Wednesday, 23 June 2010

Diversity Damages Education for Kids

Here we have proof of what we have always known, that diversity damages children and their education.

For years and years, the ‘perfect school’ was defined by having the right ratio of black to white, native to migrant and rich to poor. However, recent Dutch research has exposed this myth. Children at mixed schools consistently score lower grades than their peers at predominantly white or black schools.

Dutch sociology professor Jaap Dronkers has carried out research into the pros and cons of ethnic diversity in secondary education. He compared student achievement in language, math and physics of 15-year-old children in 15 Western countries. Much to his surprise, students’ grades were inversely proportional to ethnic diversity.

“I interpret lower student achievement at ethnically diverse schools to mean that a great deal of energy is spent on bridging the various cultural gaps between students. As a result, teachers are unable to focus on teaching. They keep hopping from one culture to the next. It uses up time and energy not spent on teaching.”

No data were available for the Netherlands, but Professor Dronkers believes his findings are also applicable to this country as education in surrounding countries like Denmark, Belgium and Germany is in his opinion comparable to the Netherlands.

The ethnic make-up of Dutch schools is a highly sensitive issue. The existence of separate ‘black’ and ‘white’ schools is generally regarded as undesirable. However, as long as the segregation leads to a homogenous student body, the effects are not necessarily negative. On the contrary, a ‘black’ school where 80 percent of the children were of Turkish descent outperformed a school of much greater ethnic diversity.


Another noteworthy finding from his research are the generally below-average achievements of students with an Islamic background.

“This cannot be explained by their socio-economic backgrounds or the characteristics of schools or educational systems. So what is the reason? It is very well possible that they are being discriminated against, but this also holds true for non-Islamic children. People will say: they are the children of migrant workers, but so were the Italians. The remaining factor is religion.”

Poor families

Not everybody agrees with Professor Dronkers’ conclusions. Dutch writer and educational expert Anja Vink says the professor places too much emphasis on culture and religion. She argues that socio-economical circumstances are widely accepted as determining factors for the educational achievement of children.

“We are focussing on colour, culture and religion, but what is being left out is that these children are from poor families. This could also apply to poor native children. If you attend a ‘white trash school’ you would get the same results. You will see this in the provinces of Friesland, Groningen en Limburg.”

Highly educated parents

Ms Vink, who wrote a book on black schools in the Netherlands, says that the conclusion that Islamic students are falling behind also merits further explanation.

“This may be true of Moroccan and Turkish children, but children of Afghan, Iranian and Iraqi descent often do better in school than even some native children. The explanation lies in the fact that they are children of highly-educated parents.”

Professor Dronkers agrees that ethnic diversity can have a positive effect on children of highly educated parents. “In that case there is an added value.” The scientist says that migrant children from non-Islamic countries like China, South Korea and India are also a positive exception to the rule.

Add to Technorati Favorites


lormarie said...

Oh, please. We see these disparities in "mixed" schools because certain races/cultures outperform others period. If I'm not mistaken, girls outperform boys (that's a different story I know). I doubt that these findings are the same throughout all nations (especially with Arabs).

Anonymous said...

Girls outperforming boys especially in recent times is probably two fold.

1. girls lacking testorerone means girls are better suited to being confined doing often menial tasks that require any actual real intelligence, most school work requires little inteligence just simple conformity and paroting. school work is basicaly menial and requires little advance input, being boring boys get distracted easily, but with firm disipline from dominant males boys can be made to perform the menial tasks in school and progress through the menial tasks as required.

2. testorerone makes boys less focussed on schoolwork and more on physical dominance in order to compete for females , especially in mixed schools. this also means that boys with no father and disipline will suffer extra as now they do not except any level of authority, liberalism also goes some way towards this - pandering to the lowest forms of behaviour.

3. the std male role model, the male was formerly and traditionally and in nature made to be the bread winner, this means men would see school as a means of achieving this goal even if it conflicted with other male ways.
it helped them to conform and perform the menial and debasing school work in order to achieve the natural task and wider goal of prividing for the famale and offspring, this is now all gone with the femaies getting the focus here and traditional male tasks - hard physical work being reduced and the gender gaps closed, real or imagined.
this means women now see themselfs as provider and men simply resort to their focus on dominace, though even this is being undemined with the feminising of men, in short it leads to the mental abuse of them and femails also but to a lesser extent.

In short it is no surprise that men do not perform well in schools and femails better, if it were now the other way round then i would have to question the role of nature and evolution, however that is not needed as it provides the explaination itself yet the marists who love to buck nature are left scratching their heads as their nature bucking systems destroys a naturally productive society.

Largely I believe men are more intelligent by design by nature, being the provider with a long defenseless infant period means it has to be this way.

Little advantage in an intellent woman, massive advantage in an intelligent male, the woman simply has to select both a strong and intelligent male and a male simply to select productive nurturing woman. this may not be PC but then if it were it would make no sense in a reference to nature and evolution which is the opposite of all that is PC where the minotity view is propagandised as a majority view by the majority.

if it were not so then why are the inventors almost always men?

invention on the whole takes real intelligence, parroting mundane facts does not, in fact true intelligence would rebel at such mundane activity which would lead to excessive bordom disinterest and disruption.

lormarie said...

I must respectfully disagree that men are more intelligent. Most inventors are men (historically) because women weren't "nurtured" towards certain endeavors. In some cultures even today, women are not encouraged to reach their full potential. I'll leave this alone since I don't want to stray off topic.

Anonymous said...

brainwashing young people as future generations are to be a diluted dumb down minority

Anonymous said...

well I made many spelling mistakes and a few points were not made as clear as they should and could be intereted wrong however back to nature, we also find again the marxists trying to buck nature destroying the mental health of people.

The issue here is sports and copetition, something often overlooked and even despised by the moronic marxists, even starting with thatcher when selling off the school fields and discouraging competition both physical and academic, all sports including the most important - boxing and the most important competition aspect of acadimia - grammar shools.

These were stripped out, both of these things were underestimated in their roles for healthy people of mind and body.

Sport helped boys work out their fight for dominance in a healthy non dangerous manner, it also improved social skills/social interation and intelligent spontainious intelligence/planning.

when the marxists and scum Tories started to try and strip out the competition they were in fact denying people of exploring their natural abilities and finding their social skills and stautus.

The feminising of white men has also lead to the situation where non whites are seen as naturally more desirable as they excert physical dominance without the same level of distain that would be aimed at whites, leaving white men at an instant disadvated in the natural selection process thanks to unatural marxist ideals with further evidense of serious abuse of the well being of white men, disadvantagising them in finding a mate - probably the most critical aspect of life itself, with men looking like inferior protectors.

the other aspect of being a desirable mate is intelligence and being able to provide, in this regard white men can more than compete but within working class comunities and in general this aspect has been destroyed as i pointed out before, such as for one women are now seen to compete in thise area reducing its relevance and within working class comunities where careers will be limited to say the least the females canopt out of the social natural structure altogether by getting a dominate non white male as a breeding partner and then using the state rather than the father to raise the children, largely the white man, yet the wite man has less opportunity to raise and spread his own seed, the most unatural of all situations.

How this situation has been able to continue where the white male excepts his role to provide for others and not reproduce must be down to serious levels of abuse through conditioning of all that is not natural in nature.

The long term result will certainly be a super disaster, when the safty net is finally pulled away (what rmains of whites at this point is unknown, mostlikey a persecuted minority rather than a persecuted majority) then nature will start to take its course once again.

at which point the marists will once again realise that everything they pushed was a terible lie that has lead to an even greater misery than strait competition would ever have allowed as nature tries to rebalence itself.

at which point the maists will find they have not created any utopia but a class based caste system which will colaborate intelligence and its implication in racial type, much as we see in many countries today that have mixed racial heritage.

In short they have not only harmed the people they wanted to harm including themselfs (clearly a sighn of mental illness) but have also harmed dramatically the people they profess to want to help.

Anonymous said...

Diversity kills.

Anonymous said...

Most intelligence tests indicate males are more intelligent especially so in the upper reaches of intelligence (as would be needed for invention), also having physically larger brains and the need for greater inteligence to provide for the female etc as discussed.

You will find it hard to get such proof today as it is when trying to get proof of differences between races, this is now seen as taboo and should anyone in a high position even suggest men are more intelligent than females then they are sacked, this sickening witchunt has happened several times and served to restrict evidense of mans greater intelligence.

For me it does not matter who is more intelligent, if at all, other than when viewed in the contest of men being held back for reasons i have given.

plus as we discover the sick unscientific correlation with denying race differences, or other such taboos. the latest being the debunking of global warming.

science takes a step backwards, a new dark age where the truth must be denied if inconsistant with a disturbed dangerous ideology.

This is something we must all combat, men and women combined, even if it shows something not to be a personal liking favouring ones self.

As for invention and nurture as opposed to nature and other evidense, i would suggest that if a woman had a natural gift for invention then it would soon become apparent and would lead to the casting aside of any bias, just a few significant inventions would be enough to start breaking down the nurture barriers as no one care who came up wih a great new invention as long as it worked. but instead they seem to remain isolated cases.

Many inventions appear to be the product of ecentrics working in a shed, little to prevent women doing the same, in fact it could be argued that women would have had more free time to advance such abilities over men, but again it appears not to be the case.