It's a sensitive topic and let's discuss the facts here. U need some accountability to let ppl work and study,that's the unfortunately truth. Study is hard and complete freedom doesn't work. Sometimed u need some grit and push. In the end it's the kids suffer
Putting aside the quality of schools: how is this possible in the era of smartphones? I always thought that smartphones will put the final end to illiteracy, at least because of texting.
I am the only person I know who texts in full, complete sentences and statements, without abbreviating anything. I use all punctuation correctly, as much as I can. It's not a conscious thing, it's just what I do.
I know of almost nobody else who does this. Shorthand is encouraged, acronyms abound, nobody actually gives a shit if you misspell something, punctuation is thrown to the wind with reckless abandon.
I don't see how texting could put an end to illiteracy. If anything, it promotes it.
I would stop being friends with someone if they texted like this. The entirety of my friends, coworkers (when I was working), and family write properly while texting.
I never said I found anything inherently wrong with it, I just observed a difference between myself and others. I imagine you'd be cutting a lot of people out of your life over something so innocuous.
It seems they can read and write, but not the English you’re familiar with.
Of course, the question is whether that language is as expressive as ‘old English’.
I would guess it is simpler, but on the other hand, I know almost nothing of that language, and I know for sure it has features I can’t read, such as most expressions made up of multiple emoticons
Language is fluid and constantly evolving. Literacy[0] shouldn't mean whether you follow some set of punctuation rules at all times, but whether you can infer the meaning and intent of messages, and whether you can compose messages that allow recipients to do the same, both without much effort or discomfort on all sides. Acronyms and punctuation are just tools to this end. If others 'get' what you're trying to say and consider it appropriate language in different contexts relevant to your life (you want the ability to use different language in professional vs personal settings, to actually use established grammatical rules in formal settings,...), then I'd say you're literate. Using emojis, acronyms or writing things like 'Hey u coming?' in appropriate settings doesn't negate that imho. Acronyms are in fact extremely common in professional settings too, and emojis increasingly so, at least in my experience.
Slightly provocative question, given what you've said ("without abbreviating anything"), would you actually spell out the acronym RSVP in a formal invitation? It's very common eg in Britain, it's definitely considered good form, and spelling it out would just cause confusion since it's actually a French term that most people probably wouldn't recognize (répondez, s'il vous plaît). What about i.e. (ita est)? E.g. (exemplum gratum, although some might argue it can also stand for example given)? You might say you just avoid those terms, which is possible, but I have a suspicion that you're just fooling yourself. Since you're on this site, I might also ask whether you always spell out the Domain Name System (DNS) and similar terms? If you did, you'd actually make your messages less understandable to most audiences, detracting from your literacy I'd argue.
[0] My opinion here, I'm not a linguist, so if this clashes with established definitions of literacy, my apologies.
Edit: I actually had a look, and of course you are fooling yourself. According to your comment history, you actually use abbreviations all the time, including ones that are unknown to me (ITAD company, SEE), making whatever point you were trying to make lost on me without research effort: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35273712#35276691
I actually agree with you on the first point, I was leaning more towards functional literacy. In the sense that yes, we're literate because we can understand what someone means when they say, "sry my b", but I don't understand how OP can expect the widespread adoption of that style of communication to increase one's functionally literate understanding of, say, as mentioned elsewhere in this chain, a court order, a lease you sign with your landlord, or what is actually being said in a news article. That functional bit is, in point of fact, more of what the article is about.
Edit: You took my comment too literally and missed the overall point. I didn't even intend to judge those who don't text like I do, hence my highlighting that it's not a conscious effort on my part. And, yes, I suppose that quite common acronyms are fine - I had hoped that it was obvious that I was referring to less common acronyms, but perhaps failed there (and still may be with this comment, c'est la vie). But thanks for kinda painting me like a grammar snob?
Edit 2: Some other words for clarification, since I guess I'd better be extra careful...
Yeah, it's probably a rather general phenomenon that skills transfer is (unfortunately) much less effective than one might hope. Just like practicing Sudoku solving doesn't do much to increase your overall cognitive abilities or problem solving skills (there are studies on that, didn't care to look them up now), one probably shouldn't expect too much carry-over from chat messages to other reading/writing tasks with different requirements.
> I don't see how texting could put an end to illiteracy. If anything, it promotes it.
Just a guess, people used to be able to get by with a very basic level of literacy, i.e. label recognition. My cousin was this way when he finished school ~20 years ago.
Now you can't get by like that very easily because text based communication is so prevalent. If you have friends they'll be texting you, so you're pretty much forced into a learning situation for sociality, whereas in the past that was only happening at the speech level.
Re the shorthand stuff, (a) you probably just didn't realise how illiterate people were in the past because they couldn't write anything for you to read, so it's a genuine step up. (b) I actually encounter that shorthand less now, and more from adults who grew up with expensive and limited SMS.
The headline is misleading. The article says almost half "can’t read for their age". It's not saying they are illiterate. It's an inflammatory headline as written and the language does not come from the article.
Also - genuine question for anyone with a clue - what percent of high school age kids do you think have smartphones in, say, East Oakland?
Indeed. I sometimes suspect that those who've never spent any appreciable time around or with the lower classes fall back on Dickensian notions of the pauper. They might be surprised by their conspicuous spending habits and preferences devoted to the acquisition latest gadgets, flashiest sneakers, and gaudiest logo-emblazoned clothing. Failing to wear and own such things because, for example, your family is saving for or spending on education or something actually worth spending money on, is a faux pas.
Phones are the new high-top sneakers. HS teens would rather be caught with pooped pants than not have a smartphone --even if not the latest and greatest.
Go outside and look around. Just use your powers of observation and take a look. If you are a typical neolib you live in a nice area. So how about you hop on some public transport and visit your local county hospital ER.
My experience with underclass whites is they access the internet exclusively through phones and seem almost unaware of computers and wired internet access. It’s an example of “the poor pay more and get less.”
"Can't read for their age" is the key part. Without specifying the numbers from years prior is not very relevant in my opinion. When I was in high school, it seemed like most everyone's reading/writing ability was between a 6th-8th grade level according to these scores. Made me wonder if the assigned scores were just too ambitious.
By the way, I don't consider Internet access as useful to literacy as it did to millenials. Millenials had to deal with a text-based internet for online entertainment, but late Gen Z-Gen A's Internet is videos and images with taglines on social media.
I think the article is probably referring to functional illiteracy, e.g. someone who can understand, "Be there in 5" on their smartphone but can't read a news article and summarize the main point.
If the only reading is app button labels, slang tweet burns, or media approved slogans of the week, why would you expect them to develop any meaningful vocabulary?
The nuance is that most can read, but not "at their age level"
Quote:
> In 2021, 47% of Black students in SFUSD that are high school juniors don’t even come close to meeting English-language proficiency. [...] That means for every one of two Black students leaving San Francisco high schools they can’t read for their age.
>The nuance is that most can read, but not "at their age level"
I wonder what percentage are learning English as a 2nd language.
The problem I see with using "black" as a descriptor is there are recent African immigrants, 1+ gen. African immigrants, Afro latinos, descendants of enslaved Americans, etc... put under one umbrella.
How can anyone pinpoint why a % of "black" students have reading issues at similar rates to hispanic students when the statistics pool black people from vastly different backgrounds together?
>The author cites the pew study [0] that claims less than 10% of the "US black population" is foreign born.
Yes, when I saw that it was clear to me that being "foreign born" said very little about the population. For example, English can still be a 2nd or 3rd language for recent immigrants with US born children, especially in California and Texas.
>I figure that answers your question and implies your nuance likely wouldn't change anything.
I disagree, immigrants are most likely unevenly distributed.
Think about the vocabulary you use shooting the shit with your friends. It's not that wide of a vocabulary. And there are plenty of abbreviations/shorthand in texting that condense more complex concepts/feelings/ideas into a few characters. Plus, more kids than ever just facetime one another these days rather than text. Literacy is more than just being able to decipher characters into words and ideas, it's being able to read several paragraphs in a row and comprehend what they amount to in intellectual or narrative terms.
(Anecdotally, almost everyone I know who texts like this is very well educated and absolutely capable of writing in full, grammatical sentences — they just choose not to in these situations.)
I know some people who the government considers illiterate that manage to post on FB, they just don't really use punctuation or proper grammar. Its painful to read and gives me second hand embarrassment but they don't even care.
This is depressing and an absolute travesty. If this was anywhere else but California I might look to the parents for blame, but here I blame the teachers and the school system.
Maybe I'm over thinking this, but the public education curriculum in major cities seem to have strayed far from making sure that every child is drilled in the basics: Basic reading, writing, and mathematics.
Large class sizes with underpaid teachers asked to play babysitter, teacher, and test prep tutor, all while being given no flexibility in approach or real ability to discipline are all major issues.
Administration that won't support teacher decisions and will push back if teachers actually try to fail students even if they don't turn in anything leaves this as an inevitable outcome.
Your assumption here is that schools with advanced classes spend more resources per student.
That is absolutely untrue. Lowell High School in SF spends a lot less than other high schools. Same with Stuyvesant in NYC. This means the kids falling behind get more resources.
Your proposal will result in higher spending, not lower.
Sounds like some of these teachers and school administrators should focus on the fundamentals like reading instead of chasing the latest trends to get themselves in the news so they can run for future political office.
So many politicians are former school administrators. It's a problem.
Teachers aren't aiming for political prestige... I'm surprised you think someone can just teach harder in a classroom of 30-40 kids to make the education differences go away.
It is very common in the Bay Area (the subject of this article) for former school people to run for political office. Especially on the far left of the political spectrum. It is a real problem.
What percentage of Americans can "barely read" according to those standards? This isn't just a problem specific to black high school students in the Bay Area.
The educational system has been teaching an approach to reading that’s known to not work for 20+ years, and this is the consequence for populations that don’t have access to other means of instruction. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/11/the-rea...
The bureaucrats and tenured academics who have doubled down on this approach should be punished.
>Moreover the idea that Black people don’t value education is absurd. My father was illiterate and was very conscious about it. He was dedicated to ensure I could read so that I wouldn’t struggle as he did. As early as Kindergarten my father made me do ‘Hooked on Phonics’ sets at grades beyond my age level. He had me read books and I had siblings to read to me at night. Thus, I never once struggled with English classes in grade school or college and breezed right through them.
The claim is absurd because of an anecdote that goes against the evidence?
The author goes on in the comments to blame culture, but the author says that black culture in some sense had a destiny due to 400 years of oppression.
As far as I know, all groups have parents who care about education (exemplified by some stereotypical populations) but also have within their ranks parents (and thus children) who don't care --the proverbial kids form the wrong side of the tracks (or trailer parks, if you prefer). So yes, we can find exemplary parents in all representative populations, but also parents who have abrogated their responsibilities when rearing children.
Of course. The populations are far too big for that not to be the case. What matters is what portion of a group's parents give a shit and what portion don't. I think its clear that Asian parents as a whole are far more likely to be in the 'give a shit' category, based on their children's educational results (even controlling for socioeconomic status)
"Black people" is like saying "Africa". Too many different pockets of people and individuals within them. Barack Obama and Henry Louis Gates Jr. exist alongside urban drug dealers.
All statements like this need credible qualification with statistics and demographics to be meaningful.
Did you not read the headline of the post? We're literally in a thread about half of black high school students in the Bay Area not being able to read at their grade level. Is that anecdote?
>Much media hay has been made about a report suggesting each Black resident in San Francisco receive $5 million. It’s obviously not going to be paid especially by a local government (though it ought to be federally done).
Am I reading it right? 5 million to each Black resident?
This sounds so ridiculous that I don't even know how to comment. Does the Federal government even have that much money (I know the Fed can print) to give that kind of money?
Given that the article says the Federal government should do it, let's assume it is for each eligible recipient in the USA (since the Federal government obviously can't hand out massive cash to a small geographic area).
A proper amount would have to be mathematically feasible to not be ridiculous. The policy implications of any such feasible plan are nuanced and might or might not make sense. 234T USD does not make sense though.
Yep, it sure sounds like a lot. Maybe a bit too high, but I'll note your argument was that its too much, not that it is an injustice to others.
I wonder how much of the $145T total wealth[0] in the US, or $463T in the world, would be owned by the 46.8 million people in event that their ancestors hadn't been enslaved, had their culture and homes forcibly removed or destroyed, or lost generations of social configuration through slavery, disenfranchisement, and Jim Crow.
Pretty large moral quandary, knowing most Americans (and, to be fair, most people in the world) have their wealth and security built not by their personal ingenuity but by the exploitation of the labor of others. Maybe not quite as distressful as confronting the Absurd, but still pretty big.
My argument was that it is mathematically infeasible, so it is irrelevant to argue about whether it is fair or not. As I noted a feasible policy might or might not make sense depending on many other factors.
I would be very interested to know why did you find the 5M number reasonable. Did you think it was feasible? Since you include the World wealth in your argument above, do you think some kind of wealth transfer from the whole world to the 46.8 million people is a sensible option? Why?
If you read my prior comments, you'll note I don't argue for the 5M. I have no idea what proper reparations would be because I have no counterfactual baseline for comparison nor specific moral model that provides a clear estimate. Indeed, this is why I wonder how much of the cumulative wealth would be a just transfer.
My comments on US and total wealth were generally noting that wealth is typically built by exploitation, either of someone's labor or of resources they or their progenitors took by force.
I don't think the article ever explained WHY. It has a couple hypotheses, but I would definitely like to know what the root issue(s) are or could be.
It sounds like the article writer didn't know though. I guess there's a need for more studies and data?
The article says nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times.
I don't mean to direct my ire at you personally, but I frankly find it frustrating the degree to which the rich tech class gets fresh wind of this every few weeks, says "gee whiz something should be done!" and then continues scrolling their feed. Public school teachers have been crying and screaming about widespread societal failure for literally decades now.
The Blackboard Jungle and Up The Down Staircase described failed schools with severe discipline problems in the 50s and 60s. This is not a new development.
> which may have resulted in the selection of certain traits
Genetics doesn't work that way. At all.
1) there weren't enough generations to change the population genetics. Bear in mind that African populations tend to have a wider range of diversity than other regions.
2) we've done a lot of population DNA studies, and they don't indicate any such differences.
3) there's no simple mapping from genes to educational ability, outside of extreme cases like genetic diseases.
To be fair “barely read” is not the same as “below grade level.” First, grade level is defined in California as being the median as of 1998 (I think). The figures in here indicate these students are close to but under the median. This is not nearly as dire as “can barely read.” I’m not apologizing for the stark demographic different which is indicative of terrible social ills breaking along racial lines. But to address a problem you need to honest about it, and it’s not the case that black high school students are illiterate or close to it. They’re just generally below the median, which is unsurprising given the related metrics for other larger demographics.
California and especially San Francisco has been under decades of progressive Democratic government. The result is LA and SF are a complete mess. They can't use the Republicans as scapegoats here.
SF teachers have been having a terrible time in the last 5 years because SFUSD has been run by progressive extremists that wanted to spend $2 million changing school names instead of worrying about things like Black literacy. Somehow they think changing school names are better for Black students than actually getting them to read. And meanwhile SF teachers haven't been getting paid on time this year because of complete mess of their payroll system, which is forcing drastic action that puts the SFUSD in deeper financial trouble.
I would hate to see Republicans get into power here, not especially because California Republicans are dumb as rocks, but I don't know what else will wake these California Democrats up. If Newsom has any aspirations to be president, and it certainly seems that way, I can guarantee you that running ads showing what LA and SF look like after decades of Democratic rule will destroy any chances of California Dems getting a modicum of power anywhere else in the country.
The issues in SFUSD and OUSD are orthogonal to SF local government tbh. A lot of the failure and persistent rot in the district is due to chronic underfunding - teachers in SFUSD and OUSD tend to earn half of what they could earn in SMUSD, SRVUSD, Fremont USD, etc.
If you don't pay for talent, you ain't getting it.
I agree and disagree. I agree that if you don't pay for talent you're not going to get it. But SFUSD is so broken that no one wants to move here. And it's so broken that anyone who cares about education will pull their children and stick them in private school, which brings less money into SFUSD.
This is a negative feedback loop and there's no way out of it.
The entire political scene of SF and California dictate the makeup of SFUSD so I think it goes hand in hand. I think the fact that moderate centrists finally showed up to vote out the SFUSD board members and Boudin are an indication of what comes over the next few years. I hope the progressive extremists get kicked out of the Dems and get replaced by moderate centrists like what we've seen in the last year.
SF had so much surplus budget during the tech boom. What did they do with it? Lots of pet projects... Why didn't they use it where it would pay dividends in the future? Massively unproductive homeless programs and other peripheral things. If they graduated students they potentially are preventing future homeless people, but with the present educational system they are almost certainly ensuring more homeless people.
SF has struck me for a long time as the worst run major city in America.
A lot of right wingers like to say “see look what libs do!” but I’ve lived in very blue cities like Boston that seem to be significantly better run. San Francisco just seems peculiarly dysfunctional in its own unique way.
The OP talked about wasting $2 million on renaming schools over perceived injustice (the plan to rename Lincoln was probably the worst idea they've ever perpetuated). You can't point back to underfunding when the school is wasting funding on extremists
Local school district where I am has a part that is predominantly black, other part more diverse.
Teachers don’t want to teach at the predominantly black schools (regardless of their own race). Violence, poverty, little to no parent engagement. When they have school conferences that half of the district teachers don’t have anything to do while the other half has parents lined up in the halls.
And if there is parent engagement it is sometimes not positive.
At one point the schools were accused of not providing enough support. More recently the sentiment is that too many black kids are identified as needing special education/ support… so now they are scared to provide / assign those services.
I don’t know what the solutions are. It’s complex, it’s hard.
There are reasons for all sorts of the individual issues, but as a whole they all feed into each other and the mountain of issues seem insurmountable.
1. It's functional literacy at age group - not "unable to read Latin letters"
2. Ime, education in phonics honestly sucks and fails to take into account local and regional dialectic differences. Maybe treating AAVE (and other regional dialects, similar issues exist among White Appalachians in rural WV, TN, and KY for example due to the Scotch-Irish heavy register) as a second language might help bridge the gap.
Clarence Thomas is an example of that kind of issue - his first language was Gullah (a mixed creole between West African languages and English) and it has had an impact on his own education earlier in his career.
That's one of the things that would happen when your school board cares more about renaming schools and hiding murals and getting rid of the one school in San Francisco that can feed into an Ivy League school (Lowell).
The same people that supposedly care about minorities and other "disadvantaged" populations are they ones who are dooming them.
You can't, there is no way to reverse this. The best thing to do is earn as little as one can, so as not to fund your destruction, and to get as far as you can from cities.
The best way to help is to figure out how to teach kids to read, and to expand their vocabulary, before kindergarten. Pre-K is where the answers are: that’s when the brain is most plastic.
Sometimes I check out /r/teachers to get an idea of what's going on in education. The general consensus is that behavior issues are completely out of control for a variety of reasons:
- Shortage of dedicated special education teachers
- Parents who won't discipline kids at home
- Top-down pushes from administration such as "restorative justice", "least restrictive environment", and a few other phrases that will make any classroom teacher's skin crawl
- Unwillingness from administration to apply suspensions or expulsion due to how this ties to school funding
- Lack of flexibility in the teaching job market due to teachers being a licensed profession and most states suspending a teacher's license if they quit mid-year, leaving apathetic teachers trapped in bad schools
- Attempts to discipline non-white students frequently resulting in accusations of racism, making it not worth the trouble
In the classroom, the end result seems to be that behavior meltdowns take up a disproportionate amount of a teacher's attention and they aren't empowered to deal with it, all at the expense of the quality of instruction for the rest of the students. The standardized test score metrics discussed here are a not too surprising consequence.
> most states suspending a teacher's license if they quit mid-year, leaving apathetic teachers trapped in bad schools
Imagine if Apple made you sign a non-compete to the effect of "I agree to never quit between August and June, with the punishment if I do being that I'm no longer allowed to develop software for anyone." That'd basically be indentured servitude and wouldn't last a minute in court. So why do we let public schools get away with it?
>>- Attempts to discipline non-white students frequently resulting in accusations of racism, making it not worth the trouble
This sort of culture now is unfortunately getting common, in the era of 'getting cancelled' nobody wants to carry the burden of helping others. Everybody is just one hair trigger away from hurting other people's emotions despite their best intentions to help.
What makes things more complicated is receiving help in many ways demands being humbled by the helper. This itself can be humiliating to go through. It could be misunderstood in a million different ways. And then you become the bad guy for helping and they become victims for receiving help. You lose in every possible way. Not only do you have to spend your time, energy and money to help them. You have also to risk getting cancelled for no fault of yours. And if you get cancelled, you are sanctioned for life.
For this reason its not just the classroom or office mentorship, people today as little as don't bother telling a person their wallet dropped from their pockets in a bus, out of fear it could be construed as harassment.
This is somewhat tangential, but for anyone who thinks various american dialects aren't "proper" english could use the perspective of north carolina university's life and language project -
After reading the article, I feel like the author makes fair points at the beginning, then kinda goes sideways.
Says it's likely black American cultural, parent involvement is huge, etc. Hard problems to solve.
But solutions such as reparations, segregated schools, and the forced hiring of kids by local companies to hire based on skin color seem way off the mark to actually achieving those goals.
Kids spend 7 or 8 hours a day in schools, with supposedly the goal of educating children. How can they keep failing so badly? If my job was to build houses, and I only ever built half of it adequately, with the rest in disrepair, I'd be fired. Same with about any job. Except educators, for some reason?
And teachers complain it's not their fault, they don't have the tools, they are forced to pass kids along, etc. So who's to blame? Burn the system to the ground, fire the administrators, and let's try again. Because finger pointing isn't helpful.
We really, really need to look at our failing education systems first. Having outside resources lead to way better educational outcomes tells me that schools aren't doing their primary objective, at all.
I don’t think that schools are really for learning. They are for watching and controlling kids, socializing kids, and introducing kids to educational materials all while parents go to work.
Learning happens at home. Parents or guardians are the answer (or origination) to this problem.
I might be out on a limb, but if you are posting on this site, you were likely reading before you started kindergarten or soon thereafter. Your parents most likely taught you to read.
Research shows that kids that aren’t reading by third grade are not likely to ever really learn to read.
I'd guess class size and teacher competence are the two main institutional factors (which separate expensive private schools with ~15 kids per teacher from public schools with ~30), and enough food, sleep, parental involvement, extracurricular activites etc. with respect to the home living situation are the major factors. Individual attention makes a big difference when it comes to lifting average performance, as students falling behind can get help before it reaches the drop-out level.
On the 'cultural expectations' front, rural white America has some similar issues to urban black America, of the 'why do you want to go to college' or 'being good at math is for nerds' or 'take your nose out of the books and play more sports' variety.
My own rather jaded cynical view is that this is a setup deliberately engineered by the ruling class, as if everyone could do math well nobody would ever have bought subprime-adjustable-rate mortgage loans, as they'd have realized they'd be better off just saving money by renting until they could afford a fixed-rate loan. The ability to estimate probabilities and to calculate compound interest should be required skills for high-school graduates.
An ignorant population is more easily fleeced - and let's not forget why it was a crime to teach slaves to read and write in the Old South, either. The recent attempts to lower math standards for high school students in California are probably motivated by that kind of agenda.
Not everything is because of the “elite” or whatever. It could just be some very extremely and totally obvious thing you could literally go observe for yourself. With your eyeballs. Outside.
Just a reminder that this isn't new. When I was about to enter high school in the early 90s, Oakland was trying to end-around testing standards for black students by declaring Ebonics as a separate language so that it could classify black students under ESL standards. That blew up and they had to walk that change back, but it shows just how far back this issue goes.
My personal view on this is that it's really underappreciated how self-perpetuating something like this is. I learned to read at a fairly early age and I attribute that to my mom reading to me on a nightly basis. Having someone verbalize something while you follow along just makes it so much easier to grok once you start doing it on your own. The kids referred to in this article will have parents who were the inspiration for the Ebonics idea. How many of them would have read to their kids every night?
134 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 193 ms ] threadThe last sentence missing a word.
One could argue the abbreviated words are also an indication.
Plus, texting has always featured slang, abbreviations, lack of punctuation, shortened spelling, etc. Not the best to learn from, perhaps.
I know of almost nobody else who does this. Shorthand is encouraged, acronyms abound, nobody actually gives a shit if you misspell something, punctuation is thrown to the wind with reckless abandon.
I don't see how texting could put an end to illiteracy. If anything, it promotes it.
Literacy attained.
Agreed that reading and writing are two different skills.
Of course, the question is whether that language is as expressive as ‘old English’.
I would guess it is simpler, but on the other hand, I know almost nothing of that language, and I know for sure it has features I can’t read, such as most expressions made up of multiple emoticons
Slightly provocative question, given what you've said ("without abbreviating anything"), would you actually spell out the acronym RSVP in a formal invitation? It's very common eg in Britain, it's definitely considered good form, and spelling it out would just cause confusion since it's actually a French term that most people probably wouldn't recognize (répondez, s'il vous plaît). What about i.e. (ita est)? E.g. (exemplum gratum, although some might argue it can also stand for example given)? You might say you just avoid those terms, which is possible, but I have a suspicion that you're just fooling yourself. Since you're on this site, I might also ask whether you always spell out the Domain Name System (DNS) and similar terms? If you did, you'd actually make your messages less understandable to most audiences, detracting from your literacy I'd argue.
[0] My opinion here, I'm not a linguist, so if this clashes with established definitions of literacy, my apologies.
Edit: I actually had a look, and of course you are fooling yourself. According to your comment history, you actually use abbreviations all the time, including ones that are unknown to me (ITAD company, SEE), making whatever point you were trying to make lost on me without research effort: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35273712#35276691
Edit: You took my comment too literally and missed the overall point. I didn't even intend to judge those who don't text like I do, hence my highlighting that it's not a conscious effort on my part. And, yes, I suppose that quite common acronyms are fine - I had hoped that it was obvious that I was referring to less common acronyms, but perhaps failed there (and still may be with this comment, c'est la vie). But thanks for kinda painting me like a grammar snob?
Edit 2: Some other words for clarification, since I guess I'd better be extra careful...
Just a guess, people used to be able to get by with a very basic level of literacy, i.e. label recognition. My cousin was this way when he finished school ~20 years ago.
Now you can't get by like that very easily because text based communication is so prevalent. If you have friends they'll be texting you, so you're pretty much forced into a learning situation for sociality, whereas in the past that was only happening at the speech level.
Re the shorthand stuff, (a) you probably just didn't realise how illiterate people were in the past because they couldn't write anything for you to read, so it's a genuine step up. (b) I actually encounter that shorthand less now, and more from adults who grew up with expensive and limited SMS.
Also - genuine question for anyone with a clue - what percent of high school age kids do you think have smartphones in, say, East Oakland?
Answer: Effectively all of them. Source: worked in inner city schools for a bit in areas at least as poor as East Oakland.
communicate through emoji and stickers?
If the only reading is app button labels, slang tweet burns, or media approved slogans of the week, why would you expect them to develop any meaningful vocabulary?
The nuance is that most can read, but not "at their age level"
Quote:
> In 2021, 47% of Black students in SFUSD that are high school juniors don’t even come close to meeting English-language proficiency. [...] That means for every one of two Black students leaving San Francisco high schools they can’t read for their age.
I wonder what percentage are learning English as a 2nd language.
The problem I see with using "black" as a descriptor is there are recent African immigrants, 1+ gen. African immigrants, Afro latinos, descendants of enslaved Americans, etc... put under one umbrella.
How can anyone pinpoint why a % of "black" students have reading issues at similar rates to hispanic students when the statistics pool black people from vastly different backgrounds together?
I have no idea how things stack in the Bay Area, but I figure that answers your question and implies your nuance likely wouldn't change anything.
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/04/09/a-risin...
Yes, when I saw that it was clear to me that being "foreign born" said very little about the population. For example, English can still be a 2nd or 3rd language for recent immigrants with US born children, especially in California and Texas.
>I figure that answers your question and implies your nuance likely wouldn't change anything.
I disagree, immigrants are most likely unevenly distributed.
That said, you could probably hunt for some school-level stats in the bay area and make an educated guess.
I misread, thanks for clarifying.
(Anecdotally, almost everyone I know who texts like this is very well educated and absolutely capable of writing in full, grammatical sentences — they just choose not to in these situations.)
Maybe I'm over thinking this, but the public education curriculum in major cities seem to have strayed far from making sure that every child is drilled in the basics: Basic reading, writing, and mathematics.
Large class sizes with underpaid teachers asked to play babysitter, teacher, and test prep tutor, all while being given no flexibility in approach or real ability to discipline are all major issues.
Administration that won't support teacher decisions and will push back if teachers actually try to fail students even if they don't turn in anything leaves this as an inevitable outcome.
That is absolutely untrue. Lowell High School in SF spends a lot less than other high schools. Same with Stuyvesant in NYC. This means the kids falling behind get more resources.
Your proposal will result in higher spending, not lower.
So many politicians are former school administrators. It's a problem.
The bureaucrats and tenured academics who have doubled down on this approach should be punished.
The claim is absurd because of an anecdote that goes against the evidence?
All statements like this need credible qualification with statistics and demographics to be meaningful.
Amazing the sort of things it's okay (and always has been okay) to say about Black people but laws are being passed to protect the feelings of whites.
There it is
This sounds so ridiculous that I don't even know how to comment. Does the Federal government even have that much money (I know the Fed can print) to give that kind of money?
As per https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/03/25/the-gro..., "46.8 million people in the U.S. identified their race as Black". Taking 5M for each, you get 234T USD.
Where is that money going to come from?
> What would a proper amount look like?
A proper amount would have to be mathematically feasible to not be ridiculous. The policy implications of any such feasible plan are nuanced and might or might not make sense. 234T USD does not make sense though.
Yep, it sure sounds like a lot. Maybe a bit too high, but I'll note your argument was that its too much, not that it is an injustice to others.
I wonder how much of the $145T total wealth[0] in the US, or $463T in the world, would be owned by the 46.8 million people in event that their ancestors hadn't been enslaved, had their culture and homes forcibly removed or destroyed, or lost generations of social configuration through slavery, disenfranchisement, and Jim Crow.
Pretty large moral quandary, knowing most Americans (and, to be fair, most people in the world) have their wealth and security built not by their personal ingenuity but by the exploitation of the labor of others. Maybe not quite as distressful as confronting the Absurd, but still pretty big.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wea...
I would be very interested to know why did you find the 5M number reasonable. Did you think it was feasible? Since you include the World wealth in your argument above, do you think some kind of wealth transfer from the whole world to the 46.8 million people is a sensible option? Why?
My comments on US and total wealth were generally noting that wealth is typically built by exploitation, either of someone's labor or of resources they or their progenitors took by force.
I don't mean to direct my ire at you personally, but I frankly find it frustrating the degree to which the rich tech class gets fresh wind of this every few weeks, says "gee whiz something should be done!" and then continues scrolling their feed. Public school teachers have been crying and screaming about widespread societal failure for literally decades now.
Genetics doesn't work that way. At all.
1) there weren't enough generations to change the population genetics. Bear in mind that African populations tend to have a wider range of diversity than other regions.
2) we've done a lot of population DNA studies, and they don't indicate any such differences.
3) there's no simple mapping from genes to educational ability, outside of extreme cases like genetic diseases.
SF teachers have been having a terrible time in the last 5 years because SFUSD has been run by progressive extremists that wanted to spend $2 million changing school names instead of worrying about things like Black literacy. Somehow they think changing school names are better for Black students than actually getting them to read. And meanwhile SF teachers haven't been getting paid on time this year because of complete mess of their payroll system, which is forcing drastic action that puts the SFUSD in deeper financial trouble.
I would hate to see Republicans get into power here, not especially because California Republicans are dumb as rocks, but I don't know what else will wake these California Democrats up. If Newsom has any aspirations to be president, and it certainly seems that way, I can guarantee you that running ads showing what LA and SF look like after decades of Democratic rule will destroy any chances of California Dems getting a modicum of power anywhere else in the country.
If you don't pay for talent, you ain't getting it.
This is a negative feedback loop and there's no way out of it.
The entire political scene of SF and California dictate the makeup of SFUSD so I think it goes hand in hand. I think the fact that moderate centrists finally showed up to vote out the SFUSD board members and Boudin are an indication of what comes over the next few years. I hope the progressive extremists get kicked out of the Dems and get replaced by moderate centrists like what we've seen in the last year.
A lot of right wingers like to say “see look what libs do!” but I’ve lived in very blue cities like Boston that seem to be significantly better run. San Francisco just seems peculiarly dysfunctional in its own unique way.
The OP talked about wasting $2 million on renaming schools over perceived injustice (the plan to rename Lincoln was probably the worst idea they've ever perpetuated). You can't point back to underfunding when the school is wasting funding on extremists
Teachers don’t want to teach at the predominantly black schools (regardless of their own race). Violence, poverty, little to no parent engagement. When they have school conferences that half of the district teachers don’t have anything to do while the other half has parents lined up in the halls.
And if there is parent engagement it is sometimes not positive.
At one point the schools were accused of not providing enough support. More recently the sentiment is that too many black kids are identified as needing special education/ support… so now they are scared to provide / assign those services.
I don’t know what the solutions are. It’s complex, it’s hard.
There are reasons for all sorts of the individual issues, but as a whole they all feed into each other and the mountain of issues seem insurmountable.
2. Ime, education in phonics honestly sucks and fails to take into account local and regional dialectic differences. Maybe treating AAVE (and other regional dialects, similar issues exist among White Appalachians in rural WV, TN, and KY for example due to the Scotch-Irish heavy register) as a second language might help bridge the gap.
Clarence Thomas is an example of that kind of issue - his first language was Gullah (a mixed creole between West African languages and English) and it has had an impact on his own education earlier in his career.
The same people that supposedly care about minorities and other "disadvantaged" populations are they ones who are dooming them.
Outside of voting for local and federal officials who actually want to solve this, how can I help?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Thrower
- Shortage of dedicated special education teachers
- Parents who won't discipline kids at home
- Top-down pushes from administration such as "restorative justice", "least restrictive environment", and a few other phrases that will make any classroom teacher's skin crawl
- Unwillingness from administration to apply suspensions or expulsion due to how this ties to school funding
- Lack of flexibility in the teaching job market due to teachers being a licensed profession and most states suspending a teacher's license if they quit mid-year, leaving apathetic teachers trapped in bad schools
- Attempts to discipline non-white students frequently resulting in accusations of racism, making it not worth the trouble
In the classroom, the end result seems to be that behavior meltdowns take up a disproportionate amount of a teacher's attention and they aren't empowered to deal with it, all at the expense of the quality of instruction for the rest of the students. The standardized test score metrics discussed here are a not too surprising consequence.
Imagine if Apple made you sign a non-compete to the effect of "I agree to never quit between August and June, with the punishment if I do being that I'm no longer allowed to develop software for anyone." That'd basically be indentured servitude and wouldn't last a minute in court. So why do we let public schools get away with it?
This sort of culture now is unfortunately getting common, in the era of 'getting cancelled' nobody wants to carry the burden of helping others. Everybody is just one hair trigger away from hurting other people's emotions despite their best intentions to help.
What makes things more complicated is receiving help in many ways demands being humbled by the helper. This itself can be humiliating to go through. It could be misunderstood in a million different ways. And then you become the bad guy for helping and they become victims for receiving help. You lose in every possible way. Not only do you have to spend your time, energy and money to help them. You have also to risk getting cancelled for no fault of yours. And if you get cancelled, you are sanctioned for life.
For this reason its not just the classroom or office mentorship, people today as little as don't bother telling a person their wallet dropped from their pockets in a bus, out of fear it could be construed as harassment.
>>making it not worth the trouble
This is where you arrive.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8QFpVgPl9tQ&feature=youtu.be
Says it's likely black American cultural, parent involvement is huge, etc. Hard problems to solve.
But solutions such as reparations, segregated schools, and the forced hiring of kids by local companies to hire based on skin color seem way off the mark to actually achieving those goals.
Kids spend 7 or 8 hours a day in schools, with supposedly the goal of educating children. How can they keep failing so badly? If my job was to build houses, and I only ever built half of it adequately, with the rest in disrepair, I'd be fired. Same with about any job. Except educators, for some reason?
And teachers complain it's not their fault, they don't have the tools, they are forced to pass kids along, etc. So who's to blame? Burn the system to the ground, fire the administrators, and let's try again. Because finger pointing isn't helpful.
We really, really need to look at our failing education systems first. Having outside resources lead to way better educational outcomes tells me that schools aren't doing their primary objective, at all.
Learning happens at home. Parents or guardians are the answer (or origination) to this problem.
I might be out on a limb, but if you are posting on this site, you were likely reading before you started kindergarten or soon thereafter. Your parents most likely taught you to read.
Research shows that kids that aren’t reading by third grade are not likely to ever really learn to read.
On the 'cultural expectations' front, rural white America has some similar issues to urban black America, of the 'why do you want to go to college' or 'being good at math is for nerds' or 'take your nose out of the books and play more sports' variety.
My own rather jaded cynical view is that this is a setup deliberately engineered by the ruling class, as if everyone could do math well nobody would ever have bought subprime-adjustable-rate mortgage loans, as they'd have realized they'd be better off just saving money by renting until they could afford a fixed-rate loan. The ability to estimate probabilities and to calculate compound interest should be required skills for high-school graduates.
An ignorant population is more easily fleeced - and let's not forget why it was a crime to teach slaves to read and write in the Old South, either. The recent attempts to lower math standards for high school students in California are probably motivated by that kind of agenda.
My personal view on this is that it's really underappreciated how self-perpetuating something like this is. I learned to read at a fairly early age and I attribute that to my mom reading to me on a nightly basis. Having someone verbalize something while you follow along just makes it so much easier to grok once you start doing it on your own. The kids referred to in this article will have parents who were the inspiration for the Ebonics idea. How many of them would have read to their kids every night?