And yet our failed public urban school systems can’t teach it’s black and brown students the first thing about these issues. When I see young (under 25) people coming into the criminal courts – including as jurors (they don’t last long) they are utterly clueless about what is happening and why. They know neither the basics or the common things (sex laws, vicarious liability law).

They are the proverbial babes in the woods, and the woods are full of hazards.

So when we speak of the significance of OUSD’s graduation rate think of how that district has prepared the drop outs as well as the graduates to survive (stay out of trouble and get a job) in this Brave New World. And if OUSD students are able to survive at age 18, what good is their education?

The different cognitive skill groups have different needs for education/training and different advantages. That’s life. Our schools should recognize this and provide programs that help not damage the students.

And the major split between the various groups would occur at onset of puberty. In Los Angeles my experience through friends is that although middle class families may enroll in LAUSD through 3rd or 5th grade they get their kids out of there into the $20k/year private schools before middle school. That’s when the differences are manifest and they don’t want their kids associating with the others in the LAUSD programs. The alternative is to move from Los Angeles.

And many of these people are themselves products of the public schools.

As far as the IQ thing – measure it however you will, there are many many tests and scoring systems. In the abstract we are talking about brain processing speed. Those who run at the lower speeds have problems with delayed gratification and abstract reasoning – such as reasoning about honesty, violence, crime and sexuality. Such people don’t behave (lifelong) in the “civilized” way the brighter people do. Not that we don’t have bright criminals, we do, but not in such a large ratio.

There is a measure of intelligence involved in standardized tests; many students learn test taking skills which allow them to deduce, reason, rationalize, and think about what they are being asked – this is the camp who believe such tests are more like puzzles rather than an assessment of skills. If it’s used in that way, it can be a sign of intelligence.

However, these tests are usually given, taught to, and explained in this manner: “This test will show what skills you know.” Skill based assessments are just that. It is not a sign of intelligence but rather a sign of preparation.

You say that IQ is largely inherent. But surely we can agree that academic skills are not. Nobody is born knowing the vocabulary and accepted application of Calculus…

If we we tested for intelligence at 7 years old, many of your current college graduates would be shocked to find that they scored lower than the dropouts. Intelligence and Processing tests don’t ask questions about scientific notation. In a previous career I used to give those tests. That’s not what OUSD needs. We need to develop skills and make sure that all kids get their shot. An honest shot. Right now there is a big variance in quality of school performance.

We can argue if the schools are causing the success or if the students’ intelligence is the reason for the gap. That’s like asking what comes first the chicken or the egg. My 5 year old son’s response to that age old question was, “The egg. Duh.”

I think that’s the attitude we have to take. As a teacher, I have seen many students turned around who were labeled as educably handicapped. As a matter of fact, I’ll be going to some college graduations this year of some of those students.

Any kid can learn. I think you are right on when you say we need to have options for children and families. I like the idea of having those vocational classes available. But I disagree with you on the distict segregating kids into those groups. The last thing we need is an imperfect test or imperfect people making life-changing decisions about a kids’ future.

Your premise: The schools are being bogged down with incapable students.

I disagree with your premise I think there are other things bogging down the system. But the fact that you are willing to consider and voice all options is encouraging. We need all voices heard – even if we disagree strongly with some of the premises.

And IQ is largely inherent. You don’t grow it with better food.

As far as using the left side of the Bell Curve for manual labor – well, they get used for whatever they are suitable for. Maybe NFL, Maybe Acting, Maybe rapping, maybe politics, maybe bus driving. Just because you can’t survive a calculus class there is no reason to think a person can’t make a real good living at something. The trick is finding that something in the relatively short time you have to get on the ladder of success. Some of our drop outs discover prostitution and drug dealing. But even that takes some smarts. Was Sally Stanford a genius? Maybe not, but she had a great time and lived well into old age.

Right now the left side of the Bell Curve leave OUSD and end up as human signs, they can’t even get a McDonalds job – immigration, created at full force by Congress – has helped render our dull people utterly unemployable absent real strong training programs OUSD and the other urban schools don’t have.

I’m not saying our dulls have to be hotel maids – but they should have the option. With immigration (legal and illegal) they don’t.

And as far as the intelligence of fellow man – spare me. IQ is measured. We know the IQ of anyone we need to measure – many many tests are IQ test proxies including the SAT, military entrance tests, state professional licensing exams, etc. We know the IQs of the dropouts – as a group. If we need to know them individually we look at their last test scores on various exams and get an approximation. Simply put, profiling works when you are dealing with groups of people and not individuals. And that is what policy is about – people in large numbers.

And on the subject of IQ. The goofy Supreme Court banned IQ tests in employment (other than Military and NFL which use it incessantly). All Corporate America had to do is require pedigrees – diplomas from certain schools – which are IQ proxies. And things are back to normal except it’s now much harder to get smart minorities than when you could just test for them (regardless of what college they went to).

And staffing a college prep program with dull students damages all the students and wrecks the program. Allowing for individuals to challenge the assigned seating is one thing. Mixing students across the board gives you – OUSD. A mess where learning ceases and performance crashes.

Nextell, I disagree with your premise. Saying puberty is when cognitive differences manifest, implies that those differences are inherent. According to this report, Oakland has a 50% dropout rate that is actually an improvement from the past. I do not believe, that 50% of the students in Oakland are unable to be educated (cognitively dull). To imply that half the kids in Oakland aren’t college material, and therefore should be steered towards decent, manual labor reveals a true lack of faith in the intelligence of one’s fellow man.

I do not blame you for interpreting the numbers how you have, nor do I blame you for an apparent frustration at the waste and misallocation of resources your viewpoint seems to loathe. What I will say is this – we can agree that something needs to be changed and restructured to produce better results.

Your idea to have trade skills reintroduced to the school system is not a bad idea. Many older residents recall a time when Woodshop, Home Econ, and Autoshop were favorite classes. Some students may have very well used those classes as a springboard into a career. I agree; it is crusial that we diversify our portfolio of offerings to meet all student needs. However, I think it’s unwise to separate students from access to the college-prep courses.

1. The separation would need to be guided by human hands. Teachers, administrators, testing and such. There are too many variables to know for sure ifa kid is doing poorly because of their lack of intelligence (I shiver just writing that. I truly believe all kids can learn. But I’m following your rationale…). With human variables comes problems. You run too great of risk of mislabeling students and, thereby, allowing all manner of vice and human deference to impact on a kid’s life path. That’s too much power in human hands.

2. Kids change their minds. Kids grow. Kids who’ve drawn the short straw and had bad classroom experiences may simply need a different environment to thrive. As a teacher, I’ve seen it time and again.

There are programs like Job Corps at Treasure Island who do as you suggest. But even they have a classroom component to earn a diploma.

Half the kids in Oakland aren’t academically dumb. Unskilled, definitely. Underperforming, without a doubt. Uneducable… hell, no.

I understand your frustration. While I disagree with your premise, I think we can agree that changes to the system should address student needs. Agreed.

My first year teaching I was next door to an old-vet. While most of the school was in chaos, her room was an oasis of peace and achievement. The students were focused and learning. I asked her what was her teaching philosophy and she quickly said, “I blieve I can teach any child, any-time, any-where.” That was her philosophy and I cling to that as a way to read this current mess. We have to believe that every child can learn, regardless of their situation. I know you’re frustrated – but don’t let it erode your opinion of your fellow man’s potential.

Feel free to continue this conversation off-board.
olderandwyzer@yahoo.com

When you are going to make your living with your hands and your back you need to start early. We need to better help those kids who will be making that living. The schools need to place the bottom half – who aren’t going to college – on the ladder by age 18. And that includes our drop outs, even if we have to start by teaching them how to work as human signs and motel maids – so they can always get one of those jobs at the least. Hopefully they’ll train for something better.

I think OUSD can aptitude test the students by 10th grade (if not every year of High School) and offer switch students off the Academic Track who don’t want it.

The schools have to manage the kids and get the best for them they resonable can with the school budget and resources. Keeping everyone together doesn’t pay for post pubescents. They (brights & dulls) clearly move in different directions and the schools have to accomodate that with an academic program for those who want it/can do it, and a non-academic (minimal academic/maximum vocational and life skills) program for those that don’t. The Non Academics have been cheated for generations at OUSD now – they are just run out of the place (as shown by the drop rate) and essentially dumped into the streets like unwanted Cats.

The alternative is to create a strong non-academic program that ofers some kind of a decent start in life for kids who have no aptitude for Academics (ie read at 5th grade level at 10th grade).