“数字的魔力是强大的”:霍布森诉汉森案和司法决策中有争议的社会科学

IF 0.5 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Social Science History Pub Date : 2023-08-10 DOI:10.1017/ssh.2023.16
Keith McNamara
{"title":"“数字的魔力是强大的”:霍布森诉汉森案和司法决策中有争议的社会科学","authors":"Keith McNamara","doi":"10.1017/ssh.2023.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Hobson v. Hansen (1967) is best known as the first federal court case to rule against discriminatory use of standardized tests in the context of educational tracking. It was also significant as one of the first desegregation cases after Brown v Board of Education (1954) to use psychological evidence in its ruling. This essay briefly examines the debates over ability testing before Hobson, the contexts of post-desegregation D.C. educational politics that shaped the case, the social scientific evidence presented in the case, and its application to the court’s ruling. It argues that while scholars have correctly acknowledged the court’s mistaken assumptions about testing, the evidence presented of testing bias nevertheless cogently illustrated a broader constellation of discriminatory District practices. A review of the testimony suggests that while the psychological evidence was central to the court’s ruling, the opinion rested less on the resolution of social scientific debates over testing bias than it did on the need to determine the justification of ability testing in the context of District tracking practices. Although sweeping in scope, the decision did little to resolve long running disputes over ability testing. Instead, it only helped inaugurate a more heated and contentious legal environment for educational testing in the coming decades.","PeriodicalId":46528,"journal":{"name":"Social Science History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“The Magic of Numbers is Strong”: Hobson v Hansen and Contested Social Science in Judicial Decision Making\",\"authors\":\"Keith McNamara\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ssh.2023.16\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Hobson v. Hansen (1967) is best known as the first federal court case to rule against discriminatory use of standardized tests in the context of educational tracking. It was also significant as one of the first desegregation cases after Brown v Board of Education (1954) to use psychological evidence in its ruling. This essay briefly examines the debates over ability testing before Hobson, the contexts of post-desegregation D.C. educational politics that shaped the case, the social scientific evidence presented in the case, and its application to the court’s ruling. It argues that while scholars have correctly acknowledged the court’s mistaken assumptions about testing, the evidence presented of testing bias nevertheless cogently illustrated a broader constellation of discriminatory District practices. A review of the testimony suggests that while the psychological evidence was central to the court’s ruling, the opinion rested less on the resolution of social scientific debates over testing bias than it did on the need to determine the justification of ability testing in the context of District tracking practices. Although sweeping in scope, the decision did little to resolve long running disputes over ability testing. Instead, it only helped inaugurate a more heated and contentious legal environment for educational testing in the coming decades.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46528,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ssh.2023.16\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ssh.2023.16","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

霍布森诉汉森案(Hobson v. Hansen, 1967)最为人所知的是,它是第一个联邦法院裁决在教育跟踪的背景下反对歧视性使用标准化考试的案件。这也是继1954年布朗诉教育委员会案(Brown v Board of Education)之后,第一个在裁决中使用心理学证据的废除种族隔离案件之一,意义重大。本文简要地考察了在霍布森案之前关于能力测试的争论,后废除种族隔离的华盛顿教育政治的背景,本案中提出的社会科学证据,以及它在法院裁决中的应用。它认为,虽然学者们正确地承认了法院对考试的错误假设,但提出的关于考试偏见的证据仍然令人信服地说明了更广泛的歧视性地区做法。对证词的回顾表明,虽然心理证据是法院裁决的核心,但该意见更多地依赖于在学区跟踪实践的背景下确定能力测试合理性的必要性,而不是解决有关测试偏见的社会科学辩论。尽管范围很广,但这一决定对解决长期以来围绕能力测试的争议收效甚微。相反,它只是在接下来的几十年里为教育考试开创了一个更加激烈和有争议的法律环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“The Magic of Numbers is Strong”: Hobson v Hansen and Contested Social Science in Judicial Decision Making
Abstract Hobson v. Hansen (1967) is best known as the first federal court case to rule against discriminatory use of standardized tests in the context of educational tracking. It was also significant as one of the first desegregation cases after Brown v Board of Education (1954) to use psychological evidence in its ruling. This essay briefly examines the debates over ability testing before Hobson, the contexts of post-desegregation D.C. educational politics that shaped the case, the social scientific evidence presented in the case, and its application to the court’s ruling. It argues that while scholars have correctly acknowledged the court’s mistaken assumptions about testing, the evidence presented of testing bias nevertheless cogently illustrated a broader constellation of discriminatory District practices. A review of the testimony suggests that while the psychological evidence was central to the court’s ruling, the opinion rested less on the resolution of social scientific debates over testing bias than it did on the need to determine the justification of ability testing in the context of District tracking practices. Although sweeping in scope, the decision did little to resolve long running disputes over ability testing. Instead, it only helped inaugurate a more heated and contentious legal environment for educational testing in the coming decades.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Social Science History seeks to advance the study of the past by publishing research that appeals to the journal"s interdisciplinary readership of historians, sociologists, economists, political scientists, anthropologists, and geographers. The journal invites articles that blend empirical research with theoretical work, undertake comparisons across time and space, or contribute to the development of quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis. Online access to the current issue and all back issues of Social Science History is available to print subscribers through a combination of HighWire Press, Project Muse, and JSTOR via a single user name or password that can be accessed from any location (regardless of institutional affiliation).
期刊最新文献
Income Mobility before Industrialization: Evidence from South Africa’s Cape Colony Legal Boundaries, Organizational Fields, and Trade Union Politics: The Development of Railway Unions in the US and the UK Why so antisocial? Football ultras, crowd modalities, and atmospherics of discontent in public space The Cold War from the Global South: Maoism and the Future of Liberalism Mosaic Database: Consolidation, Innovation, and Challenges in the Comparative Family Demography of Historical Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1