Racism in US teachers is in fact a big problem, as is racism among doctors and bankers[1]. And focusing on standardized test scores almost always hurts poor students because it rewards families who can afford private test preparation[2]. These are scientific facts with a great deal of evidence - evidence which is considerably more compelling than “it sounds good to Hacker News.”
You are just wrong. You cannot just make things up because they are ideologically convenient. And I am so sick of having the same zombie arguments with people who are recklessly indifferent to the facts at hand.
> In this sample, we found no significant association between occupation and level of bias (see Table 4). That is, teachers held levels of implicit bias, explicit bias as operationalized using a feel- ing thermometer, and symbolic racism that were not statistically different from the levels of nonteachers. This result persisted through all five models. That is, this lack of relationship held despite controlling for demographic factors (Model 2), educa- tion (Model 3), political preference (Model 4), or all of these characteristics combined (Model 5).
> In conclusion, we have found that teachers’ [anti-Black and pro-White] bias levels are quite similar to those of the larger population. These findings challenge the notion that teachers might be uniquely equipped to instill positive racial attitudes in children or bring about racial justice, instead indicating that teachers need just as much sup- port in contending with their biases as the population at large.
> Researchers, including those who work for the test companies, have known wealth is strongly correlated with outcomes on standardized tests for years. There are several reasons why. Wealthy students attend higher ranked schools within more financially resourced districts. Richer families can afford more tutoring, test prep and enrichment activities. The College Board never claimed that test prep could improve scores until it was available for free online, at which point the evidence of improvement came rolling in. Standardized tests are better proxies for how many opportunities a student has been afforded than they are predictors for students’ potential. Consequently, tests weed out budding low-income students instead of creating equitable access to institutions that help build wealth. This is why many colleges have abandoned using standardized test altogether.
> And focusing on standardized test scores almost always hurts poor students because it rewards families who can afford private test preparation.
All the other measures (extra-curricula, projects, presentations, reports, etc.) benefit richer family much more. Standardized test is the only thing poor students can work hard on without needing much help / resource from parents. The solution in the article [2] you cited is giving money to kids.
> teachers held levels of implicit bias, explicit bias as operationalized using a feel- ing thermometer, and symbolic racism that were not statistically different from the levels of nonteachers.
> In conclusion, we have found that teachers' [anti-Black and pro-White] bias levels are quite similar to those of the larger population.
At least put in the effort to find citations that don't directly admit that the claim you're making is false.
I think that you have missed the point. It is implied in his argument that if the level of racial bias in teachers is no different than in the larger population, then there is a problem with racism in US teachers (as a result of their being a problem with racism in the US).
> if the level of racial bias in teachers is no different than in the larger population, then there is a problem with racism in US teachers (as a result of their being a problem with racism in the US).
And if the level of murder in teachers is no different than in the larger population, then there is a problem with murder in US teachers (as a result of there being a problem with murder in the US).
Even under the grossly unsubstatiated assumption that there is particularly a problem with murder in the US - rather than some specific murderers (or white supremacists, as the case may be) who know perfectly well who they are and will not respond to 'raising awareness' about 'anti-murderism' - presenting that as "Murder by US teachers is in fact a big problem." is at best ridiculous cherry-picking.
Replace "teachers" with "police" and you do get a reasonable argument. In a situation where someone has outsized authority and influence, even a baseline level of <bad thing> is worse than normal. If you're looking to affect outcomes most significantly, reducing "racism" amongst teachers is probably going to be more impactful per $ than reducing it amongst the general population.
> Replace "teachers" with "police" and you do get a reasonable argument.
Not really. I'm fine with a baseline level murder by police (at least to the extent that I'm fine with where that baseline is in the first place, which is admittedly not a given), provided there is also a baseline level of punishment for said murder. The problems with police tend be either that there is a higher level of murder by police than the general population, or that there is a lower degree of punishment for it.
Also, of course, I don't grant that there is a problem with racism in the general population in the first place, since white supremacists and social justice warriors combined are substatially in the minority. You might be able to make a credible case that racial bias is a (minor but worth addressing) problem, but noone's done so lately, and you'd need to start by making it clear that the thing you're talking about is fundamentally distict from a explicit belief that one race is inherently better or worse/more or less valuable than another, as white supremacists and social justice warriors believe.
We aren't talking about simply a baseline level of murders, but murders due to (or influenced by) racism. Even if you're okay with a baseline level of murders by police, whatever that level is, I hope you'd have problems with a distribution where the victims are solely black people (or to be more real-world, where murders of black people are punished less severely and less often, thus giving greater incentive [or equivalently, less disincentive] to kill people of a certain race).
In such a situation, the same "amount" of racism/discrimination/implicit bias has an outsized impact due to who wields it.
The same applies to teachers. If a random person believes that black people are predisposed to academic failure, that's bad sure, but won't negatively affect many black children. If a teacher who teaches black students holds that belief, that will influence how that teacher teaches those students.
> social justice warriors belive
This is a mischaracterization of what anyone I know who would consider themselves a "social justice warrior" believes, so I think at least some of your objection is due to a misrepresentation of the statements being made by these people.
No it doesn’t, the specific point is that racial bias is just as bad among teachers as it is every other profession. I never said teachers were more racist than other people, in fact I very specifically said:
> Racism in US teachers is in fact a big problem, as is racism among doctors and bankers[1].
If you want to argue that racist doctors and bankers aren’t a problem then feel free. But don’t project your problems with reading comprehension onto me.
You are just wrong. You cannot just make things up because they are ideologically convenient. And I am so sick of having the same zombie arguments with people who are recklessly indifferent to the facts at hand.
> In this sample, we found no significant association between occupation and level of bias (see Table 4). That is, teachers held levels of implicit bias, explicit bias as operationalized using a feel- ing thermometer, and symbolic racism that were not statistically different from the levels of nonteachers. This result persisted through all five models. That is, this lack of relationship held despite controlling for demographic factors (Model 2), educa- tion (Model 3), political preference (Model 4), or all of these characteristics combined (Model 5).
> In conclusion, we have found that teachers’ [anti-Black and pro-White] bias levels are quite similar to those of the larger population. These findings challenge the notion that teachers might be uniquely equipped to instill positive racial attitudes in children or bring about racial justice, instead indicating that teachers need just as much sup- port in contending with their biases as the population at large.
> Researchers, including those who work for the test companies, have known wealth is strongly correlated with outcomes on standardized tests for years. There are several reasons why. Wealthy students attend higher ranked schools within more financially resourced districts. Richer families can afford more tutoring, test prep and enrichment activities. The College Board never claimed that test prep could improve scores until it was available for free online, at which point the evidence of improvement came rolling in. Standardized tests are better proxies for how many opportunities a student has been afforded than they are predictors for students’ potential. Consequently, tests weed out budding low-income students instead of creating equitable access to institutions that help build wealth. This is why many colleges have abandoned using standardized test altogether.
[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X2091275...
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/05/17/student...