Anse wrote "My high school is about 85% Hispanic, poor to working-class. We are a Recognized School, and we have met or exceeded all of our standardized testing goals for three years running."

In a prior thread Anse claimed that Hispanic students at his high school were outscoring white students at other high schools in his district. I knew he was lying so I challenged him to name the schools so that the stats could be independently verified on the NCLB web data sites. Of course he could not produce the data links, so now he is merely claiming that the Hispanic students are meeting their "standardized testing goals". Undoubtedly these "goals" are way below the performance level of white and Asian students.

The language argument for low Hispanic performance is total baloney. Second and third generation Hispanics that can hardly even speak Spanish still show low IQs and low academic performance. The low cognitive ability of Hispanics is all due to low-IQ genes stemming from their native American and (in some instances) African ancestry; it has nothing to do with their language heritage.

By the way, the presence of substantial numbers of predominantly low-IQ minority group students (i.e. blacks and Hispanics) does not neccessarily mean a school is "bad", as long as there is a sizeable number of higher-IQ students (usually whites and Asians) the school can still be an excellent school with good high level courses that are not too dumbed-down. The important thing is that cities should concentrate the high-IQ children in special schools with highly demanding curricula, it is called "ability tracking". Liberal parents say they hate tracking but in actual fact upscale parents LOVE tracking. Tracking is the key to a successful ethnically-diverse urban school system. (e.g. Boston Latin, NYC Stuyvesant and Bronx Sci, San Fran Lowell etc.)