Egalitarian goals that are bound to succeed

Closing the Gap in Aboriginal Educational Outcomes 2010 – 2014

The National Indigenous Reform Agreement aims to:

• increase the proportion of Indigenous children who are enrolled in and attending a preschool program in the year before formal schooling

• halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy for Indigenous students within a decade (by 2018)

• at least halve the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 attainment or equivalent attainment rates by 2020

• halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non Indigenous Australians within a decade (by 2018)

The picture on the cover tells you why this program is bound for success — eventually.

Following up with the last post I decided to look at the correlation between exogamy and the magnitude of the gap. As an index of cognitive ability I used NAPLAN math. Since I have exogamy rates by region and geolocation for 2001, I looked at grade 5 (average age 10.6) 2011 scores. Row A lists the region; B the # of Aborigines; C the standardized difference; D the 2001 exogamy rates; E the inferred % Australoid for the parental generation; F the inferred % Australoid for the offsprings; G/H the predicted d if there originally was a geneotypic d of 2; I the difference between prediction and observation. (To note, I used the 2001 exogamy rates to infer parental admixture and double checked this with the estimates based on genotyping. For example, McEvoy et al (2010) reports that Aborigines (presumably, adults) in NSW are 36% European — and this is approximately what we get if assume that the current rate of introduction of European genes into the Aboriginal gene pool, via contemporaneous admixture, (68% x 0.5 in NSW) approximates the total previous admixture. There are a lot of assumptions here, of course, but errors should attenuate the correlation between regional differences in admixture and gaps, which was 0.96.

I repeated the same analysis using geolocation (Metro, provincial, remote areas, very remote areas). Here, the correlation was much lower, but not trivial, at about .65. (I only had exogamy data for the regional capitals and for all other regional locations combined. I assumed that the former was a fair proxy for the rates in Metro areas (and maybe provincial areas too) and that the latter was an OK proxy for rates in remote and very remote areas).

Here: A gives the region,; B the score difference in Metro areas; C the inferred % Australoid in Metro regions (of the students); D the correlation between differences in scores and admixture in Metro areas (B,C); E through G the score differences in Provincial, Remote, and Very Remote areas; H the mean of E through G; I the inferred admixture in these regions combined; J the correlation between differences in scores and admixture in these combined regions (H,I); K the difference in gaps between Metro and other locations; I the difference in admixture between Metro and other locations; M the correlation between K and L; N1 same as K but lumped Provincial with Metro; N2 correlation between L and N; O and Q, the predicted differences assuming a 2 SD genotypic difference; P and R difference between predicted and found difference (B-O) and (H-Q).

<

So, for whatever reason, there seems to be a spatial association between Australoidness and the magnitude of differences. One could imagine numerous pathways by which this would occur, of course. Obviously one would want to check if there was a cross cohort difference (e.g., what the magnitude of the gap was, per region, in the 1970s). Whatever the case, over the coming years, Chuck predicts particularly stubborn gaps in NT and WA especially deep in the boondocks where the Autraloid blood runs more pure.

Refs

NALPLAN online explorer

http://www.nap.edu.au/Test_Results/NAPLAN_results/Results/index.html#results

Population Distribution, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4705.0

Head et al., 2010. INTERMARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA:Patterns by birthplace, ancestry, religion and indigenous status

McEvoy et al., 2010. Whole-Genome Genetic Diversity in a Sample of Australians with Deep Aboriginal Ancestry

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Egalitarian goals that are bound to succeed

  1. chris says:

    Thought you might want to school these people on their misunderstandings.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/genetic-crossroads/201206/race-under-the-microscope

    The funny thing is, they talk about the ‘myth’ of race and genetics, yet none of them are geneticists. In fact, all of them are law professors save for one who is a phd student in american studies and one who is an associate dean in nanosciences and nanoengineering.

  2. Kiwiguy says:

    I think it was cr8p when he was there too.

  3. Steve Sailer says:

    Good work.

    Wow, 174,000 Aborigines in Tasmania. I thought I learned from Jared Diamond that all the Tasmanian Aborigines were extinct.

    • Chuck says:

      X is correct. It should have been 17,400. But the # of Aborigines is immaterial to the analysis. I provided them to give perspective. We’re not dealing with a huge amount of people.

  4. x says:

    definitely no way there’d be 174,000 aboriginals in tasmania. that’s more than half the state. did you mean 17,000?

  5. formerly no name says:

    The Hive is defending the idea that anyone who wants to be aboriginal can be one. It’s the same in both US and Australia. This, like every other part of the leftist project, can only end badly.

    • Chuck says:

      That’s hilarious. I wish it was the same in the US. If so, I would elect to be a Native American and reap my benefits.

      Why aren’t there hordes of people self-identifying as aborigine? You could “close the gap” yesterday.

  6. x says:

    chuck, you can’t just “identify” as far as i know. well, maybe you can. every time you have to fill out a government form there’s always a checkbox with “Are you Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander? (Optional)” (what’s hilarious is torres strait islander is always listed even though there’s only like 2000 of them) and I’m not sure what happens if you just check that box for the hell of it. I’ve got some suspicion nobody is ever going to think twice about it but I’m pretty sure if you’re going for benefits or something they’re going to want more information. You need to demonstrate that you’re “accepted” in the community or have an elder’s approval before you can become a member of the (now propostional) Australoid race.

    I’ve often joked about bribing an elder with seaonal football tickets so I can get ALL THE BENEFITS.

  7. x says:

    speaking of the benefits, here’s a hilarious video

  8. chris says:

    From HBDChick’s most recent Links post.

    Does cooperation require both reciprocity and alike neighbours?

    http://www.mpg.de/5836053/cooperative_behaviour

  9. jonjayray says:

    I have just come across your site and admire your hard work with stats

    For me the Qld Test (McElwain & Kearney) gave the definitive answer. Even a test normed on Aborigines still showed a 1 SD advantage for whites

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s