JR writes:

You said in your post about the Atlanta cheating scandal: 

At the heart of this scandal is the failure to recognize that blacks should not be held to impossible standards. It is not right. Black education should be different from white education. It is not compassionate to deny racial differences. The progression of subject matter should proceed at a different pace and black students should graduate to the working world, at perhaps a much younger age, with a command of basics and not the unrealistic, utopian expectation that they will study Algebra II in high school or go on to higher education that isn’t narrowly vocational. Of course, some blacks will do these things and they deserve the opportunity to succeed, but schools should acknowledge the general characteristics of black students and adopt realistic standards. 

But isn’t that something that blacks can do now on their own? Why must someone or some institution (government, e.g.) set something up for them, which would appear to be the practical extension of your laudable point? Or, perhaps, you would say they cannot do this on their own because state education departments would balk at setting up such separate education paths for blacks?

 Laura writes:

They definitely can’t do it on their own now. For one, they have those tests and pass rates imposed by No Child Left Behind (or No Child Left Alone); these hold blacks to similar standards as whites and are a virtual mandate for cheating by principals and teachers. Standardized tests do have value for largely black schools, even more so than for white schools, but the standards should be changed, with basic skills reinforced throughout elementary and secondary school.

Secondly, black political groups aren’t motivated, and will probably never be motivated, to start a revolution in education not founded on racial grievances. There is also widespread parental indifference.

You ask, “Why must someone or some institution (government, e.g.) set something up for them?”  Because it’s the right thing to do and blacks are unlikely to do it entirely on their own. I’m not a supporter of our public education system, but paternalistic education of some kind, education not founded on white guilt and not indulgent of lawlessness or misbehavior, makes sense for blacks. A libertarian approach isn’t reasonable for all groups. That’s a vague answer, but until we let the idea that racial differences matter, in education especially, we can’t work on the details.

I should add that all education is not worthy of the name unless it takes into consideration the totality of the person. That is as true for blacks as for whites. Modern state-run education denies the spiritual dimension and the immortality of the soul.

                                                               — Comments —

Jesse Powell writes:

Laura writes, “Black education should be different from white education. It is not compassionate to deny racial differences.” 

I am wondering, does this mean that you believe that blacks and whites should be educated separately, that classrooms or schools should be racially segregated? When you say that “Black education should be different from white education.” I don’t see how that is to be accomplished if both black and white students are sharing the same class with the same teacher. 

Would you object to a student’s progress being determined by their test scores or some other objective criteria of competence? If one uses an objective criteria to measure student progress and lets the progress that the student makes determine the educational path best suited to the long run success of the student then I don’t see why race would ever need to be a factor in how the student is treated or guided.

Laura writes:

There is de facto segregation in much of the country already since blacks and whites naturally tend toward separation. I’m not advocating legally imposed segregation, but suggesting that  1) racial characteristics be taken into consideration and 2) naturally-occurring segregation be considered normal and good. As it is now, there is constant alarm about the low performance of black students, which is attributed to economic injustice and racism. Expensive, unrealistic schemes, such as this $100 million school in Harlem,  are the result.

Would you object to a student’s progress being determined by their test scores or some other objective criteria of competence?  

Educators should take into consideration individual differences, but it’s wrong not to respond to general tendencies because children are taught in groups and schools adopt curricula based on anticipated abilities.

Since the purpose of education is to form character, not just test scores, the ideal would be single-sex Christian schools that are generally segregated by race. But I don’t mean Christian in the liberal sense, which involves the denial of group differences in intelligence and temperament and promotes white guilt.

Mr. Powell writes:

You say, “The ideal would be single-sex Christian schools that are generally segregated by race.” Earlier, quoted above, you make it clear that you think that blacks in general have a lower academic aptitude than whites in general when you say “The progression of subject matter should proceed at a different pace and black students should graduate to the working world, at perhaps a much younger age, with a command of basics and not the unrealistic, utopian expectation that they will study Algebra II in high school or go on to higher education that isn’t narrowly vocational.” 

I don’t like the combination of segregating students by race with an assumption before hand that blacks are less academically capable than whites and therefore should receive a lesser level of academic preparation as compared to whites. If society invests less in the education of blacks as compared to whites then of course blacks will achieve less academically than whites do. 

You might retort that such an assertion “involves the denial of group differences in intelligence and temperament and promotes white guilt” but I would say it is just common decency and common sense that a black child should not be intentionally given an inferior education just because they are black.

Laura writes:

Why do you call what I advocate an “inferior” education? Do you consider trying to educate individuals to their potential, whatever that potential may be, inferior to educating them to someone else’s potential? I assume you object that not all high school students are placed in Calculus classes. The fact that some students take Calculus or college-preparation English and others do not means in your view that some students are receiving an inferior education. I assume you would also object if a fifth grade student who was not reading at a fifth-grade level was not forced to receive the same instruction as those who are at that level. I assume you object that some students go to community college and others to four-year universities.

The math teacher that I mentioned in the previous entry teaches Algebra in a black school to students who are not prepared for it. Do you think it is better that they sit in a class and fail then that they progress at their own level? If so, it is you who wish blacks to have an inferior education. I know you will say that we do not know these differences in intelligence are real, but in insisting on this you are ignoring vast evidence to the contrary. The principals and teachers in Atlanta were motivated to cheat for a reason.

To repeat, I did not advocate mandatory segregation, but acceptance of naturally-occurring segregation.

Art writes:

I would see racial differences as real, but a simple acknowledgement of them is sufficient. Education should be primarily segregated by social class and ability, not by race. Those social categories are far more important and universal, and would naturally result in a more useful segregation than a general focus on race.

Laura writes:

Schooling should not focus on race. I am not suggesting that, but I do think children can more easily form a sense of identity and community in schools that are racially homogenous. Schools are to a large degree already segregated by race and class. In upper-middle class school districts, blacks tend to perform at a lower level than white students, and students tend, with many exceptions, to gravitate toward other students of the same race. So I would disagree with your assertion that class is more primary than race.

One disadvantage of integrated schools is that they encourage blacks to see success as a white thing. In all-male black schools, competition might occur more naturally and discipline and instruction can be attuned to the temperament of black males without seeming to single them out or treat them unfairly.

Eric writes:

No Child Left Alone? I thought it was No Child Gets Ahead.

Please follow and like us: