College Board Drops Plans for SAT Student Adversity Score

Re:College Board Drops Plans for SAT Student Adversity Score by waterhouse on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @01:21AM (#20816990)

> A California school district outside of San Francisco agreed to desegregate its schools on Friday, after a two-year state investigation found that the district had “knowingly and intentionally maintained and exacerbated” racial segregation and even established an intentionally segregated school.

> In the Sausalito case, the state said the district had violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

> The settlement, filed in state court in San Francisco...

Sounds like it was (a) not overt (if it took a two-year investigation to establish it), (b) illegal, and (c) eventually punished under preexisting law.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:College Board Drops Plans for SAT Student Adversity Score by T3OU-736 on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @07:59AM (#20818881)

> and (c) eventually punished under preexisting law. While I agree with you on this point, punishment does not mean repair or restore, which is the sad part.

Prevention, through detection (which goes to your point of "(a) not overt (if it took a two-year investigation to establish it)" seems like the better thing for these sorts of circumstances, but is a lot more difficult to achieve. Part of me, possibly naively, believes that transparency is the answer, so that those of us who care can determine things without a 2 year investigation, but that feels... too simplistic. Not sure what a better answer is, though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:College Board Drops Plans for SAT Student Adversity Score by cheriot on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @10:43AM (#20820271)

If blatant is not overt in this context then I'm curious what the overt discrimination against asian males is?

[ Parent | on HN ]