RM>Ok... How did you allow for random fluctuations in score?
 
        Keep in mind that this was a very small sample.  However, it did
reflect a pattern througout our district.  There were only two scores
per student measured.  What was measured was the gain score.  It a
standard score of 120 was acheived by a student in the fourth grade, and
standard score of 140 was acheived by the same student in the sixth
grade, then the gain score was 20.
 
RM>Assuming for a second that we're going to assume that the
RM>sample will "average out" the fluctuations, how large are
RM>the various sample groups?
 
        This was one sample of 49 students over a two year period.
However, the pattern of behavior is a constant in our district for
atleast eight years.  Please keep in mind that the study only observed
math computation scores on the Iowa, only!  It is most important to know
this.
 
RM>PS>girls should have done better than boys...
 
        There are numerous studies on gender.  Most point out the fact
that girls (fourth grade age) are two years more mature(generally); thus
doing better in math than boys.
 
RM>PS>minorities should not have done as well...
 
RM>Do YOUR
RM>minorities really fit into that group, or are they, in fact,
RM>sufficiently different to skew the results?
 
        I believe that our community, so what isolated, is colorblind in
terms of race. Also, the minorities - Eskimos - have parents who attend
a trade school.  Most are inclined towards education.
 
RM>PS>remedial students should have not done as well....
 
        It was a small study to reflect IQ.  However, IQ could not be
measured because the district doesn't test this.
 
RM>PS>lower socioeconomic class should not have done as well...
 
RM>Again, lower socioeconomic is also associated these days
RM>with urban areas, and this, in turn, is often associated
RM>with other factors such as one-parent homes, violence,
 
        Basically, I could not find evidence to even suggest that simply
being poor will mean that one will not do as well in school as their
counterparts.  It was not in the literature, nor in my study.
 
 
RM>I'm surprised only by the remedial students, but even here
RM>there is an extenuating factor; the nature of the remedial
RM>program itself.  Many remedial programs are inadequate and
RM>fail the students; perhaps yours does not?
 
        I think you are right.  The remedial program is excellent.
Alaska still has some good funding.
 
 
RM>But there ARE "hidden" variables that can make a significant
RM>difference in the outcomes!  One of the biggest may be the
RM>apparently random fluctuations in IOWA scores!
 
        The is most certainly is another hidden variable or cause for
low math computation scores.  As for the random fluctuation theory, I
doubt it, only.  Since I have worked in this school( 1988 ) this has
been a problem.  The pattern is well established.
 
        Here is the conclusion of my study:
I found has of the problem.  When I remove the behavior problems from
the main group the gain goes from 20 to 22.  We desire a gain of 24.
I suspect that I didn't have a wide enough margain for behavior
problems.
 
Keep your stick on the Ice,
Paul
 
 * SLMR 2.1a * Press any key to continue or any other key to quit
--- TriDog 6.1
---------------