CHARLES BEAMS spoke of The Real Story 2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-20-96
CB>In response to a message to Charles on ...
CB>DT>
CB>DT> I have read Nation at Risk.
CB>A rather massive volume, as I understand it.  Written by an 
CB>independent organization known as the Rand Corporation.
You can obtain a copy from the library.  It is not that massive.  Must 
be the condensed version that highlights main points.
CB>DT>I have also read _The_ _Manufactured_ _Crisis_ by David Berliner 
CB>DT>and Bruce Biddle.
CB>A number of people have recommended it to me, but I have not yet 
CB>seen it in the local bookstores. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong
CB>places.
I found a copy at the library.
CB>DT>Interesting how when one looks closely at "results" from Nation 
CB>DT>at Risk how interpretations can be altered to fit ones agenda.
CB>Any chance that Berliner and Biddle did some of the same?  Usually 
CB>statistics can be twisted around to suit almost any purpose.  It 
CB>takes a discriminating and unbiased reader to sort through the pros 
CB>and cons.
You need to read the book before you make any conclusions regarding 
their "interpretations" of the data.  Interestingly, they looked at the 
actual evidence presented in the Nation At Risk report.  They did not 
need to do any twisting...just some untwisting.
CB>DT>Have you examined the claims made in that report?  Do you realize 
CB>DT>there is little if any research evidence to support this report?
CB>No.
CB>DT>Did the government conduct studies?  If so,
CB>DT>when,  where?
CB>I thought you read it?  It was not produced by the government, so 
CB>they wouldn't likely do any studies for the authors.
It was prepared under the direction of then Secretary of Education 
Terrel Bell and was endorsed in a speech by President Ronald Regan.  It 
made many claims yet none of the supposedly supportive "evidence" 
actually appeared A Nation At Risk nor did this work provide citations 
to tell Americans where that "evidence" could be found.
  The Rand 
CB>Corporation has long supported public education, providing grants 
CB>for research, scholarships for graduate work, etc.  I suspect they'd 
CB>do their own research - perhaps using some government statistics, 
CB>where appropriate.
I don't know what the Rand corporation had to do with the report. 
Perhaps they financed it? Then secretary T.H. Bell created the "National 
Commission on Excellence in Education on Aug. 26, 1981.  He directed 
this commission to examine the quality of education in the United States 
and to make a report to the Nation and to him within an 18 month period.  
This commission consisted of public members appointed by the Secretary. 
If you are suggesting that the Rand corporation conducted scientific 
research for the Nation At Risk report, I think you are mistaken.  I 
have the report here and cannot find the Rand corporation listed 
anywhere.  
CB>If Xerox were still producing copiers the same way today that they 
CB>produced them 20-years ago, do you think they'd still be in business?
I see you point and no...they wouldn't be in business still. But I do 
think that education has changed a great deal in 20 years.  We are not 
driven by a financial market however and the administration at the top 
tends to drag it's feet when it comes to meaningful change.
CB>  My argument 
CB>isn't now, nor has it been, that American schools are going 
CB>backwards in their ability to educate kids.  My point is that 
CB>schools have taken on the larger task of educating *all* children 
CB>(in the 50's, half of the kids dropped out of school by the time 
CB>they were 16) and we have made little progress in reaching that 
CB>goal.  We still educate at about the same level as we did in the 
CB>1950's and other nations have surged ahead of us.  Nothing you've 
CB>said refutes my point.
I don't believe that they have "surged."  I know many people do believe 
what you are saying though.  I am not convinced there has been a surge 
of any kind. 
CB>DT>But I am made to wonder just how much of the Nation at Risk report
CB>DT>was  politically motivated?  
CB>Pretty difficult to assess that, I guess.  I'm not sure if the Rand 
CB>Corporation has any political leaning, either left or right.  Maybe 
CB>someone else here knows.
I apologize if I am mistaken about the Rand corporation.  I don't 
believe they prepared the Nation At Risk report since I am having 
trouble finding any indication they had any connection with its 
preparation.  
CB>DT>Read the book and then let's discuss its implications.  They had a
CB>DT>novel  approach in writing the book.  They examined the evidence.
CB>Interesting, Dan.  When it comes to whole language you argue that 
CB>qualitative research is great - it proves your point.  Here you seem 
CB>to be arguing that such evidence is not good enough.  Can't have it 
CB>both ways.
You are reading me wrong here Charles.  I am saying that the actual 
evidence that the Nation At Risk report used to show how poorly our 
schools were/are doing actually paints a different picture.  I did not 
speak of research methodology.  Nation at Risk provided no research 
evidence.  
Dan  
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------