Rich Privilege? This Stanford Study on Education Says No...
Affirmative Action was created to help "disadvantaged" individuals get into university. Where major levels of social justice are rolled into four years. Such high exposure causes brain meltage. But one study is showing poor kids may be striking oil when it comes to school long before college. In other words, rich privilege isn't a thing.
The myth that funding equals a better school? Not true.
A new Stanford University study of test scores from 45 million students, who populate the about 11,000 US public-school districts, upends that set of assumptions.
The study found no correlation between a given district's socioeconomic status and the average test scores of its students. According to Stanford sociologist Sean Reardon...
"There are many relatively high-poverty school districts where students appear to be learning at a faster rate than kids in other, less poor districts," Reardon said in a statement. "Poverty clearly does not determine the quality of a school system."
Reardon first gathered data on third-grade test scores, reasoning that kids performed roughly according to their family's level of wealth. "Affluent families and districts are able to provide much greater opportunities than poor ones early in children's lives," he wrote in the report.
Knocked down by his own biases toward poor people. At least he's willing to admit he's wrong instead of fudging the numbers, unlike certain dunderheads. See everything Hillary has ever done.
Then he crunched the numbers on approximately 45 million test scores, from third- through eighth-graders in nearly every US school district. Surprisingly, Reardon found no correlation between how wealthy a district was and whether its kids were making outsized leaps in achievement.
Math is hard, especially in large quantities. So we'll give this leftist a pat on the back and his first ever man card. Studies can be stupidly simple. Just take an objective step back, conduct the experiment, or study, or survey. Don't forget a control group, just make sure they aren't SJWs. They have no control.
I've said it once and I'll say it again with an amplified tone: people who deserve to go to college will find a way to get into college. It doesn't matter if they're so poor they eat pizza --- boxes.
The stunning thing about this study? Bad test scores + rapidly better test scores = a good school.
Good teachers help kiddos improve. All the monies on the earthly sphere can't buy passionate teachers. Well, maybe "passionate" isn't the word I'm fishing for (see 40-Yr-Old Teacher Sexually Harasses Teen Student in the Lewdest Ways). We'll go with effective instead. Teachers in poor schools tend to be there because they want to be. Not because it's a great place to work, with great benefits and fancy teacher lounges. They're there to help slum house Sally get the smarts.
Assuming minorities or people in poverty need special help getting into college is demeaning. Definition of the "white savior." They seem to be doing just fine without self-righteous academic pricks kissing their boo-boos. Affirmative Action has merely affirmed victimhood. Or shall I say alleged victims of the "hood?" I'm done now.
Here's an educational video all about the current laws surrounding Affirmative Action. It's actually affirming: