America has equality under the law and larger employers are actively trying to end discrimination in hiring and promotions- so why the persistent failure to close racial attainment gaps in the American economic system? In a phrase, a significant portion of the disparity can be put down to the educational ‘pipeline’ of American style of K-12. First, it's not about money (although there may well be a case for such at the extremes). States which use redistributive policies to focus resources in areas where gaps in attainment are most persistent achieve very little for their money. Second, much as we should value teachers for their commitment to public service, they are not worth their weight in gold. Studies show that the gap between an adequate and an excellent teacher can lead to educational outcomes which are 10% higher. More important is the gap between an adequate teacher and an inadequate one- with outcomes dropping by a precipitous 35%.
Roland Fryer is perhaps better known for his research on policing, both in terms of correcting inaccurate narratives involving police shootings, as well as proving that viral incidents involving police shootings are directly responsible for what has been termed the Ferguson effect. But just as important is previous research he performed on education in Texas. Don't let the argument between charter and regular public schools fool you. What his research really proves is that the absence of inadequate or grossly inadequate teachers, paired with an aspirational environment and structured low-level discipline policies which set the standards high for behaviour can significantly raise academic performance. In these circumstances gaps in performance with standardised tests effectively halved between underperforming minority groups and whites.
But this isn't the only way in which the progressive model of education fails- not to be confused with progressive politics. Child-centred education in which the child 'discovers' knowledge rather than being taught it by a teacher in teacher-led more traditional education, may have some efficacy- but it hugely inefficient by comparison to the spoon-feeding of knowledge. The main reason why progressive teachers complain about teaching for tests in because their inefficient methodology automatically means that there class will fall behind with their curriculum, meaning they need to rush to complete the curriculum content as the semester for tests looms large. Critically, most higher performing non-selective private schools are forced to operate a more traditional approach to education because there ‘brand’ is built upon academic results.
‘Whole word’ has had a disastrous impact on education for the less well advantaged, when not taught alongside the simple innovation of phonics, or 'sounding out' words. To be sure, there is some utility in teaching whole word, for the simple reason that a child may have never encountered a word that appears in a text. But phonics is far better for everyone who is not dyslexic and for 90% to 95% of words a child will encounter when reading. The absence of phonics in many American schools leads to massive advantage to parents with better educational backgrounds, for the simple reason that when they listen to their children read, and begin to lay the foundations of literacy by taking teaching upon themselves, they naturally default to phonics they learned in their own childhood. If we consider that a child receives knowledge from three main sources- their school, their parents and their peer group, then the absence of phonics in a school setting, like so many other aspects of a quality education, only amplifies the advantage of having an upper middle class family (more likely to be white) and highly educated parents.
But ‘progressive’ education is also at fault- it promotes terrible ideas, whilst ignoring scientifically proven ones which could have a huge positive impact. One of the most recent educational myths I've looked into is VARK- the idea that one can separate people by the way they prefer to learn- do you prefer to learn by visual, auditory, reading or kinetic (psychical) means. No doubt there was some hope that these differences in learning preferences might be a potential source of disparity. Not so- although people do possess definable differences in the style of learning which they most prefer, a number of high quality studies have shown that learning-style preference has absolutely no impact of educational attainment or outcomes. You may prefer looking at diagrams and reading text to understand the workings of the internal combustion engine, but if forced to get your hands dirty and take an engine apart (and provided you are learning the same information), you will get exactly the same marks on your course.
We've known exactly how the human brain learns for decades. It's called Cognitive Load Theory, and it explains many of the reasons why two people of equivalent mental ability might perform drastically differently if asked to perform slightly more complex mental maths. Simply put, working memory is puny and we rely upon long-term memory to perform any task beyond the most basic. If you are trying to multiply a two digit number by a two digit number in your head, it is not enough to be able to work out 6 x 9- you have to have the number 54 committed to memory, ingrained in your knowledge store. Otherwise you won't be able to conveniently store this number to one side, whilst working out the rest of the mental maths problem.
This one simple observation has profound implication for the way we learn and the disparities we see. It effects your vocabulary, your ability to construct grammatically correct sentences. Crucially, it has a huge impact on the potential to enjoy reading for pleasure, because if you are constantly struggling with the basics of literacy it makes for a less enjoyable experience, and one in which the larger meaning of the text sails right over your head. But if the question is how much influence does such a profoundly clear understanding of how we learn have on the educational theories proposed by academics in the education field have- the answer is very little.
Here in the UK we have long since instituted Offsted, the inspectorate for schools- which despite its occasional infatuation with progressive educational fads has been extremely effective at remedying or removing inadequate or grossly inadequate teaching within the profession, In recent years, the championing of traditional and academy style education under the auspices of the then Education Secretary Michael Gove has seen PISA scores rise in England and Wales, whilst Scotland- pursuing a more progressive model has continued to see its once proud educational attainment fall. Perhaps the most significant benefit has been a closing of gap in terms of racial disparities in educational attainment, as well as a more specifically defined closing of the gap in terms of IQ- with an entire national school years’ worth of psychometric IQ tests administered to 12 year olds in 2011/2012 showing that the gap had shrunk to 5 or 6 points- more than the 10 point gap reflected in the relative poverty-related Free School Meals data.
But it's not just schools. One of the most persistent and easily definable elements of true systemic racism, relates to the ability of white parents to exclude bad or disruptive influences in the school year and peer group of their children, both within education and socially. Disruptive influences are quickly expelled in a private school environment and this also holds true in pastoral public schools. Often the decision is crouched in the hand-wringing terms of considering that the horrible little monster is finally receiving the specialist help that they need, but ultimately the results are the same- disruptive kids who could potentially be bad influences are systemically removed from the peer groups and schools of middle class and above white children.
Meanwhile, Black kids in the worst parts of the public education system are routinely forced to go to school with other kids who have physically attacked teachers or sexually assaulted students. Under the Obama Administration, evidence of disparity between Blacks and whites in terms of discipline and expulsion rates was seen as evidence of racism- when all the socio-economic and social evidence (as well as subsequent rates of criminal offending) suggested that African Americans would indeed possess higher rates of discipline, suspension and expulsion requirements. This deliberate effort to cut rates of discipline and suspensions has meant an unfolding disaster for Black kids in predominantly African American schools. It only takes modest and continuing disruption in schools to deprive a child of two full years worth of education by the time they leave K-12- and thanks to the perception that disparate discipline is a sign of racism, this disruption will fall most heavily on Black kids.
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos ends a policy that subordinated safety to political correctness. (Article Text)
Here in the UK, we take a different tack. We have pupil referral units which at their best involve one-to-one sports coaching with a boxing instructor. It isn't always successful. Kids referred to pupil referral units in London are 200 times more likely to involved in a knife crime incident, either as a victim or offender. But it's far more preferable in terms of life outcomes than the American system and really does work in a lot of individual cases, because the American system is likely to produce more young men incarcerated in prisons for violent crimes, not fewer- broadening the school-to-prison pipeline to an industrial scale- for the simple reason that mixing prosocial boys with antisocial boys creates more antisocial boys amongst the prosocial group- not the reverse.
So to recap- here in the UK we've eliminated bad teachers. We've removed the worst aspects of the progressive teaching model, or at least partially mitigated them with more traditional elements of education. We have found a more humane way of dealing with disruptive boys, which makes them far less likely to go on to commit crime. As a result most of the differences in educational outcomes and performance have largely evaporated. The Afro Caribbean British cohort lags behind somewhat, but this is because like Bangladeshi British and White Working Class demographics they were exposed to incredibly harmful post-WWII government policies in housing and welfare, so similar to their African American counterparts. More recent African British schoolchildren outperform White British schoolchildren overall, and as a group account for the fact that average pay is equal between Blacks and Whites in the UK, for the 18 to 30 age group. What else? Well it's worth mentioning the experience of Northern Irish Catholics relative to their Protestant counterparts.
If one were to travel back in time, one would find Catholics to be subject to all manner of discriminatory practices in employment. These were removed. But how does a people who generally enjoyed a poorer level of living standard by virtually every socio-economic measure overtake their once wealthier Protestant counterparts in terms of education, wealth and income? With stronger communities, a higher rate of enduring stable family formation and two parent families who have the options provided by the division of labour to heavily invest time in their child's early childhood development.
It is worth noting that fathers have all manner of positive impacts, in terms of their children's development. Crucially cognitive development is improved as are motor skills. Even genetic longevity is improved- caused by greater telomere length through epigenetic nurture. Fathers also have a huge benefit at a community level, reducing juvenile violence and increasing social mobility- in Dr Raj Chetty's research on social mobility the rate of fathers in the community in which a child grows up is even more important than quality of education for upward social mobility. In this respect, substantially different rates of fatherhood by ethnicity have a huge impact on both upward social mobility and cognitive development.
In a recent podcast with Coleman Hughes, controversial academic Charles Murray was adamant in his belief in persistent racial IQ gaps (contrary to the views of many, myself included)- but he did caveat by stating that if we were able to the change the culture of underperforming groups then racial IQ gaps would shrink substantially. I don't think it’s culture in the way he means. It's simply that poverty in the West quickly becomes two problems. One is the pure socio-economics of adversity and growing up in less advantageous conditions. The other is the corrosive effect that an intergenerational lack of economic opportunity has, paired with the poorly calibrated efforts of government to help. If the often astounding economic performance of desperately poor incoming migrants is anything to go by, then the latter is far more harmful than the former.
I'm late posting on this, but another interesting read man. always it takes me a while to reply to you, given how detailed and thoughtful your writing is. I have to like read up and process. But you owe me a proper response this time. no more of just liking my comments.
For real, incompetent teachers are freakin kryptonite to students. I reconnected with a former student recently, and she reminded me of the time we were sitting on a bench in the office waiting to see the principal, since the poor kid had been sexually assaulted. and this was the moment when one of her teachers came in and made some shit comment about how she was up to no good again.
There aren't that many of these though. And frankly, I wonder if we have MORE of them up here in Canada, where the gig is genuinely well paid. The States though? Not sure about the UK.
as for kids 'discovering' knowledge, yeah, I agree in general with you, but you overstate the case. no competent teacher that I've ever met - and I've taught everywhere and everything in the 'arts' - - assumes that kids have to discover everything. personally, I'm not into the concept until the kids have a giant foundation of knowledge. but when they have that, and they get to discover? that's dope. some of the best student work I've ever seen comes from that.
when you talk about 'structured low-level discipline'? yeah, 1000%. full stop, controversial statement, but black kids are the primary behavioural problem at every school I've ever taught at, aside from my time in Japan. and i've said this to admin, to colleagues, to 'woke' experts doing BS inclusivity workshops. heck man, I said it to a class once, with like a third of the kids being black. and you know what? nobody disagrees.
"The main reason why progressive teachers complain about teaching for tests in because their inefficient methodology automatically means that there class will fall behind with their curriculum"
You must not know any teachers. the 'discovery' model and opposition to universal testing come from the same ideology. not, they suck and then they cover their asses, or whatever you are suggesting here. man, you and me are on the same side. honestly, you have influence my thinking more than anyone, and I've never even 'met' you. so cut out this BS conservative talking point stuff. you are way to smart to fall into that dynamic.
and standardized testing is awful, in many ways. you want to talk about that subject, I'm happy to provide evidence and references, but I want to finish commenting on your awesome post.
I had to look up 'the Ferguson effect'. can you back that up with some references? seems like it is still up for debate.
the basics of learning language? you nail that. here's an example ... my former principal, who just retired, was super delighted to tell me that she'd ordered bigger desks for the kids so they could form into groups more easily. she hated teachers teaching the classics. she wanted book clubs for everyone.
no fucking non-reader in grade 9 is going to talk about a book just because it's 'culturally relevant'. they don't talk because they don't know how to. and when you do book clubs, you can't teach all the kids at the same time. so the struggling kid struggles more, not less.
for real man. I taught a kid last year who couldn't read. literally. this is the first time in my career in high school that I met a kid who couldn't read. Referred him over and over again, to admin, to guidance - including my favourite all-time colleague. and nobody could help him, because the idea of a kid not being able to read was off the table. they didn't get it. I did my best to help him, but he needed more than one support. I referred him to the black focused support group after school, and he did better there. but they also have super low standards, so most of the time, it was snacks and hanging out.
The VARK stuff ... multiple intelligences is the phrase here- for sure. I mean, I'm a kinisthetic learner, so I need to learn how to read when I'm walking? I'm a verbal learner, so I will learn how to drive with a book? it's wrong. It's not wrong-headed - there is some real value in giving students a variety of ways to learn. but VARK is just simple-minded, convenient BS.
"Cognitive Load Theory"
Yup. "Crucially, it has a huge impact on the potential to enjoy reading for pleasure, because if you are constantly struggling with the basics of literacy it makes for a less enjoyable experience, and one in which the larger meaning of the text sails right over your head"
exactly. the main reason I know this i that my first decade of teaching was ESL based. in the ESL world, you need to master the 500 most commonly used words, and then the next 2000, and so on. (I forget the exact numbers here, so for illustrative purposes only, but I'm close).
English teachers teach literature, not English. generally. and this is a problem. literature is more engaging, literacy is hard to teach in an interesting way. Possible though. frankly, many english teachers don't know much ABOUT english. they were taught in the 'whole word' method, and can't understand people who can't learn that way.
"But if the question is how much influence does such a profoundly clear understanding of how we learn have on the educational theories proposed by academics in the education field have- the answer is very little."
the only prof i had when I did my masters in ed who talked about HOW to learn language? ESL. the most rigorous academic workload I had was in his class. I had a bunch of classes when we just talked about the stuff you describe - what do kids like, etc? I mean, that's important. but the foundation for learning, the fundamentals? man, I asked about grammar during my B ED. asked about behaviour. the answer? interest the kids, everything else will follow.
which is both dumb and impossible for most teachers. I'm a charismatic guy. I can interest kids. but the vast majority of people can't do this easily. how the fuck do you teach teachers charisma? we are essentially expected to be fascinating, not expert. at least in English.
"Under the Obama Administration, evidence of disparity between Blacks and whites in terms of discipline and expulsion rates was seen as evidence of racism"
yeah, and still. and here.
"It only takes modest and continuing disruption in schools to deprive a child of two full years worth of education by the time they leave K-12- and thanks to the perception that disparate discipline is a sign of racism, this disruption will fall most heavily on Black kids."
you've said this many times, I agree, and I think this is powerful. Hit me up with a reference or two, I intend to raise this idea in class in september.
"It's simply that poverty in the West quickly becomes two problems. One is the pure socio-economics of adversity and growing up in less advantageous conditions. The other is the corrosive effect that an intergenerational lack of economic opportunity has, paired with the poorly calibrated efforts of government to help. If the often astounding economic performance of desperately poor incoming migrants is anything to go by, then the latter is far more harmful than the former."
word. man, I hope you reply. I love the stuff you write.
Hey, Jeremy! Sorry I took a few days getting back to you- I had a bit of a drinking session with my brother, and I often take a few days to catch up on things after a binge. It's funny- he was a Maths teacher for a short while, but had to give it up- because despite being very bright he has dyslexia, and this paired with an almost total lack of online learning resources for Maths planning and lessons, meant he was routinely working over a 70 hour week.
The reason I mention him is because he was taught much of progressive dogma and often comes up with the same arguments as you on methodology. He is convinced that skills are more powerful than knowledge, and even uses the musical instrument analogy. Unfortunately, Archimedes Principle or Bernoulli's Principle will be just as useful hundreds or even thousands of years from now, whilst learning the latest programming language will be of absolutely no use in learning the language which will be marketable by the time kids who are six graduate from high school.
I was having an argument on another forum the other day with a committed Race and IQ proponent. I looked up the SAT scores for Success Academy and found that they achieved an average of 1268 for a graduating class which was almost exclusively Black. That's 322 points above the Black national average, and 145 above the white national average. He did not get back to me, so I can only assume he was flummoxed by a data point which didn't fit his grand narrative.
The thing is, although Success Academy claims to use progressive methodology, a former teacher and educational expert, Robert Pondiscio who spent a year embedded with them argues that they are less progressive than they think. An area where this is particularly evident is with their Maths curriculum. Eva Moskowitz herself worked with others to rewrite the syllabus, because most of the off-the-shelf systems she looked at didn't contain anywhere near the levels of Maths reasoning she wanted.
Here's the thing. If you are focusing on Maths reasoning, you have to teach the knowledge tools upfront. Then, although the 'learning through doing' repetition which follows might seem like it's creative, as it invites students to pick one of two effective ways of handling a particular Maths question, it also fulfils the core criteria of the traditional method by getting the student to commit the core element of knowledge to long-term memory. So you don't get the boring monotony of drill repetition, but you are effectively accomplishing the same thing- just in a slight more engaging and fun way for the kids.
On the incompetent teacher thing, the UK is like Canada- we long ago instituted best practices through inspections. But America is a world apart. There is documentary on Netflix called 'Teach Us All' which details much of their historic separate standards by race- but it also contains a heart rending instance from the modern era where a group of Black and Latino students sue the School Board to have a grossly inadequate teacher removed from teaching them- no spoilers!
I know what you mean about the charisma thing. But I think the easiest way to do it would be to send underperforming teachers on a cheap holiday during their summer to learn amateur dramatics. You can learn a surprising amount through performing on stage, and its exactly the type of emphatic or engaging approach which the wallflower types probably need to thrive in a classroom. It would also be a lot cheaper, in legal terms, than trying to remove them from the profession, and is fundamentally more humane. Things like financial health clinics and counselling, are also quite cheap ways of dealing with underlying morale issues.
You should look at Roland Fryer Pattern and Practice in Policing- it's the definitive proof on the Ferguson effect, but like many things its a lot more complicated than most would have us believe. It looked at 50 instances of attempts at police reform in America. Generally, they had no negative impacts, and in many cases were mildly benign. The exception was the four instances where a police reform effort occurred as a result of a 'viral incident'. In these instances, police backed off from the type of data-driven reasonable suspicion policing which is particularly effective at keeping gang activity more discreet- otherwise known as proactive policing, or its somewhat more dubious twin Broken Windows.
You should also look at Jeff Asher as a source. He's been keeping up to data figures on the violent crime surge in America, following George Floyd. Homicides went up 36% in America- the highest annual rise since records began (the previous record was 12%). This is at a time where every other advanced economy during the pandemic experienced a decline in violent crime. The surge has been most prevalent in poor high crime communities, primarily African American, but also Latino communities with gang issues.
Nothing is going to change in America until they fix their education system, and combine proactive policing with the more humane public health approach pioneered by Scotland. These kids do need a short, sharp shock, but in the vast majority of instances they need access to vocational employment opportunities, not prison. This means you need the police to supress gang activity, but when it comes to the courts the best option is vocational training and placement.
I watched the PBS special on Larry Krasner recently. He has a lot of great ideas for ways for America to reform its judicial process and sentencing. But he is going to lose it all, because he is not paying attention to 'quality of life' crimes and keeping open air drug dealing more discreet. At the end of the day, there will be no economic opportunities to offer these kids if all the prosperity in the areas effected dries up, because people are too afraid to go out and spend money on all the superfluous things which make life worth living.
He also has a criminologist who has looked at the New York industrial action and drawn entirely the wrong conclusions. They stopped issuing summons- that is not the same thing as proactive policing, although the two often get conflated. Issuing summons is little more than municipal rent-seeking.
Thought provoking article. Glad to see Dr. Sowell get a mention. Someone needs to explain why the black community was stronger during Jim Crow than they are now. You mention the growing black middle class, which is largely unnoticed because they are going on about life doing the things that allow for being middle class.
Democrats in America will never support real education reform, they depend too much on the support of Unions and the incompetent teachers they protect as well as the dependent classes created by poor culture and poor education.
Great comment. I would, however, interject a modicum of caution with regard to motives- outside of the circles of political elites. The really depressing thing is that many Democrat supporters really believe there is a casual relationship between the ideals their leaders espouse and the reality on the ground.
A case in point is the insistence that the Nordic States are Democratic Socialist- it's an assertion which to me is as irritating as pineapple on pizza (then don't call it pizza :)). In many ways they are more free market in their capitalism than America (apart from stronger worker protections)- they have simply decided to pay more in taxes on the poor and middle classes to commission more extensive social safety nets.
Capital is left anyone. Corporation taxes are low and inheritance tax is non-existent in Sweden and low in most of the rest of the Scandi nations. They have worked out they can make more in cap gains if they avoid capital flight and tax avoidance. It's as strategy that works- corporation taxes account for 2.75% of government revenue in Sweden (which went down to 18% in 2019/2020), compared to an anaemic 1.13% in America (its all about the loopholes and offsets).
One of the funniest things you can tell a progressive online is that although the Scandi countries have relatively low income inequality they have some of the highest rates of wealth inequality in the world. On reason for this, is although income tax is high in these countries, they have generous relief for debt. In Sweden you get to deduct 30% of your mortgage interest debt repayments from your tax bill- which for a two income family can be quite a bit! They've worked out that a higher rate of private home ownership leads to lower maintenance costs for public housing, so they are keen to encourage private ownership through tax incentives.
Hardly the Socialist Utopia most on the Left imagine.
Thanks for your response. Agree about caution in assigning motive, but these Progs can be so obvious!
Also great points about Scandinavian countries. A complete rebuttal to those espousing these countries as good examples of socialism requires some detail and includes a relatively homogeneous society and little defense burden. There are no Utopias on this earth, just better and worse forms of government.
Good point. The Roland Fryer study can be found online under the title: Injecting Successful Charter School Strategies into Traditional Public Schools: A Field Experiment in Houston
I'll start with the meaty part first then try to put some bread around it and make a sandwich.
Why should anyone care about "Closing the Gaps" ?
Anyone try to close a gap in education, wealth, health or incarceration is chasing a ghost. It's an illusion or phantasm of the mind. If one tries to close a gap the are not trying to improve the human condition by increasing wisdom, prosperity or vitality, they are just attempting to make one abstraction equal another abstraction.
Consider the gaps between different ethnic groups, why should closing these gaps (and there has to be more than one, as there are more than two ethnic groups) produce anything good ? It certainly MIGHT produce something good but there is no reason to presume it would. Equalizing one statistic with another statistic is not a good in itself.
The only reason that I can see why someone might believe that it is a good in itself is that it causes (or appears to cause) observed reality to conform to a predetermined ideology about human nature, probably something along the lines of "all men are created equal" which is an axiom of faith I do not subscribe to.
If your ideas don't match reality then it's you that needs to change not reality. Hammering round pegs hard enough to fit into your neatly cut square holes is running against the natural order of things (an axiom of faith I do subscribe to) and likely to cause terrible damage.
Let's get more specific and take the case in question, the gap of educational outcomes. Diverting resources from high a performing school where they are put to good use to a low performing school where they are wasted or even straight up stolen could close the gaps even more effectively than an overall increase in the education budget directed toward that under performing schools. The race becomes more even not by giving the slower runner vitamins and training but by starving the faster one. And as the first option is cheaper than the second that will be the one preferred.
The same thing would happen if a new powerful educational technique was developed. If it was applied to both the high performing and low performing schools the gap may reduce somewhat but the the gap closing would be greater if it was applied only to the under performing one. If gap closing is the goal of the bureaucracy then that's the option the bureaucracy will take.
In summary, equality of outcomes is not a worthy goal to pursue, what's the point of being equal if we are all equally shit ?
So that's my sandwich.
What do you think ? Too sloppy ? Too dry ? Too spicy or not spicy enough ?
I largely agree with you on the resource issue- when the British education system was in its heyday in the early fifties, they came to the realisation that disproportionate resources should be devoted to the top and the bottom, because the rump would distinguish themselves through means other than academic learning. The top because they are your future wealth creators. The bottom, because if you spend resources getting them to functional literacy and numeracy they will all end up in prison and become a far worse resource drain.
I actually argued in the essay, although it was only brief snippet, that investing resources in failing schools doesn't work- perhaps I didn't stress it sufficiently. It's the culture and methodology of education which needs to change- because an education which is operating at around 20% of potential capacity for knowledge-rich education is naturally going to favour wealthier households and those with highly educated parents, because one of the main contributory branches of knowledge is underperforming.
I know what you're going to say-they are the smart ones anyway- but not really. The special forces community gives us a plethora of example of individuals from poor, wrong side of the tracks backgrounds, who happen to be on or around 115 IQ as a median, and once we account for the 12 points or so seen between siblings the genetic lottery can switch through the simple mechanism of a favourable combination of genes. Plus, this is assuming that our current sort is fairly meritocratic, which it may be in some instances at a statistical level, but not at the level of the individual.
I don't agree with equality of outcome, but there is still considerable scope to make equality of opportunity fairer. You may baulk at this given the prevalence of institutional and government-run schemes to try and correct the issue for so long, but we have to remember it is the government we are talking about, and the institutions. Most of their approaches have undermined the ability of underperforming groups to improve through their own hard work and application. Equality of opportunity remains, for the most part, an aspirational pipedream.
More basic reforms of the sort which have worked so successfully with schools like those run by Success Academy, Michaela Community School and Brampton Manor Academy are proven to work and actually cost less taxpayer money in most instances.
Equality of Opportunity needs to be seen to be fairer, otherwise the cosmopolitan liberals will have their way and make equity a reality. There is no excellence or extraordinary achievement in an Equality of Outcome society, and it would soon lead to economic stagnation. Good questions though- makes me think that many of the changes I am advocating for can only happen at the retail level, by creating a culture of exceptional Headteachership.
I appreciate your antipathy toward gap chasing. However, it will remain the focus of attention because groups is all government and academia can comprehend; the individual is nothing to them.
"if we were able to the change the culture of underperforming groups then racial IQ gaps would shrink substantially."
It would be quite astonishing if a lineage of people selected for ten generations or more to be strong but dumb did not end up strong but dumb. Take that lineage and put them in a welfare/gangsta culture where the less you do for yourself the more the government does for you, and where violence leads to top dog status (with all the money and all the chicks), and one should be astonished if there was no effect on the gene pool. One should expect a lineage of people who are disproportionately dumb, violent, lazy and athletically gifted. This is exactly what we see and it's exactly what we should expect. Change the traits that give advantage and expect the gene pool to migrate toward those more successful traits over several generations. Simple, really. Selection happens.
Mate, there is no evidence that there is any difference between the races, in terms of trait conscientiousness- and that's according to JBP. If we really want to get technical, then the Irish experienced similar levels of violence in their community for quite a while after they migrated to America. The striking similarity is that like African Americans, Irish Americans put their faith in achieving political power to change their stars in life, and as a result it took them ages to see they should really look to themselves.
On the subject of IQ, I've written frequently on the subject of the closing gap between white and black British schoolchildren, and Murray is in the Jenson camp - even he concedes substantial changes of the type I've mentioned before would considerably close the gap in America. Plus, there is already a substantial Black middle class and things have been improved rapidly since the early noughties. Remember the Coleman Hughes article on The Case for Black Optimism.
Most of the stereotypes of African Americans are confined to the 2% of all American districts where 50% of the violence occurs, and even then we are talking about a tiny percentage of offenders. You should look up Gary Slutkin on Ted Talks- he was a Chicago-based epidemiologist who had dealt with disease outbreaks in Africa. He noticed that violence follows the same pattern as a virus, like a social contagion. It makes sense- we know from prison populations that the hard man persona is often a matter of self-preservation. Unfortunately, this also means more violence.
This is why I've been talking about a likely violent crime surge in America, since long before all but the most knowledgeable experts saw it coming.
"I've written frequently on the subject of the closing gap between white and black British schoolchildren"
Sure, but it won't close completely because blacks on average are less intelligent than whites just as whites are less intelligent than East Asians. I'm of the school that says we should just face this fact. Others prefer denial of course.
"It makes sense- we know from prison populations that the hard man persona is often a matter of self-preservation. Unfortunately, this also means more violence."
Sure, that's just what I was saying. None of this is hard wired of course. Populations are the product of the environments that create them. Ten generations of rigorous selection for intelligence would produce blacks that are smarter than whites. Jews are smarter than everyone because they've had to be. Race is real, but also arbitrary and constantly changing.
OK Ray- I will give you a like for sticking to you guns, even if we basically differ. But the types of genetic changes you are talking about only happen over at least a couple of thousand years- seen with Ashkenazi Jews, the Han and a few others. A couple of hundred years simple isn't enough time to make a substantive difference. And contrary to the blandishments of a few poor historians, African cultures were actually quite culturally and technologically sophisticated. It was the climate which was against them- anything over 16C and periodic diseases wipe out your civilisational capital, unless you medical science is beyond a certain threshold.
"the types of genetic changes you are talking about only happen over at least a couple of thousand years- seen with Ashkenazi Jews, the Han and a few others."
I agree there. But the northern peoples have been selected for vigor for many thousands of years. As you may recall I have this 'hot brain' idea -- where you need heat, the brain is firstly a heater, but where heat can kill you, a cool brain is a life saver. Nobody thinks very well when they are hot.
"African cultures were actually quite culturally and technologically sophisticated."
I'd like more knowledge on that subject but I once saw a claim that not a single SSAfrican culture developed literacy, math, the wheel, paving, use of stone (except Great Zimbabwe!), or a few other markers of advancement.
"It was the climate which was against them"
Agreed, but a few other things, like lack of nutrients as well. Point is that whitey had several vectors selecting him for intelligence that were lacking in Africa. Even more lacking than in other tropical areas such as India where fertility was higher. Contrast 400 years of brutal selection as a passive but strong beast of burden and I'd say there must be an effect. Given the right cultural environment, how long would the bounce-back take? Good question. Perhaps as little as a century.
Sowell wrote that black students were doing pretty well up to the 1960s, more inclined towards assimilation of productive traits than after civil rights ironically created problems of identity (wanting to be separate, thinking white stuff was bad), caused many black businesses to close, and increased dependency of government that messed with married black families. I think that's the "culture" argument.
You can't save everyone. When the focus is on the improving those who perform the worst to lift them up, you may find resources being misdirected at those who are least likely to learn and use that education well.
This is why I advocate for school choice, even within America's existing public school system. Not only would it cause underperforming schools to close, but by allowing hardworking and well-behaved kids in poor high crime communities to self-segregate into their own schools, you get schools like Michaela Community or Brampton Manor in London- the latter of which sent 51 students to Oxbridge only last year. I think this years acceptance levels actually went up.
It is also becomes a matter of incentives- in my youth nobody wanted to get sent to the local 'special' school- we heard a lot of horror stories and it kept us in line.
I'm late posting on this, but another interesting read man. always it takes me a while to reply to you, given how detailed and thoughtful your writing is. I have to like read up and process. But you owe me a proper response this time. no more of just liking my comments.
For real, incompetent teachers are freakin kryptonite to students. I reconnected with a former student recently, and she reminded me of the time we were sitting on a bench in the office waiting to see the principal, since the poor kid had been sexually assaulted. and this was the moment when one of her teachers came in and made some shit comment about how she was up to no good again.
There aren't that many of these though. And frankly, I wonder if we have MORE of them up here in Canada, where the gig is genuinely well paid. The States though? Not sure about the UK.
as for kids 'discovering' knowledge, yeah, I agree in general with you, but you overstate the case. no competent teacher that I've ever met - and I've taught everywhere and everything in the 'arts' - - assumes that kids have to discover everything. personally, I'm not into the concept until the kids have a giant foundation of knowledge. but when they have that, and they get to discover? that's dope. some of the best student work I've ever seen comes from that.
when you talk about 'structured low-level discipline'? yeah, 1000%. full stop, controversial statement, but black kids are the primary behavioural problem at every school I've ever taught at, aside from my time in Japan. and i've said this to admin, to colleagues, to 'woke' experts doing BS inclusivity workshops. heck man, I said it to a class once, with like a third of the kids being black. and you know what? nobody disagrees.
"The main reason why progressive teachers complain about teaching for tests in because their inefficient methodology automatically means that there class will fall behind with their curriculum"
You must not know any teachers. the 'discovery' model and opposition to universal testing come from the same ideology. not, they suck and then they cover their asses, or whatever you are suggesting here. man, you and me are on the same side. honestly, you have influence my thinking more than anyone, and I've never even 'met' you. so cut out this BS conservative talking point stuff. you are way to smart to fall into that dynamic.
and standardized testing is awful, in many ways. you want to talk about that subject, I'm happy to provide evidence and references, but I want to finish commenting on your awesome post.
I had to look up 'the Ferguson effect'. can you back that up with some references? seems like it is still up for debate.
the basics of learning language? you nail that. here's an example ... my former principal, who just retired, was super delighted to tell me that she'd ordered bigger desks for the kids so they could form into groups more easily. she hated teachers teaching the classics. she wanted book clubs for everyone.
no fucking non-reader in grade 9 is going to talk about a book just because it's 'culturally relevant'. they don't talk because they don't know how to. and when you do book clubs, you can't teach all the kids at the same time. so the struggling kid struggles more, not less.
for real man. I taught a kid last year who couldn't read. literally. this is the first time in my career in high school that I met a kid who couldn't read. Referred him over and over again, to admin, to guidance - including my favourite all-time colleague. and nobody could help him, because the idea of a kid not being able to read was off the table. they didn't get it. I did my best to help him, but he needed more than one support. I referred him to the black focused support group after school, and he did better there. but they also have super low standards, so most of the time, it was snacks and hanging out.
The VARK stuff ... multiple intelligences is the phrase here- for sure. I mean, I'm a kinisthetic learner, so I need to learn how to read when I'm walking? I'm a verbal learner, so I will learn how to drive with a book? it's wrong. It's not wrong-headed - there is some real value in giving students a variety of ways to learn. but VARK is just simple-minded, convenient BS.
"Cognitive Load Theory"
Yup. "Crucially, it has a huge impact on the potential to enjoy reading for pleasure, because if you are constantly struggling with the basics of literacy it makes for a less enjoyable experience, and one in which the larger meaning of the text sails right over your head"
exactly. the main reason I know this i that my first decade of teaching was ESL based. in the ESL world, you need to master the 500 most commonly used words, and then the next 2000, and so on. (I forget the exact numbers here, so for illustrative purposes only, but I'm close).
English teachers teach literature, not English. generally. and this is a problem. literature is more engaging, literacy is hard to teach in an interesting way. Possible though. frankly, many english teachers don't know much ABOUT english. they were taught in the 'whole word' method, and can't understand people who can't learn that way.
"But if the question is how much influence does such a profoundly clear understanding of how we learn have on the educational theories proposed by academics in the education field have- the answer is very little."
the only prof i had when I did my masters in ed who talked about HOW to learn language? ESL. the most rigorous academic workload I had was in his class. I had a bunch of classes when we just talked about the stuff you describe - what do kids like, etc? I mean, that's important. but the foundation for learning, the fundamentals? man, I asked about grammar during my B ED. asked about behaviour. the answer? interest the kids, everything else will follow.
which is both dumb and impossible for most teachers. I'm a charismatic guy. I can interest kids. but the vast majority of people can't do this easily. how the fuck do you teach teachers charisma? we are essentially expected to be fascinating, not expert. at least in English.
"Under the Obama Administration, evidence of disparity between Blacks and whites in terms of discipline and expulsion rates was seen as evidence of racism"
yeah, and still. and here.
"It only takes modest and continuing disruption in schools to deprive a child of two full years worth of education by the time they leave K-12- and thanks to the perception that disparate discipline is a sign of racism, this disruption will fall most heavily on Black kids."
you've said this many times, I agree, and I think this is powerful. Hit me up with a reference or two, I intend to raise this idea in class in september.
"It's simply that poverty in the West quickly becomes two problems. One is the pure socio-economics of adversity and growing up in less advantageous conditions. The other is the corrosive effect that an intergenerational lack of economic opportunity has, paired with the poorly calibrated efforts of government to help. If the often astounding economic performance of desperately poor incoming migrants is anything to go by, then the latter is far more harmful than the former."
word. man, I hope you reply. I love the stuff you write.
Hey, Jeremy! Sorry I took a few days getting back to you- I had a bit of a drinking session with my brother, and I often take a few days to catch up on things after a binge. It's funny- he was a Maths teacher for a short while, but had to give it up- because despite being very bright he has dyslexia, and this paired with an almost total lack of online learning resources for Maths planning and lessons, meant he was routinely working over a 70 hour week.
The reason I mention him is because he was taught much of progressive dogma and often comes up with the same arguments as you on methodology. He is convinced that skills are more powerful than knowledge, and even uses the musical instrument analogy. Unfortunately, Archimedes Principle or Bernoulli's Principle will be just as useful hundreds or even thousands of years from now, whilst learning the latest programming language will be of absolutely no use in learning the language which will be marketable by the time kids who are six graduate from high school.
I was having an argument on another forum the other day with a committed Race and IQ proponent. I looked up the SAT scores for Success Academy and found that they achieved an average of 1268 for a graduating class which was almost exclusively Black. That's 322 points above the Black national average, and 145 above the white national average. He did not get back to me, so I can only assume he was flummoxed by a data point which didn't fit his grand narrative.
The thing is, although Success Academy claims to use progressive methodology, a former teacher and educational expert, Robert Pondiscio who spent a year embedded with them argues that they are less progressive than they think. An area where this is particularly evident is with their Maths curriculum. Eva Moskowitz herself worked with others to rewrite the syllabus, because most of the off-the-shelf systems she looked at didn't contain anywhere near the levels of Maths reasoning she wanted.
Here's the thing. If you are focusing on Maths reasoning, you have to teach the knowledge tools upfront. Then, although the 'learning through doing' repetition which follows might seem like it's creative, as it invites students to pick one of two effective ways of handling a particular Maths question, it also fulfils the core criteria of the traditional method by getting the student to commit the core element of knowledge to long-term memory. So you don't get the boring monotony of drill repetition, but you are effectively accomplishing the same thing- just in a slight more engaging and fun way for the kids.
On the incompetent teacher thing, the UK is like Canada- we long ago instituted best practices through inspections. But America is a world apart. There is documentary on Netflix called 'Teach Us All' which details much of their historic separate standards by race- but it also contains a heart rending instance from the modern era where a group of Black and Latino students sue the School Board to have a grossly inadequate teacher removed from teaching them- no spoilers!
I know what you mean about the charisma thing. But I think the easiest way to do it would be to send underperforming teachers on a cheap holiday during their summer to learn amateur dramatics. You can learn a surprising amount through performing on stage, and its exactly the type of emphatic or engaging approach which the wallflower types probably need to thrive in a classroom. It would also be a lot cheaper, in legal terms, than trying to remove them from the profession, and is fundamentally more humane. Things like financial health clinics and counselling, are also quite cheap ways of dealing with underlying morale issues.
You should look at Roland Fryer Pattern and Practice in Policing- it's the definitive proof on the Ferguson effect, but like many things its a lot more complicated than most would have us believe. It looked at 50 instances of attempts at police reform in America. Generally, they had no negative impacts, and in many cases were mildly benign. The exception was the four instances where a police reform effort occurred as a result of a 'viral incident'. In these instances, police backed off from the type of data-driven reasonable suspicion policing which is particularly effective at keeping gang activity more discreet- otherwise known as proactive policing, or its somewhat more dubious twin Broken Windows.
You should also look at Jeff Asher as a source. He's been keeping up to data figures on the violent crime surge in America, following George Floyd. Homicides went up 36% in America- the highest annual rise since records began (the previous record was 12%). This is at a time where every other advanced economy during the pandemic experienced a decline in violent crime. The surge has been most prevalent in poor high crime communities, primarily African American, but also Latino communities with gang issues.
Nothing is going to change in America until they fix their education system, and combine proactive policing with the more humane public health approach pioneered by Scotland. These kids do need a short, sharp shock, but in the vast majority of instances they need access to vocational employment opportunities, not prison. This means you need the police to supress gang activity, but when it comes to the courts the best option is vocational training and placement.
I watched the PBS special on Larry Krasner recently. He has a lot of great ideas for ways for America to reform its judicial process and sentencing. But he is going to lose it all, because he is not paying attention to 'quality of life' crimes and keeping open air drug dealing more discreet. At the end of the day, there will be no economic opportunities to offer these kids if all the prosperity in the areas effected dries up, because people are too afraid to go out and spend money on all the superfluous things which make life worth living.
He also has a criminologist who has looked at the New York industrial action and drawn entirely the wrong conclusions. They stopped issuing summons- that is not the same thing as proactive policing, although the two often get conflated. Issuing summons is little more than municipal rent-seeking.
Thought provoking article. Glad to see Dr. Sowell get a mention. Someone needs to explain why the black community was stronger during Jim Crow than they are now. You mention the growing black middle class, which is largely unnoticed because they are going on about life doing the things that allow for being middle class.
Democrats in America will never support real education reform, they depend too much on the support of Unions and the incompetent teachers they protect as well as the dependent classes created by poor culture and poor education.
Cheers
Great comment. I would, however, interject a modicum of caution with regard to motives- outside of the circles of political elites. The really depressing thing is that many Democrat supporters really believe there is a casual relationship between the ideals their leaders espouse and the reality on the ground.
A case in point is the insistence that the Nordic States are Democratic Socialist- it's an assertion which to me is as irritating as pineapple on pizza (then don't call it pizza :)). In many ways they are more free market in their capitalism than America (apart from stronger worker protections)- they have simply decided to pay more in taxes on the poor and middle classes to commission more extensive social safety nets.
Capital is left anyone. Corporation taxes are low and inheritance tax is non-existent in Sweden and low in most of the rest of the Scandi nations. They have worked out they can make more in cap gains if they avoid capital flight and tax avoidance. It's as strategy that works- corporation taxes account for 2.75% of government revenue in Sweden (which went down to 18% in 2019/2020), compared to an anaemic 1.13% in America (its all about the loopholes and offsets).
One of the funniest things you can tell a progressive online is that although the Scandi countries have relatively low income inequality they have some of the highest rates of wealth inequality in the world. On reason for this, is although income tax is high in these countries, they have generous relief for debt. In Sweden you get to deduct 30% of your mortgage interest debt repayments from your tax bill- which for a two income family can be quite a bit! They've worked out that a higher rate of private home ownership leads to lower maintenance costs for public housing, so they are keen to encourage private ownership through tax incentives.
Hardly the Socialist Utopia most on the Left imagine.
Thanks for your response. Agree about caution in assigning motive, but these Progs can be so obvious!
Also great points about Scandinavian countries. A complete rebuttal to those espousing these countries as good examples of socialism requires some detail and includes a relatively homogeneous society and little defense burden. There are no Utopias on this earth, just better and worse forms of government.
How about including, within your posts, some hyperlinks to the social science studies you're referring to? That would be immensely helpful.
Good point. The Roland Fryer study can be found online under the title: Injecting Successful Charter School Strategies into Traditional Public Schools: A Field Experiment in Houston
I'll start with the meaty part first then try to put some bread around it and make a sandwich.
Why should anyone care about "Closing the Gaps" ?
Anyone try to close a gap in education, wealth, health or incarceration is chasing a ghost. It's an illusion or phantasm of the mind. If one tries to close a gap the are not trying to improve the human condition by increasing wisdom, prosperity or vitality, they are just attempting to make one abstraction equal another abstraction.
Consider the gaps between different ethnic groups, why should closing these gaps (and there has to be more than one, as there are more than two ethnic groups) produce anything good ? It certainly MIGHT produce something good but there is no reason to presume it would. Equalizing one statistic with another statistic is not a good in itself.
The only reason that I can see why someone might believe that it is a good in itself is that it causes (or appears to cause) observed reality to conform to a predetermined ideology about human nature, probably something along the lines of "all men are created equal" which is an axiom of faith I do not subscribe to.
If your ideas don't match reality then it's you that needs to change not reality. Hammering round pegs hard enough to fit into your neatly cut square holes is running against the natural order of things (an axiom of faith I do subscribe to) and likely to cause terrible damage.
Let's get more specific and take the case in question, the gap of educational outcomes. Diverting resources from high a performing school where they are put to good use to a low performing school where they are wasted or even straight up stolen could close the gaps even more effectively than an overall increase in the education budget directed toward that under performing schools. The race becomes more even not by giving the slower runner vitamins and training but by starving the faster one. And as the first option is cheaper than the second that will be the one preferred.
The same thing would happen if a new powerful educational technique was developed. If it was applied to both the high performing and low performing schools the gap may reduce somewhat but the the gap closing would be greater if it was applied only to the under performing one. If gap closing is the goal of the bureaucracy then that's the option the bureaucracy will take.
In summary, equality of outcomes is not a worthy goal to pursue, what's the point of being equal if we are all equally shit ?
So that's my sandwich.
What do you think ? Too sloppy ? Too dry ? Too spicy or not spicy enough ?
I largely agree with you on the resource issue- when the British education system was in its heyday in the early fifties, they came to the realisation that disproportionate resources should be devoted to the top and the bottom, because the rump would distinguish themselves through means other than academic learning. The top because they are your future wealth creators. The bottom, because if you spend resources getting them to functional literacy and numeracy they will all end up in prison and become a far worse resource drain.
I actually argued in the essay, although it was only brief snippet, that investing resources in failing schools doesn't work- perhaps I didn't stress it sufficiently. It's the culture and methodology of education which needs to change- because an education which is operating at around 20% of potential capacity for knowledge-rich education is naturally going to favour wealthier households and those with highly educated parents, because one of the main contributory branches of knowledge is underperforming.
I know what you're going to say-they are the smart ones anyway- but not really. The special forces community gives us a plethora of example of individuals from poor, wrong side of the tracks backgrounds, who happen to be on or around 115 IQ as a median, and once we account for the 12 points or so seen between siblings the genetic lottery can switch through the simple mechanism of a favourable combination of genes. Plus, this is assuming that our current sort is fairly meritocratic, which it may be in some instances at a statistical level, but not at the level of the individual.
I don't agree with equality of outcome, but there is still considerable scope to make equality of opportunity fairer. You may baulk at this given the prevalence of institutional and government-run schemes to try and correct the issue for so long, but we have to remember it is the government we are talking about, and the institutions. Most of their approaches have undermined the ability of underperforming groups to improve through their own hard work and application. Equality of opportunity remains, for the most part, an aspirational pipedream.
More basic reforms of the sort which have worked so successfully with schools like those run by Success Academy, Michaela Community School and Brampton Manor Academy are proven to work and actually cost less taxpayer money in most instances.
Equality of Opportunity needs to be seen to be fairer, otherwise the cosmopolitan liberals will have their way and make equity a reality. There is no excellence or extraordinary achievement in an Equality of Outcome society, and it would soon lead to economic stagnation. Good questions though- makes me think that many of the changes I am advocating for can only happen at the retail level, by creating a culture of exceptional Headteachership.
I appreciate your antipathy toward gap chasing. However, it will remain the focus of attention because groups is all government and academia can comprehend; the individual is nothing to them.
"if we were able to the change the culture of underperforming groups then racial IQ gaps would shrink substantially."
It would be quite astonishing if a lineage of people selected for ten generations or more to be strong but dumb did not end up strong but dumb. Take that lineage and put them in a welfare/gangsta culture where the less you do for yourself the more the government does for you, and where violence leads to top dog status (with all the money and all the chicks), and one should be astonished if there was no effect on the gene pool. One should expect a lineage of people who are disproportionately dumb, violent, lazy and athletically gifted. This is exactly what we see and it's exactly what we should expect. Change the traits that give advantage and expect the gene pool to migrate toward those more successful traits over several generations. Simple, really. Selection happens.
Mate, there is no evidence that there is any difference between the races, in terms of trait conscientiousness- and that's according to JBP. If we really want to get technical, then the Irish experienced similar levels of violence in their community for quite a while after they migrated to America. The striking similarity is that like African Americans, Irish Americans put their faith in achieving political power to change their stars in life, and as a result it took them ages to see they should really look to themselves.
On the subject of IQ, I've written frequently on the subject of the closing gap between white and black British schoolchildren, and Murray is in the Jenson camp - even he concedes substantial changes of the type I've mentioned before would considerably close the gap in America. Plus, there is already a substantial Black middle class and things have been improved rapidly since the early noughties. Remember the Coleman Hughes article on The Case for Black Optimism.
Most of the stereotypes of African Americans are confined to the 2% of all American districts where 50% of the violence occurs, and even then we are talking about a tiny percentage of offenders. You should look up Gary Slutkin on Ted Talks- he was a Chicago-based epidemiologist who had dealt with disease outbreaks in Africa. He noticed that violence follows the same pattern as a virus, like a social contagion. It makes sense- we know from prison populations that the hard man persona is often a matter of self-preservation. Unfortunately, this also means more violence.
This is why I've been talking about a likely violent crime surge in America, since long before all but the most knowledgeable experts saw it coming.
"I've written frequently on the subject of the closing gap between white and black British schoolchildren"
Sure, but it won't close completely because blacks on average are less intelligent than whites just as whites are less intelligent than East Asians. I'm of the school that says we should just face this fact. Others prefer denial of course.
"It makes sense- we know from prison populations that the hard man persona is often a matter of self-preservation. Unfortunately, this also means more violence."
Sure, that's just what I was saying. None of this is hard wired of course. Populations are the product of the environments that create them. Ten generations of rigorous selection for intelligence would produce blacks that are smarter than whites. Jews are smarter than everyone because they've had to be. Race is real, but also arbitrary and constantly changing.
OK Ray- I will give you a like for sticking to you guns, even if we basically differ. But the types of genetic changes you are talking about only happen over at least a couple of thousand years- seen with Ashkenazi Jews, the Han and a few others. A couple of hundred years simple isn't enough time to make a substantive difference. And contrary to the blandishments of a few poor historians, African cultures were actually quite culturally and technologically sophisticated. It was the climate which was against them- anything over 16C and periodic diseases wipe out your civilisational capital, unless you medical science is beyond a certain threshold.
"the types of genetic changes you are talking about only happen over at least a couple of thousand years- seen with Ashkenazi Jews, the Han and a few others."
I agree there. But the northern peoples have been selected for vigor for many thousands of years. As you may recall I have this 'hot brain' idea -- where you need heat, the brain is firstly a heater, but where heat can kill you, a cool brain is a life saver. Nobody thinks very well when they are hot.
"African cultures were actually quite culturally and technologically sophisticated."
I'd like more knowledge on that subject but I once saw a claim that not a single SSAfrican culture developed literacy, math, the wheel, paving, use of stone (except Great Zimbabwe!), or a few other markers of advancement.
"It was the climate which was against them"
Agreed, but a few other things, like lack of nutrients as well. Point is that whitey had several vectors selecting him for intelligence that were lacking in Africa. Even more lacking than in other tropical areas such as India where fertility was higher. Contrast 400 years of brutal selection as a passive but strong beast of burden and I'd say there must be an effect. Given the right cultural environment, how long would the bounce-back take? Good question. Perhaps as little as a century.
Sowell wrote that black students were doing pretty well up to the 1960s, more inclined towards assimilation of productive traits than after civil rights ironically created problems of identity (wanting to be separate, thinking white stuff was bad), caused many black businesses to close, and increased dependency of government that messed with married black families. I think that's the "culture" argument.
You can't save everyone. When the focus is on the improving those who perform the worst to lift them up, you may find resources being misdirected at those who are least likely to learn and use that education well.
This is why I advocate for school choice, even within America's existing public school system. Not only would it cause underperforming schools to close, but by allowing hardworking and well-behaved kids in poor high crime communities to self-segregate into their own schools, you get schools like Michaela Community or Brampton Manor in London- the latter of which sent 51 students to Oxbridge only last year. I think this years acceptance levels actually went up.
It is also becomes a matter of incentives- in my youth nobody wanted to get sent to the local 'special' school- we heard a lot of horror stories and it kept us in line.