Herman Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Francis Galton explained it in 1885. Possibly, the Mass. Dept. of
>>Education missed it! Or, could it be that the same gang who brought
>>us the exit poll data during the November election were helping them
>>out? :-)
>>I am wondering why they did not have a set of objective standards for
>>ALL students to meet.
> There are only two ways this can be done. One is by having
> the standards so low as to be useless, and the other is by
> not allowing the students who cannot do it to get to that
> grade, regardless of age. The second is, at this time,
> Politically Incorrect.
And what alternative do you propose? Sending the underachievers
to work in the fields as soon as signs of promise fail
to manifest?
[...]
> The biggest factor in the performance of schools is in the
> native ability of students; but again it is Politically
> Incorrect to even hint that this differs between schools.
It may be "politically incorrect" to say so. But does that
support the proposition in any way shape or form? So go
on, "hint"; get up on a beer-barrel and "hint" that the
"fit" are languishing from the ignominious condition of
having to suffer the presence of the "unfit". You'll
have plenty of company: Pride is greedier even than mere
Avarice.
-- R. Bloom
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
