Irrelevant. Notice how you deflected from the main point?

- deliberately exposing other people’s children to extremely adult material is not adult thinking - especially without consent of the parents
- feel absolutely free to have your own children read those books (we know and hope you won’t)
- you have no right to slip them to other folks’ children

Judging by your constant deflection, it’s obviously EXTREMELY doubtful that you would walk up and hand another parent’s child the books in question, let alone quote them in public in situations where children are present.

“what makes you think you get to decide what other people's children are allowed to read”

Exactly. Great point! You’re finally getting it! I am a mature adult that knows exposing other people’s children to extremely adult material is not adult thinking - especially without consent of the parents. Feel absolutely free to have your own children read those books (we know and hope you won’t), but you have no right to slip them to other folks’ children.

Who’s actually lying here? Here’s a challenge: print out the quotes from that Newsweek article and scatter them in places you know children gather.

Do you think your neighbors will then be impressed by your “truthfulness”? Really?

I strongly doubt it.

Huh. It seems you rather agree with the ”bible thumpers” that these books are questionable in school libraries, otherwise you wouldn’t deflect so vigorously without addressing the contents.

Those books are found in many school districts throughout the nation. Even Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy and popularity, yet, tellingly, “forgets” to quote the controversial excerpts that the Newsweek article includes (https://www.newsweek.com/do-these-books-belong-public-school-libraries-you-judge-opinion-1802689). For example, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

> you are likely to get a set of bible thumpers setting the curriculum

Most folks don’t live in a Deep South evangelical area. Pick a random student in the U.S. and it’s FAR more likely he’s exposed to curriculums based on these books:

https://www.newsweek.com/do-th...

Good news! The most common NYC charters - Success Academies - are required by law to accept students blindly, are free, and make do with a significantly lower stipend than their public school counterparts. The Harvard and Stanford studies I cited account for this. Their success is mainly attributed to quality teachers (by far the biggest correlating factor with student success in most credible pedagogy research), quality discipline, and extended school hours.

For a nationally recognized spectacularly successful example on the other side of the pond, see the Michaela Community School in London. It’s free, but, to be honest, it looks like it spends maybe ten or so percent more per student than neighboring public schools - this is mostly because it has a higher percentage of students living in poverty, so the government increases its funding accordingly.

Sigh.

I posted this deeper in the thread, bringing it up to the top for reference:

Here’s the ENTIRE “proof” from one of jack’s two articles: “A report by Sweden’s biggest teachers’ union, Sveriges Lärare, warned in June of the negative consequences of having become one of the world’s most marketised school systems, including the viewing of pupils and students as customers and a lack of resources resulting in increased dissatisfaction.”

Notice something? It does ZERO to focus on actual outcomes, and just emotes discontent from a teacher’s union!

My far more rigorous NYC research stands, which not only posts research from two top universities, it not coincidentally includes this point made by Harvard’s research:

“School choice divides the Democratic Party along racial and ethnic lines. African American Democrats support targeted school vouchers, universal vouchers, and charter schools at 70%, 60%, and 55%, respectively. Among Hispanic Democrats, support for the three policies is at 67%, 60%, and 47%. On the other hand, just 40% of non-Hispanic White Democrats support targeted vouchers, 46% support universal vouchers, and 33% support charters.”

And includes these points made by the NYT:
- Charters “typically outperform district schools in math and reading on state standardized tests,”
- “the vast majority of students in charters are Black and Latino”
- “families in New York have clamored for more access to charters.”
- “Most Democratic lawmakers remain firmly opposed to allowing any expansion of the schools,”
- teachers’ unions, as “major political players,” are a key stumbling block

Clear as mud.

Florida is “gaming the system”? Brilliant logic!

This (probably intentionally) echoes the Critical Theory pedagogy fad that claims standardized tests are racist and “gamed” - but this is a fad which, in reality, many California schools ascribe (one example among many: https://www.latimes.com/califo...) not Florida.

Want an example of how stupid and self defeating this idea actually is? Many top colleges dropped SAT requirements in 2020 due to this exact CRT analysis. But what happened next? Almost all have subsequently reinstated them after finding that eliminating SAT scoring actually increased disparity. Why? For empirically predictable reasons: SATs are instrumental in separating the wheat from the chaff.

The empirical fact that the empirical measures that you claim can be “gamed” very consistently illustrate the silliness of CT? That’s probably exactly why CT deems objective reasoning itself to be “racist”, and instead pushes the postmodernist mantra “narrative trumps logic”. Don’t believe me? Read Foucault and Delgado - two of CRT’s key philosophers.

No. NAEP does not “say it’s a lie”, and, “mysteriously” you have yet to provide a ranking list based on NAEP data that disproves my contention. But nice hand waving.

Sure. Here’s the ENTIRE “proof” from one of your articles: “A report by Sweden’s biggest teachers’ union, Sveriges Lärare, warned in June of the negative consequences of having become one of the world’s most marketised school systems, including the viewing of pupils and students as customers and a lack of resources resulting in increased dissatisfaction.”

Notice something? It does ZERO to focus on actual outcomes, and just emotes discontent from a teacher’s union!

My far more rigorous NYC research stands, which not only posts research from two top universities, it not coincidentally includes the point made by Harvard’s research:

School choice divides the Democratic Party along racial and ethnic lines. African American Democrats support targeted school vouchers, universal vouchers, and charter schools at 70%, 60%, and 55%, respectively. Among Hispanic Democrats, support for the three policies is at 67%, 60%, and 47%. On the other hand, just 40% of non-Hispanic White Democrats support targeted vouchers, 46% support universal vouchers, and 33% support charters.

And includes these points made by the NYT:
- Charters “typically outperform district schools in math and reading on state standardized tests,”
- “the vast majority of students in charters are Black and Latino”
- “families in New York have clamored for more access to charters.”
- “Most Democratic lawmakers remain firmly opposed to allowing any expansion of the schools,”
- teachers’ unions, as “major political players,” are a key stumbling block

A ten point advantage for Florida is nothing to sneeze at regardless, but I am discussing overall ranks - not a particular grade level in a particular area. It’s easy to cherry pick, as you already noted!

For overall ranks, here’s one source:

https://www.urban.org/sites/de...

The main points remain:
- Florida and Louisiana’s “focus on science not equity narratives” strategies are working.
- California, which is undeniably all-in on equity pedagogy fads, has steadily sunk lower in the rankings.

That’s a lot of words without a shred of factual evidence. Crying “cherry picking” and getting annoyed at “demographically adjusted” data in no way disproves that California has slid pretty far down the state rankings while Florida is near the top, and in no way disproves that Louisiana’s back-to-basics strategy is working quite well. In fact demographic adjustments put Florida right at the very top of K-12 rankings per U.S. News, as it’s adjustments provide bonuses for doing well with classically underserved demographics.

“Mysteriously” you have not yet factually disputed a single one of my original points, nor yet posted a rigorous direct reference.