everyfiredies:

teachingintweed:

gjmueller:

Principals in U.S. Are More Likely to Consider Their Students Poor

The phrase “soft bigotry of low expectations” is inevitably associated with George W. Bush, who used it frequently. But whatever your politics, the idea has undeniable merit: If schools don’t expect much from their students, the students are not likely to accomplish much.
A new international study, set to be released Tuesday, argues that the United States has an expectation problem.


"This much is clear: American students from low-income backgrounds are more likely to struggle in school than low-income students in many other countries (as Table II.A in this report makes clear). And American principals are much more likely to describe their students as disadvantaged than principals in many other countries — including some countries that are significantly poorer than the United States. Neither fact qualifies as good news."

I disagree with the assumption that principals who perceive their students as poor have lower expectations of them. At least in my school, we are working on finding ways to make projects and just participation in school more equitable for our low income students, but we don’t have different expectations for them. We just want to make it easier for them to participate in a system that isn’t built for them. We do this by providing materials for everyday use as well as project materials if needed, or we just don’t assign projects that require a lot of extra materials. Our lunch distributors are lenient with the fruits and veggies and many kids get extra. And if a kid is hungry, many teachers have granola bars or something else in their room for those kids. But kids who are perceived as low income are not given different academic expectations.
What if those principals are instead claiming students are disadvantaged because compared to their peers they are coming in with fewer opportunities? And what if those principals as a result are motivated to find ways to provide those opportunities? Our principal bases her perception on free and reduced lunch qualifications, and on what she knows of our community.
Here’s another paragraph from the article:

The usual caveats about correlation and causation apply, though. It’s also possible that an outside factor is driving the results of the survey question. The United States, for example, has an extensive and high-profile program of subsidizing lunches for lower-income children. If that program were driving principals’ definition of socioeconomic disadvantage, and other countries did not have similar programs, it could explain why this country is an outlier in the survey. In that case, American principals may or may not have lower academic expectations of their students.


I guess I just think this article is misleading, and it has no information from any US principals commenting on their perspective. 

Articles like this make me wish I had taken Statistics more seriously, and make me grateful that majoring in Anthro at a lefty liberal arts school makes me skeptical of how data is gathered and analyzed.

everyfiredies:

teachingintweed:

gjmueller:

Principals in U.S. Are More Likely to Consider Their Students Poor

The phrase “soft bigotry of low expectations” is inevitably associated with George W. Bush, who used it frequently. But whatever your politics, the idea has undeniable merit: If schools don’t expect much from their students, the students are not likely to accomplish much.

A new international study, set to be released Tuesday, argues that the United States has an expectation problem.

"This much is clear: American students from low-income backgrounds are more likely to struggle in school than low-income students in many other countries (as Table II.A in this report makes clear). And American principals are much more likely to describe their students as disadvantaged than principals in many other countries — including some countries that are significantly poorer than the United States. Neither fact qualifies as good news."

I disagree with the assumption that principals who perceive their students as poor have lower expectations of them. At least in my school, we are working on finding ways to make projects and just participation in school more equitable for our low income students, but we don’t have different expectations for them. We just want to make it easier for them to participate in a system that isn’t built for them. We do this by providing materials for everyday use as well as project materials if needed, or we just don’t assign projects that require a lot of extra materials. Our lunch distributors are lenient with the fruits and veggies and many kids get extra. And if a kid is hungry, many teachers have granola bars or something else in their room for those kids. But kids who are perceived as low income are not given different academic expectations.

What if those principals are instead claiming students are disadvantaged because compared to their peers they are coming in with fewer opportunities? And what if those principals as a result are motivated to find ways to provide those opportunities? Our principal bases her perception on free and reduced lunch qualifications, and on what she knows of our community.

Here’s another paragraph from the article:

The usual caveats about correlation and causation apply, though. It’s also possible that an outside factor is driving the results of the survey question. The United States, for example, has an extensive and high-profile program of subsidizing lunches for lower-income children. If that program were driving principals’ definition of socioeconomic disadvantage, and other countries did not have similar programs, it could explain why this country is an outlier in the survey. In that case, American principals may or may not have lower academic expectations of their students.

I guess I just think this article is misleading, and it has no information from any US principals commenting on their perspective. 

Articles like this make me wish I had taken Statistics more seriously, and make me grateful that majoring in Anthro at a lefty liberal arts school makes me skeptical of how data is gathered and analyzed.

Have you ever been mean to someone on purpose?

ariellecohen:

Are there times when it’s appropriate to be a bit cruel?

Tell me about a time you were purposefully mean to someone.

Who was is?

Why did you do it? How did it make you feel?


The lake, though the objects on the shore were fading, seemed brighter than when it is a perfect day, & the Island pushed itself upwards, distinct & large—all the shores marked. —Dorothy Wordsworth, 02.23.1802
[Andrew Wyeth]

The lake, though the objects on the shore were fading, seemed brighter than when it is a perfect day, & the Island pushed itself upwards, distinct & large—all the shores marked.Dorothy Wordsworth, 02.23.1802

[Andrew Wyeth]

(via an-itinerant-poet)

sosuperawesome:

Embroidered brooches by cOnieco

(via pizza-grrrl)

final thoughts before I pick up my boyfriend at the airport

  • Ya’ll are probably sick of hearing about this escapade, but I don’t know too many people my age who have ever lived alone, even for 2 weeks, and not in a city where they have no friends yet, so that’s that.
  • I’m going to see about making a habit of going out to eat alone. I am SO smiley at all the waitstaff when I’m out, and smiling puts me in a good mood, plus delicious food I don’t have to share.
  • I did not clean even at all really, but at least the fruit fly invasion has lessened, and I cleaned the fridge out and picked up the vegetables, AND moved his car in preparation for street sweeping tomorrow, so I feel like that’s enough for a homecoming.
  • I missed him so much and I can’t wait to get drunk with him tomorrow and hear all the stories! And tell all the stories!
  • This whole thing makes me realize just how much of an extrovert I am, in the sense that people make me really really happy and I need a lot more social interaction in my life than I’m currently set up for. Gonna work on that.
  • HOW DO PEOPLE LDR?!?!?!

Eye Button Artwork by Elodie Antoine


WAT

Eye Button Artwork by Elodie Antoine

WAT

(via pizza-grrrl)

I’m getting ready
to walk through this city
for the tenth billion time, getting
ready to be a person
who is not like an empty building,
who is not like an emergency
kit, the swabs and needles,
the antiseptic and Band-Aids,
today I will be the way
I always wanted to be, someone
drinking coffee and being
kind of knowing
the difference between making
love and putting on
his shoes.
Matthew Dickman, Sky (via printempsconstamment)

I’ve had dinner with this poet.

(via brandonspeck)

latinorebels:

No explanation needed.

latinorebels:

No explanation needed.

(via parsleygrain)

zoesucksatteaching:

cross-connect:

Jesse Reno

"My art is a product of pure necessity… With no formal education I draw my inspiration from the primitive ancient cultures of Africa and South America, as well as modern pop culture."

http://jessereno.com/

working link

whoa.
this is like basquiat, miró and chagall all on one canvas.

summeriris:

This is just perfect.

summeriris:

This is just perfect.

I have 24 hours to watch as many wedding tv shows on Netflix before my boyfriend comes back and thinks I’m hinting.

kararikue:

I don’t think I’ll wear my nails differently ever again.


want

kararikue:

I don’t think I’ll wear my nails differently ever again.

want

(via dietcokeporfavor)

so ferocious!

so ferocious!

heyitslars:

tank-grrl:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!""But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 
But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.


But guys, socialism is scary.

heyitslars:

tank-grrl:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.

The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.

But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!"

"But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”

"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)

And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!

Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.

And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.

Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.

And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.

The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?

TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 

But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.

Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

The picture is awesome, but read the commentary, that’s what I’m reblogging for.

But guys, socialism is scary.

(via iamlittlei)

i'm a twenty-four-year-old instersectional feminist, blues dancer, and professional girl scout.

view archive



You can call me

Keep in touch

Raise your hand, please