Please tell me about your A student's experience at Wilson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Physician here...family psychosocial risk factors and the child's social and emotional development are more predictive of school success than academic milestones. This is from an article in the journal Pediatrics, 2008. Racism, family turmoil, and generational poverty are probable causes for psychosocial damage in many poor AA families in the District and may even effect families who have gone up the economic ladder over the course of generations. Most AA do not have generational wealth. Therefore, AA families who are now middle and upper middle class may still see academic differences from their white counterparts. It is not as simple as SAT scores.

This.

[Anonymous]

I think the problem is that on average black students lag white students pretty significantly by a variety of measures, even when social scientists account for most of the obvious factors. (Obviously that's only on average, because individual students perform better or worse, and aren't defined by averages.)

Most people believe that race cannot be the factor that causes low performance, so we are looking for the other X factor that's causing lower performance. But identifying that X factor has proven difficult. The economist thinks it's an economic factor; the physician thinks it's a "psychosocial" factor; I'm sure six other disciplines would finger six other factors.

My personal view is that there's no single X factor any longer. We started with the stain of slavery here in the United States, and then shifted to many decades of discriminatory practices. Similar discrimination and mistreatment occurred over many generations throughout the European world. As a result, the black population as a whole faces several problems that other races have avoided: lower income, higher crime rates, less stable families and social structures, less emphasis on education, etc. Indeed, some people have even suggested that under slavery, certain genetic traits were encouraged or discouraged, which inherently changed the characteristics of the average black population. It seems to me that those many generations of discriminatory treatment introduced several different X factors into the black population that all combine in ways we cannot fully understand, but which that make it very hard to change the course of the population. And even after all the obvious impediments to success are removed (such as overt discrimination, or economic insecurity, or environmental factors), the black population still struggles to achieve the same success as other racial populations. That's not because the black population is inherently less capable, but rather because many generations of discrimination got is all screwed up. So change is happening, but very very slowly.

Sorry to go off on such a tangent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economist here. COntrolling for income in these studies is probably inadequate, as wealth may be more important than income in determining where a family can buy a house, what opportunities they have etc. An AA and a white family with similar incomes may have very different wealth levels. If you control for family wealth, the test score gap tends to go away. (See Conley, "Being Black, Living in the Red"; Thomas and Shapiro, "Black Welath, White Wealth")

NP. I just skimmed the Conley piece, and while it has interesting discussions of the wealth gap, I did not see anything about correlations between income, wealth, and academic test scores.

To be clear, my working assumption too is that skin color and racial heritage are just meaningless cosmetic elements, and so have no causal relationship with academics and intelligence, and that any seeming correlation must result from some other independent variable or other such indirect factor. But your cited sources don't seem to rebut PP's articles and statistics that suggest race is correlated to poor academic results.

And, citing books as sources is a very poor form of scholarship. If PP is claiming science proves XYZ, show us the recent studies in PubMed. Otherwise, let's all just talk about opinions -- and my opinions are as valid as PP's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am AA and in-bounds for Deal and Wilson and didn't even consider them for my boys. Not a single one of my AA friends sent their sons to Wilson, for many of the reasons identified in this thread. All went to private.

And what do those who cannot afford private schools do ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that on average black students lag white students pretty significantly by a variety of measures, even when social scientists account for most of the obvious factors. (Obviously that's only on average, because individual students perform better or worse, and aren't defined by averages.)

Most people believe that race cannot be the factor that causes low performance, so we are looking for the other X factor that's causing lower performance. But identifying that X factor has proven difficult. The economist thinks it's an economic factor; the physician thinks it's a "psychosocial" factor; I'm sure six other disciplines would finger six other factors.

My personal view is that there's no single X factor any longer. We started with the stain of slavery here in the United States, and then shifted to many decades of discriminatory practices. Similar discrimination and mistreatment occurred over many generations throughout the European world. As a result, the black population as a whole faces several problems that other races have avoided: lower income, higher crime rates, less stable families and social structures, less emphasis on education, etc. Indeed, some people have even suggested that under slavery, certain genetic traits were encouraged or discouraged, which inherently changed the characteristics of the average black population. It seems to me that those many generations of discriminatory treatment introduced several different X factors into the black population that all combine in ways we cannot fully understand, but which that make it very hard to change the course of the population. And even after all the obvious impediments to success are removed (such as overt discrimination, or economic insecurity, or environmental factors), the black population still struggles to achieve the same success as other racial populations. That's not because the black population is inherently less capable, but rather because many generations of discrimination got is all screwed up. So change is happening, but very very slowly.

Sorry to go off on such a tangent.

There may be a valid point in your tangent. But the irony in what you're saying is that when you believe in all these inherent factors, you're less likely to believe in - or even be aware of - other factors that impact achievement. Your own unconscious bias shows in your word choice (Other races have avoided low income and high crime - really?) and there's no way to measure how that affects a student when it's held by teachers and peers, but there's no doubt that it does.

What I find most interesting about your post is the thing that's at the crux of the problem but most often ignored: you think black people have to change, but no one else does.

At a minimum, I don't want my AA kid in a classroom with anyone who thinks the way you do. That's what's so hard to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that on average black students lag white students pretty significantly by a variety of measures, even when social scientists account for most of the obvious factors. (Obviously that's only on average, because individual students perform better or worse, and aren't defined by averages.)

Most people believe that race cannot be the factor that causes low performance, so we are looking for the other X factor that's causing lower performance. But identifying that X factor has proven difficult. The economist thinks it's an economic factor; the physician thinks it's a "psychosocial" factor; I'm sure six other disciplines would finger six other factors.

My personal view is that there's no single X factor any longer. We started with the stain of slavery here in the United States, and then shifted to many decades of discriminatory practices. Similar discrimination and mistreatment occurred over many generations throughout the European world. As a result, the black population as a whole faces several problems that other races have avoided: lower income, higher crime rates, less stable families and social structures, less emphasis on education, etc. Indeed, some people have even suggested that under slavery, certain genetic traits were encouraged or discouraged, which inherently changed the characteristics of the average black population. It seems to me that those many generations of discriminatory treatment introduced several different X factors into the black population that all combine in ways we cannot fully understand, but which that make it very hard to change the course of the population. And even after all the obvious impediments to success are removed (such as overt discrimination, or economic insecurity, or environmental factors), the black population still struggles to achieve the same success as other racial populations. That's not because the black population is inherently less capable, but rather because many generations of discrimination got is all screwed up. So change is happening, but very very slowly.

Sorry to go off on such a tangent.

You are a true idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economist here. COntrolling for income in these studies is probably inadequate, as wealth may be more important than income in determining where a family can buy a house, what opportunities they have etc. An AA and a white family with similar incomes may have very different wealth levels. If you control for family wealth, the test score gap tends to go away. (See Conley, "Being Black, Living in the Red"; Thomas and Shapiro, "Black Welath, White Wealth")

NP. I just skimmed the Conley piece, and while it has interesting discussions of the wealth gap, I did not see anything about correlations between income, wealth, and academic test scores.

To be clear, my working assumption too is that skin color and racial heritage are just meaningless cosmetic elements, and so have no causal relationship with academics and intelligence, and that any seeming correlation must result from some other independent variable or other such indirect factor. But your cited sources don't seem to rebut PP's articles and statistics that suggest race is correlated to poor academic results.

And, citing books as sources is a very poor form of scholarship. If PP is claiming science proves XYZ, show us the recent studies in PubMed. Otherwise, let's all just talk about opinions -- and my opinions are as valid as PP's.

Are you kidding me? Conley is the head of the Center for Sociology at NYU and Melvin Oliver is an economics professor and is now the Dean of Social Sciencrs at UCSanta Barbara. Economists and sociologists do most of the work on this topic. Our work doesn:t get indexed in Pubmed. The PP who claimed to have skimed Conleys piece obviously missed the tables that illustrated my point

If you want studies published in journals see

Orr, Sociology of Education, 2003
Rothstein and Wozny, Journal of Human Resources, 2013

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am AA and in-bounds for Deal and Wilson and didn't even consider them for my boys. Not a single one of my AA friends sent their sons to Wilson, for many of the reasons identified in this thread. All went to private.

And what do those who cannot afford private schools do ?

BASIS DC

[Anonymous]

DC Prep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economist here. COntrolling for income in these studies is probably inadequate, as wealth may be more important than income in determining where a family can buy a house, what opportunities they have etc. An AA and a white family with similar incomes may have very different wealth levels. If you control for family wealth, the test score gap tends to go away. (See Conley, "Being Black, Living in the Red"; Thomas and Shapiro, "Black Welath, White Wealth")

NP. I just skimmed the Conley piece, and while it has interesting discussions of the wealth gap, I did not see anything about correlations between income, wealth, and academic test scores.

To be clear, my working assumption too is that skin color and racial heritage are just meaningless cosmetic elements, and so have no causal relationship with academics and intelligence, and that any seeming correlation must result from some other independent variable or other such indirect factor. But your cited sources don't seem to rebut PP's articles and statistics that suggest race is correlated to poor academic results.

And, citing books as sources is a very poor form of scholarship. If PP is claiming science proves XYZ, show us the recent studies in PubMed. Otherwise, let's all just talk about opinions -- and my opinions are as valid as PP's.

Are you kidding me? Conley is the head of the Center for Sociology at NYU and Melvin Oliver is an economics professor and is now the Dean of Social Sciencrs at UCSanta Barbara. Economists and sociologists do most of the work on this topic. Our work doesn:t get indexed in Pubmed. The PP who claimed to have skimed Conleys piece obviously missed the tables that illustrated my point

If you want studies published in journals see

Orr, Sociology of Education, 2003
Rothstein and Wozny, Journal of Human Resources, 2013

I see. Blah blah this, blah blah that.

Science is not what some pseudo-scientists say. Science is what get done and published following the scientific method.

You may have observed that RCTs are being deployed in more and more disciplines, and for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economist here. COntrolling for income in these studies is probably inadequate, as wealth may be more important than income in determining where a family can buy a house, what opportunities they have etc. An AA and a white family with similar incomes may have very different wealth levels. If you control for family wealth, the test score gap tends to go away. (See Conley, "Being Black, Living in the Red"; Thomas and Shapiro, "Black Welath, White Wealth")

NP. I just skimmed the Conley piece, and while it has interesting discussions of the wealth gap, I did not see anything about correlations between income, wealth, and academic test scores.

To be clear, my working assumption too is that skin color and racial heritage are just meaningless cosmetic elements, and so have no causal relationship with academics and intelligence, and that any seeming correlation must result from some other independent variable or other such indirect factor. But your cited sources don't seem to rebut PP's articles and statistics that suggest race is correlated to poor academic results.

And, citing books as sources is a very poor form of scholarship. If PP is claiming science proves XYZ, show us the recent studies in PubMed. Otherwise, let's all just talk about opinions -- and my opinions are as valid as PP's.

Are you kidding me? Conley is the head of the Center for Sociology at NYU and Melvin Oliver is an economics professor and is now the Dean of Social Sciencrs at UCSanta Barbara. Economists and sociologists do most of the work on this topic. Our work doesn:t get indexed in Pubmed. The PP who claimed to have skimed Conleys piece obviously missed the tables that illustrated my point

If you want studies published in journals see

Orr, Sociology of Education, 2003
Rothstein and Wozny, Journal of Human Resources, 2013

I see. Blah blah this, blah blah that.

Science is not what some pseudo-scientists say. Science is what get done and published following the scientific method.

You may have observed that RCTs are being deployed in more and more disciplines, and for a reason.

It is illegal to put randomly put kids in different schools and families, so RCT isn't really a possibility for the social sciences. Instead, we use the law of large numbers and multivariate regression to control for alternative hypotheses. The fact that you (what, a biologist at NIH or something?) don't understand the math doesn't make a study invalid.

[Anonymous]

Wilson is two schools and if you want to join the success track you have to attend class (be on time) and actually do some work. If you do you'll way over college as colleges are looking for kids from Wilson who can walk and chew gum and this includes white and black kids. Many white kids find themselves poorly served by Wilson for the same reason many of the Black students fail. They refuse. They don't attend school and they don't put forth any effort.