"Afrocentric" Schools for Struggling Black Students?

[Deleted member]

Yes, that's right - in Toronto, a bill was recently passed to allow a school to focus on black culture, to help black students who are having a hard time with the "eurocentric" focused school system.

This has caused a major outrage amongst many people in Toronto and I've spent the last day arguing against the school, as it directly goes against the fact that we embrace multiculturalism in Ontario, not segregation.

This is not Jim Crow segregation, as white kids can still attend the school.

I still think it's a terrible idea. What do you guys think? Obviously not everyone lives in Toronto, so just pitch your initial two cents. If your hometown is typically only one race, then give your thoughts on the subject, maybe how it would go over in your town.

Just for the record, Toronto is extremely diverse. You can walk a block into Little India and appear in Little Italy. Keep that in mind.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=272389

 

[snex]

there is a lot of research showing that IQ and various other intelligence test scores correlate to race.

of course, the idea that you need an "afro-centric" school is complete bunk. just make a school for kids with lower IQs, and if it gets sorted by race on its own, thats nobody's fault.

 

[adumbrodeus]

That said, it's just segregation really, cloaked in the guise of "equal treatment". The net result is that there will be the "black schools" and the "white schools", isolating kids from people of other races and feeding the "other" outlook in regards to people of other skin colors.

Of course, private schools are free to do this, (and I hope that they won't be supported), but not public schools.

Unless of course, they have the same composition as other school districts racially speaking, and merely have their teaching from a different prospective, in which case, it would be "interesting".

there is a lot of research showing that IQ and various other intelligence test scores correlate to race.

of course, the idea that you need an "afro-centric" school is complete bunk. just make a school for kids with lower IQs, and if it gets sorted by race on its own, thats nobody's fault.

There's also a good deal of research that shows that such measures don't actually measure intelligence, except on the extremely high and low scales that is.

 

[snex]

There's also a good deal of research that shows that such measures don't actually measure intelligence, except on the extremely high and low scales that is.

no one single test is a good measure, but when it happens on *all* tests, something is going on. some people point to this and claim its genetic, but there is no evidence for that claim. id rather not get into the whole genetics vs environment thing in this thread though as its long enough to be a thread of its own.

if you have schools that are dedicated to children of a given intelligence level, and these schools are administered properly with *scientific* grounding (ie not the feel-good crap they feed to remedial kids in current schools), then you will eventually eliminate the apparent gap in intelligence levels between races, sexes, or whatever other group youd care to name.

 

[adumbrodeus]

no one single test is a good measure, but when it happens on *all* tests, something is going on. some people point to this and claim its genetic, but there is no evidence for that claim. id rather not get into the whole genetics vs environment thing in this thread though as its long enough to be a thread of its own.

The problem is they all use the same theoretical modeling, meaning they all test for the same attributes as measures of intelligence, meaning that if one fails, they all fail.

Pretty simple, they're good on the "predictibility" attribute, but fall short on the "validity" attribute.

 

[snex]

The problem is they all use the same theoretical modeling, meaning they all test for the same attributes as measures of intelligence.

that is not true. different "intelligence" tests test for different things. IQ tests and standardized school tests are very different, for example.

 

[Sandy]

This is racist. Why, after so many years of fighting against segregation and racism is something like this allowed to happen? Where are the benefits? I honestly can't think of any. But there are enough downsides to this. Aside from the general massive racism intoned in the project, there are also a number of other problems. For example, what happens when these students graduate and enter the workforce or higher education? If they're only socialized with other people of the same race, how will they react to fellow students or authority figures of different races? There is also debate as to whether or not any students actually asked for such a school to be created, as well as the question of public funding.

I have nothing against the offering of an afrocentric course as part of the curriculum... but why like this? Many people send their children to Jewish/Greek/Chinese/you-name-it (private) schools on Saturdays or Sundays, so that their kids can learn about their own culture and have an appreciation for it. That's wonderful. But why does an all black school receive public approval and funding?

Consider this. If someone now petitions for an all white school (which someone will undoubtedly do) they'll instantly be labelled as a racist. But what's the difference? Why is an all black school tolerable, but an all white school abhorred? Is it some pathetic 200 year old slavery justification that has no bearing on the real world anymore?

 

[Deleted member]

See, exactly. An all white school is something that's never going to happen, much like a Straight Pride Parade or White Power Day. It's not gonna happen.

In my completely non-racist opinion, the real reason why the parents of the struggling black community in Toronto are supporting this is because they want their problem off their backs. It's not up to the schools to teach that truancy is wrong, that's the parents job.

For interest's sake, the black school isn't publicly approved. The committee in charge of deciding was very divided; and if you search this topic on Facebook (check my groups, Jordan) you can see that it's a hotly debated subject.

 

[Kips]

This simply is a disgusting fallacy and is 'reverse-racism' in my opinion. The whole point of going to school is to adapt and learn quickly, elsewise being left behind on the curve and failing. If you can't keep your head above the water, learn to swim! If 'Black Culture' is a viable course, why can't I take 'Asian Studies'?

Fairness is not the same thing as equality. Take, for example, Grover Cleveland. It is fair game to say that he was indeed the 'fairest' president of the United States. This is seen in his veto of the Texas Seed Bill, in which Texan farmers wanted money and seeds after a drought. Cleveland vetoed this bill in the name of fairness, that being that if he gave it to the Texans he would have to give that to everyone. If he was the most equality-centered president, he would have given it to them to give them a chance. Equality means that we make everyone the same and either take the best down or boost the worst up. Fairness means that the best rise to the top like they should and the worst have to work harder or fall behind.

My point being that if we chose to give these kinds of help to one race, then what is the point? They will get more then passable grades and it ruins the entire idea of a competitive grading system. The worst can override the fact that they simply do not deserve what they got and the best will have to continue working hard simply to equal this. That is why this kind of idea disgusts me- it lowers the value of education to where as long as you take the courses that were made for you, you can pass.