Regarding educational achievement, genetic influence explains around ~60% of the variance in Western countries. The underachievement of blacks still continues even for the most recent generation. So parents have a Western education and yet the gap still doesn't move much...Yes it isn't all that surprising that you are still confused. You are still focused on per pupil spending when I have just told you twice that by the time a child reaches school it is often way too late.
lol Well, it's a common grievance, so what can I say? Even motherjones pointed out how exaggerated it is.Haha. I knew you'd chomp right down on the hyperbolic position I put forward and dispute it with a willful desire to ignore the prevalence of police harassment against people of color.
Way to go, ding-donger.
Did you even read the Huffington article or the .gov site I pointed out? Within and between districts, the funding difference isn't that big.Did you read what you just posted? As you point out, we still have one of the broadest funding ranges for schools among the developed world, with school districts with high percentages of people of color receiving significantly less funding compared to predominantly white school districts. How is that providing a "huge influx of money" to fix the problem? We haven't even reached the point of equal funding.
This is separate from school funding, so I'm not sure what you're point is. Yes, I quoted an article where the authors wanted to still keep it. So what? The point in showing that article was that affirmative action helps well-to-do black families, while making it harder for poor whites and Asians to get into Harvard and other highly selective schools. There is a lot of variation in parental style and money spent on kids within Asian or white families, never mind other things. Affirmative action is a crappy way of determining disadvantage.Directly from your post. "Getting more low-income students into elite colleges like Harvard and Stanford is an important goal. But it can’t replace race-based affirmative action."
None of what I said is Randian. You can do race neutral policies like basic income, higher minimum wage, universal health care, but creating policies that intentionally privilege certain racial groups is bound to cause resentment or be seen as unfair. Shee-it, Ted Lieu felt that way.That doesn't exist, and it can never happen. Your defense of numbers is some hyper-libertarian Randian nonsense that will never be and can never be applicable to any existing population of humanity. Generation upon generations upon generations of human lineage and culture of created the only status quo that currently exists now, and can only currently exist.
You realize that affirmative action helps blacks from well-to-do families by displacing poor whites and Asians? Asians would be the biggest benefactor if it was more SES based....so, what then. What we currently have is a non-perfect attempt that has been popularly called "Affirmative Action" (only in the more recent decades), to try and encourage wholly and unquestionably disenfranchised communities to compete within sectors that have long been denied their presence and competitive resources due to systemic, unquestionable, and wholly observable racism and class warfare.
Incredibly silly. And the thread you pointed to isn't even really contesting the data itself, but whether we should keep the demographics together.He has trouble with graphs
Trump releases one of most racist political adverts for decades on eve of election
Brat: U.S. school spending up 375 percent over 30 years but test score remain flat
The inflation-adjusted figure Brat uses to describe what he sees as runaway federal spending on education over 30 years is overblown. You can only get near a 375 percent increase if you start in 1970 and end in 2010, when U.S. school funding was nearly doubled with stimulus money and stood at an all-time high of $73.3 billion.
That said, the increase in per-student spending is still significant and Brat has valid point on the test results. Average NAEP scores for 17-year-olds have barely budged during the last 30 years of testing.
So we rate the totality of Brat’s statement Mostly True.