Thursday, February 24, 2011

Improvement Doesn't Just Happen

Matthew Yglesias busy being wrong about educational reform, which ought include, he thinks, less unions writes:
Say it’s true that we don’t know how to make schools better
A chart and an explanation of the chart:
.
 The circled numbers show how American students compared to the average of the entire dozen countries. In 1964, we were 0.35 standard deviations below the mean. In the most recent tests, we were only 0.06 and 0.18 standard deviations below the mean. In other words, our performance had improved.
We know that Yglesias' preferred modes of reform don't work; so from where came this gradual improvement in "measurable" educational outcomes? From professional educators being left alone to do what they know seventy-bazillion times better than Ygelsias, who hasn't a clue about what he's talking about.

It's just bizarre how people who know nothing insist that if we react to a non-crisis in a field that engages in constant conversation about how to do what it does better conclude that the solution to the non-problem involves implementation of economically based solutions, likeforcing them to be like the Olive Garden.

2 comments:

  1. Isn't the problem with some of these tests is that not every US student takes them, so effectively we are comparing the best students in the US, with most students in other countries.

    My understanding of the problems in US education is that we don't do a good job with low income students and low performers in general. And I don't think people really know how to fix that problem.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not clear to me who takes the tests but, as I understand things, it's supposed to be the best and most comprehensive measure available. I am, however, not especially well versed in the issue.

    As to low income schools and, indeed, all schools the answer is to set a student to teacher ratio at 13:1 and increase teachers' knowledge of content.

    ReplyDelete