(01-19-2012 04:57 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:40 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:28 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Public schools are also responsible for sepcial ed and problem kids. Charter schools can kick students out more so than public schools.

False! That's an absurd lie...

Charters have the exact same admission criteria and rules as Magnet School. The operate on a lottery which has nothing to do the kids academic standing, mental health, or family situation. Its a freakin lottery.

Our magnet schools are competition-based. I know the ones in Hampton, Va. are on the lottery system though. A friend's daughter was here going to AR Johnson and when she got to Hampton after he retired, she enrolled in one there. Said the kids weren't any smarter than any other school and she was ahead of all of'em.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Dav...net_School

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._R._Johns...igh_School

NYS was lottery for grade schools and competition for HS but the HS's were not called 'magnet' for some reason.

I am not anti charter schools. About 40% of DC kids go to charter schools. Some of the ones in the poorest parts of the city have done an excellent job and are some of the best schools in the city (per test scores). They are different from the Magnet schools I know in the suberbs. Some charter schools have a lottery, others do not in DC depending on supply and demand.

However a big part of it is parent involvement (as was stated earlier by a couple of people). The Parents are the ones who need to put pressure on the school and be vocal. At the public schools here the ones where the parents organize an active PTA are the ones where the kids seem to do better overall.

Yes. I can only speak to what I see in my community..but..the kids that are in charter schools here would likely do fine in any setting because of their parents involvement. I can pick out in the first grade which students will be in the top of their High School graduation class. All I have to do is go to the first PTA meeting. The kids whose parents are in attendance and get involved will be the top students.

Are the public schools crappy and are being forced to teach a watered down curriculum? YES. I would submit though, that they are as crappy as the parents allow them to be. If every kid had parents that were involved? We would not need charter schools. My daughter was #2 in her High School class. My wife and I stayed engaged with her teachers and schools all the way. I refused to allow her to fail despite the flawed system.

Unfortunately...The public schools have to teach to the "least common denominator" and are filled with children that have sorry ass parents that see the school system as a place to dump their children while they work.

It should be of no surprise that Charter schools do better. They are drawing the best parents.

(01-20-2012 11:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Unfortunately...The public schools have to teach to the "least common denominator" and are filled with children that have sorry ass parents that see the school system as a place to dump their children while they work.

It should be of no surprise that Charter schools do better. They are drawing the best parents.

This!

Many of these good parents don't have the resources to send their kids to a private school. I might be able to send one of my kids but not all three.

Folks on the left hate school choice, they would rather punish parents who do care by using the kids of parents who don't care as a ceiling.

(01-20-2012 11:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Yes. I can only speak to what I see in my community..but..the kids that are in charter schools here would likely do fine in any setting because of their parents involvement. I can pick out in the first grade which students will be in the top of their High School graduation class. All I have to do is go to the first PTA meeting. The kids whose parents are in attendance and get involved will be the top students.

Are the public schools crappy and are being forced to teach a watered down curriculum? YES. I would submit though, that they are as crappy as the parents allow them to be. If every kid had parents that were involved? We would not need charter schools. My daughter was #2 in her High School class. My wife and I stayed engaged with her teachers and schools all the way. I refused to allow her to fail despite the flawed system.

Unfortunately...The public schools have to teach to the "least common denominator" and are filled with children that have sorry ass parents that see the school system as a place to dump their children while they work.

It should be of no surprise that Charter schools do better. They are drawing the best parents.

It's compelling, but it's not fully accurate. Many parents who are involved in PTA don't have the top kids. Usually they perform well enough, but they're not at the top.

And many PTAs, and schools, are not helped by some of the parental involvement. When my older son was in kgarten one mother told me how she had come to the class to teach about emotions and empathy, and was complimentary on how well my son understood.

WTF! Kindergartners don't need to be taught empathy by some overly-emotional classroom mom! (or anyone but their parents)

And many "active" parents are the ones sheltering their kids when something gets hard.

Finally, while I was very underwhelmed w/ Waiting for Superman, one key piece stood out, and that a newer theory is that communities are brought down by poor schools, not the reverse.

The vast majority (80%) of teachers vote D or farther left. The public schools are a clear indication of the failure of that line of political thought.

(01-19-2012 04:15 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  what's the purpose. Any other discussion is pointless.

That's a reasonable starting point. My view is that the purpose of our education system is to prepare Americans to be productive members of society (i.e. net contributors). That is to say, they they must be able to positively integrate with our economy and society.

And I probably would have agreed with you not long ago. I suspect that this is a pretty accurate statement of what most people think. However, it is highly flawed.

First, what defines contributor? The controlled factory serfs that Mann wanted would be considered contributors. But is that what we really want our schools to produce? Can you see why this gets so much resistance from young people w/ an individualist personality? And why teachers struggle to mold people into identical replicas?

Moreover, read this board and you'll see repeatedly that unemployed, but degreed people are considered contributors. So a degree in Mexican Queer Literature makes you a contributor, even if you're on public assistance and owe $60K in student loans.

And positively integrate into our society? Again, good notion, until you see teachers (and others) trying to re-define our society. That's at the very heart of the conflicts discussed here.

So, this vision is far too vague and thus malleable, yet not implementable.

Quote:In order to do this our education system should, at a minimum, adequately teach reading comprehension and writing, math, scientific concepts, US and world history, and civics. The specifics are subject to change along with the country. I'm probably missing something too.

But you see, the specifics can and do change, too easily, when the former is not well defined. We have teachers directing kids to get into discussion groups for math problems. She views that as a success, even if they can't answer 3x4= ?.

We have an advocacy group now insisting that AGW be taught in the public schools, any disagreement is "not science." Really?

Quote:In general, there should be three basic levels of education as preparation for a future in either unskilled labor, skilled labor, or management.

Yikes! Now you're not only tracking, you're bringing in terms that are hard to define, and imposing great restrictions and great authority in the schools. You're setting up structures that may not be as concrete as you'd like once you leave the schools, and ones that may not even be appropriate as the economy changes.

You've also started shifting down from the philosophy of education into strategy and even alluding to tactics. Very easy to do, b/c the philosophy is hard.

Anyway, I thought about this for a few minutes yesterday, and try this on. US Philosophy of education:

1. To provide abundant opportunity, training and encouragement for the development of each citizens' vocation.

2. To encourage the understanding and appreciation for individuals' liberty (defined as freedom AND responsibility) that exists in the US

3. To encourage the understanding and appreciation for the role of community and the individuals participation in it.

See if that's reasonable, and then consider how that would change the complexion of public schools. It doesn't take away from reality that there are certain, objective facts that need to be taught well. If anything, it reinforces that notion. How those facts are presented and taught are subject to strategy and tactics.

(And yes, for those keeping score at home, all of these are directely, and sometimes exclusively, from a Christian worldview).

Strategy is not very flexible IMO. History has shown that there are developmental stages for kids and this should be used to improve education, not ignored, or worse, fought against.

Tactics however, are very flexible, and can change w/ the school location, administration and faculty. They allow the teacher to be creative and use their personal skills and interests. Tactics should be diverse, but not done foolishly. There are some that are abject failures and counterproductive. These should be banned in public school settings. (If a privately funded tutor wants to experiment, so be it.)

(01-20-2012 12:11 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:15 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  what's the purpose. Any other discussion is pointless.

That's a reasonable starting point. My view is that the purpose of our education system is to prepare Americans to be productive members of society (i.e. net contributors). That is to say, they they must be able to positively integrate with our economy and society.

And I probably would have agreed with you not long ago. I suspect that this is a pretty accurate statement of what most people think. However, it is highly flawed.

First, what defines contributor? The controlled factory serfs that Mann wanted would be considered contributors. But is that what we really want our schools to produce? Can you see why this gets so much resistance from young people w/ an individualist personality? And why teachers struggle to mold people into identical replicas?

Moreover, read this board and you'll see repeatedly that unemployed, but degreed people are considered contributors. So a degree in Mexican Queer Literature makes you a contributor, even if you're on public assistance and owe $60K in student loans.

And positively integrate into our society? Again, good notion, until you see teachers (and others) trying to re-define our society. That's at the very heart of the conflicts discussed here.

So, this vision is far too vague and thus malleable, yet not implementable.

Quote:In order to do this our education system should, at a minimum, adequately teach reading comprehension and writing, math, scientific concepts, US and world history, and civics. The specifics are subject to change along with the country. I'm probably missing something too.

But you see, the specifics can and do change, too easily, when the former is not well defined. We have teachers directing kids to get into discussion groups for math problems. She views that as a success, even if they can't answer 3x4= ?.

We have an advocacy group now insisting that AGW be taught in the public schools, any disagreement is "not science." Really?

Quote:In general, there should be three basic levels of education as preparation for a future in either unskilled labor, skilled labor, or management.

Yikes! Now you're not only tracking, you're bringing in terms that are hard to define, and imposing great restrictions and great authority in the schools. You're setting up structures that may not be as concrete as you'd like once you leave the schools, and ones that may not even be appropriate as the economy changes.

You've also started shifting down from the philosophy of education into strategy and even alluding to tactics. Very easy to do, b/c the philosophy is hard.

Anyway, I thought about this for a few minutes yesterday, and try this on. US Philosophy of education:

1. To provide abundant opportunity, training and encouragement for the development of each citizens' vocation.

2. To encourage the understanding and appreciation for individuals' liberty (defined as freedom AND responsibility) that exists in the US

3. To encourage the understanding and appreciation for the role of community and the individuals participation in it.

See if that's reasonable, and then consider how that would change the complexion of public schools. It doesn't take away from reality that there are certain, objective facts that need to be taught well. If anything, it reinforces that notion. How those facts are presented and taught are subject to strategy and tactics.

(And yes, for those keeping score at home, all of these are directely, and sometimes exclusively, from a Christian worldview).

Strategy is not very flexible IMO. History has shown that there are developmental stages for kids and this should be used to improve education, not ignored, or worse, fought against.

Tactics however, are very flexible, and can change w/ the school location, administration and faculty. They allow the teacher to be creative and use their personal skills and interests. Tactics should be diverse, but not done foolishly. There are some that are abject failures and counterproductive. These should be banned in public school settings. (If a privately funded tutor wants to experiment, so be it.)

My initial question in assessing your vision for US education is, "What are your metrics?" How do you plan on determining whether the three goals you outlined are being achieved?

I work in strategy, so that probably colors my approach to problems like this.

(01-20-2012 12:21 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  My initial question in assessing your vision for US education is, "What are your metrics?" How do you plan on determining whether the three goals you outlined are being achieved?

I work in strategy, so that probably colors my approach to problems like this.

For strategy I believe in the trivium approach. I also believe in mastery. You do far, far better first having a 1st grader master addition, even if it takes 3 months, before moving on to subtraction or multiplication.

In fact, if done right, a student who has mastered addition, will soon be showing off his or her knowledge and asking questions like, "what plus 4 equals 7?" Guess what, they've already figured out subraction and are knocking at the door of algebra.

But, if you spend three weeks on addition, then insist on moving to subtraction, you'll undo progress, and leave 30-40% of your students frustrated and discouraged.

Metrics? Testing of course. I see no way around that. But tests need to be structured according to the strategy. The failed schools of the mid-20th C progressives resulted in desperation...foolish strategies and tactics that only exacerbated the situation.

Over the long term the metric is a healthier society. One where people embrace their liberty but willfully choose to contribute to their communities. I also don't expect perfection. The leftist utopian vision is a fallacy, and a destructive one at that. But it won't get as much traction if people recognize their own freedoms and responsibilities.

(01-20-2012 11:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:57 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:40 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  False! That's an absurd lie...

Charters have the exact same admission criteria and rules as Magnet School. The operate on a lottery which has nothing to do the kids academic standing, mental health, or family situation. Its a freakin lottery.

Our magnet schools are competition-based. I know the ones in Hampton, Va. are on the lottery system though. A friend's daughter was here going to AR Johnson and when she got to Hampton after he retired, she enrolled in one there. Said the kids weren't any smarter than any other school and she was ahead of all of'em.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Dav...net_School

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._R._Johns...igh_School

NYS was lottery for grade schools and competition for HS but the HS's were not called 'magnet' for some reason.

I am not anti charter schools. About 40% of DC kids go to charter schools. Some of the ones in the poorest parts of the city have done an excellent job and are some of the best schools in the city (per test scores). They are different from the Magnet schools I know in the suberbs. Some charter schools have a lottery, others do not in DC depending on supply and demand.

However a big part of it is parent involvement (as was stated earlier by a couple of people). The Parents are the ones who need to put pressure on the school and be vocal. At the public schools here the ones where the parents organize an active PTA are the ones where the kids seem to do better overall.

Yes. I can only speak to what I see in my community..but..the kids that are in charter schools here would likely do fine in any setting because of their parents involvement. I can pick out in the first grade which students will be in the top of their High School graduation class. All I have to do is go to the first PTA meeting. The kids whose parents are in attendance and get involved will be the top students.

Are the public schools crappy and are being forced to teach a watered down curriculum? YES. I would submit though, that they are as crappy as the parents allow them to be. If every kid had parents that were involved? We would not need charter schools. My daughter was #2 in her High School class. My wife and I stayed engaged with her teachers and schools all the way. I refused to allow her to fail despite the flawed system.

Unfortunately...The public schools have to teach to the "least common denominator" and are filled with children that have sorry ass parents that see the school system as a place to dump their children while they work.

It should be of no surprise that Charter schools do better. They are drawing the best parents.

You do realize that many of those "sorry ass parents" have little /no education themselves, right? That might have a little to do with it. Also, because those parents don't have an education, they HAVE to work 2-3 jobs just to feed their family. So is it any surprise that they might use school as a day care? But keep on preaching your superiority to everyone else.

(01-20-2012 12:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  You do realize that many of those "sorry ass parents" have little /no education themselves, right? That might have a little to do with it. Also, because those parents don't have an education, they HAVE to work 2-3 jobs just to feed their family. So is it any surprise that they might use school as a day care? But keep on preaching your superiority to everyone else.

We went over this in the head start thread..

You don't need to know advanced algebra or be literate to make sure your kids goes to school on time, respects their teachers, does their homework, and be involved with the school.

Look at the kids of immigrants, many of whom are not only illiterate (in English) but they hardly speak the language. Why do they do so well? They often work 60-80 hours a week so that excuse is out the window.

(01-20-2012 01:02 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 12:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  You do realize that many of those "sorry ass parents" have little /no education themselves, right? That might have a little to do with it. Also, because those parents don't have an education, they HAVE to work 2-3 jobs just to feed their family. So is it any surprise that they might use school as a day care? But keep on preaching your superiority to everyone else.

We went over this in the head start thread..

You don't need to know advanced algebra or be literate to make sure your kids goes to school on time, respects their teachers, does their homework, and be involved with the school.

Look at the kids of immigrants, many of whom are not only illiterate (in English) but they hardly speak the language. Why do they do so well? They often work 60-80 hours a week so that excuse is out the window.

Do you have some facts to back up your claim?

(01-20-2012 01:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 01:02 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 12:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  You do realize that many of those "sorry ass parents" have little /no education themselves, right? That might have a little to do with it. Also, because those parents don't have an education, they HAVE to work 2-3 jobs just to feed their family. So is it any surprise that they might use school as a day care? But keep on preaching your superiority to everyone else.

We went over this in the head start thread..

You don't need to know advanced algebra or be literate to make sure your kids goes to school on time, respects their teachers, does their homework, and be involved with the school.

Look at the kids of immigrants, many of whom are not only illiterate (in English) but they hardly speak the language. Why do they do so well? They often work 60-80 hours a week so that excuse is out the window.

Do you have some facts to back up your claim?

That immigrants speak English at a far lower rate than native born citizens?
That in general the kids of immigrants do well?
That immigrants often work longer hours than most people?

Which facts do you want?

(01-20-2012 01:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 01:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 01:02 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 12:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  You do realize that many of those "sorry ass parents" have little /no education themselves, right? That might have a little to do with it. Also, because those parents don't have an education, they HAVE to work 2-3 jobs just to feed their family. So is it any surprise that they might use school as a day care? But keep on preaching your superiority to everyone else.

We went over this in the head start thread..

You don't need to know advanced algebra or be literate to make sure your kids goes to school on time, respects their teachers, does their homework, and be involved with the school.

Look at the kids of immigrants, many of whom are not only illiterate (in English) but they hardly speak the language. Why do they do so well? They often work 60-80 hours a week so that excuse is out the window.

Do you have some facts to back up your claim?

That immigrants speak English at a far lower rate than native born citizens?
That in general the kids of immigrants do well?
That immigrants often work longer hours than most people?

Which facts do you want?

The other 2 are pretty obvious(although, I have read some of you on here only want to only admit wealthy people so if that happens, the thirdwould probably change).

(01-20-2012 01:37 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 01:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 01:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 01:02 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 12:53 PM)RobertN Wrote:  You do realize that many of those "sorry ass parents" have little /no education themselves, right? That might have a little to do with it. Also, because those parents don't have an education, they HAVE to work 2-3 jobs just to feed their family. So is it any surprise that they might use school as a day care? But keep on preaching your superiority to everyone else.

We went over this in the head start thread..

You don't need to know advanced algebra or be literate to make sure your kids goes to school on time, respects their teachers, does their homework, and be involved with the school.

Look at the kids of immigrants, many of whom are not only illiterate (in English) but they hardly speak the language. Why do they do so well? They often work 60-80 hours a week so that excuse is out the window.

Do you have some facts to back up your claim?

That immigrants speak English at a far lower rate than native born citizens?
That in general the kids of immigrants do well?
That immigrants often work longer hours than most people?

Which facts do you want?

The other 2 are pretty obvious(although, I have read some of you on here only want to only admit wealthy people so if that happens, the thirdwould probably change).

The overall high school graduation rate with a regular diploma is between 80% and 83%, with the best data (NELS) showing an 82% rate. All of the household and longitudinal data sources show a higher graduation rate than the two-thirds rate computed using the school-based enrollment/diploma data

Estimates of the black rate of graduation from high school with a regular diploma range between 69% and 75%

Immigrants from Africa actually have the highest educational achievement rates and they also have the lowest rate of having less than a high school education. African immigrants are also most likely to be in the labor market.

43.8 percent of African immigrants had achieved a college degree, compared with 42.5 of Asian-Americans, 28.9 percent for immigrants from Europe, Russia and Canada and 23.1 percent of the U.S. population as a whole."

Good enough?

(01-20-2012 01:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 01:37 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 01:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 01:17 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 01:02 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  We went over this in the head start thread..

You don't need to know advanced algebra or be literate to make sure your kids goes to school on time, respects their teachers, does their homework, and be involved with the school.

Look at the kids of immigrants, many of whom are not only illiterate (in English) but they hardly speak the language. Why do they do so well? They often work 60-80 hours a week so that excuse is out the window.

Do you have some facts to back up your claim?

That immigrants speak English at a far lower rate than native born citizens?
That in general the kids of immigrants do well?
That immigrants often work longer hours than most people?

Which facts do you want?

The other 2 are pretty obvious(although, I have read some of you on here only want to only admit wealthy people so if that happens, the thirdwould probably change).

The overall high school graduation rate with a regular diploma is between 80% and 83%, with the best data (NELS) showing an 82% rate. All of the household and longitudinal data sources show a higher graduation rate than the two-thirds rate computed using the school-based enrollment/diploma data

Estimates of the black rate of graduation from high school with a regular diploma range between 69% and 75%

Immigrants from Africa actually have the highest educational achievement rates and they also have the lowest rate of having less than a high school education. African immigrants are also most likely to be in the labor market.

43.8 percent of African immigrants had achieved a college degree, compared with 42.5 of Asian-Americans, 28.9 percent for immigrants from Europe, Russia and Canada and 23.1 percent of the U.S. population as a whole."

Good enough?

How about our neighbors to the south?

(01-20-2012 02:16 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  How about our neighbors to the south?

Could not find data on native born Hispanics versus immigrants.

But even if that one group was off what would that prove?

The premise that Robert put forth was that Lack of English and Long Hours
is the primary reason for poor academic performance and not the quality of the parenting itself.

Poor people, who don't speak the language (let alone read/write it) can be good parents despite working insane hours. There is a cultural respect for education that is the key, not money and comfort.

Why do you think Asians are not acknowledged as a minority?

It won't be long before there will be a push to exempt African Immigrants from the same status that African Americans get in terms of admission preferences.

(01-20-2012 02:42 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 02:16 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  How about our neighbors to the south?

Could not find data on native born Hispanics versus immigrants.

But even if that one group was off what would that prove?

The premise that Robert put forth was that Lack of English and Long Hours
is the primary reason for poor academic performance and not the quality of the parenting itself.

Poor people, who don't speak the language (let alone read/write it) can be good parents despite working insane hours. There is a cultural respect for education that is the key, not money and comfort.

Why do you think Asians are not acknowledged as a minority?

It won't be long before there will be a push to exempt African Immigrants from the same status that African Americans get in terms of admission preferences.

Looking at any one group doesn't prove anything. You'd have to take immigrants on the whole and weight accordingly.

(01-20-2012 02:44 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 02:42 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 02:16 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  How about our neighbors to the south?

Could not find data on native born Hispanics versus immigrants.

But even if that one group was off what would that prove?

The premise that Robert put forth was that Lack of English and Long Hours
is the primary reason for poor academic performance and not the quality of the parenting itself.

Poor people, who don't speak the language (let alone read/write it) can be good parents despite working insane hours. There is a cultural respect for education that is the key, not money and comfort.

Why do you think Asians are not acknowledged as a minority?

It won't be long before there will be a push to exempt African Immigrants from the same status that African Americans get in terms of admission preferences.

Looking at any one group doesn't prove anything. You'd have to take immigrants on the whole and weight accordingly.

Sure it does...

When you or RN say 'kids do bad in school because of poverty, uneducated parents, and long work hours'

And then I show you a large group of people who have low literacy rates, high poverty, and work more hours than aver whos kids, as a group do well in school then.

If the immigrants coming up from Mexico are the exact same as the Asian Immigrants *EXCEPT FOR THEIR CULTURAL DIFFERENCES*. One group does well, the other does not..

hmmm why might that be... (hint I put it in caps for you)

Whats even better is that I compared Black Africans to African Americans who, until they open their mouth, are the exact same thing in the eyes of society. (even after if the kid has no accent).

One group does well the other does not... Hmm whats the big difference there.

(01-20-2012 02:44 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Looking at any one group doesn't prove anything. You'd have to take immigrants on the whole and weight accordingly.

Why?

I'd argue that individual groups, with specifically identifiable characteristics, would mean more than glomming a bunch of various numbers together.

Oh, absolutely culture plays a big part in our ability to succeed because it affects how we approach society (and how society then reacts to our approach).

Do we attack this at the source then? Do we then tailor education to the cultures?

(01-20-2012 02:56 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Oh, absolutely culture plays a big part in our ability to succeed because it affects how we approach society (and how society then reacts to our approach).

Do we attack this at the source then? Do we then tailor education to the cultures?

No.... Asians do just fine, African Immigrants do just fine, whites are doing ok. These are very disparate cultures... They all do ok.

(01-20-2012 03:03 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 02:56 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Oh, absolutely culture plays a big part in our ability to succeed because it affects how we approach society (and how society then reacts to our approach).

Do we attack this at the source then? Do we then tailor education to the cultures?

No.... Asians do just fine, African Immigrants do just fine, whites are doing ok. These are very disparate cultures... They all do ok.

Right, but *SOME* cultures need a little "help", no?