Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: The Prime Directive
Posted:
Oct 19, 2012 2:10 PM
|
|
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Haim <hpipik@netzero.com> wrote:
> Paul A. Tanner, III Posted: Oct 19, 2012 6:27 AM
>
>>>> But you are on record as saying that reducing these
>>>> gaps
>>>> is an admirable goal.
>>>
>>> Yes...and?
>>
>>Then what you cited as evidence of a problem is not
>>evidence of a problem.
>
> The central organizing doctrine of policy in American public education is the reduction of The Gap between high achievers and low achievers.
>
Wait a minute. This phrase "between high achievers and low achievers"
makes this above claim of yours a falsity.
Your claim that you keeping making here at Math Forum about the gap in
question is not about high achievers vs achievers without reference to
what is called race or gender, but with such reference to a gap
between the average performance of one race or gender (whites or on
math, males) and the the average performance of another race or gender
(blacks and Hispanics or on math, females). That is, for example, you
are not writing about a gap between higher and lower achieving whites.
Your lack of reference to race in your above claim is a cover-up of
what your writings have been about.
Side note: A gap between males and females is in math only, and is not
about academic achievement in general. And so the vast majority of
your writing on this is about race.
And so your above statement claim, to accurately reflect the vast
majority of your writing on this, should be:
"The central organizing doctrine of policy in American public
education is the reduction of The Gap between the average performance
of whites and and the average performance of African Americans and
Hispanics, the latter average being higher."
And and so my question, yet again, but with respect to this just above:
Even if it were *the* rather than *a* central organizing doctrine of
policy.....So what? You have said that reducing this gap is an
admirable goal. So why are you trying to argue that is is bad to have
*a* or even *the* central organizing doctrine of policy be an
admirable goal and specially this admirable goal? (That is, since this
really is about race, one wonders why - or maybe not.)
|
|
|
|
