(Close Window)
Topic: Why is this?
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 7, 2013 09:09PM)
Some things get better and cheaper all the time. Other things don't. [url=http://www.cato.org/blog/school-funding-system-not-broken-it-just-doesnt-work] This [/url] is just outrageous.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 7, 2013 09:19PM)
What does the vertical axis on the graph supposedly represent? It's unclear to me.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 7, 2013 09:20PM)
Could they have given less information about their data sources? They give "Digest of Educational Statistics" but don't say what year or which version; "NAEP Tests, Long Term Trends, 17 Year Olds" but give no indication what year, what version, or what report this comes from.

It's not clear what is being measured under the generic terms "Reading Scores, Science Scores and Math Scores" but the scale on the graph suggests that they are all waving around 0%--whatever that means.

Who knows what this "article" and attached graphic actually relate to?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 8, 2013 10:54AM)
I could be wrong but I had the impression that the 1970 point was a baseline simply comparing cost at that point to current and scores on standardized tests, (I would assume), to current scores. Essentially showing that scores have stayed essentially flat while costs and number of employees have dramatically increased. That seemed fairly clear.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 8, 2013 11:09AM)
But what is the source? Do we actually have any measures of math, science and reading that are validly compared over that time span? Are any measure valid over this time span, given that curriculum has changed, demographics are constantly changing, school completion is at a higher rate, etc.?

The costs (assuming the numbers are accurate; the "reference" is so vague, there is no way to check) are probably due to the salary increases for teachers between 1970 and 1980. (In most countries, 80-90% of the annual cost of educating students is salary costs for school staff.)

If I am correct about the source of the costs, then there are a number of possible interpretations:

1. Teacher salaries were low in the 60s. (The meaning of "low" will have to be sorted out.)
2. Teacher salaries have been high since the 80s. (Same with "high".)
3. The numbers reflect general trends of salary increases since the 60s.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 8, 2013 02:48PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 11:54, rockwall wrote:
I could be wrong but I had the impression that the 1970 point was a baseline simply comparing cost at that point to current and scores on standardized tests, (I would assume), to current scores. Essentially showing that scores have stayed essentially flat while costs and number of employees have dramatically increased. That seemed fairly clear.
[/quote]
Wait, so the problem is that here have been no increases in test scores? So teat scores are like profits, destined to go ever upwards or face shame and humiliation? I wonder what the improvement in Harvard GPA's has been in the last fifty years. What a crock.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 8, 2013 03:16PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:48, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 11:54, rockwall wrote:
I could be wrong but I had the impression that the 1970 point was a baseline simply comparing cost at that point to current and scores on standardized tests, (I would assume), to current scores. Essentially showing that scores have stayed essentially flat while costs and number of employees have dramatically increased. That seemed fairly clear.
[/quote]
Wait, so the problem is that here have been no increases in test scores? So teat scores are like profits, destined to go ever upwards or face shame and humiliation? I wonder what the improvement in Harvard GPA's has been in the last fifty years. What a crock.
[/quote]

Nice switch from test scores to grades! If all of the students learn more, the "average" (C) student is still average. He's learned more, but he's still a C student. Standardized test scores, on the other hand, can be expected to increase as students learn more.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 8, 2013 03:21PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 16:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:48, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 11:54, rockwall wrote:
I could be wrong but I had the impression that the 1970 point was a baseline simply comparing cost at that point to current and scores on standardized tests, (I would assume), to current scores. Essentially showing that scores have stayed essentially flat while costs and number of employees have dramatically increased. That seemed fairly clear.
[/quote]
Wait, so the problem is that here have been no increases in test scores? So teat scores are like profits, destined to go ever upwards or face shame and humiliation? I wonder what the improvement in Harvard GPA's has been in the last fifty years. What a crock.
[/quote]

Nice switch from test scores to grades! If all of the students learn more, the "average" (C) student is still average. He's learned more, but he's still a C student. Standardized test scores, on the other hand, can be expected to increase as students learn more.
[/quote]

Only if the the tests are not renormed or if no equating procedure is used.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 8, 2013 03:31PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 16:21, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 16:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:48, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 11:54, rockwall wrote:
I could be wrong but I had the impression that the 1970 point was a baseline simply comparing cost at that point to current and scores on standardized tests, (I would assume), to current scores. Essentially showing that scores have stayed essentially flat while costs and number of employees have dramatically increased. That seemed fairly clear.
[/quote]
Wait, so the problem is that here have been no increases in test scores? So teat scores are like profits, destined to go ever upwards or face shame and humiliation? I wonder what the improvement in Harvard GPA's has been in the last fifty years. What a crock.
[/quote]

Nice switch from test scores to grades! If all of the students learn more, the "average" (C) student is still average. He's learned more, but he's still a C student. Standardized test scores, on the other hand, can be expected to increase as students learn more.
[/quote]

Only if the the tests are not renormed or if no equating procedure is used.
[/quote]

Or renormed infrequently enough that gains would be observed in the interim.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 8, 2013 08:56PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:48, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 11:54, rockwall wrote:
I could be wrong but I had the impression that the 1970 point was a baseline simply comparing cost at that point to current and scores on standardized tests, (I would assume), to current scores. Essentially showing that scores have stayed essentially flat while costs and number of employees have dramatically increased. That seemed fairly clear.
[/quote]
Wait, so the problem is that here have been no increases in test scores? So teat scores are like profits, destined to go ever upwards or face shame and humiliation? I wonder what the improvement in Harvard GPA's has been in the last fifty years. What a crock.
[/quote]

landmark, what would you use to gauge an improvement in educational quality?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 8, 2013 09:19PM)
The children are all brainwashed ie Teachers should be aware that “not all pornography is bad”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10019617/School-pupils-should-be-taught-not-all-porn-is-bad-advise-experts.html

“The intention appears to be to steer children and young people away from a belief in moral absolutes and to encourage them to think that there are no rights and wrongs when it comes to sexual expression,” he said."
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 8, 2013 09:40PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 16:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 16:21, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 16:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:48, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 11:54, rockwall wrote:
I could be wrong but I had the impression that the 1970 point was a baseline simply comparing cost at that point to current and scores on standardized tests, (I would assume), to current scores. Essentially showing that scores have stayed essentially flat while costs and number of employees have dramatically increased. That seemed fairly clear.
[/quote]
Wait, so the problem is that here have been no increases in test scores? So teat scores are like profits, destined to go ever upwards or face shame and humiliation? I wonder what the improvement in Harvard GPA's has been in the last fifty years. What a crock.
[/quote]

Nice switch from test scores to grades! If all of the students learn more, the "average" (C) student is still average. He's learned more, but he's still a C student. Standardized test scores, on the other hand, can be expected to increase as students learn more.
[/quote]

Only if the the tests are not renormed or if no equating procedure is used.
[/quote]

Or renormed infrequently enough that gains would be observed in the interim.
[/quote]
Look at that graph again. 200% improvement in test scores expected? Really? So the average would have to be below 35 to keep the same pace as spending? Totally meaningless graph.