🚀 go-pugleaf

On 19 Aug, 19:48, RichAsianKid <richasian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the latest news -- the 2008 California Standardized Test
> Results are out!!
> There's a lot of data. What I've done is to summarize some of
> the data and present it in 4 areas in selected grades:
> (1) CST - English/Language Arts (senior grades)
> (2) CST - Math at the junior levels (as math then branches off into
> algebra, integrated math, geometry etc making comparisons more
> difficult)
> (3) CST - Physics/Chem/Bio at the End of Course (EOC)
> (4) CST - Life Sciences at the Grade 5, Grade 8, and Grade 10 levels
> Here're the snapshots of the results:
>   (1)  http://i37.tinypic.com/j5fl0g.jpg
>   (2)  http://i38.tinypic.com/30icemd.jpg
>   (3)  http://i37.tinypic.com/2193pzs.jpg (Tahitian too small a
> sample- thus not reported)
>   (4)  http://i37.tinypic.com/2w3tcgi.jpg
> Posters who have more time will certainly want to visithttp://star.cde.ca.gov/star2008/Viewreport.asp
> and download the database and plot more data or just verify the
> presented data here.
> Now, what does "advanced" mean?
>  California uses five performance levels to report student achievement
> on the CSTs:
>     * Advanced performance in relation to the California content
> standards tested
>     * Proficient performance in relation to the California content
> standards tested
>     * Basic performance in relation to the California content
> standards tested
>     * Below Basic performance in relation to the California content
> standards tested
>     * Far Below Basic performance in relation to the California
> content standards tested
> All CSTs are reported with scores 150-600. The scale score that
> divides basic scores from below basic is 300 for every grade and
> subject area. The score that divides basic scores from proficient
> scores is 350 for every grade and subject area. Tables that include
> the score range for each grade level, subject area, and performance
> level are available at  http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/resources.asp.
> The target is for all California students to score at proficient or
> above.
> I've focused even more selectively and just plotted the Advanced
> Levels.
> As mentioned, all CSTs are reported with scores 150-600, and the
> brackets are different and varies as follows:
>    English
>    http://i34.tinypic.com/6jkc39.jpg
>    Math
>    http://i33.tinypic.com/2d7ge34.jpg
>    Science
>    http://i36.tinypic.com/25g6u75.jpg
> But going back to the original data, huge group disparities are seen.
> NorthEast Asians (Chinese, Korean, and Japanese) usually perform the
> best. Asian Indians also put on a surprisingly strong show. Blacks
> are, as usual, at or near the bottom.
> Of course, this baffles lots of educators. See, for instance, this
> article re: San Francisco achievement titled “S.F.'s black students
> lag far behind whites”:
>      http://tinyurl.com/5vg85l
> First paragraph: "San Francisco schools earned bragging rights on
> state standardized tests again this year - performing better than the
> state as a whole across every grade in both math and English - but any
> celebration was clouded by the subpar proficiency of the district's
> African American students, who continued to fall further behind their
> peers."
> And amazingly, this quote: “Special education students had slightly
> higher proficiency rates than black students in second-, third- and
> fourth-grade math as well as fourth-grade English.”
> Wow!!  (Social etiquette requires that you translate that paragraph
> yourself....)
> Needless to say, poverty must be the explanation, and the article goes
> on to explain it.
> One wonders, however, what they have to say when, at even higher
> levels, i.e. at the level of the SAT in 2005, black kids from black
> households
> that have parental incomes of over $100K actually score LOWER than
> white kids from white households that have parental incomes of below
> $10K.
> Of course, there may be a slightly more parsimonious explanation......
>      http://www.vdare.com/taylor/071113_stumped.htm
> But of course, *that's* taboo and is unmentionable.
> In any case, the data speaks tons.
> And I urge posters to visit the above site(s) and appreciate and
> relish in the wonderful diversity of achievement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'that's', 'varies', 'site(s)', 'relish in' etc. Ho hum. Then, comes
the mindless 'Bill' Occidental hot on the heels of 'victorious' stats.
Some misguided woman will sort him out some day, I guess, singing:

I used to dream that I would discover
The perfect lover someday.
I knew I'd recognize him if ever
He came 'round my way.
I always used to fancy then
He'd be one of the god-like kind of men,
With a giant brain and a noble head,
Like the heroes bold
In the books I've read.
But along came Bill, who's not the type at all
You'd meet him on the street and never notice him.
His form, his face, his manly grace
Are not the kind that you would find in a statue.
And I can't explain--
It's surely not his brain that makes me thrill.
I love him because, he's wonderful
Because he's just my Bill.
He can't play golf or tennis or polo,
Or sing a solo, or row.
He isn't half as handsome
As dozens of men I know.
He isn't tall or straight or slim,
And he dresses far worse than Ted or Jim.
And I can't explain whey he should be
Just the one, one, man in the world for me.
He's just my Bill, and ordinary guy.
He hasn't got a thing that I can brag about
And yet to be, upon his knee,
So comfy and roomy
Seems natural to me.
And I can't explain--
It's surely not his brain
That makes me thrill.
I love him because, he's--I don't know--
Because he's just my Bill
--
foolsrushin.