Posted by BeachGirl (anonymous) on December 11, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i graduated from Pike County High and i had NO trouble passing all the required exams...some students simply wont learn, its no lack of effort on the teachers part at pchs, i can say that...

Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on December 11, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"considering the makeup of pike co. schools"...What's to be considered? The Bell Curve teaches that because of genes and economics, and if you are in the lower range of this socio-economics status, then your IQ will be lower and thats why you cannot pass the AHSGE.

I believe economics plays a part in Test scores but not in IQ. I believe genes do not play any part in it. If you tested the IQ of the parents of all modern day geniuses, their IQ levels would not even be close to their offspring. Genetics have so many abnormalities that its ridiculous. I am 6'4, genetically compared to my parents (5'11 & 5'7) and grandparents I should be 5'10. Genes have no bearing on IQ, if we tested the IQ of 3-5 yr olds with the same variables, i bet their IQ levels would be relatively same across the board no matter race or parent IQ.

With that said, I believe economics does bear heavy on test scores but not IQ level. The test scores are not indicative of actual IQ. Once a child begins to realize their environment and is heavily influenced by their social peers and environment, it changes the attitude and re-focuses the mindset of the individual. Their IQ is still the same but their attitude is different.

Being from a wealthy family does not make you smarter but differentiate from your lower level economic peers who have lost their focus, to make it seem like you are smarter than them. For example, our last president, graduated from Andover (a prestigous school where 99% go to Ivy league colleges and most past presidents attended), Yale & Harvard, and most people on this forum have more intelligence than him. (sorry...not trying to keep throwing him under the bus but was needed to prove a point)

I am glad that they are getting rid of the AHSGE...I hated that some of my classmates didn't get a chance to walk across the stage and receive their diploma instead of a certificate congratulating them for 12yrs of nothing. Their competency shouldn't be ranged on 1 test. Not saying that all would have went to college and became the leaders of tomorrow but it would have put them a better situation to succeed down the line with a High School Diploma!

Posted by belle (anonymous) on December 11, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

barryseal55-would you like to be compared to others based on a curve? Why should others abilities have any affect on your grades and/or ability? I agree completely with both BeachGirl and bamaslick!

Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on December 11, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yes people have different IQ's and your economic status may have an impact on test scores but not IQ level. The bell curve is right that people of deprived socio-economic backgrounds score lower on tests, I am not disputing that.

That is just how it is and how its always going to be. This is why, I believe that IQ test are inaccurate because of that very notion of status. If you are at a disadvantage to begin with then how can any test attain the correct aptitude. IQ should then be based on your status. You cannot compare test with others who are not of the same status range.

Therefore get rid of the AHSGE unless you are going to give everyone a seperate test based on their socio-economic aptitude.

Posted by BeachGirl (anonymous) on December 11, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i thnk alot of times it has nothing to do with IQ levels. some kids are just lazy. lets face it. Yes IQ does play a part in your future HOWEVER, the drive has to be there or IQ wont get you anywhere..i know many 'lower level' iq people who have simply worked their rear ends off to be successful..i wasnt a genius..but i graduated with a medical technology degree. i dont really think im one of the smartest people out there but i worked my fingers off studying, and it paid off. In the end, we al lhave the same educational opportunities. some just want them more it seems..

Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on December 11, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you give an IQ test based on cognitive & analytical skills learned after a child gains his or her experiences from their environment it is useless. Give a basketball player a test on his basketball IQ then give him a test on Algebra and check the scores. He will know more about basketball then a person who values something else. Its all relative.

Not every child learns the same but you cannot base it on race. If you had 3 segregated schools black, white, & asian in the same economic range, all three would have 50% ready for college and 50% janitorial positions.

Use your own reasoning.

Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on December 11, 2009 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice Beachgirl

Some have the priorities in order. The want it attitude.

Posted by Observer22 (anonymous) on December 11, 2009 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Many people confuse or over-state the significance of an IQ score. The IQ stands for intelligence quotient - the quotient is reached by comparing the score one makes on a test to the average score made by others of the same age on the same test. The average score is 100; if in a given age group the average score is 65-percent then 65 is 100. An individual's IQ score is the percentage of 65 represented by his correct responses. If he has 70 correct responses his IQ is 108 percent of 65 and his IQ is 108; or if he has 55 correct responses his IQ would be 85 percent of 65 or 85.
An IQ score shows only where one stands in comparison to others of the same age. Of course, it is expected that one who has an IQ of 125 at age 10 will likely have more success in school for the next eight years than another with an IQ of 100 or of 85.
IQ tests, like most tests, are language based which is why Blacks and poor whites who have been immersed in non-standard English have lower scores than those who come from educated households where standard English is spoken. Hence, IQ measures are most valid in predicting success in language based instruction and testing but generally are not real measures of absolute intelligence.
The Asian advantage is not the result of racial superiority. That advantage is the result of cultural differences. Asian cultures tend to be collective as opposed to Western Culture which is individualistic. Asians benefit from a cultural tradition which emphasizes personal responsibility and discipline as opposed to Western culture which emphasizes individual freedom or African-American culture which places its emphasis on entitlement.
The key for parents who want their children to have more success in school than they did is to focus on standard English.

Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on December 11, 2009 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

IQ test are bad just for the reasons you dismiss of my argument. If a child has bad learned habits then his test will be lower. IQ test were never meant to be rank children on a measure of intelligence because intellectual qualities could not be measured. Intelligence is not a fixed measurement...it grows and can be increased.

Saying that Asians are the smartest people intellectually (determined by an IQ test) is like saying Blacks are the best in individual sports...(Blacks in America are genetically stronger & generally more athletic thanks to Slave owners breeding super slaves...to have a dominate gene pool of slaves to work the fields.) This is why we have Lebron James...6'8" 260 pds of muscle that runs and jumps like a deer. You will never find that in Africa.

Posted by professor (anonymous) on December 11, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

barryseal55, I think you are brilliant.
Being dumb IS what makes you poor.
I teach in Alabama schools, and have taught in other parts of the country in previous years. What is going on here is pitiful. These students are given passing grades, because principals demand teachers to pass them all "so they won't all pile up in 2nd grade". The worst part is, since they pass, the THINK they are as smart as those who really ARE smart!!!!. Students in middle and high school often have 2nd or 3rd grade reading and math abilities, yet they pass. USA is way behind other nations academically because we try to pretend everyone can learn. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND is a joke. We should be steering some students toward college, and others toward vocations. But it appears that it is prejudice if we don't try to prepare all for college.
I agree with your remarks about Asians, whites, and blacks too.
Anyone who looks back 300 years at the 3 cultures could plainly see who advanced first. The advancement was clearly due to higher intellectual ability. If global travel had not begun, things would still be very primitive in some parts of the world. This is clear by the lack of development there now.

Posted by justplainjames (anonymous) on December 12, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Unfortunately, most (if not all) of the opinions offered in the foregoing commentaries reveal the typical biases concerning intelligence, socioeconomic status (SES), and race. So, SES causes individual differences in intelligence? Or, conversely, individual differences in intelligence cause differences in SES? Asians (all) are more intellectually advanced than Whites (all)? The latter are more advanced than Blacks (all)? Where do Hispanics fit in; or, is there no need to include a group that is not represented in Troy’s population? Oh, and let us not omit a key element of these discussions: Intelligence, as currently conceptualized, causes differences in academic performance and achievement? Education has nothing to do with the development of intelligent behavior and mental processes…really?

First, and foremost, SES dos NOT cause any of the previously referenced outcomes (regarding: barryseal55; bamaslick). It is merely a descriptive indicator used by researchers to identify individuals’ immediate, and sometimes developmental, placement within the economic, occupational, and/or educational hierarchy. Correlation does NOT imply causation – EVER (Psychology and statistical inference 101). I suggest all readers of this blog do more research, including “barryseal55,” “professor,” and “bamaslick.” You might begin with the following (all are easily retrieved, full-text, through a Google search

Regarding the direct correlation between children’s IQ and parental IQ: Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D’Onofrio, B. & Gottesman, I. (2003). Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14(6), 623-628. Note: for an explanation of heritability, see: http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/hgss/hg...).

Regarding the association between SES and academic achievement: (a) Sackett P. R, Kuncel, N. R., Arneson, J. J., Cooper, S. R., & Waters, S. D. (2009). Does socioeconomic status explain the relationship between admissions tests and post-secondary academic performance? Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 1-22; (b) Johnson, W. , McGue, M, & Icano, W. G. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on academic achievement trajectories during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 514-532; and (c) Johnson, W. , McGue, M, & Icano, W. G. (2007). Socioeconomic status and school grades: Placing their association in broader context in a sample of biological and adoptive families. Intelligence, 35(6), 52-541; and (d) Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35, 83-92.

The model-minority myth concerning Asians is just that – a myth: The College Board (2008): see, http://professionals.collegeboard.com/pr...

Posted by justplainjames (anonymous) on December 12, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

...and, From my perspective, the comments posted by “barryseal55,” “professor,” and “bamaslick” illustrate an overarching problem within our educational systems: The belief that SES and academic performance are causally associated and educators should therefore expect poorer performance and achievement from students from low-SES backgrounds. “Professor”, this belief is POISON in the classroom. In addition, “barryseal55,” most schools already do segregate students in K-12, and especially in 9-12 contexts. Walk the halls at Charles Henderson High and you will find mostly White and, to a lesser degree, middle-class Blacks taking AP courses. The rest of the student body is relegated to the academic wasteland of mainstream curricula that is grossly deficient. And, “bamaslick” using SES as an “all-cause” excuse for poorer academic performance among children is a ridiculous (and dangerous) proposition. Such a position fails to account for vast within and between group differences attributable to environmental contingencies associated with SES.

Posted by Observer22 (anonymous) on December 12, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If one accepts the assertion that Asians are intellectually superior and Blacks intellectually inferior to Whites – Tiger Woods (half White, 25 percent Asian and 25 percent African) would have to be brighter than Osama Obama (half White and half Black); and, assuming that the Black and Asian proportions would cancel each other, Woods would be at least as smart as Clinton or the entire Bush family.

Asians had advanced civilizations very early, as did North Africa (part of the modern Arab world), while the Africans were running naked in the jungle capturing, killing and eating each other or selling enemy tribes into slavery. It could hardly by expected that the best and the brightest were sold into slavery by the weaker and less intelligent. The role of Blacks in athletics is not the result of selective breeding by slave-owners – it is more the result of nutrition. Especially since the advent of food stamps, free lunch and breakfast programs, and public health programs a number of Blacks have been able to take full advantage of their physical potential. There are, however, plenty of Blacks who are not athletic at all and even some who are academically oriented.

The public schools have been in the cross-fire of competing purposes for at least 65-years and the mandated testing circus is just a symptom of the problem. Since 1965 (the Brown decision) schools have been under pressure from the federal government to first desegregate, second integrate, and third assimilate with absolutely equal results children of all races, cultures, and abilities. At the same time schools have been expected to address every real or imagined problem confronted by the nation – the supposed inferiority to the Soviet Union when Sputnik was launched – the moral breakdown of the 1960s – the transition from a manufacturing based to a service based economy – and now the expectation that every breathing student left on the door-step will be prepared to succeed in college.

Schools which in the good old days were legally able and actually expected to suspend or expel disruptive, criminal or incapable students are now required to retain and provide individualized programs especially for those who would previously have been shown the door.

For generations there was the practice of social promotion – children would be advanced from grade to grade whether they passed or not. Social promotion was reasonably harmless, those children were expected to take their un-earned diplomas and go to work in factories or mills or in other pursuits which did not require education anyway. But with forced integration, social promotion has yielded to political promotion in which pressure on administrators is translated into pressure on teachers. Not only are students not allowed to fail, a politically correct proportion of each race must excel. A few years ago in a high school graduating class of 150-students the top ten percent were recognized – all 50 of them!

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Students will only succeed if they want to do so. Some (as mentioned) are just lazy and don't apply themselves....even though they have the capability to excel.

Then comes college...and the expense that goes with it. It gets worse every year. Then if a person is lucky enough to get to go to college and graduate.....where are the jobs?

Not until later on in my own life was I able to afford college and graduate with a Bachelor's. Fortunately I chose the right field where job hunting was not that bad.

Taking into consideration the many many students that have recently graduated I wonder how many were successful in finding the job they wanted......as opposed to having a job to hold them over until something opens up in their field of expertise?

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at noon (Suggest removal)

A few "new" members to the forums I see. <s>

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How would you come to that conclusion barryseal55?

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On the other hand.....perhaps a dig?

Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Anyone who looks back 300 years at the 3 cultures could plainly see who advanced first. The advancement was clearly due to higher intellectual ability. If global travel had not begun, things would still be very primitive in some parts of the world. This is clear by the lack of development there now."

All humans evolved "mentally" equally. There were just environmental differences that led to different ways of life.

Race and ethnicity are socially defined groups—rather than biological observations—whose membership isn't homogeneous; races and ethnicities are often defined by affiliation with very large geographical areas (Asian) or common language (Hispanic). For these reasons, they conclude that discussions of correlations between race and intelligence which extrapolate a genetic causation are fundamentally flawed.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to disagree with one thing bamaslick....

Not all humans are mentally equal...and not all humans are capable of performing various tasks and holding various higher level jobs.

Yes I do think environment plays a large part in success and failure...affordability within a family to provide a college education...and also motivation to better one's self. The alternative to affordability is scholarship...but not everyone qualifies.

You can have great kids that follow your example and excel with everything they do. Yet again you can have parents that just don't care and their kids grow up "not caring".

I know a woman that brought up her grandson. She gave him everything and now he expects everything. She supposedly "home schooled him" but she did his lessons for him then bragged he "graduated with honors". The kid would work for only a few weeks at a time....get fired or quit....has a baby out of wedlock....got married then separated....back home with grandma....and insists that she provide for him from her social security. In between he wrecks about 3 cars a year then demands that grandma but him another car. And she does it.....and yes...still gives him money from her ss check.

No one can make a person learn....or make a person want to learn. Setting an example within the family unit helps but as the saying goes...."you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink."

Just my opinion.

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A friend of mine has a Down Syndrome daughter.

Years ago those with Down Syndrome were considered to have a life expectancy perhaps to the mid teens.....and all those having DS were considered to have extensive leaning disabilities and there always seemed to be a ceiling on learning capabilities placed there by others.

Through research and trial and error....it has been found that the right nutrition and various tactile exercises....exposure to the general population and good parenting....it has been found that many DS people today hold jobs and learn and maintain what they have been taught and correctly apply those skills in every day life. This was unheard of years ago...and most DS people were placed into institutions.

We'll call this little lady "Miss M." Well Miss M's parents fought to keep her in a regular school and she was. They read everything available to them on the subject of Down Syndrome. She is considered very "high function" and now is actually in college AND living away from home in an "assisted care" dorm on campus.

Yes it is a program that some colleges have aimed toward those with learning disabilities.

But my point is....years ago this was never heard of. But I believe that given the opportunity from people that really care....with a driving firm but gentle and consistent approach....most anything for many people can be achieved at a higher learning level with the right motivation and support.

Posted by bamaslick (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

An IQ test is subjective, just as intelligence...Bill Gates probably has an IQ of 160 but can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Just because someone can tell the next shape in the pattern does not mean they are supposed to be college material and someone else isn't. Maybe Asians do have a larger brain and can problem solve a millisecond faster than I can...good luck with that! All weaknesses can be strengths.

I appreciate barry for reading all those studies by individuals that I do not know and have idea of the agenda behind them but if it satisfies him, it satisfies me. If blacks do process info slower, maybe its genetically better for them to do that, so they will think about something longer instead of making a quick decision that will hurt in the long run.

Posted by oldhog (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OMG We are in trouble. THIS POLITICALLY CORRECT STUFF HAS GONE WAY TO FAR .

Posted by Bamabunny (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL.......all in the interest of learning oldhog my friend <s>

Posted by henrimasters (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The idea of using end of course testing versus standardized testing is a good idea. For those that agree with me I bet you have not considered that this change is the first step to standardized curriculum and the ability to evaluate teachers objectively. Same material taught to a similar class make up should equal similar results. If one class does very well and the other does poorly the fault lays with the teacher.

Finally a step in the right direction. The EdD's should love that! Now maybe they can explain that BS "creating magic in the classroom" crap.

Posted by henrimasters (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

barry, I welcome the end of No Child Left Behind for sure. It was ill conceived from the start. Standardized curriculum was never achieved in NCLB, only testing, which lead to teaching to the test rather than learning. I disagree that diversity among classes will result in a huge variation in outcomes. In a proper sample size the diversity across classes will be consistent and outcomes can be evaluated. As for the presentation by the teacher, I agree each may have a little different style but if teachers are taught proven methodologies the style is less important than the process of teaching and creating learning. I believe our method of teaching teachers is flawed. The Departments of Education at universities rarely, if ever, use or teach methods that are empirically validated. Their methods are based on causation by correlation, which is witchcraft.

To say it is impossible to achieve evaluation of teaching effectiveness is sticking the head in the sand. If it can't be evaluated it can't be improved. There is no doubt our educational system is broken, especially at the K-12 level. I guess we are just supposed to sit back and expect it to improve itself. That does not cut it for me.

Posted by stumpjumper (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blah Blah Blah!!!

Posted by henrimasters (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

stumpjumper, you must be one of those teachers that wants everything to stay the same, huh. That was a very intelligent post. Nothing of substance to offer? Most others that have posted at least made an attempt to offer something.

Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All of you just need to chill! From what I can remember, the ACT was a lot harder than the graduation exam anyway. Doesn't that mean the students will be challenged even more?

Posted by Observer22 (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

End of course (EOC) tests are an improvement over the exit exam and should have been embraced a generation ago. Of course, EOC tests will have the same problems NCLB has - teachers will be pressured by the administrators to teach the items on the test and teachers will do so.

But, EOC tests will only test the basic knowledge of the specified items in the course of study (COS). The COS sets out the minimum criteria for each course and mastery of the minimum content is what will be verified by the EOC. Students in the middle and top portions of the class will pass the EOC easily while weaker students will struggle and some will still fail. If too many of the failures are Black the EOC will be challenged and revised so that they will pass and test results will be manipulated so that the honor roll will be politically acceptable.

The problem with evaluating teachers based on student performance is that administrators can manipulate class rolls. Already the tendency is for the senior teachers (presumably the best teachers) get the pick of the litter and new teachers get the leavings. It would be more reasonable for the best students to have the weaker teachers and the worst students have the best teachers - good students will learn despite anyone's efforts.

How will testing identify the better teacher between coach A whose students all make A's in physical education, and teacher B whose students in algebra, calculus, or physics will not make all-A's?

Posted by henrimasters (anonymous) on December 15, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is obvious that nobody understands research methodology here. All of the reasons you say evaluation will not work can be controlled for by using proper methods. And Observer, you would not compare the coach with the algebra teacher. You would compare the algebra teacher to the other algebra teacher and all algebra teachers in the county, state or region. As for administration picking what student goes to which class I agree, that cannot happen but that is also part of the methodology. You do not allow it to happen. The EdDs will do anything not to have traditional education evaluated. They do not want it to change because it means their demise and the rise of the educational psychologist. They are the ones that should be driving the train. Their profession is based on science and not witchcraft.