Black and Latino students did worse in schools with ‘diversity officers’: study

submitted by jet199 from nypost.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Perhaps districts create CDO positions because they have larger achievement gaps that they wish to remedy.

That was my first question. Well my second. (See below the line)

To address this concern, it is possible to examine the trend in achievement gaps, over time, rather than the static magnitude of those gaps, to see if districts with CDOs are making progress to close those gaps.

Unfortunately that too is not independent. Racial Socioeconomic Inequality Predicts Growing Racial Academic Inequality.

To see if a CDO improves the performance of the blacks and latinos you have to make a fair effort to estimate how they would have done without the CDO. Assuming that they would have done the same as schools without a CDO is accepted by the paper to be questionable. Assuming instead that the relative trend in performance would be the same, as they have done, is also questionable.

But come on:

1) Chief diversity officers (CDOs), who typically advance a leftist agenda, are spreading beyond college campuses and becoming more common in K–12 districts.

Really? You're going to make it clear that you've got a political bias, at the front of your paper?

Why?

A reason that will be well known to a think tank is that if you associate an argument with a political position, people that feel part of that political position are loathe to question the argument, and quick to dismiss counter-arguments without considering the content.

A paper that leads with "these results are for conservatives only" by a think-tank should ring alarm bells. If they genuinely believe that they have a sound argument, they could present the evidence so that it can sway everyone. If they feel the need to leverage people's politics, and thereby limiting the target to only conservatives, it's likely that they know that their argument doesn't stand analysis.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Excellent points. These types of articles appear to be aimed at people who don't know and/or don't want to know that they're being manipulated by a class warfare against those who will naturally need more time to adjust to standards that have been traditionally beyond their reach, especially for economic reasons, not to mention crippling social consequences of long-standing class warfare and racism.

[–]jet199[S] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

Is well known that personal responsibility is one of the main factors which lead to success.

If you take that away from people, telling them all the bad things that happen to them aren't their fault, they have much worse outcomes.

This indeed is class warfare.

The left need to keep black people poor to get their votes.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Is well known that personal responsibility is one of the main factors which lead to success.

Is it?

In the USA the main single factor for a successful career is rich parents.

See perhaps HOW MUCH DOES CHILDHOOD POVERTY AFFECT THE LIFE CHANCES OF CHILDREN?*

0r

Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the United States

To what extent is this modified by "personal responsibility"?

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That is a lie. IQ is the most accurate predictor of lifetime success. The uber rich who can afford to give thier kids do nothing jobs are a tiny minority of people. The vast majority have to be smart enough to do the job they have, or successfully manage the companies or investments they have.

It just so happens that IQ is mostly hereditary so low IQ people are poor and produce low IQ kids who will also be poor.

If wealth were the determining factor then Sports stars kids would all be wealthy on thier own. They are not. Lottery winner's kids would be wealthy, they are not. Most lottery winners die broke.

Having money is temporary. Being wealthy is hereditary.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That is a lie.

I'm sometimes mistaken, but I very rarely lie. What is the basis of this accusation?

IQ is the most accurate predictor of lifetime success.

Can you point me to the work on this? I'd be interested in the definition of "lifetime success" and how IQ is separated from confounders such as affluence.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yeah hereditary is the best predictor of lifetime success

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Your comment reminds me of how important parents are to their children, and how less important the schools are. Successful parents usually have a skillset that their children learn, just as parents who scrape by teach their children that skill set.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sure.

Social class is also a network. You build professional contacts from the people at your school who are your group, and later with the parents of other children who can afford a similar amount as you to send their kids to the same school.

And small but significant things about the class of your friends makes movement out of that class difficult. At a point in my life I was looking for work in a city I'd arrived in with not a lot, but I crashed with an old university mate and his family. Because he was professional class, that influenced the type of jobs I could get, simply because I showed up to interviews in one if his suits.

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People skills are a large part of it, for sure.