Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Just 26% of US 8th graders proficient in math, in biggest-ever setback

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: Just 26% of US 8th graders proficient in math, in biggest-ever setback

#31

Post by feoren »

Test0129 wrote: post #25
ParksNet wrote: post #14

Quoted post unavailable.

This comment is getting downvoted because of poor wording. The accusations of racism are excessive and it's obvious these people have a pointless axe to grind. I think what OP is trying to say is this: 1. There is a biological component to intelligence. This doesn't imply race. If it was possible to reach 200 IQ with hard work a lot more people would be there. 2. Breaking scores down by ethnicity may elucidate data t…

> 1. There is a biological component to intelligence. This doesn't imply race.

Your statement doesn't imply race, but GP's statement most certainly does.

> should we inappropriately punish schools

Absolutely not; who in their right mind would want to "punish" schools for having under-performing students? If anything it's a sign those schools may need more investment.

Re: Just 26% of US 8th graders proficient in math, in biggest-ever setback

#32

Post by Test0129 »

dcchambers wrote: post #30

It's hard for people without kids to realize just how much COVID-related school closures fucked everything up. An entire generation of students is at risk of forever being behind. And even those that always attended online class, did all the work, and excelled given the circumstances are still going to fall behind because so many of their peers in the classroom are behind that entire curriculums are changing to accom…

> An entire generation of students is at risk of forever being behind.

That ship sailed when Common Core was introduced. Teaching kids neat hacks instead of actual math will permanently stunt their progress.

Re: Just 26% of US 8th graders proficient in math, in biggest-ever setback

#33

Post by feoren »

yieldcrv wrote: post #28
netsharc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or is it a 23.5% drop? This is ironic, considering the title of the article.

8% lower number of 8th graders proficient in math I wasn't pointing out the delta

That's not correct. Taking the numbers at face value: out of 100 8th graders, previously 34 were proficient in math. Now 26 are. 23.5% fewer 8th graders are proficient in math. Saying it's an 8% lower number is wrong: the number of 8th graders proficient in math is 23.5% lower. The absolute percentage went down by 8, but who cares?

To illustrate this, consider if 1% of all children were dying of Smallpox, and after the vaccine it dropped to 0%. Did we reduce Smallpox deaths by 1%? No! We eliminated Smallpox deaths; reduced by 100%.

The irony of your statement is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re: Just 26% of US 8th graders proficient in math, in biggest-ever setback

#34

Post by ars »

alvarlagerlof wrote: post #19
ParksNet wrote: post #14

Quoted post unavailable.

"biological Intelligence" sounds very racist to me.

It is racist, and also true. Which is a pretty tough conundrum for someone who doesn't want to be racist.

The best option I can think of is to be race blind (just ignore the race component, and don't even report it), and test each individual, while recognizing the biological component.

For the most part however, society has substituted "socioeconomic status" for "race", which sounds better, but, I think, doesn't work better.

Re: Just 26% of US 8th graders proficient in math, in biggest-ever setback

#35

Post by Test0129 »

feoren wrote: post #31
Test0129 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is getting downvoted because of poor wording. The accusations of racism are excessive and it's obvious these people have a pointless axe to grind. I think what OP is trying to say is this: 1. There is a biological component to intelligence. This doesn't imply race. If it was possible to reach 200 IQ with hard work a lot more people would be there. 2. Breaking scores down by ethnicity may elucidate data t…

> 1. There is a biological component to intelligence. This doesn't imply race. Your statement doesn't imply race, but GP's statement most certainly does. > should we inappropriately punish schools Absolutely not; who in their right mind would want to "punish" schools for having under-performing students? If anything it's a sign those schools may need more investment.

> who in their right mind would want to "punish" schools for having under-performing students? If anything it's a sign those schools may need more investment.

The US government who issues funding via Title 1 using a formula. In this case they take on people who legitimately should be held back, they fail the standardized tests, the government says "we can't give you more money because you're failing" and the cycle continues. Ostensibly this system worked because schools that cant raise low income/low education people up dont deserve money. The problem occurs when they also can't hold people back until they are up to the standard.

We aren't doing enough, and I agree, these schools shouldn't be punished.

Re: Just 26% of US 8th graders proficient in math, in biggest-ever setback

#36

Post by yieldcrv »

feoren wrote: post #33
yieldcrv wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8% lower number of 8th graders proficient in math I wasn't pointing out the delta

That's not correct. Taking the numbers at face value: out of 100 8th graders, previously 34 were proficient in math. Now 26 are. 23.5% fewer 8th graders are proficient in math. Saying it's an 8% lower number is wrong: the number of 8th graders proficient in math is 23.5% lower. The absolute percentage went down by 8, but who cares? To illustrate this, consider if 1% of all children were dying of Smallpox, and after t…

> The absolute percentage went down by 8, but who cares?

I do and that's why I wrote it

The only remaining mystery is which semantical variation of that would you and others accept. Fewer? No. Lower? No. Absolutely percentage? Well its not even clear if others would accept that, or find a different way to say you’re ironically dumb.

The purpose of language is to convey a shared concept. Whatever this conversation is has nothing to do with that.

Re: Just 26% of US 8th graders proficient in math, in biggest-ever setback

#37

Post by ALittleLight »

Even without COVID the public education system is such a travesty. When I was in highschool, one year, I had a math teacher who clearly didn't understand her own subject and would routinely get lost and contradict herself and was just generally useless in trying to teach what she did not know. In another year a math teacher may have known the subject but had zero control of the class and the students rebelled against him and there was never any real teaching because kids were acting out to an absurd degree. Basically, of my four years of high school math two were literally a complete waste. And that's pre-covid.

The obvious culprit, to me, is teacher's unions. Why don't we fire bad teachers and hire good ones? Seems like the teacher's unions prevent that. Compensating teachers based on tenure rather than performance is another teacher's union problem.

I find the whole thing very discouraging. Society is allowing immense waste of time, effort, and potential over very obvious problems.

Re: Just 26% of US 8th graders proficient in math, in biggest-ever setback

#39

Post by ALittleLight »

yieldcrv wrote: post #36
feoren wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not correct. Taking the numbers at face value: out of 100 8th graders, previously 34 were proficient in math. Now 26 are. 23.5% fewer 8th graders are proficient in math. Saying it's an 8% lower number is wrong: the number of 8th graders proficient in math is 23.5% lower. The absolute percentage went down by 8, but who cares? To illustrate this, consider if 1% of all children were dying of Smallpox, and after t…

> The absolute percentage went down by 8, but who cares? I do and that's why I wrote it The only remaining mystery is which semantical variation of that would you and others accept. Fewer? No. Lower? No. Absolutely percentage? Well its not even clear if others would accept that, or find a different way to say you’re ironically dumb. The purpose of language is to convey a shared concept. Whatever this conversation is…

Typically you would say it's a drop of X percentage points, or just "points", or a decrease of Y percent. Using X instead of Y is simply wrong - whether it's wrong mathematically or verbally is philosophical.

Re: Just 26% of US 8th graders proficient in math, in biggest-ever setback

#40

Post by prottog »

bsder wrote: post #26
prottog wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we can stop at least spending the public's money on parents who don't value educating their children.

Holy hell. Have some empathy. Shitty parents are not the fault of a CHILD . Offering a child a safe space, food, and possibly education is the least we can do as a society.

You're absolutely right that children are not to be blamed for the sins of their parents. But in order to advance society we must work with human nature to make incentives aligned between disparate entities.

One of the most fundamental parts of human nature is that parents want to see their children do well, and it's often the biggest reason why people toil and overcome great difficulties instead of settling for the minimum it takes to sustain themselves -- all so that their children might enjoy a life better than theirs. Once government steps in between that relationship and guarantees that children will be fine no matter what the parents do or don't do, you remove that important incentive.

Should we let children born to poor parents starve or dumb parents stay uneducated? No, let's do what we can to alleviate that. But how far will you go to ensure that your parentage has no effect whatsoever on your life? Clearly it's not my fault that my parents aren't Yao Ming (7'6") and Ye Li (6'3"), but nevertheless I shouldn't expect to have the same chance at making the NBA as their children. Then why should a child who was born to parents who don't value the qualities it takes to succeed be equally successful as one who was born to parents who did?

In other words, how high should your equalizing bar go, to remove the influence of parents on children, especially in the face of the fact that public educational outcomes in this country are stubbornly refusing to budge as the amount of money spent per pupil rises year after year?

There is legitimate debate to be had here, beyond just downvoting me and calling me an unsympathetic child-hater.

Post reply on HN