should be measured the same, which I agree with.
My main objective was to show that this is not a simple issue, that smart,
well intentioned and informed people do differ on this issue. And perhaps the
issue is more complicated in that the dialogue may also have a subtext about
national testing as a gage for judging the performance of schools. Bottom
line is that:
1. The current education system is not working as well as we would like
2. Competition has proven to produce better results over time in many
formats(anyone have an example were competition hasn't produced better results
outside of this area?)
3. Charter schools do not prevent the other ideas that work within the
existing system from being tried, except for potential impact on cash flow
from less students(has this been tracked at all and connected with change in
quality of education?)
Question: While changing attitude does not directly correlate with changing
behavior, what percentage of behavior change starts with attitude change? Or
is this question a clear indicator that I don't understand stat's?
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:37 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: NYT Op-Ed Piece on Charter Schools Performance
4. One thing years of behavioral research has found, changing
attitudes does not correspond with changing behavior.Public schools
have long been accused of using "feel good" measures. Now that this
study has found that in terms of objective measures (i.e., a behavior
so to speak) public schools is doing better, what is trotted out to
defend charters, the same sort of feel good measures. Isn't this being
more than a bit hypocritical?
Here's where I have to get into some stats speak, my apologies, but
there is no other way of stating the conclusions. Generally though
looking at the sample size of this study, in the thousands, and in the
magnitude of the study results (accounting for a significant
proportion of the data), you can with some degree of reliability say
that these results accurately estimate the relationship within the
population as a whole.
Andy, since leaving academia, one research specialty I still keep up
with is called Meta-Analysis. Meta-analysis is a set of statistical
procedures designed to accumulate experimental and correlational
results across independent studies that address a related set of
research questions, (for more information see
http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons/MetaAnalysis.htm) . At its core it
has the philosophy of "you can't rely on a single paper" in most
cases. One of the exceptions is when that study is large enough to
accurately model the population. With in the parameters of the study
as discussed by the AFP researchers, that study fits that exception.
larry
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:51:44 -0500, Andy Ousterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chicago Tribune wrote an editorial on this today as well. There comment
was:
>
> 1. Old study that should have be published versus buried (Why does NY
Times
> call a study performed a while ago new?)
> 2. Does not take into account that these schools are taking those that
are
> not doing well at their current schools and therefore tend to be farther
> behind and having lower scores to begin with
> 3. Does not take into account those schools whose mission is not to teach
to
> the tests but get kids into college
> 4. Does not take into account the attitude change that students at these
> schools may be undergoing.
>
> Their conclusion is that that:
> 1. These results are not a good indicator of the success or failure of
> charter schools
> 2. Better analysis needs to be done.
>
> That nail may have been burying a live person <g>
> Again, this is why you can't rely on a single paper to kill any idea.
>
> Andy
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
