Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A claim that was made based on the results on one race, and even in that race, it's been shown the researcher who stated Rasmussen was the most accurate used inaccurate numbers. It wasn't due to malice, he just jumped the gun on putting out his results.
http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf
And what made Rasmussen not the most accurate here?
This was the same link posted earlier, and as I pointed out then, the research in question used inaccurate numbers in his calculation. It clearly states in the lead that the results are based on "a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote". The actual margin was 7.26 percent.
I was suggesting possible explanations. I hadn't really taken a look at the specifics. Upon doing so though, one of ideas I suggested seems to have merit.
While they not wealthier, parents who homeschool are typically more educated. Study after study has shown that household income and parental education level are the two factors with the strongest impact on a student's SAT score.
I actually appreciate your posting documentation.
Especially in this case, as it supports my thesis: home-schoolers are not deficient in the subjet(s) the original poster indicated.
I take this as a full scale rout of your position.
So this is why you normally don't link or document.
I never claimed that homeschoolers are deficient in any subject. I was just challenging your claim that homeschoolers perform better than others, when it's highly possible that any and all observed difference is the result of other factors. As far as I know, there has not been a study done on this.
I haven't retreated from anything. Race could also possibly be a factor in explaining test scores due to cultural biases in the choice of questions.
Sad, isn't it that Democrats, an most particularly President Obama, will do nothing to improve the educational opportunities for black and hispanic students:
Vouchers are outlawed, and with a government monopoly, choice is forbidden. Why? Wont vouchers force schools to compete for dollars, and improve as any free-market enterprise?
a. performance review of the D.C. voucher program while Congress debated its future in March. The latest annual evaluation was finally released Friday, and it shows measurable academic gains . report shows statistically significant academic gains for the entire voucher-receiving population . reading nearly a half-grade ahead of their peers who did not receive vouchers. Voucher recipients are doing no better in math but they're doing no worse . "There are transition difficulties, a culture shock upon entering a school where you're expected to pay attention, learn, do homework," says Jay Greene, an education scholar at the Manhattan Institute. "But these results fit a pattern that we've seen in other evaluations of vouchers. Benefits compound over time."
b. The Obama Administration buried the results, and officials were forbidden from discussing it: [Department of Education] decision to sit on a performance review of the D.C. voucher program scandalous is that the Education Department almost certainly knew the results of this evaluation for months Mr. Duncan's office spurned our repeated calls and emails asking what and when he and his aides knew about these results. We do know the Administration prohibited anyone involved with the evaluation from discussing it publicly . A reasonable conclusion is that Mr. Duncan's department didn't want proof of voucher success to interfere with Senator Dick Durbin's campaign to kill vouchers at the behest of the teachers unions. Education Secretary Arne Duncan's Two Opposing Views on School Vouchers - WSJ.com
c. Vouchers have improved the math and reading of inner-city children from Dayton, Ohio, to Charlotte, N.C., various studies show. The Washington vouchers improved the reading of girls and younger kids by about half a school year, though results for other groups were iffier. Yet opposition is so fierce that few voucher experiments survive past the seedling stage.
Florida vouchers were blocked by a party-line vote in the stateSupreme Court. In Utah, they were killed by a union-funded anti-voucher campaign.
This serves only to protect failing schools. Our view on improving education: Despite success, school choice runs into new barriers - Opinion - USATODAY.com
Meanwhile, back in the real world, vouchers do nothing to increase student performance. Students who attend private schools perform no better on standardized tests than public school students, once the results are weighted using student and school characteristics.
Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling
This study compares mean 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and mathematics scores of public and private schools in 4th and 8th grades, statistically controlling for individual student characteristics (such as gender, race/ethnicity, disability status, identification as an English language learner) and school characteristics (such as school size, location, and the composition of the student body). In grades 4 and 8, using unadjusted mean scores, students in private schools scored significantly higher than students in public schools for both reading and mathematics. But when school means were adjusted in the HLM analysis, the average for public schools was significantly higher than the average for private schools for grade 4 mathematics and not significantly different for reading. At grade 8, the average for private schools was significantly higher than the average for public schools in reading but not significantly different for mathematics. Comparisons were also carried out between types of sectarian schools. In grade 4, Catholic and Lutheran schools were compared separately to public schools. For both reading and mathematics, the results were similar to those based on all private schools. In grade 8, Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian schools were each compared to public schools. For Catholic and Lutheran schools for both reading and mathematics, the results were again similar to those based on all private schools. For Conservative Christian schools, the average adjusted school mean in reading was not significantly different from that of public schools. In mathematics, the average adjusted school mean for Conservative Christian schools was significantly lower than that of public schools.
Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling
[
"..I never claimed that homeschoolers are deficient in any subject.." I can understand your attempt to obfuscate as it must be disheartening.
I took up the gauntlet of the poster when he broadly suggested some imagined weakness in home-schoolers.
I documented with data re: several standardized exams which showed his error.
You then launced a feeble attack on my post.
Now you admit "I never claimed that homeschoolers are deficient in any subject.."
Without terms, this is, as popularized by Grant, an 'unconditional surrender.'
As for vouchers not imparting any benefit:
"...and it shows measurable academic gains . report shows statistically significant academic gains for the entire voucher-receiving population . reading nearly a half-grade ahead of their peers who did not receive vouchers."
You should read the posts more carefully.
Further, it is interesting that a second retreat would be less acceptable to you than the racist explanation of test scores, as can be seen in "Race could also possibly be a factor in explaining test scores ..."
Also interesting that you do not deign to notice the across-the-board declination by all Democrats when it comes to vouchers.
I'm equally certain that you will be unable to see the connection to this Democrat declination and the adherence to teachers' unions.
And if we take your numbers then Rasmussen was even closer yet. Do you get the Idea that maybe Rasmussen is accurate as hell and that he really is the best out there? I thank you for proving the point.
http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf
And what made Rasmussen not the most accurate here?
This was the same link posted earlier, and as I pointed out then, the research in question used inaccurate numbers in his calculation. It clearly states in the lead that the results are based on "a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote". The actual margin was 7.26 percent.
Strange that according to CNN's tally of the votes Mixed with my math. I come up with 6.8 % difference.
Obama with 53.4% or 66,882,230 and McCain with 46.6% or 58,343,671
Rasmussen's last poll was Obama 52 % and McCain 46% Looks damned close to me, And I just have to wonder if anyone came any closer.
This was the same link posted earlier, and as I pointed out then, the research in question used inaccurate numbers in his calculation. It clearly states in the lead that the results are based on "a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote". The actual margin was 7.26 percent.
Strange that according to CNN's tally of the votes Mixed with my math. I come up with 6.8 % difference.
Obama with 53.4% or 66,882,230 and McCain with 46.6% or 58,343,671
Rasmussen's last poll was Obama 52 % and McCain 46% Looks damned close to me, And I just have to wonder if anyone came any closer.
Polk wants you to focus on his two numbers only. Accuracy is more than the closest poll number. It has a component that tells you the margin of error possilbe. When that is factored in Rasmussen became the most accurate.
Strange that according to CNN's tally of the votes Mixed with my math. I come up with 6.8 % difference.
Obama with 53.4% or 66,882,230 and McCain with 46.6% or 58,343,671
Rasmussen's last poll was Obama 52 % and McCain 46% Looks damned close to me, And I just have to wonder if anyone came any closer.
Polk wants you to focus on his two numbers only. Accuracy is more than the closest poll number. It has a component that tells you the margin of error possilbe. When that is factored in Rasmussen became the most accurate.
It's not a vice that I insist on using the actual results of the election.
Polk wants you to focus on his two numbers only. Accuracy is more than the closest poll number. It has a component that tells you the margin of error possilbe. When that is factored in Rasmussen became the most accurate.
It's not a vice that I insist on using the actual results of the election.
Which is fine, I used CNN's numbers which obviously are as wrong as many of their stories. Still It makes Rasmussen accurate as hell.
[
"..I never claimed that homeschoolers are deficient in any subject.." I can understand your attempt to obfuscate as it must be disheartening.
I took up the gauntlet of the poster when he broadly suggested some imagined weakness in home-schoolers.
I documented with data re: several standardized exams which showed his error.
You then launced a feeble attack on my post.
Now you admit "I never claimed that homeschoolers are deficient in any subject.."
Without terms, this is, as popularized by Grant, an 'unconditional surrender.'
Admission implies guilt. Since I never did what you claimed, I'm not guilty of anything. That you're willing to lie and claim that I said homeschoolers are deficient shows just how weak your arguments are.
As for vouchers not imparting any benefit:
"...and it shows measurable academic gains . report shows statistically significant academic gains for the entire voucher-receiving population . reading nearly a half-grade ahead of their peers who did not receive vouchers."
You should read the posts more carefully.
Some opinion columnist writes something, and it's therefore true? That's an odd standard.
Further, it is interesting that a second retreat would be less acceptable to you than the racist explanation of test scores, as can be seen in "Race could also possibly be a factor in explaining test scores ..."
Also interesting that you do not deign to notice the across-the-board declination by all Democrats when it comes to vouchers.
I'm equally certain that you will be unable to see the connection to this Democrat declination and the adherence to teachers' unions.
If you don't think there are cultural biases in testing, you're out of your mind. And it's not just Democrats that oppose vouchers. They're seen as a horrible idea across the board. In every state were vouchers have been put on the ballot, voters have rejected them, even though the pro-voucher side was much better financed in most cases.
I tossed the "outliers" in the spread column, dipshit...I tossed out the high and the low and got roughly the same number as when they were in. What did you do, arbitrarily set your 'outlier' at 7 so you could toss out CNN at 13 but not Foxnews at zero?
good one
I thought even you, with your diminished brain capacity, could have figured that out... I guess I gave you too much credit...
From realclear? If so, you tossed out 1 on the low side and 2 on the high side. Why didn't you toss out 2 on each side?
"Since I never did what you claimed, I'm not guilty of anything. That you're willing to lie and ..."
First, and foremost, I never lie.
The logic is as follows. You took up the cause of the poster who did make the claim that "homeschoolers are deficient..." Thus by implication you were making a defense of his argument, making it yours.
But, I think you knew exactly what I was saying, so I was not the one- in terms that liberals love to use, 'lying.'
Bullshit. You've repeatedly claimed that I said homeschoolers are deficient. I've never made such a claim. Pointing out that your statement was based on a faulty premise doesn't making his argument mine.
"Some opinion columnist writes something, and it's therefore true? That's an odd standard."
My quote was from the Wall Street Journal, yours from....??
But I should accept yours? That's an odd standard."
The comment was from an opinion piece. He had absolutely no evidence to support his claim.
"If you don't think there are cultural biases in testing,.."
Links and examples?
Several examples provided this article.
Advocates say standardized tests often flunk cultural bias scrutiny
"...every state were vouchers have been put on the ballot, voters have rejected them,..."
Links and documentation?
"They're seen as a horrible idea across the board..."
Links and documentation?
California rejected school vouchers by 70-30 in 2000. 46 percent of California voters are Democrats. 19 percent are independents or members of third parties. Assuming that every non-Republican voted against the measure, a sixth of Republicans would have need to vote against the measure for it to have failed. In terms of spending on the proposition, it was a virtual deadheat (31 million for, 32 million against).
For info on ad spending: California Proposition 38 (2000) - Ballotpedia
For California voter data: Data - Swivel
Utah rejected vouchers by a 62-38 margin in 2007. Republicans greatly outnumber Democrats in the state, with the most Democratic district in the state being 15 percent more Republican than the national average.
Deseret News | Vouchers killed
Voters aren't rejecting vouchers because they think they're a wonderful idea. And with some of the states they've been rejected it, you'd need significant opposition from Republicans to them for a measure to fail.
Bloviate much?
That's your favorite hobby.
I tossed the "outliers" in the spread column, dipshit...
I thought even you, with your diminished brain capacity, could have figured that out... I guess I gave you too much credit...
From realclear? If so, you tossed out 1 on the low side and 2 on the high side. Why didn't you toss out 2 on each side?
Because there were only 3 "outliers"...
He does, but I wouldn't be so quick to label it an issue of bias. Remember, he has to be able to sell polling to clients. That's only going to be effective to the extent his polling is accurate.
I already said many times that I think Rasmussen is marketing to the rightwing audience, which is a well established money maker. And obviously it works. Every time one of these Rasmussen polls comes out that's way off the rest of the pack, to the anti-Obama side, the rightwing blogosphere/media is all over it, promoting it.
You are the one fixating on Rasmussen. We merely said RCP's average showed Obama was below 50%. I did a little research and pointed out some differences in the polling methods. The big thing I put forward was whether Rasmussen might be a future indicator in some regards because they have 100% response rates for approve and disapprove only.
Marketing to rightwingers. Right. The people who pay for these results want to have accurate information. Rasmussen has been accurate quite nicely.
I recall the days when a few in here would deride the Rasmussen polls, and any other singular poll showing a decline in Obama approval. Now we have the latest RCP polling average showing Obama, for the first time, falling below 50%. No outliers here folks - just the cold hard fact that America is getting increasingly fed up with this White House...
Hope and Change indeed!
RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval
And if we take your numbers then Rasmussen was even closer yet. Do you get the Idea that maybe Rasmussen is accurate as hell and that he really is the best out there? I thank you for proving the point.
Does anyone besides you make that claim?
Pretty much all the statisticans and pollsters do, yes.
Good, then you should be able to easily cite me several examples of that, and perhaps even one that cites the 2008 election.
Why, btw, do you simply ignore the fact that the Fordham study, which was done the day after the election, uses the wrong margin of victory?
I already said many times that I think Rasmussen is marketing to the rightwing audience, which is a well established money maker. And obviously it works. Every time one of these Rasmussen polls comes out that's way off the rest of the pack, to the anti-Obama side, the rightwing blogosphere/media is all over it, promoting it.
You are the one fixating on Rasmussen. We merely said RCP's average showed Obama was below 50%. I did a little research and pointed out some differences in the polling methods. The big thing I put forward was whether Rasmussen might be a future indicator in some regards because they have 100% response rates for approve and disapprove only.
Marketing to rightwingers. Right. The people who pay for these results want to have accurate information. Rasmussen has been accurate quite nicely.
Rasmussen had GW Bush winning by 9 in 2000. In fact, if you average their last 4 final polls for presidential elections, they were off by an average of about 4 points. Which is decidedly unspectacular.
You are the one fixating on Rasmussen. We merely said RCP's average showed Obama was below 50%. I did a little research and pointed out some differences in the polling methods. The big thing I put forward was whether Rasmussen might be a future indicator in some regards because they have 100% response rates for approve and disapprove only.
Marketing to rightwingers. Right. The people who pay for these results want to have accurate information. Rasmussen has been accurate quite nicely.
Rasmussen had GW Bush winning by 9 in 2000. In fact, if you average their last 4 final polls for presidential elections, they were off by an average of about 4 points. Which is decidedly unspectacular.
that was 9 years ago, we are talking about how accurate they are and have been since Nov 2008.
