"Thalamus" <zhil at online.no> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> skrev i melding
>news:rbrgjugskro0glcl8glvn2672lkjhkkm49 at 4ax.com...>> "Thalamus" <zhil at online.no> wrote:
>> >I think that this can hardly be called irrelevant:
>> >http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/condition98/c9818a01.html>> >And I'll humiliate you totally, for read THIS:
>> >"Average mathematics proficiency (scale score) by race/ethnicity and age:
>> >1973-1996
>> > White Black
>> >Hispanic
>> >Year Age9 Age13 Age17 Age9 Age13 Age17 Age9 Age13 Age17
>> >1973 225 274 310 190 228 270 202 239 277
>> >1978 224 272 306 192 230 268 203 238 276
>> >1982 224 274 304 195 240 272 204 252 277
>> >1986 227 274 308 202 249 279 205 254 283
>> >1990 235 276 310 208 250 289 214 255 284
>> >1992 235 279 312 208 250 286 212 259 292
>> >1994 237 281 312 212 252 286 210 256 291
>> >1996 237 281 312 212 252 286 215 256 292"
>> >
>> >Now, it seems that the nigger achieved as an 17-year old on par with White
>> >13-year old kids (IE check the numbers for 1973,1978 and 1982).
>> >It seems that they in fact have achieved a little better than those pesky
>> >13-year old White kids later on, but the divide is still there.
>> >
>> >So, you loose Nigger, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>> >!!!!!!!!!
>> >N I G G E R !!!!!
>>>> Actually YOU lose, dummy. The data shows that the 17 year old score for
>> whites has changed only 2 points over the 23 years covered by the table,
>> whereas the 17 year old score for blacks improved by 16 points, the 13 year
>> old score by 24 points, and the 9 year old score by 22 points.
>>>> This either means that blacks are getting smarter at an enormous rate (in
>> which case, in about 40 years they will surpass whites in math), or it means
>> that blacks are rapidly catching up because we are finally making some
>> efforts to teach blacks rather than label them as incapable like you do.
>>Well, you have totally forgotten HOW MUCH they SPEND on teaching the Nigger
>numbers.
Why does that matter?
>THAT has also increased - on par with the decrease (which can't be erased)
>from 1982.
What decrease? I see no decrease in the numbers posted above.
>So YOU loose, you see - IF both were given the SAME amount of spent dollars,
>then in YOUR theory the divide should DECREASE.
I made no theory about the effects of spending.
>It has been in the media on how much they have spent on the non-Whites, and
>how LITTLE they got in return.
Well, apparently in Norway you learn too little about American governance to
know how education spending here is determined. But I would not expect you
to, just as I wouldn't purport to be able to comment on the treatment of
Lapps and ethnic Swedes, much less immigrants from Turkey, in your country.
>http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/97917a.gif at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/97917.html
Too bad you don't understand the text in that article, which doesn't support
your prejudices at all.
>http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/97917c.gif>"Figure 3. Education "buying power" and percentage of minority
> enrollment with the effects of other variables related to
> district spending removed (1998-1990)
>> Less than 5% - $3920
> 5%-<20% - $4140
> 20%-<50% -$4300
> 50% or more -$4514"
>>Noticed the trend ?
>Yup, UPWARDS - AFTER they had removed "district spending" (which is
>administrative spending).
No that is NOT what "district spending" means in the context of that article.
>You loose, again - and I win, again.
>Don't try yourself agains a White Superior God.
Who apparently needs more education in English comprehension (and spelling -
the word is "lose", loser) before he goes up "agains" an educated American in
matters about his country's political affairs.
lojbab
