Article
I'm interested in hearing your opinions about this article.
In my opinion, I think the writer of the article makes some serious fundamental errors.
For instance, they redesign a test to remove sections that revealed a disparity in scores of boys/girls, and when the new test scores delivers the predicted results, the writer proclaims it "a sign of hope for American education"
That doesn't make much sense to me. They changed the test the skew the results; the students' performance didn't actually improve any. This reminds me of the fitness tests that they used to have. Imagine that if you had to do 10 pullups to pass the fitness test. Now if you lower the requirement to 5 pullups, when more kids pass that test, you proclaim it a sign of hope for American fitness.
It seems to violate a fundamental rule of science: You apply the same test to all subjects, and you record their scores. You can hope for an increase in the scores, but if the improvement doesn't come from the subjects, no real improvement took place. You don't change the test and then declare there to be an improvement when you see changes.
I understand that the drive behind this has nothing at all to with the writer's article about it, but I'm interested in hearing your opinions about the topic in general.
I'm interested in hearing your opinions about this article.
In my opinion, I think the writer of the article makes some serious fundamental errors.
For instance, they redesign a test to remove sections that revealed a disparity in scores of boys/girls, and when the new test scores delivers the predicted results, the writer proclaims it "a sign of hope for American education"
That doesn't make much sense to me. They changed the test the skew the results; the students' performance didn't actually improve any. This reminds me of the fitness tests that they used to have. Imagine that if you had to do 10 pullups to pass the fitness test. Now if you lower the requirement to 5 pullups, when more kids pass that test, you proclaim it a sign of hope for American fitness.
It seems to violate a fundamental rule of science: You apply the same test to all subjects, and you record their scores. You can hope for an increase in the scores, but if the improvement doesn't come from the subjects, no real improvement took place. You don't change the test and then declare there to be an improvement when you see changes.
I understand that the drive behind this has nothing at all to with the writer's article about it, but I'm interested in hearing your opinions about the topic in general.
Facebook
Twitter