School shopping in Ontario; the sequel

Cueball wrote:

Stephen Gordon wrote:

Is it sufficient reason to suppress publicly-available data? Should StatsCan stop asking for socio-economic information? Should the existing data be erased? Should those who have seen it be sworn to silence?

Why?

To save some incompetent school administrators from embarassment?

Good point. Maybe they should also identify the ethnicity of the teachers and adminstrators as well.

From a statistical standpoint, that would be irrelevant. It may well be that having a teaching staff whose ethnicity reflects that of the students would be an advantage. But that would show up in the educational outcomes. Which is all we really care about.

Cueball wrote:

Oh suddenly "precision" data is irrelevant.

 

HE GOT CAUGHT SON. and for census data on a precise kind of lvl cant u just google toronto wards and see the shit on there? they made it more precise recently still.

Makwa wrote:

I disagree.  Precision data on human lives is held in trust, that that information should be used only for non-intrusive means.  To allow that to be used for propaganda and fear mongering would be a terrible betrayal.  

I simply don't see this. To me, I see the possibility for empowerment that come from being better-informed: low-income families (or middle-income, come to that) need not accept bad schools as their inevitable fate.

Oh, that data would indeed be useful for schools and for school boards in determining their hiring policies. But they already have it.

Stephen Gordon wrote:

I simply don't see this. To me, I see the possibility for empowerment that come from being better-informed: low-income families (or middle-income, come to that) need not accept bad schools as their inevitable fate.

I realize you don't see it, and I honestly don't think you do so out of malice.  You are coming from a conception of social order which is rationalized across all players.  You can't see how people in socially constrained situations simply can't make rational market choices.  

I suggest, as difficult as it might be, to reread some of Rpubjabi's posts.  

As styalized as some of his language is, it is actually to my eye, a very perceptive analysis of how young people of his peer group percieve and analyze social systems.

Given the awareness that education and ideology will determine one's abiltiy to make choices, what is the potential of opening 'choice' to the marginalized, without the potential of educational support?

You would be merely opening them up to the middle class stealing everything from them again.

Stephen Gordon, I suggest that you merely wish to find a more sophisticated method by which the wealthy control the education of the voiceless, as they always have.

Maysie wrote:

Bookish, for you. Baby goats from Riverdale Farm last year, just down the street from me. This is the closest a big city gal like me gets to farm animals.

Goats are hilarious creatures.  My partner, as a child, had a goat that would spend his days riding around on the back of the sheep.  I am sure it was just to annoy them.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Mr. Gordon. What is it you don't get that what determines a good school or a bad school for that matter is not the soci-economic or ethnic backgrouds of the parents of the students attending that school. That information is not only irrelevant to school choice it is anathama to an open, tolerant and democratic society.

 

Others here have claimed that pretty much *all* of the variation in school quality can be ascribed to socio-economic factors; my reading of the evidence is that some of it is.

But the point here is that by making that information unavailable, claims to the effect that socio-economic effects always and everywhere account for poor educational outcomes ("Really! I've seen the data! You're not allowed to see the numbers, but trust me - it's really your fault for being poor!") can't be challenged.

Stephen Gordon wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Mr. Gordon. What is it you don't get that what determines a good school or a bad school for that matter is not the soci-economic or ethnic backgrouds of the parents of the students attending that school. That information is not only irrelevant to school choice it is anathama to an open, tolerant and democratic society.

 

Others here have claimed that pretty much *all* of the variation in school quality can be ascribed to socio-economic factors; my reading of the evidence is that some of it is.

But the point here is that by making that information unavailable, claims to the effect that socio-economic effects always and everywhere account for poor educational outcomes ("Really! I've seen the data! You're not allowed to see the numbers, but trust me - it's really your fault for being poor!") can't be challenged.

 

but ya see it aint about bein low-income it about bein poor. There a dif a poor area will have a lot more shit it aint about the money it about what around it. The copz, the gloccz, the roccz, the chopz, n the single mothaz workin non-stop. It shit like that n more that others aint facin. The gangz that bang on the strip where manz hang, n the boi who come n hit u in the chins try 2 put u in the bin.

 

n dont get it twisted gangs serve n protect more then the police ever do or even want to

Rexdale_Punjabi wrote:

The copz, the gloccz, the roccz, the chopz, n the single mothaz workin non-stop. It shit like that n more that others aint facin. The gangz that bang on the strip where manz hang, n the boi who come n hit u in the chins try 2 put u in the bin.

RexdaleP.  This is where you have to try to understand that communication is more than merely throwing out your particular poetic expression.  Please do not believe for one minute that you are the only person who has ever spent time in a housing project, or a crack house, or lived with a single parent on welfare in a project, or has spent time on the street, or in a hostel.  It's time to stop hiding behind the rhymes and speak for yourself.  I'm too old, and too tired, and been through too much to make rhymes up.  All I have now, is the bit of education I was able to manage through the shit.  So stop playing.  You are too fucking smart.

C'mon, Makwa, Rexdale is just speaking [url=http://www.urbanchat.com/index.php][color=red]Urban Chat[/color][/url]. Spend some time on that site and you'll be fluent. R_P has every right to speak in any dialect he wants.

 

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Mr Gordon you continue to put words in my mouth, if you have an ethical compass you will stop it now.

I did not say that background doesn't have, or could have an impact on educational outcomes, what I have said it that what makes a school good or not has nothing to do with the economic and ethnic backgrounds of the parents of the student body.  That is significantly different than what you imply.

Just curious if you bothered to read what this thread is about.  The Ministry of Education was making avialable school rankings based solely on marks and the make up of the student body.  That is a false premise on how a good school is defined and an approach to education that strikes me as rather consumerist oriented.  Not to mention completely useless.

But that's *exactly* the information we want! School rankings without socio-economic information is not enough. A non-white, non-rich family should be able to quickly identify schools where non-white, non-rich kids do relatively well. And non-white, non-rich families who find that their local school's poor perfomance cannot be blamed on the students' backgrounds should be endowed with a bloody great cudgel with which to bash the school's administration. Neither of these outcomes can occur if the relevant data are kept a secret known only to those with the time and expertise to sort through the census data.

And yes, it is consumerist-oriented. The interests of students - the consumers - are paramount. At least, they should be.