Editorial in the Los Angeles Times (not a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy).
Man has spirit:
“We will spend almost $400 million on TAs next year,” he said. “I equate it to an office supply business that chooses to continue to invest in manual typewriters.”
Long, interesting post with numbers and statistics. Bottom line:
I am deeply skeptical of the notion that racial discrimination explains much of the differences in outcomes here, particularly when we observe such vast differences in strong predictors like single-motherhood and see similar patterns with other racial-ethnic groups (even when it works against whites, as in the case of “asians”). Now it may be that single-motherhood is operating mostly as a proxy for other differences, but there is some evidence that it is more than that (or see here for more info). Regardless, it seems unreasonable to leap to the assumption that differences in outcomes are the fault of racism on the part of teachers, administrators, and the like when we have good evidence that the outcomes can be mostlyexplained with readily available observables like this (even more so when it’s quite widely known that there are substantial statistical differences in behaviors between groups today).
Number 9 and 29 reflect hard-won experience. Number 24 made me laugh.
"But if KIPP is so bad, what does that say about the thousands of poor minority parents who voluntarily sign up for KIPP?"
A reasonable list.
You can't make this stuff up:
Though an author of 12 books with titles such as Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism and her memoir Manmade Breast Cancers, Eisenstein has never worked in or studied agriculture. The professor explained that she was speaking as part of a seminar series on women in agriculture by stating, “[m]y point here is you’re thinking agriculture and I’m thinking capitalist racialized patriarchy.”
Link courtesy of Jon R.
"A Modest Proposal for Making College Admissions More Fair: Remove Subjectivity and the Glitzy Foofaraw"
This is so right.
Essays, portfolios, resumes, and other features of the more highly favored "holistic" admissions process, on the other hand, are incredibly subjective. And trust me: The more subjective a requirement is, the more easily it can be gamed by ambitious parents with a lot of money to spend. A student who attends a full course of SAT prep with me is still, ultimately, on his own when the day of the test arrives; I can't take the test for him or whisper sweet mathematical formulae in his ear. A student who comes to me for help with the Common Application Essay, meanwhile, has access to my advice and my editor's pen from the outline all the way to the final draft. I don't write the essay for him, mind, but the product that results doesn't really reflect the student's native writing talent; it is, instead, an amalgam of his talent and mine. In short? This latter assessment turns out to be more coachable than our hated standardized tests.
Watch out, Higher Education, the times they are a-changin'.
In a pilot project announced Wednesday, students will be able to take a semester of free online courses in one of MIT's graduate programs and then, if they pay a "modest fee" of about $1,500 and pass an exam, they will earn a MicroMaster's credential, the school said.
One on a good reform: "Why Liberals Should to Learn to Love Charter Schools".
One on a not-so-good reform: "Questioning the Common Core". (By Frederick Hess, calm and balanced.)