“Our findings show that refugees tend to cluster in schools that had poorer performance even prior to the refugees’ arrival.”
So refugees don’t make “bad” schools worse? But do they make “good” schools worse? Here in the USA, we’ve had all sorts of experiments within our own populations (races) and such mixing in schools. One thing we find is that when certain races begin to populate the schools to an increasing amount, the aspect of good behavior, intellectual ability, and discipline declines along with school effectiveness. This accelerates as the parents remove their children in favor of better disciplined schools, or simply to leave the public school sector completely.
I can believe the study results, but cannot believe the interpretation that the influx of non-native children is a non-issue.
As I recall, you're Danish. I see the tables, yes. The fact you are Danish - or Nordic - is still relevant. Have you ever spent much time around Sub-Saharans, for example? Have you ever sat in a class where it's 50% Dravidian and 25% Han and 10% Latino ... etc. ? My guess would be, "no." The data is flawed - I arrive at this conclusion based on my eyeballs and real world experience. I understand this isn't necessarily the best form of judgment in science-speak, but it works for me here. That the amygdala is more stressed around foreign out-groups, that more money is spent on managing heterogeneous classrooms with less net return, that violence is more prevalent among certain populations - it's enough.
Your performance could be affected if your classmates will beat the crap out of you and give you permanent brain damage as a result, but that truly is rare. In 10th grade, though, I did have this one Muslim dumbass want to beat me up because I accidentally mistook him for one of my friends (they looked similar from the side) in the restroom. I was able to run away before he was able to beat me up, though he did push (assault) me before I was able to run away. Thankfully I wasn’t physically hurt in that incident and subsequently reported it to the school authorities.
I must be missing something. For the Green et al study you present table 2 reporting results for Norwegian and English, and indeed it has no significant effect. But the table for mathematics is table 1, and that has significant (1 per cent) effects, negative. Why should we expect no effect after all?
This is the correct answer, it's what the data here and elsewhere says as well. Public education is just daycare, and it' far more often detrimental to health than it's worth. In fact, to my understanding humans see an increase in early years due to adoption and lose all the benefits by age 12. All good education can do is see you to your preset potential as early as possible, it's utterly pointless otherwise.
“Our findings show that refugees tend to cluster in schools that had poorer performance even prior to the refugees’ arrival.”
So refugees don’t make “bad” schools worse? But do they make “good” schools worse? Here in the USA, we’ve had all sorts of experiments within our own populations (races) and such mixing in schools. One thing we find is that when certain races begin to populate the schools to an increasing amount, the aspect of good behavior, intellectual ability, and discipline declines along with school effectiveness. This accelerates as the parents remove their children in favor of better disciplined schools, or simply to leave the public school sector completely.
I can believe the study results, but cannot believe the interpretation that the influx of non-native children is a non-issue.
central americans and venezuelan inmigrants tend to be in special schools programs since they only speak spanish, and their performance is really bad
As I recall, you're Danish. I see the tables, yes. The fact you are Danish - or Nordic - is still relevant. Have you ever spent much time around Sub-Saharans, for example? Have you ever sat in a class where it's 50% Dravidian and 25% Han and 10% Latino ... etc. ? My guess would be, "no." The data is flawed - I arrive at this conclusion based on my eyeballs and real world experience. I understand this isn't necessarily the best form of judgment in science-speak, but it works for me here. That the amygdala is more stressed around foreign out-groups, that more money is spent on managing heterogeneous classrooms with less net return, that violence is more prevalent among certain populations - it's enough.
Your performance could be affected if your classmates will beat the crap out of you and give you permanent brain damage as a result, but that truly is rare. In 10th grade, though, I did have this one Muslim dumbass want to beat me up because I accidentally mistook him for one of my friends (they looked similar from the side) in the restroom. I was able to run away before he was able to beat me up, though he did push (assault) me before I was able to run away. Thankfully I wasn’t physically hurt in that incident and subsequently reported it to the school authorities.
I must be missing something. For the Green et al study you present table 2 reporting results for Norwegian and English, and indeed it has no significant effect. But the table for mathematics is table 1, and that has significant (1 per cent) effects, negative. Why should we expect no effect after all?
10% percent, not 1%. It's a fluke.
This is the correct answer, it's what the data here and elsewhere says as well. Public education is just daycare, and it' far more often detrimental to health than it's worth. In fact, to my understanding humans see an increase in early years due to adoption and lose all the benefits by age 12. All good education can do is see you to your preset potential as early as possible, it's utterly pointless otherwise.