CDZ Thinking about equality among Americans

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Xelor, Aug 20, 2017.

  1. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,865
    Thanks Received:
    984
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,509
    Really? You asked about my thoughts on school voucher programs and of all that I wrote about it, you have offered not one specific refutation of any of the specific objections I have to school vouchers. No specific references that show my analysis and recounting of the academic performance factors I noted are inaccurate or ingermane. No refutation that the non-academic yet objective factors I noted as part of my objection to voucher programs is not accurate.

    Instead you:
    • Direct me to a PEPG page that has no specific content or discussion of school vouchers.
    • A Heritage Foundation report about the results obtained in evaluating the DC school voucher program (DCOSP) that explicitly states that the DCOSP did not produce more higher performing students -- , "Test Scores: On reading tests, voucher students scored slightly higher (by 0.13 standard deviations) compared to non-voucher students, but the difference is not statistically significant. DCOSP did not produce any gains in mathematics scores. -- but did produce better graduation rates and higher rates of some nebulous quality called "parent satisfaction."

      Graduation rates indicate (1) the extent to which an institution accomplishes its bare minimum goal of instructing students so they obtain the minimum amount of learning needed to receive a diploma/degree and (2) the rate at which students manage to do as much before they are "kicked out" of school because they are too old (dropping out of high school). What they don't indicate is the extent to which "School A's" teachers and methods are more or less effective than are those employed at "School B." That is what the average/median test scores earned by students reveal and those test scores are the key thing that distinguishes top schools from "also rans." That being so is why the focus of the analysis I posted and pointed you to focused on the actual performance levels of the students graduating from various schools.
      -- Graduation Rates: Behind the Numbers -- This study's specific data apply to colleges, but the core concepts apply to any school or school system.

      As for parent satisfaction, well as the parent of four kids, I sent them to schools in New England and that are among the very best schools in the country. Had they graduated with demonstrated performance, mastery of the offered subject matter, no better than that which is the average of the several D.C. area boarding schools I could have chosen instead (1300-1400 SAT rather than the 2000+ SAT scores each of my kids earned), I would not have been satisfied. What criteria other parents have for determining their degree of satisfaction with a school or school system is not known to me. The mere fact that my kids graduated from high school has nothing to do with my satisfaction with the school.
    • I didn't read the WSJ article as I don't any longer maintain a subscription to that paper and I wasn't of a mind to obtain one just to read that article.
    As I've shown above, that essentially means you don't want to address the matter head-on from the standpoint of demonstrated performance of students in the voucher programs, but rather you'd rather focus on attacking my remarks that don't specifically have to do with voucher programs. I.e., you'd prefer to deflect to a different topic.

    Thank you.

    The factors Lips notes are addressed here -- “Women’s work” and the gender pay gap -- in a far more rigorous and credible way than Lips' speculative "we could be discussing." I don't take exception with Lips in effect asking the question as she did. I take exception with her not bothering to obtain the answer to it.

    Another study that analyzed the pay gap, something Lips asserts "have been debunked over and over again" yet makes reference to no study that's done so, is that of Blau and Kahn, "The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations." Their study also evaluated factors that Lips asserts have not historically been accounted for. Also, unlike the "Women's work" study referenced above, Blau and Kahn's was performed and published several months prior to Lips' essay.

    We conclude that many of the traditional explanations continue to have salience for understanding the gender wage gap and changes in the gap, although some factors have increased and others have decreased in importance. One of our findings is that while convergence between men and women in traditional human capital factors (education and experience) played an important role in the narrowing of the gender wage gap, these factors taken together explain relatively little of the gap wage gap in the aggregate now that, as noted above, women exceed men in educational attainment and have greatly reduced the gender experience gap. For a portion of the labor market, however, recent research suggests a continued and especially important role for work force interruptions and shorter hours in explaining gender wage gaps in high skilled occupations than for the workforce as a whole—this work is particularly relevant in that, as we have seen, the gender wage gap at the top of the wage distribution appears to have decreased more slowly than at the middle and the bottom.​

    As with any empirical study, discrediting it is tactically simple. Identify empirically the methodological flaws in the study and then show the flaws produce material outcomes that invalidate the study results obtained and conclusions drawn/inferred and the study is discredited. (Minor flaws that result in immaterial variances or that led to ancillary inferences do not discredit a study's key findings/conclusions.) Lips neither referred to the Blau and Kahn study, presented her own explication of flaws in it, nor pointed to any researcher's work that shows the error(s) of their study/results/conclusions.

    Well, what is there to say about that? From where I sit, nothing. You've "owned" the fact of your desultory course and aren't blaming others for your choices in that regard. So long as you're not asking that others accommodate you by offering some sort of recompense to ameliorate the consequences of your arbitrariness, I take no issue with whatever choices you've made or similar choices you may make again.
     
  2. SeaGal
    Online

    SeaGal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    605
    Thanks Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Location:
    a land remembered
    Ratings:
    +566
    Actually I didn't ask you to 'share your thoughts'....merely whether or not you agreed. You made it clear that you had already shared your thoughts on the subject - 'elsewhere'.
    Now in polite society that generally indicates the speaker has spoken enough on the subject, and doesn't wish to repeat herself - simply respecting your wishes.

    Attack you? Mon Dieu! Never! tsk tsk
    Pointing out similarities between your views and the current political platform of the DNC or recent campaign speeches is merely factual - objectively factual, observation. Hardly an attack on your remarks. Victimhood is not a good look for you.

    Addressing the following statement, a direct quote from your post, is anything but a deflection - it is the premise of the entire post...and a good one, with which I wholeheartedly concur.

    (tho' less than generous interpretation might go something like this - 'I know what's best and if you disagree you belong in a basket of deplorables.'...or some such nonsense. ;) )...but that wasn't your intent, was it?

    Let me rephrase an earlier as yet unanswered question. May I? What precisely are these 'efforts to correct the nature of the nation'?...and who are the reprehensible folks who 'decry' them? 'Cuz from my subjective perspective it could look a lot like you. :)
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,865
    Thanks Received:
    984
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,509
    That is not at all what I wrote. I did not assert that you attacked me.
     
  4. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,865
    Thanks Received:
    984
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,509
    In some instances that is a fair interpretation and in others it is not.
     
  5. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,865
    Thanks Received:
    984
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,509
    Quite frankly, I don't oppose any efforts to fix or improve things. I've long been of the mind that the social ills our culture has will only be resolved by trying things, observing whether they are working in accordance with a set of predefined quantifiable and qualitative expectations and then, based on objectively measuring the outcomes, either maintaining those efforts or scrapping them for one of the alternative approaches proposed.

    That's my position because I don't, and I don't think anyone else does, know what solution options will work or work best. Social policy is one of those things for which I think trying among the ethically, soundly and plausibly effective options, implementing unadulterated versions of them is the only way to know for sure which of them is errant.
     
  6. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Silver Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,722
    Thanks Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +1,598
    Which is I think a plausible argument for less federal intervention and pushing some power and authority down to the state level. What works in New York might not be as successful in Wyoming for example. If a state is lagging behind in some areas like education, well that oughta be on them to fix rather than the rest of us.
     
  7. SeaGal
    Online

    SeaGal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    605
    Thanks Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Location:
    a land remembered
    Ratings:
    +566
    Boiled down to basics I can easily find things to agree with re your position. We have a problem, we know what isn't working, we've applied the same solutions with poor results for decades so it's time to innovate/adapt/change our approach. (education/poverty/drug abuse, etc) These problems are of great concern to the well being of our society - and the fact that we can agree on that is a start.

    A fair point. Federal funding is a drug...with a high price tag. Perhaps necessary in some cases. The poison's in the dose, imo. I wouldn't reject some form of federal standards tho' - the kids in Appalachia should have access to as good an education as the kids in Beverly Hills. Never has that been more technologically possible than it is today.
     

Share This Page