Paul R Swank wrote:
>
> Robert:
>
> Why would you expect a strong correlation here? You're talking about tests done a
>year apart with some new kids in each school and some kids who have moved on.
Simply because there seems to be general consensus that there are such
things as "good schools" and "poor schools". This may be partially
because some schools have catchment areas in which parents are better
educated/more suppportive/able to afford breakfast for their kids and
others aren't, partially because schools in some areas have better
funding, partially because some schools have better teachers, or for a
host of other reasons.
> Is regression toward the mean causing all of the noted results. Probably not. But it
>is quite conceivable that it could be partially responsible for the results.
It would certainly contribute - but I think it would be a minor
contribution, in the presence of goals as stated.
-Robert Dawson
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
