Saw this on the channel 18 Facebook page.

 

(First time to upload a pic. Hope it works)

So a black kid with a 3.5 is going to be called down? Come on.

 

Do it for all kids who are struggling and do not lump all black kids into a group of underachievers.

 

Adults should know better.

About 300 comments on that Facebook post. Most agreeing with your position Clyde.

 

No matter how ridiculous the state testing accountability system is, these school administrators should know better than this.

So the middle-class white kid with a 1.8 GPA doesn't get called down?

I truly believe this was done with good intentions. It's just poor execution.

So a black kid with a 3.5 is going to be called down? Come on.

 

Do it for all kids who are struggling and do not lump all black kids into a group of underachievers.

 

Adults should know better.

 

Exactly. We've met with all of our 10th-12th grade students for goal setting, looking at transcripts, ACT or PLAN scores, etc, not just black students or poor students.

I truly believe this was done with good intentions. It's just poor execution.

 

Racism is racism.

Black people are mad about the racist overtones of the letter.

White people are mad that the black kids are going to get additional assistance that the white kids aren't going to get.

Racism is racism.

 

I do not think this falls into the category of racism since it also includes free lunch kids. Again, that free lunch kid may have a 4.0 but...

I agree with you both that the intention is good, but the execution is poor. There is a big push for "gap reduction" in the accountability model. If you have so many of certain subgroup, their scores are compared with those not in that subgroup. If there is a "gap" of a certain amount, you must show gap reduction. Unfortunately, if you have the exact same grades/needs as someone in that subgroup and you are not in the subgroup, then you might get slighted, a school gets more credit in raising the gap kid's scores than the non-gap.

Subgroups may include minorities, special needs, free/reduced lunch students.

 

I do not think this falls into the category of racism since it also includes free lunch kids. Again, that free lunch kid may have a 4.0 but...

 

It doesn't have to have intent to be racism. Why group African Americans in with kids who get free lunch? Wouldn't it be just as simple to do them separate. Why is there a need to bring a race by itself in the first place?

 

I agree like you they probably had the best intentions in mind but come on.

I agree with you both that the intention is good, but the execution is poor. There is a big push for "gap reduction" in the accountability model. If you have so many of certain subgroup, their scores are compared with those not in that subgroup. If there is a "gap" of a certain amount, you must show gap reduction. Unfortunately, if you have the exact same grades/needs as someone in that subgroup and you are not in the subgroup, then you might get slighted, a school gets more credit in raising the gap kid's scores than the non-gap.

 

I assume we agree the school should be looking out for all of the kids that are on the wrong path or on the path of failing to graduate, correct?

Subgroups may include minorities' date=' special needs, free/reduced lunch students.[/quote']

 

That answers my second question... However, that letter just doesn't pass the eye test. IMO

It doesn't have to have intent to be racism. Why group African Americans in with kids who get free lunch? Wouldn't it be just as simple to do them separate. Why is there a need to bring a race by itself in the first place?

 

I agree like you they probably had the best intentions in mind but come on.

 

Decades of history show that AS A GROUP black students perform worse than white students. So saying that is not a racist statement.

 

If "gap achievement" has value, fine. Just don't bring in kids that are doing fine.