now if I were you, at this point I would demand links to peer-reviewed studies in support of your contention that charter schools only benefit the rich. From what I have seen, it is not the rich who consider going ;) But my central point in all of this is that if (to make a number up) 80% of kids graduate from charter schools and this is not significantly different than the number who graduate from traditional ps, this does not mean that they aren't a cure, because the populations are different. The kids who go to charter schools are usually the ones who would have droppped out, failed out or been kicked out of regular ps.
Dana On 10/19/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Could you parse your sentance: > "Studies are great, but rarely is a study on something this > complicated predictive even to the people it's given too, much less > others." > > Its missing something to make it meaningful. > > I think I get where you're coming from. This is an old argument that's > been dealt with back in the 70's. One very advanced technique that is > used and covers your objections (ie., the snapshot) is to use a > multiple causal model with time as a predictor variable. My LISREL > manual devotes 2 chapters to this approach, and I barely can follow > the methodology. > > Studies are only a snapshot in time, if they use only one assessment. > Most of the ones I'm interested in and have discussed followed > multiple overlapping cohorts through the school system for several > years, such as the NORC studies. > > But how is that choice better if it just produces the same scores. > Choice for choice's sake is a waste of time effort and money. Its > simply not cost effective if you get the same results with the current > school system than if you spend a lot more on a Charter or private > voucher system. All it serves to do is enrich a select group of > people, typically those politically connected with the groups that are > pushing that particular ideology. > > larry > > On 10/19/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Larry wrote: > > > What has not been done is a very hard look at what actually works and > > > then start applying it. > > > > This is exactly why a one-size-fits-all federal policy sucks. States > > need to be free to experiment with different ideas until the right > > formula is found; likely that formula will also differ between > > localities. Yet another reason why a fed solution sucks. > > > > As to your studies, I don't buy it. Studies are great, but rarely is > > a study on something this complicated predictive even to the people > > it's given too, much less others. A study is a snap shot in time that > > can used as a data point; you'd need decades of others to even begin > > to be predictive. > > > > Further, if the Charter/vouchers systems didn't produce better test > > scores, then they're still better because they offer something the old > > system doesn't: choice. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:177545 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
