CHARLES BEAMS spoke of The Real Story 2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-08-96
CB>Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
CB> 
CB>DT>CB> Since there have been many well-publicized reports (A Nation
CB>DT>CB>At  Risk, U.S. Ed. Department NAEP scores, etc.) over the years
CB>DT>CB>indicating that our students score lower in math and writing
CB>DT>CB>than do  children in other nations, a few of which I've quoted
CB>DT>CB>here, can you  cite evidence to support your position?
CB>DT>Well-publicized inaccurate reports.
You say your a man of quantitative, scientific, verifiable, control 
group research.  I have read Nation at Risk.  I have also read _The_ 
_Manufactured_ _Crisis_ by David Berliner and Bruce Biddle.  Interesting 
how when one looks closely at "results" from Nation at Risk how 
interpretations can be altered to fit ones agenda.  I think you recently 
posted something from the AFT about voucher or charter school results?  
I have not made up my mind on this issue Charles.  I am just a bit 
skeptical and have done some investigating on my own.  Have you gone 
beyond the Nation at Risk report?  Have you examined the claims made in 
that report?  Do you realize there is little if any research evidence to 
support this report?  If there is, point me in the direction so I can 
view it as well.  Did the government conduct studies?  If so, when, 
where?  
Interesting that you should mention the NAEP scores.  The SAT scores 
give us very little information (The SAT is a one shot, multiple-choice 
test that is taken by high school seniors.  The test assesses only 
student's knowledge of a fixed set of topics in mathematics and English, 
against the performance of standards of a group of _high_ _status,_ 
mostly male, mostly Northeastern students who wanted to enter highly 
selective colleges in 1941.  (Manufactured Crisis p. 22) But, the NAEP 
is a better source of data about academic achievement.  This report is 
designed to be the "nation's report card" when it comes to assessing 
educational progress.  This test is given to national samples of 
students aged 9, 13, and 17.  The students are tested about every two 
years in mathematics, science, reading, writing, geography, and computer 
skills.  These tests include items that assess reasoning ability and are 
not intended to be mere tests of memory.  
In general, the NAEP tests have shown very little change over the past 
two decades.  
In 1990 the Educational Testing Service reviewed findings from twenty-
five years of the NAEP and concluded, "there have been various declines 
and improvements from assessment to assessment, but over the long term, 
achievement levels are quite stable."  (see Educational Testing Service 
1990, p. 31)
Following the release of the 1991 NAEP scores, former Secretary of 
Education Lamar Alexandar said that "today's children seem to know about 
as much science and read about as well as their parents did at that age 
about 20 years ago"; and former Assistant Secretary Diane Ravitch 
asserted that "the achievement trend lines are essentially flat over the 
last 20 years."  See Manufactured Crisis p. 26.
There's more where that came from.  It is well-documented so should be 
easily verified.  My question is why would people accept the Nation at 
Risk data at face value?  I am merely questioning it right now.  So many 
educators seem convinced that we are doing a lousy job at education.  
But I am made to wonder just how much of the Nation at Risk report was 
politically motivated?  
Charles, get the book Manufacture Crisis, look it over and then respond.  
  
 
CB> 
CB>How can I argue with logic like that?  You've got your mind made up 
CB>and you're not going to let the facts change your mind.
Ditto....
 
CB>DT>There are many who like to bash education (I believe it's a great 
CB>DT>political football) and it's easy to slant these studies (and 
CB>DT>they have been slanted).
CB> 
CB>I agree that the bashing is not always warranted, but one can't 
CB>throw the baby out with the bath water -  the position that schools 
CB>can do better is not without foundation.
Schools can always strive to do better.  But that fact doesn't mean they 
are doing poorly.
CB>I will agree with you that the comparisons made from year-to-year on 
CB>the SAT scores do not take into account a lot of factors, including 
CB>socio-economic class of those taking the tests, but we were talking 
CB>about comparing the U.S. with other nations (both taking the same 
CB>tests), not comparing students across decades in the U.S.
CB> 
CB>DT>It doesn't but if one looks the data is there.
CB> 
CB>I read about education all of the time and I've not run across the 
CB>data you're talking about.
Read the book and then let's discuss its implications.  They had a novel 
approach in writing the book.  They examined the evidence.
Dan
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------