Rumor [FALSE] OPRF to implement race-based grading system in 2022-23 school year

[Creamu]

Oak Park and River Forest High School administrators will require teachers next school year to adjust their classroom grading scales to account for the skin color or ethnicity of its students.

School board members discussed the plan called “Transformative Education Professional Development & Grading” at a meeting on May 26, presented by Assistant Superintendent for Student Learning Laurie Fiorenza.

In an effort to equalize test scores among racial groups, OPRF will order its teachers to exclude from their grading assessments variables it says disproportionally hurt the grades of black students. They can no longer be docked for missing class, misbehaving in school or failing to turn in their assignments, according to the plan.

“Traditional grading practices perpetuate inequities and intensify the opportunity gap,” reads a slide in the PowerPoint deck outlining its rationale and goals.

https://westcooknews.com/stories/62...e-based-grading-system-in-2022-23-school-year

 

[Big Man Tyrone2]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oprf-race-based-grading/

Don't fall for pink slime journalism. You're better than that.

 

[Creamu]

Don't fall for pink slime journalism. You're better than that.

Pink-slime journalism is a practice in which news outlets which appear to be local publish poor-quality news reports, often to push a right-wing agenda and gather user data.

This is a term that has partisan framing, according to wikipedia.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oprf-race-based-grading/

This rumor originated with a "local" news website that is part of a so-called "pink slime" news network.

They are calling this a fact check while using openly partisan terms.

I might look into this in detail, but the way they present themselves I dont think it is necessary.

The article I posted was referenced by a other news outlets and there was no backpaddling on those either. So they stand by this story.

If you want to position yourself as an authoritative 'fact checker' use neutral language.

 

[Creamu]

I want make a short statement about this fact check, since ir occupied my mind.

So these guys at snobes are poisiting in a tough position to take. To claim to be a authoritative information source that can go around to check others om there facts is a quite vulnerable position.

Now, what are they doing from this position. They claim to do a fact check. They name the source. That is valid because its important to know the origin of a claim, in order to have the option to look into it as a reader.

What they are doing than is utterly ridculous. They start characterising the source. This is so out of place here that it falls flat on its face. If you are concerned about the facts you don't characterise the source, and they are doing this as there very first step. Absolutly shameless.

In their characterisation of the source they make use of partisan lingo. This makes it even more puzzling. This serves no function in a 'fact check' but to poison the well.

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The etymology of the phrase lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the invading army's strength.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

The term they use in this context must work under one of those two assumptions:

1. It works under the theory that local news outlets conspire with other news outlets to push a certain point.

It would be more transperant to call this the Pink-slime journalism conspiracy theory then

2. It just so happens that news outlets report such information and other outlets pick up on that information and stand by it, while the information is totally wrong. And it just so happens that this happens largely on one side of the spectrum of political thought (within the frame of hermetic dialectic at least).

In this case you either have a really strong case with strong compelling evidence, that proves that this is an organic phenomenon or reconsider your own position.

Either way, poisioning the while posing as a authoritative fact checker is not valid.

 

[Veho]

tl;dr: source is bogus, this is fake news.