constant. Parents and family were not the determinative factor. Our own Valley Oak Elementary fit in quite well with Project America’s findings.
Project America, a non-partisan education NGO did a study that demonstrated that schools are the PRIMARY factor in education success. Teacher involvement and motivation along with admininstrative leadership led to decidedly different outcomes with the other factors constant. Parents and family were not the determinative factor. Our own Valley Oak Elementary fit in quite well with Project America’s findings.
Project America, a non-partisan education NGO did a study that demonstrated that schools are the PRIMARY factor in education success. Teacher involvement and motivation along with admininstrative leadership led to decidedly different outcomes with the other factors constant. Parents and family were not the determinative factor. Our own Valley Oak Elementary fit in quite well with Project America’s findings.
“DON-
So how should California choose which schools should have A-G and which should not?”
The school boards choose how to use their resources. About 1/3 of high school students don’t even get a high school diploma. More than 40% of Latino and African-American high school students fail to graduate. School districts may choose to re-direct resources from college prep classes to make the high school years more useful to these students. It doesn’t make much sense to invest in VPA and foreign language training for students who aren’t even getting a diploma. If you’re choosing how to use finite resources, a local school board could reasonably decide that vocational and tech courses might be more appropriate. That would be a local decision.
“DON-
So how should California choose which schools should have A-G and which should not?”
The school boards choose how to use their resources. About 1/3 of high school students don’t even get a high school diploma. More than 40% of Latino and African-American high school students fail to graduate. School districts may choose to re-direct resources from college prep classes to make the high school years more useful to these students. It doesn’t make much sense to invest in VPA and foreign language training for students who aren’t even getting a diploma. If you’re choosing how to use finite resources, a local school board could reasonably decide that vocational and tech courses might be more appropriate. That would be a local decision.
“DON-
So how should California choose which schools should have A-G and which should not?”
The school boards choose how to use their resources. About 1/3 of high school students don’t even get a high school diploma. More than 40% of Latino and African-American high school students fail to graduate. School districts may choose to re-direct resources from college prep classes to make the high school years more useful to these students. It doesn’t make much sense to invest in VPA and foreign language training for students who aren’t even getting a diploma. If you’re choosing how to use finite resources, a local school board could reasonably decide that vocational and tech courses might be more appropriate. That would be a local decision.
“DON-
So how should California choose which schools should have A-G and which should not?”
The school boards choose how to use their resources. About 1/3 of high school students don’t even get a high school diploma. More than 40% of Latino and African-American high school students fail to graduate. School districts may choose to re-direct resources from college prep classes to make the high school years more useful to these students. It doesn’t make much sense to invest in VPA and foreign language training for students who aren’t even getting a diploma. If you’re choosing how to use finite resources, a local school board could reasonably decide that vocational and tech courses might be more appropriate. That would be a local decision.
And, I repeat, Davis School for Independent Study, which is a fully accredited school in DJUSD, does not have a full UC A-G course offering. There can be any number of reasons a school doesn’t. When I was on the site council at DSIS we brought it up each year, but the district didn’t have the resources to provide lab science or VPA courses. DSIS students get those elsewhere.
If UC simply eliminated f (VPA) and g (college-prep electives) it might expand the number, and wouldn’t necessarily diminish the quality, of potential applicants.
And, I repeat, Davis School for Independent Study, which is a fully accredited school in DJUSD, does not have a full UC A-G course offering. There can be any number of reasons a school doesn’t. When I was on the site council at DSIS we brought it up each year, but the district didn’t have the resources to provide lab science or VPA courses. DSIS students get those elsewhere.
If UC simply eliminated f (VPA) and g (college-prep electives) it might expand the number, and wouldn’t necessarily diminish the quality, of potential applicants.
And, I repeat, Davis School for Independent Study, which is a fully accredited school in DJUSD, does not have a full UC A-G course offering. There can be any number of reasons a school doesn’t. When I was on the site council at DSIS we brought it up each year, but the district didn’t have the resources to provide lab science or VPA courses. DSIS students get those elsewhere.
If UC simply eliminated f (VPA) and g (college-prep electives) it might expand the number, and wouldn’t necessarily diminish the quality, of potential applicants.
And, I repeat, Davis School for Independent Study, which is a fully accredited school in DJUSD, does not have a full UC A-G course offering. There can be any number of reasons a school doesn’t. When I was on the site council at DSIS we brought it up each year, but the district didn’t have the resources to provide lab science or VPA courses. DSIS students get those elsewhere.
If UC simply eliminated f (VPA) and g (college-prep electives) it might expand the number, and wouldn’t necessarily diminish the quality, of potential applicants.
“The number one factor across the board is economic background. The second is cultural background. If you only examine economic class, students from lower economic backgrounds perform at a lower level.”
There is no academic data I know of (this is my field of study) which supports your contention.
Consider SAT scores: whites from the lowest economic stratum perform lower than whites from the next highest stratum, who are lower than whites from the next highest stratum and so on all the way up the economic ladder. In other words, for whites, higher income correlates with higher SAT scores (and educational success). The same is true for blacks, Hispanics and Asians in the United States.
However, the lowest income stratum of whites has a higher mean SAT score than the highest income stratum of blacks. In other words, no matter how poor the whites are, they outscore blacks as a group on the SAT.
On the math portion of the SAT, Asians outscore whites at all equivalent incomes. However, the middle and upper income whites outscore the lower income Asians. Thus, while Asian-Americans are higher performers on these tests (and in the classroom in general), the difference between them and whites is partially explained by income and partially explained by racial/cultural/ethnic factors.
“The number one factor across the board is economic background. The second is cultural background. If you only examine economic class, students from lower economic backgrounds perform at a lower level.”
There is no academic data I know of (this is my field of study) which supports your contention.
Consider SAT scores: whites from the lowest economic stratum perform lower than whites from the next highest stratum, who are lower than whites from the next highest stratum and so on all the way up the economic ladder. In other words, for whites, higher income correlates with higher SAT scores (and educational success). The same is true for blacks, Hispanics and Asians in the United States.
However, the lowest income stratum of whites has a higher mean SAT score than the highest income stratum of blacks. In other words, no matter how poor the whites are, they outscore blacks as a group on the SAT.
On the math portion of the SAT, Asians outscore whites at all equivalent incomes. However, the middle and upper income whites outscore the lower income Asians. Thus, while Asian-Americans are higher performers on these tests (and in the classroom in general), the difference between them and whites is partially explained by income and partially explained by racial/cultural/ethnic factors.
“The number one factor across the board is economic background. The second is cultural background. If you only examine economic class, students from lower economic backgrounds perform at a lower level.”
There is no academic data I know of (this is my field of study) which supports your contention.
Consider SAT scores: whites from the lowest economic stratum perform lower than whites from the next highest stratum, who are lower than whites from the next highest stratum and so on all the way up the economic ladder. In other words, for whites, higher income correlates with higher SAT scores (and educational success). The same is true for blacks, Hispanics and Asians in the United States.
However, the lowest income stratum of whites has a higher mean SAT score than the highest income stratum of blacks. In other words, no matter how poor the whites are, they outscore blacks as a group on the SAT.
On the math portion of the SAT, Asians outscore whites at all equivalent incomes. However, the middle and upper income whites outscore the lower income Asians. Thus, while Asian-Americans are higher performers on these tests (and in the classroom in general), the difference between them and whites is partially explained by income and partially explained by racial/cultural/ethnic factors.
“The number one factor across the board is economic background. The second is cultural background. If you only examine economic class, students from lower economic backgrounds perform at a lower level.”
There is no academic data I know of (this is my field of study) which supports your contention.
Consider SAT scores: whites from the lowest economic stratum perform lower than whites from the next highest stratum, who are lower than whites from the next highest stratum and so on all the way up the economic ladder. In other words, for whites, higher income correlates with higher SAT scores (and educational success). The same is true for blacks, Hispanics and Asians in the United States.
However, the lowest income stratum of whites has a higher mean SAT score than the highest income stratum of blacks. In other words, no matter how poor the whites are, they outscore blacks as a group on the SAT.
On the math portion of the SAT, Asians outscore whites at all equivalent incomes. However, the middle and upper income whites outscore the lower income Asians. Thus, while Asian-Americans are higher performers on these tests (and in the classroom in general), the difference between them and whites is partially explained by income and partially explained by racial/cultural/ethnic factors.
And that squares with what happens with Davis schools where you see even among wealthy and/ or college educated parents blacks, they fare worse than whites with the same levels of wealth or education by their parents. Most believe that demonstrates a racial problem that still permeates society. What evidence do you have that there is some kind of cultural explanation at work here?
And that squares with what happens with Davis schools where you see even among wealthy and/ or college educated parents blacks, they fare worse than whites with the same levels of wealth or education by their parents. Most believe that demonstrates a racial problem that still permeates society. What evidence do you have that there is some kind of cultural explanation at work here?
And that squares with what happens with Davis schools where you see even among wealthy and/ or college educated parents blacks, they fare worse than whites with the same levels of wealth or education by their parents. Most believe that demonstrates a racial problem that still permeates society. What evidence do you have that there is some kind of cultural explanation at work here?
And that squares with what happens with Davis schools where you see even among wealthy and/ or college educated parents blacks, they fare worse than whites with the same levels of wealth or education by their parents. Most believe that demonstrates a racial problem that still permeates society. What evidence do you have that there is some kind of cultural explanation at work here?
Anon 5:13:
Maybe I phrased it wrong or maybe I am misunderstanding you, but your data is what I agree with and was asserting.
To elaborate if you only look at economic background and not race…the higher the economic background the better the performance. But, once you factor in race you find the interesting situations you point out. That white and asian students perform better than latino or black students even in equal, higher economic classes.
I don’t think we’re in disagreement.
Anon 5:13:
Maybe I phrased it wrong or maybe I am misunderstanding you, but your data is what I agree with and was asserting.
To elaborate if you only look at economic background and not race…the higher the economic background the better the performance. But, once you factor in race you find the interesting situations you point out. That white and asian students perform better than latino or black students even in equal, higher economic classes.
I don’t think we’re in disagreement.
Anon 5:13:
Maybe I phrased it wrong or maybe I am misunderstanding you, but your data is what I agree with and was asserting.
To elaborate if you only look at economic background and not race…the higher the economic background the better the performance. But, once you factor in race you find the interesting situations you point out. That white and asian students perform better than latino or black students even in equal, higher economic classes.
I don’t think we’re in disagreement.
Anon 5:13:
Maybe I phrased it wrong or maybe I am misunderstanding you, but your data is what I agree with and was asserting.
To elaborate if you only look at economic background and not race…the higher the economic background the better the performance. But, once you factor in race you find the interesting situations you point out. That white and asian students perform better than latino or black students even in equal, higher economic classes.
I don’t think we’re in disagreement.
“Most believe that demonstrates a racial problem that still permeates society.”
That could be part of the explanation. It is interesting that regardless of income there is one substantial immigrant group which bests all Asian subgroups on the math portion of the SAT: black African immigrants. It’s hard to say what that means, because black African immigrants who take the SAT are not randomly selected. That is, the brainiest Africans are leaving their countries to come to the United States; and the smartest among them are attending our colleges and universities. The same trend holds among black Caribbean immigrants, though the numbers are not as dramatic.
“Most believe that demonstrates a racial problem that still permeates society.”
That could be part of the explanation. It is interesting that regardless of income there is one substantial immigrant group which bests all Asian subgroups on the math portion of the SAT: black African immigrants. It’s hard to say what that means, because black African immigrants who take the SAT are not randomly selected. That is, the brainiest Africans are leaving their countries to come to the United States; and the smartest among them are attending our colleges and universities. The same trend holds among black Caribbean immigrants, though the numbers are not as dramatic.
“Most believe that demonstrates a racial problem that still permeates society.”
That could be part of the explanation. It is interesting that regardless of income there is one substantial immigrant group which bests all Asian subgroups on the math portion of the SAT: black African immigrants. It’s hard to say what that means, because black African immigrants who take the SAT are not randomly selected. That is, the brainiest Africans are leaving their countries to come to the United States; and the smartest among them are attending our colleges and universities. The same trend holds among black Caribbean immigrants, though the numbers are not as dramatic.
“Most believe that demonstrates a racial problem that still permeates society.”
That could be part of the explanation. It is interesting that regardless of income there is one substantial immigrant group which bests all Asian subgroups on the math portion of the SAT: black African immigrants. It’s hard to say what that means, because black African immigrants who take the SAT are not randomly selected. That is, the brainiest Africans are leaving their countries to come to the United States; and the smartest among them are attending our colleges and universities. The same trend holds among black Caribbean immigrants, though the numbers are not as dramatic.
From a National perspective, UC schools are quite diverse. If anything, Asians are probably over-represented in the student population, particular in the graduate population. Does anyone fault Asians for this? I sure don’t, but what do I know? I’m just an “angry white male crusader bigot”.
What I’m tired of is the “minority” student who drives a new BMW to campus and then spends his taxpayer funded financial aid grant checks at Cache Creek casino. Meanwhile, his Mommy and Daddy evade taxes altogether through their cash business. Don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen because I know two recent UCD graduates who independently know of many examples of this.
Perhaps we should scrutinize more over the “diversity” of the Davis public school system. Patwin is as good example as any (http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/ca/other/7794#students):
Ethnicity This School State Average
White, not Hispanic 65% 29%
Hispanic or Latino 15% 48%
Asian 12% 8%
African American, not Hispanic 4% 8%
American Indian or Alaska Native 2% <1%
Multiple or No Response 1% 3%
Filipino <1% 3%
Pacific Islander <1% <1%
Incidentally, Cesar Chavez is not much different.
Perhaps the Davis school system should unify with Woodland’s for sake of diversity (I can hear the roars of Davis soccer Mom’s all the way to Woodland). The hypocrisy in Davis is almost unbearable.
From a National perspective, UC schools are quite diverse. If anything, Asians are probably over-represented in the student population, particular in the graduate population. Does anyone fault Asians for this? I sure don’t, but what do I know? I’m just an “angry white male crusader bigot”.
What I’m tired of is the “minority” student who drives a new BMW to campus and then spends his taxpayer funded financial aid grant checks at Cache Creek casino. Meanwhile, his Mommy and Daddy evade taxes altogether through their cash business. Don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen because I know two recent UCD graduates who independently know of many examples of this.
Perhaps we should scrutinize more over the “diversity” of the Davis public school system. Patwin is as good example as any (http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/ca/other/7794#students):
Ethnicity This School State Average
White, not Hispanic 65% 29%
Hispanic or Latino 15% 48%
Asian 12% 8%
African American, not Hispanic 4% 8%
American Indian or Alaska Native 2% <1%
Multiple or No Response 1% 3%
Filipino <1% 3%
Pacific Islander <1% <1%
Incidentally, Cesar Chavez is not much different.
Perhaps the Davis school system should unify with Woodland’s for sake of diversity (I can hear the roars of Davis soccer Mom’s all the way to Woodland). The hypocrisy in Davis is almost unbearable.
From a National perspective, UC schools are quite diverse. If anything, Asians are probably over-represented in the student population, particular in the graduate population. Does anyone fault Asians for this? I sure don’t, but what do I know? I’m just an “angry white male crusader bigot”.
What I’m tired of is the “minority” student who drives a new BMW to campus and then spends his taxpayer funded financial aid grant checks at Cache Creek casino. Meanwhile, his Mommy and Daddy evade taxes altogether through their cash business. Don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen because I know two recent UCD graduates who independently know of many examples of this.
Perhaps we should scrutinize more over the “diversity” of the Davis public school system. Patwin is as good example as any (http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/ca/other/7794#students):
Ethnicity This School State Average
White, not Hispanic 65% 29%
Hispanic or Latino 15% 48%
Asian 12% 8%
African American, not Hispanic 4% 8%
American Indian or Alaska Native 2% <1%
Multiple or No Response 1% 3%
Filipino <1% 3%
Pacific Islander <1% <1%
Incidentally, Cesar Chavez is not much different.
Perhaps the Davis school system should unify with Woodland’s for sake of diversity (I can hear the roars of Davis soccer Mom’s all the way to Woodland). The hypocrisy in Davis is almost unbearable.
From a National perspective, UC schools are quite diverse. If anything, Asians are probably over-represented in the student population, particular in the graduate population. Does anyone fault Asians for this? I sure don’t, but what do I know? I’m just an “angry white male crusader bigot”.
What I’m tired of is the “minority” student who drives a new BMW to campus and then spends his taxpayer funded financial aid grant checks at Cache Creek casino. Meanwhile, his Mommy and Daddy evade taxes altogether through their cash business. Don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen because I know two recent UCD graduates who independently know of many examples of this.
Perhaps we should scrutinize more over the “diversity” of the Davis public school system. Patwin is as good example as any (http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/ca/other/7794#students):
Ethnicity This School State Average
White, not Hispanic 65% 29%
Hispanic or Latino 15% 48%
Asian 12% 8%
African American, not Hispanic 4% 8%
American Indian or Alaska Native 2% <1%
Multiple or No Response 1% 3%
Filipino <1% 3%
Pacific Islander <1% <1%
Incidentally, Cesar Chavez is not much different.
Perhaps the Davis school system should unify with Woodland’s for sake of diversity (I can hear the roars of Davis soccer Mom’s all the way to Woodland). The hypocrisy in Davis is almost unbearable.