In response to a message to Charles on ...
DT>You say your a man of quantitative, scientific, verifiable, control 
DT>group research.  I have read Nation at Risk.
A rather massive volume, as I understand it.  Written by an 
independent organization known as the Rand Corporation.
DT>I have also read _The_ _Manufactured_ _Crisis_ by David Berliner 
DT>and Bruce Biddle.
A number of people have recommended it to me, but I have not yet 
seen it in the local bookstores. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places.
DT>Interesting how when one looks closely at "results" from Nation 
DT>at Risk how interpretations can be altered to fit ones agenda.
Any chance that Berliner and Biddle did some of the same?  Usually 
statistics can be twisted around to suit almost any purpose.  It 
takes a discriminating and unbiased reader to sort through the pros 
and cons.
DT>I think you recently posted something from the AFT about voucher 
DT>or charter school results?  I have not made up my mind on this 
DT>issue Charles.  I am just a bit skeptical and have done some 
DT>investigating on my own.  Have you gone beyond the Nation at Risk report?
You lost me here, Dan.  Did you make a couple of switches in issues 
you are referring to mid-papagraph?  I'm not sure what you mean by 
"gone beyond the Nation at Risk."  Since it was written in the 
mid-80's, I'd guess I have.
DT>Have you examined the claims made in that report?  Do you realize 
DT>there is little if any research evidence to support this report?
No.
DT>If there is, point me in the direction so I can 
DT>view it as well.  Did the government conduct studies?  If so, when, 
DT>where?
I thought you read it?  It was not produced by the government, so 
they wouldn't likely do any studies for the authors.  The Rand 
Corporation has long supported public education, providing grants 
for research, scholarships for graduate work, etc.  I suspect they'd 
do their own research - perhaps using some government statistics, 
where appropriate.
DT>Interesting that you should mention the NAEP scores.  The SAT scores 
DT>give us very little information (The SAT is a one shot, multiple-choice 
DT>test that is taken by high school seniors.  The test assesses only 
DT>student's knowledge of a fixed set of topics in mathematics and English, 
DT>against the performance of standards of a group of _high_ _status,_ 
DT>mostly male, mostly Northeastern students who wanted to enter highly 
DT>selective colleges in 1941.  (Manufactured Crisis p. 22)
I didn't cite the decline in SAT scores as evidence that students in 
Japan score better on tests of educational excellence since the SAT 
isn't administered internationally.  I, too, recognize the problem 
with a changing population of test-takers and the failure of the 
test designers to take social factors into account when analyzing 
data over the past 50 years.
DT>But, the NAEP is a better source of data about academic 
DT>achievement.  
I am familiar with the tests - they have been administered in our building.
DT>In general, the NAEP tests have shown very little change over the past 
DT>two decades.
Okay, I've no argument there.
The tests that are administered internationally are the IAEP exams 
and they show that American students score below students of 13 
other industrialized nations.
DT>Following the release of the 1991 NAEP scores, former Secretary of 
DT>Education Lamar Alexandar said that "today's children seem to know about 
DT>as much science and read about as well as their parents did at that age 
DT>about 20 years ago";
Interesting.  If he says so, it is probably true.  (BTW, William 
Bennett was the Secretary of Education who made the big splash about 
the report when it was released.)  Part of the problem, as I 
understand it, is that most other nations have improved their 
delivery of education during that 20-year period and the U.S. has 
not.  We used to score better on international exams and now we score lower.
If Xerox were still producing copiers the same way today that they 
produced them 20-years ago, do you think they'd still be in business?
DT>There's more where that came from.  It is well-documented so should be 
DT>easily verified.  My question is why would people accept the Nation at 
DT>Risk data at face value?
Probably because there is quite a bit of evidence that American 
schools can do more to educate America's children.  My argument 
isn't now, nor has it been, that American schools are going 
backwards in their ability to educate kids.  My point is that 
schools have taken on the larger task of educating *all* children 
(in the 50's, half of the kids dropped out of school by the time 
they were 16) and we have made little progress in reaching that 
goal.  We still educate at about the same level as we did in the 
1950's and other nations have surged ahead of us.  Nothing you've 
said refutes my point.
DT>But I am made to wonder just how much of the Nation at Risk report was 
DT>politically motivated?  
Pretty difficult to assess that, I guess.  I'm not sure if the Rand 
Corporation has any political leaning, either left or right.  Maybe 
someone else here knows.
DT>Schools can always strive to do better.  But that fact doesn't mean they 
DT>are doing poorly.
I guess that depends on your standards.
DT>Read the book and then let's discuss its implications.  They had a novel 
DT>approach in writing the book.  They examined the evidence.
Interesting, Dan.  When it comes to whole language you argue that 
qualatative research is great - it proves your point.  Here you seem 
to be arguing that such evidence is not good enough.  Can't have it 
both ways.
Chuck Beams
cbeams@dreamscape.com
http://www.dreamscape.com/cbeams
___
* UniQWK #5290* Another good day; the computer is still working!
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------