Why Can't They Figure it Out?

[ImaginalDisc]

We must be reading different literatures. Even the APA conceded that IQ and educational achievement are strongly related (.5 for gpa; .55 for years education) and conceded that no environmental intervention has been capable of raising IQ in the long run.

If it interests you and doesn't seem like a derail, please cite some studies showing that education increases one's IQ (I'd argue the cause goes the other way).

I'd have to dig it up, but I remember reading a study where IQ predicted grades after controlling for ses, but ses no longer predicted grades after controlling for IQ.

The key controversy surrounding intelligence testing, Quiñones says, is whether the tests measure innate ability or acquired knowledge. If they test innate ability as some claim, does that mean intelligence is unchangeable?

The notion that mental ability is largely genetic and can’t be improved has come under serious attack.

In fact, scholar James Flynn has shown that IQ scores in the Western world have increased by 15 points in one generation. The political science professor from New Zealand’s University of Otago also has concluded that Americans of the 1970s were 22 points smarter than Americans of the 1890s.

Another criticism of IQ tests is the self-fulfilling prophecy issue. Claude Steele, a psychologist at Stanford University, has shown that people who are expected to score low generally will do so. Black students in particular, he says, suffer from what he calls “stereotype vulnerability.” But Steele asserts that stereotype vulnerability is not limited to blacks. He once gave a group of white students a math test and told them that Asians tended to do better on it than whites. The result proved his point. “That may be enough of a reason to say that labeling someone early is not an appropriate thing to do,” Quiñones suggests.

A third issue is whether intelligence tests measure an innate core of mental ability known as general intelligence. Some studies have shown that people who score well on a mathematics test will probably do well on vocabulary. “Some people have taken that as evidence that there is a general level of intelligence that underlies all mental abilities,” says Quiñones. Opponents of this view say that there are many dimensions to intelligence and that IQ tests are not broad enough to measure abilities such as musical and mechanical talents. “The multiple intelligence view appeals to people’s sense of fairness,” notes Quiñones. “They can say, ‘Oh, Johnny may not be so smart in math, but he’s one heck of a violinist.’”

Source.

There's all sorts of problems with IQ tests. You can accurately measure the SES status of a preschooler, but measuring the preschooler's IQ is much harder., if it even has any validity at all. Children in head start programs test better on evalutations such as the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability test, but that doesn't mean the child is smarter.

 

[Tokenconservative]

Apparently.

You said:

I said:

The presence of "these people" might not necessarily be the reason for sub-standard education. You might want to take a look at the facts before so freely assigning blame.

Ohhh...now I see where your PC bias is coming from...

Um...yes, that's true. Buildings that are in use (and even those that are not) begin to deteriorate, sometimes, even before they are completed, depending upon such things as contruction materials, design, contruction quality, etc. So yep....buildings--houses, garden sheds, and yes, even school buildings--do "fall apart" over time.

I'm glad we can agree on that.

Now, let's see if we can approach this from a more rational (mine) and less howling emotional (your) angle:

Can we agree as a baseline that let say a garden shed that is never used, is kept say, in a garden shed purveyor's showroom, it's doors ajar for display, will deteriorate much less quickly than one kept, say, on the grounds of a busy apartment complex where it is used, daily, by dozens of groundskeepers. The doors opened and shut, thing thrown in and dragged out, exposed to the weather, etc.? Can we at least agree the second shed is LIKELY to experience for "falling apart" than the first in a shorter period of time?

If not, we have nothing further to discuss.

If we CAN agree to this, then perhaps we can move on.

Now, let's say you have two school buildings. Both brand new. One is stuffed to overflowing with students and teachers, serving say, 120-130% of its intended capacity because it is in the center of a neighborhood where, just for the sake of argument, lets say an mini-baby boom has happened. On the other hand, lets say we also have a brand new school building in a very low-density/population rural area. This building serves 20-30% of its intended capacity.

I submit that the first building will "fall apart" much faster than the second.

Absent a slew of "yeah, buts!!!" do you see anything wrong with my argument?

Now, let's look at "the education," and look at more real world situations. Where I live, it is a FACT that schools with higher populations of "Hispanics" as local leftist newspapers, the local leftist teachers organizations and the local leftist governments call them, have higher drop out rates, more problems with truancy, and violence and other crime (including vandalism), and much, much lower scores on state-mandated standardized testing.

Now, we can run around in circles chasing our PC tails and making all sorts of ridiculous claims about how we "don't know!!!" that the majority of this "Hispanic" students are the children of illegal immigrants, or we can make an HONEST assessment of the school population.

When we do that (the honest rather than PC-dishonest assessment) we can from that draw a rather simple conclusion: the more children of illegals you stuff into a school, the worse the school is across a host of issues, including its standardized test scores.

Of course, making an HONEST assessment means opening oneself up to shrieking accusations of RAAAACCCIIIIISSSSSMMMMMMM!!! but I, for one (and apparently a voice in the wilderness here) am willing to take that risk.

Are you?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

OK, I'll explain for the stupido. It means I get paid to fix up the mistakes of people like you, and show them where and why they went wrong. But enough about me; lets get back to chatting with you.

Thank you. Perhaps it might be a moment for you to reconsider why you decided to be a Vogon. Personally, you are little more than a few minute's harmless diversion from real life.

So it would seem. Well, how about you make it an exercise to go back and reread the thread and find out?

Oh so I'm in "high dudgeon" now? Project much? Unless you mean some town in the UK...just near Great Dudgeon, I imagine.

Nope, but feel free to keep on guessing. It's fun watching you flounder.

Vogon? Are you inviting me to recite?

LOL. I love folks who make a game of forcing someone in a forum like this to "guess" about them and why they might have some valuable input.

Seems to me, in an education forum, as an IT professional (sorry for the mixup...language thing again...you Brits should learn to speak English), your opinions about the issue carry no more weight than my own, and probably considerably less since I was a teacher in a public school for a short time and have substitute taught for years.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Oh I wasn't wanting to get into a peeing competition about which country provides the best education. Just trying to give an indication of what most decent people would consider a basic human right - regardless of whether it is legally enforced.

No...actually what you were doing was trying to argue that the US should be forced by the UN to provide "free" education to anyone who can sneak in here, and in fact, that our borders should be cast open so that everyone who wants to come here for a "free" education can.

I've heard this leftist-socialist argument before, you know. And like Kyoto, coming from the UN, it's primary design is not to help the poor chiluns, but to destroy the US economy.

It is not MY responosibility as a USian to educate all the chilruns of the world, regardless of what the UN mandates. My country--for now--is the USA not the UN, much as leftists would like to change that.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Just as a quick response, I notice That the phrases "do not lower and "might" are used. What I will see if I can find is whether there is an unequivocal statement on it - and what I suspect (since I have seen no really specific data - even in the samples you kindly gave me) is that there will not be one (that will not affect me in my hunt _ I learned a long time ago not to let suspicions/biases/beliefs overwhelm accuracy and I value my research skills to much to let something like that affect me/the research.) By the by, the reasons I suspect there will be no real studies is I, at this point, have taught a long time in situations where the persons from a poverty background behaved as they are taught in that background (which is perfectly (for analysis of this, hunt up and read Ruby Payne who writes and consults on poverty and it's effects on school (not hard statistics though) normal for them) and that includes actions (calling out//expecting sharing of material things -esp. food/money// trying to entertain the class and such - all of which have value in their home environment but are disruptive in the normal school environment. Those behaviors do not tend to make the children from mc/uppermc comfortable, ergo I would expect lowered grade/learning at best. (Note, this is definitely not anti anyone - our school has paid good money as have most of the local systems to train us in what to expect based on the sociology of people from both long-term (multi-generational) poverty, shorter-term poverty and immediate but likely very short-term poverty. The group I note above show the signs of multi-generational.)

Well, these are nice ways of describing what these kids from lower economic backgrounds are (statistically) often doing: disrupting. Now, I am not blaming THEM for this. I wouldn't blame a bear for biting me in the woods. I would KILL the bear for doing so, howmsoever.

In our (American) hyper-PC schools, it is viewed as better to allow kids who demonstrate these behaviors to go ahead and do so, disrupting classes all day long (I read a study showing that teachers in the ele. schools studied, estimated they spent something on the order of 75% of the teaching day dealing with disruptions...by my math, that leaves only 25% for actual teaching, and this sounds about right from what my kids report; they go to a school that is fed by lower-income to middle-middle income neighborhoods).

While you can certainly find "rich kids" who disrupt classes, in GENERAL, it's kids from the lower economic strata who make a school career of this. And in the Western and Southern US especially currently, many of these kids come from families that are here illegally.

It's not RACCCCCIIISSSMMMMMMMMMM!!! It's just a fact.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

How many billions more do we have to spend before we admit it?

Could we shift some of the $ to basic research on intelligence? The answer needs to be scientific not political.

Many and....

What color is the sky in your world?

Tokie

 

[bpesta22]

Wow, those three points on IQ ignore 100 years worth of data, in a seemingly desperate attempt to marginalize the science. If I get more time, I'll post some detail: but, the flynn effect is in crisis (look for publications coming out in Intelligence on this issue), Steele's work is crap, the positive manifold (scoring high on one cognitive test means scoring high on others) has never not been demonstrated.

I know the above sounds snarky, but if I get some time I think I can convince you to the level required of a skeptic / this forum.

 

[bpesta22]

Many and....

What color is the sky in your world?

Tokie

Wow, that's a compelling counterargument. Yes, we are morally obligated to spend money on something that doesn't work (versus redirect the spending, or some of it, to a different potential answer to a serious social problem) because the childrens are at risk. Anyone disagreeing with the above is clearly mentally ill.

 

[Tokenconservative]

Wow, that's a compelling counterargument. Yes, we are morally obligated to spend money on something that doesn't work (versus redirect the spending, or some of it, to a different potential answer to a serious social problem) because the childrens are at risk. Anyone disagreeing with the above is clearly mentally ill.

Calm down, Pest.

I was agreeing with you.

I may be mentally ill, but so am I!

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Wow, those three points on IQ ignore 100 years worth of data, in a seemingly desperate attempt to marginalize the science. If I get more time, I'll post some detail: but, the flynn effect is in crisis (look for publications coming out in Intelligence on this issue), Steele's work is crap, the positive manifold (scoring high on one cognitive test means scoring high on others) has never not been demonstrated.

I know the above sounds snarky, but if I get some time I think I can convince you to the level required of a skeptic / this forum.

I'm not up on this stuff, but you seem to be. I'm curious (and I don't know where you sit on the nature vs. nurture argument): those who say IQ is all or mostly "environment" seem to be saying that everything about us from hair and eye color to whether we will be an alky or die of colon cancer is largely hardwired into us genetically...everything BUT IQ?

How can this be?

Tokie

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Wow, those three points on IQ ignore 100 years worth of data, in a seemingly desperate attempt to marginalize the science. If I get more time, I'll post some detail: but, the flynn effect is in crisis (look for publications coming out in Intelligence on this issue), Steele's work is crap, the positive manifold (scoring high on one cognitive test means scoring high on others) has never not been demonstrated.

I know the above sounds snarky, but if I get some time I think I can convince you to the level required of a skeptic / this forum.

I see, so you've no problem with the idea of using tests of questionable accuracy to determine which students should be educated, in a sort of self-fullining prophecy?

Every child deserves equal access to eduational opportunities, regardless of their intelligence. Plenty of high IQ students squander their educational opportunities, and plenty of low IQ students go on to academic success. I would never support a system whereby children are sorted based on IQ, and opportunities were preferentially given to the "elite."

Frankly, your proposal disgusts me.

 

[Tokenconservative]

I see, so you've no problem with the idea of using tests of questionable accuracy to determine which students should be educated, in a sort of self-fullining prophecy?

Every child deserves equal access to eduational opportunities, regardless of their intelligence. Plenty of high IQ students squander their educational opportunities, and plenty of low IQ students go on to academic success. I would never support a system whereby children are sorted based on IQ, and opportunities were preferentially given to the "elite."

Frankly, your proposal disgusts me.

The American public "education" system did just this for many years, starting (sigh...again) in the early to mid-60s not even relying on something as demonstrably questionable as a standardized IQ test, but rather allowing teachers to determine whether a child should be in the "dummy" category or something else.

Tokie

 

[bpesta22]

Sorry token; I did indeed misread yer post

Thanks for responding nicely to my screwup


I don't think we should sort people based on IQ, and give more to the brights and less to the non brights (nature will do that anyway, 30 or 40 years later). I agree that all people are born equal in terms of rights, just not in terms of ability.

I think we do a disservice to kids by assuming everyone is equally capable of learning stuff to the same degree and at the same rate. This philosophy-- what I called naive empiricism-- has been responsible for billions of dollars wasted in programs doomed to fail.

The type of educational approach one applies to 130s would seem different than that needed for 85s. Given the dire state of education today, what would we lose by recognizing the possibility that kids come to the table with different levels of mental ability. These differences seemed fixed at birth. These differences moreso than anything else determine what the kid will learn and how fast it will take him/her to learn it.

Starting from this perspective has to lead to different ideas and approaches to education. These approaches can do no worse than the old PC stuff we're doing now, and may even help. Surely, we could figure out how to temper the individual differences in IQ with the issue of fairness and access to education for everyone in a way where maybe we could actually apply the fairly-well advanced science of learning to a field where it's desparately needed-- teaching kids!

 

[bpesta22]

I see, so you've no problem with the idea of using tests of questionable accuracy to determine which students should be educated, in a sort of self-fullining prophecy?

Every child deserves equal access to eduational opportunities, regardless of their intelligence. Plenty of high IQ students squander their educational opportunities, and plenty of low IQ students go on to academic success. I would never support a system whereby children are sorted based on IQ, and opportunities were preferentially given to the "elite."

Frankly, your proposal disgusts me.

Questionable accuracy, only to those who don't do work in the field. Accuracy is an empirical question, and it's been answered. Are IQ tests perfectly accurate. No way. Are they accurate enough to be of some practical use. For sure. So much so that I think testing in general and IQ testing specifically has been psychology's only real contribution to humanity (whatever our second place contribution is, it pales in comparison).

So the kid with an 85 IQ, which causes him to score in the 8% on the SAT should have the same opportunity to attend an elite public school as the kid with the 130 who scores in the 95%?

What if the 130 were black and the 85 white?

 

[bpesta22]

I'm not up on this stuff, but you seem to be. I'm curious (and I don't know where you sit on the nature vs. nurture argument): those who say IQ is all or mostly "environment" seem to be saying that everything about us from hair and eye color to whether we will be an alky or die of colon cancer is largely hardwired into us genetically...everything BUT IQ?

How can this be?

Tokie

My opinion would be irrelevant were it not based on what the science says. The consensus is that 0-25% of IQ is caused by the environment (closer to 25 when the kid is young, closer to zero as that same kid grows older, albeit in the same environment!). For genes, it's between 50-75%. It won't add to 1.0 because of error in the test and testing situation.

I can have an opinion on nature / nurture re IQ, but why bother when the science is clear.

 

[Zep]

Vogon? Are you inviting me to recite?

You can always recite if you feel the need to. Who am I to stop you!

LOL. I love folks who make a game of forcing someone in a forum like this to "guess" about them and why they might have some valuable input.

Force? Who's using force! Guess, don't guess - see if I care. It's just fun to watch you getting sillier about this.

Seems to me, in an education forum, as an IT professional (sorry for the mixup...language thing again...you Brits should learn to speak English), your opinions about the issue carry no more weight than my own, and probably considerably less since I was a teacher in a public school for a short time and have substitute taught for years.

Tokie

Oh, I wasn't promoting myself as more worthy than you, nor was I saying you have no valuable input. I was merely wondering when you were going to stop spinning, ranting, making highly erroneous accusations and self-projecting while giving it.

And I believe I speak English well enough, thank you.

 

[Tokenconservative]

Sorry token; I did indeed misread yer post

Thanks for responding nicely to my screwup

I don't think we should sort people based on IQ, and give more to the brights and less to the non brights (nature will do that anyway, 30 or 40 years later). I agree that all people are born equal in terms of rights, just not in terms of ability.

I think we do a disservice to kids by assuming everyone is equally capable of learning stuff to the same degree and at the same rate. This philosophy-- what I called naive empiricism-- has been responsible for billions of dollars wasted in programs doomed to fail.

The type of educational approach one applies to 130s would seem different than that needed for 85s. Given the dire state of education today, what would we lose by recognizing the possibility that kids come to the table with different levels of mental ability. These differences seemed fixed at birth. These differences moreso than anything else determine what the kid will learn and how fast it will take him/her to learn it.

Starting from this perspective has to lead to different ideas and approaches to education. These approaches can do no worse than the old PC stuff we're doing now, and may even help. Surely, we could figure out how to temper the individual differences in IQ with the issue of fairness and access to education for everyone in a way where maybe we could actually apply the fairly-well advanced science of learning to a field where it's desparately needed-- teaching kids!

No problem...I am always happy to point up others' screwups.

As to the rest. While I understand and in large part agree with this approach,it is nevertheless fraught with problems, as the Brits discovered when they adopted the European "Gymnasium" education plan in which at about age 13, I believe, kids were tested and depening upon how they did on the tests that week, their entire life was set for them: those doing well were "permitted" to aim at going on to higher education. Those doing not so well were permitted to persue careers in...other areas. Like speding their lives on the Dole. A modified version of this was put in place in our schools in the 1960s, was phased out later when it was identified for the disaster it is, then Hillary Clinton back-doored it back into the schools in the 90s. Not as DIRECTLY as it is practised in Europe and was in Britain, but it's there, nonetheless.

Here is a very BIG problem with this as it was in the 60s and is now: who do you suppose decides whether your child is a "dummy" or a "genius"? Well, it's teachers. Now, keep in mind, there may be a few 2-4th grade teachers out there who are more than equal to this task, have dual Ph.Ds in sociology and psychology and practiced in public or private for decades. You can probably count the numbers of 2-4th grade teachers across the nation who fit this profile on one hand.

Otherwise, we would be leaving this judgement up to people who, in general, graduate at the very lowest levels of their college class and have become "teachers" primarily because they cannot become anything else.

I was myself identified as a "dummy" about this age (by 3rd grade) probably because I was not the most attentive little boy (shocker!!! Little boys are sometimes inattentive!!??). My "permanent record" preceeded me into each new class and I was treated as a dope, and a few teachers in high school actually told me they were shocked--SHOCKED!!--to discover by my level of thinking an work that I was not a drooling moron. Too late, by then of course, because I'd been treated as a "dummy" for too many years.

Sob, sob. Today of course, I make 5-8x as much as teachers earning the "top" pay in this area.

It is not enough in my mind, to do "no worse." We must strive to stop repeating the errors of the past and instead use the effective measures of the past incorporated with effective measures for today.

Instead, we have "education" driven by a labor union the only intent of which is to ensure more and more and more for its members. Yes, they certainly do a good job of paying lip-service to "for the children!" but that's not how it works out where the rubber meets the road. You are not going to get the best out of educaton institutions in which the lowest common denominator is teaching to the lowest common denominator. What you get, is a positive feedback loop that just makes it worse and worse and worse.

Those reading this and now shrieking "where's your evidence!!! Show me a LIIIIINNNNKKKKK!!!", um...no. Instead, do this: go find a standard school reference work from say, 1940 or 45, or 50. Compare it to one from say, 1970, 1980 and today. If you cannot see the steady downward spiral of the quality of learning these later textbooks demonstrate...it's because you are not yourself very bright.

If you CAN see it, and cannot bring yourself to admit it...it's because you are a part of the problem.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

My opinion would be irrelevant were it not based on what the science says. The consensus is that 0-25% of IQ is caused by the environment (closer to 25 when the kid is young, closer to zero as that same kid grows older, albeit in the same environment!). For genes, it's between 50-75%. It won't add to 1.0 because of error in the test and testing situation.

I can have an opinion on nature / nurture re IQ, but why bother when the science is clear.

I don't know. I did recently read something in which the two battling sides of this were um...battling at a conference and in essense the result was a draw.

Again.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

You can always recite if you feel the need to. Who am I to stop you!

Force? Who's using force! Guess, don't guess - see if I care. It's just fun to watch you getting sillier about this.

Oh, I wasn't promoting myself as more worthy than you, nor was I saying you have no valuable input. I was merely wondering when you were going to stop spinning, ranting, making highly erroneous accusations and self-projecting while giving it.

And I believe I speak English well enough, thank you.

I warn you that I would give any Vogon a run for his money...

Silly is as silly does.

Oh, of course you were! Whenever I, as a non-IT (that's what we call it here) professional run across someone on the interwebby who does work in IT, they simply LOVE to tell me how much better at computery stuff they are than am I! Brag away! If you actually work in that industry, I hope to Gaia you ARE much better'n me! It's always a curiosity to me though, that none of these folks seem to be better doctors or lawyers or plumbers...or better at my job than me....

And I love to projectile vomit. It's a marvelous way to cleanse the body of toxins.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Questionable accuracy, only to those who don't do work in the field. Accuracy is an empirical question, and it's been answered. Are IQ tests perfectly accurate. No way. Are they accurate enough to be of some practical use. For sure. So much so that I think testing in general and IQ testing specifically has been psychology's only real contribution to humanity (whatever our second place contribution is, it pales in comparison).

So the kid with an 85 IQ, which causes him to score in the 8% on the SAT should have the same opportunity to attend an elite public school as the kid with the 130 who scores in the 95%?

What if the 130 were black and the 85 white?

I was told in my Psych 101 class that the second most important contribution was that a black woman became a psychologist sometime in the early 1960s.

When I was teaching 5th grade, I went to my principal (remember, she's your "pal"!) and told here that I had a kid who was clearly "retarded" in my class and that he either needed to be in the special education class or to recieve help I could not give him (I was not trained in that specialty).

First, the principal was utterly shocked at my use of the word "retarded." I was told "we use the term 'learning impaired!'" Ah, yes...and I can call up down and down up...does it mean airplanes can fly through the center of the planet?

In any case, the child was operating at about the level of (my guess...I am not expert and could not even adequtely test him as I did the other kids), at best, about Kindergarten. I simply had to leave him behind. I had no choice. I could not address his needs and continue teaching the other kids at the same time. The principal (and this boy's mother) were furious at this. I was asked by both to "slow down" the rest of the class so he could "catch up." When I told the principal, he is not going to "catch up" and that I didn't have the skills to deal with his problems, her reply was "do the best you can."

I did. I gave him coloring and other busy work while I moved on with the other kids.

Did I mention I was eventually fired from this job?

Tokie