Apologies: I am not well connected to the net for the past week. This is my first chance to continue this disucssion.
> On 25 Apr 2004 19:30:24 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Warner) wrote: > [snip] > > 1) if (primary & secondary) schools provide what the more vocal parents > > claim they want, is this not what they are supposed to do? > > > > Alternative (A) is to switch from state funding and local Boards, > which the U.S. has universally, to national standards. But half the > school boards still want to minimize Evolution, and church lobbyists > within the states like the ability to water down the science > curriculum, select biased history textbooks, and so on. Excellent point. What people say they want for (element. & sec) schooling is frequently radically different than what others say they want, and not reconcilable. I remain naive enough to think that if the bulk of the population understands the implications of what is requested, then something close to what I want for my kids and my neighbors kids will come forth. The implicatons of what people say they want is not presently being communicated, IMHO. > > Alternative (B) is to abandon the public schools. Many wealthy > folks have already, in addition to the churchly folks. Support for > vouchers is largely a matter of selfish (financial) interest. > Why not let the public pay for their children, too? > - There is little reason to expect the voucher schools to do better, > and early returns show that they have not. > - There is too much emotion among the supporters of vouchers > for them to listen to evidence (about anything). The anti-public > people that I have known have entertained extreme fantasies > about how great schooling once was --- 50 years ago, or 150 > years ago. (Before public schools, 150 and 200 years ago, the > median education was more like 13 months than 13 years, and > Higher Math at Harvard was bookkeeping.) > > > In recent years, the *courts* have introduced a new element. > States have had to start funding the low-income counties, instead > of letting them go to hell, because of court orders. One > implication, as it works here in Pennsylvania, is that (soon?) the > wealthy districts can no longer vote to pay premium taxes > and thereby assure that their own children receive a premium > education in the public school (at least, a premium-priced > education). This implies that $ correlates with 'quality' of education. Which it may. Of more importance generally, the requirements to help fund low income counties may be a case of being one's brother's keeper. Well funded, effective jobs will not exist for the children of higher income counties if the children of lower income counties are shut out of the edicational opportunities. Which they are, if $ promotes 'quality' of education. Can I jump from correlation to causation? In this case? I have mixed feelings about forcing well heeled parents to not spend more $ on their own kids. They certainly believe $ promotes better education, and are willing to provide it. Once the less well off counties have 'enough' shouldn't we permit others to add even more? > > > > 2) If the professional educators who design, select & deliver > > curriculum do not/cannot explain to said parents the implications of > > what the parents claim to want, where should we look for improvement in > > the 'product'? > > > As I mentioned obliquely in discussing IQ, the 'product' is apparently > improving steadily -- if the standardized tests are to be the guide. > A test that is 15 years old needs to be re-standardized because > the children are scoring half a grade higher than they did before. I think this point needs to be announced better, and documented fully. How one measures 'IQ' or test performance is not a simple question. RE- setting the 'norm' or standard or test difficulty only makes time based comparisons more difficult. When a stock splits, the earnings per share must be recalculated to compare before and after. Same for a test, true? But you can't use the same test over and over, can you? You certainly can't give the same test to someone in rapid succession, without expecting an upward trend in result. Enough for one day, Cheers, Jay -- Warner Consulting, Inc. 4444 N. Green Bay Road Racine, WI 53404-1216 Ph: (262) 634-9100 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home of the A2Q Method(tm) What do you want to improve, Today! via CoreComm Webmail. http://home.core.com . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
