Split Thread Does compulsory schooling equate to slavery? (Split from: "Liberal Fallacies" thread)

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Lassibile and Gomez also state quite explicitly that nationally centralized education systems are more efficient, and therefore more effective, than decentralized ones.

But they also say that countries that subsidize options obtain superior performance at lower cost. TIMSS describes several types of centralization: curricula, testing, funding, teacher credentialization.

I've already pointed out the flaws in Greene's roundup, as well as the fact that the CREDO studies that he mis-cites show that charter schools have a 2/3 chance of either being no better than public schools, or worse than public schools.

Please refresh my memory. Where did you "point out the flaws in Greene's roundup"? I recall that discussion (Philadelphia charter schools).

And for almost two decades, TIMSS scores have shown that students in countries that have centralized curricula, centralized standardized exams, compulsory schooling, and centralized teacher certification vastly outperform students in countries that don't.

The State cannot pay for education without a definition of "education". Inevitably, once a government supports "education" (however defined), some legally-imposed operational definition will follow. I rather doubt that "TIMSS scores have shown that students in countries that have ... compulsory schooling ... vastly outperform students in countries that don't". Do any TIMSS-participant countries NOT compel attendance at school? In the US, at least, teacher credentialization is fraudulent. Parochial schools and independent schools outperform government schools and they are not legally bound to hire College of Ed grads.

 

[RandFan]

Parochial schools and independent schools outperform government schools and they are not legally bound to hire College of Ed grads.

This has been addressed already. A.) It is not at all clear that these schools outperform government schools over the long run. B.) Any difference would be mitigated by the fact that parents who care about their children's well being self select.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Nova's self-description of his emotional state omitted) ... deceptive ... evades ... dishonestly ... deceptively-edited...

<SNIP> The people I quote wrote the words I quote.

Unless you are willing to make it clear, when you post evidence, whether you are posting something you have read for yourself and take full responsibility for, or whether you are simply posting something you have cribbed and you are not personally aware whether the material as presented accurately and honestly represents the facts and opinions expressed in the original, then there is little point in taking any evidence you post in support of your opinions seriously.

Really? "Any evidence"? I provide cites for as much of the material I quote as I have. If I cite, say, an article in Educational Review, you can start the search there. Sometimes I have more (volume number, page number) but it's pedantic to provide all that.
On the bookshelf behind me, I have Einstein's The Evolution of Physics (which I read a few years ago). At hand, as I type, I have the collection Ideas and Opinions (Modern Library, 1994). I read some of it years ago, some recently, some not at all. It contains the essay "on Education". It also contains a letter "to a young girl" that ends:.. (t)here is too much education altogether, especially in American schools. The only rational way of educating is to be an example--if one can't help it, a warning example", which appears to reinforce the point about force-feeding provoking an allergic reaction.

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12. Enough, you have been warned re your use of sophistry several times; it is not acceptable on the Forum - stop.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

This has been addressed already. A.) It is not at all clear that these schools outperform government schools over the long run. B.) Any difference would be mitigated by the fact that parents who care about their children's well being self select.

A. It's been quite a long run already.
B. This self-selection issue is important, but it cuts many ways. Seems to me, policies that allow self-selection offer advantages. Furthermore, many studies of charter schools and tuition voucher programs use random-assignment lotteries (for the limited number of vouchers) that overcome the "self-selection" objection. Finally, as an explanation for the advantage of parochial and independent schools, the "self-selection" criticism has a flaw, since it implies that these successfully concerned parents are systematically deluded. Here they just dumped $8,000 on tuition at a Catholic or Baptist parochial school when (according to the "self-selection" hypothesis) their children would not have done as well but EVEN BETTER in government schools if they'd spent the $8,000 on a Nikon microscope, an electronics kit from Radio Shack, and subscriptions to Science News and Astronomy.
Look, ma! No insults!

 

[Amazer]

<SNIP> The people I quote wrote the words I quote.

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

I don't think anyone doubts that the people you quote actually wrote those words. It's the other words they also wrote in those same quotes, and that you leave out, that is causing a bit of a upheaval.

If you feel that a quote supports you're point, then you should have no problem providing the full quote.

 

[A'isha]

TIMSS describes several types of centralization: curricula, testing, funding, teacher credentialization.

Here's what TIMSS 2011 had to say about centralization:

"According to the country chapters, nearly all the education systems represented in TIMSS 2011 were managed by the central government, mostly by a single education ministry (although in several countries responsibilities were divided among two or three ministries). However, these countries reported a range in the degree of centralization in decision-making, from “highly centralized” (e.g., Austria, Honduras, Iran, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Ukraine) to “decentralized” (e.g., the Czech Republic, Macedonia, New Zealand, and Sweden). With less centralization, typically the role of educational policymaking was maintained by the central government, while implementation of services (sometimes including administration and various levels of decisionmaking) was delegated to the regional or state level, or even to municipalities.

And since Lassibile and Gomez were analyzing TIMSS data, they were using the TIMSS definition (they specifically talk about "management on a regional or local level"), and found that the more centralized the educational system, the more efficient and cost-effective, with no difference in student performance between centralized and decentralized systems. According to your own oft-cited source, it's better, in other words, for educational decisionmaking to be made and management to be done at the national level, instead of the regional, state, or even municipal level.

Please refresh my memory. Where did you "point out the flaws in Greene's roundup"?

Here and here.

The State cannot pay for education without a definition of "education".

And since the State almost everywhere pays for education, obviously that means they have a definition.

I rather doubt that "TIMSS scores have shown that students in countries that have ... compulsory schooling ... vastly outperform students in countries that don't".

And countries with centralized curricula, centralized standardized exams, and centralized teacher certification?

Do any TIMSS-participant countries NOT compel attendance at school?

Which is rather significant, don't you think?

In the US, at least, teacher credentialization is fraudulent. Parochial schools and independent schools outperform government schools and they are not legally bound to hire College of Ed grads.

See RandFan's response.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And for almost two decades, TIMSS scores have shown that students in countries that have centralized curricula, centralized standardized exams, compulsory schooling, and centralized teacher certification vastly outperform students in countries that don't.

I rather doubt that "TIMSS scores have shown that students in countries that have ... compulsory schooling ... vastly outperform students in countries that don't". Do any TIMSS-participant countries NOT compel attendance at school?

Which is rather significant, don't you think?

Please try to apply a little logic and focus on the immediate point: how can "TIMSS have shown" that students in countries with compulsory attendance outperform students in countries that do not compel attendance if TIMSS does not assess performance of students in countries that do not assess performance?
This: "TIMSS scores have shown that students in countries that have centralized curricula, centralized standardized exams, compulsory schooling, and centralized teacher certification vastly outperform students in countries that don't" is false.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Considering that this list doesn't even mention CREDO, its cherry-picking bias is pretty transparent. And in any case, it's nothing more than a red herring.

Here's a quote from the Greene post: "To date, nine studies lottery-based evaluations of charter schools have been released. Let’s go through them, starting with the earliest work."
There's NO "cherry-picking". If it does not cite CREDO it's because CREDO was not a random-assignment study. Random assignment overcomes the self-selection objection, also.

 

[A'isha]

Please try to apply a little logic and focus on the immediate point: how can "TIMSS have shown" that students in countries with compulsory attendance outperform students in countries that do not compel attendance if TIMSS does not assess performance of students in countries that do not assess performance?

Because compulsory attendance was only one of a number of things I listed. Why are you completely ignoring all the other things in my list and exclusively focusing on that one item?

And in any case, TIMSS does indeed assess performance of students in countries that do not have compulsory attendance. Of the countries participating in TIMSS 2011, for example, Botswana and Oman did not have compulsory schooling.

This: "TIMSS scores have shown that students in countries that have centralized curricula, centralized standardized exams, compulsory schooling, and centralized teacher certification vastly outperform students in countries that don't" is false.

It is absolutely true, as the raw TIMSS data and all analyses of it (including your own Lassibile and Gomez cite) have shown.

 

[A'isha]

There's NO "cherry-picking".

All it is is cherry-picking. Greene looked for studies which conformed to his biases, and is using the lottery-based thing as a smokescreen.

If it does not cite CREDO it's because CREDO was not a random-assignment study.

It doesn't CREDO because CREDO contradicts the conclusion Greene wants to reach. That's why he had to lie about what the CREDO studies actually said in that other blog post.

Random assignment overcomes the self-selection objection, also.

As the books reviewed in the Slate article note, it doesn't, actually.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It is absolutely true, as the raw TIMSS data and all analyses of it (including your own Lassibile and Gomez cite) have shown.

No. "A AND B AND C" is true only if A is true AND B is true AND C is true. TIMSS cannot have shown that students in countries with ALL those conditions outperform students in countries with some (or none) of those conditions if it only compared students in countries with All those conditions to students in other countries with All those conditions.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I don't think anyone doubts that the people you quote actually wrote those words. It's the other words they also wrote in those same quotes, and that you leave out, that is causing a bit of a upheaval.

If you feel that a quote supports you're point, then you should have no problem providing the full quote.

Does "full quote" mean "entire text"? That would violate copyright and JREF policy.

 

[RandFan]

A. It's been quite a long run already.
B. This self-selection issue is important, but it cuts many ways. Seems to me, policies that allow self-selection offer advantages. Furthermore, many studies of charter schools and tuition voucher programs use random-assignment lotteries (for the limited number of vouchers) that overcome the "self-selection" objection. Finally, as an explanation for the advantage of parochial and independent schools, the "self-selection" criticism has a flaw, since it implies that these successfully concerned parents are systematically deluded. Here they just dumped $8,000 on tuition at a Catholic or Baptist parochial school when (according to the "self-selection" hypothesis) their children would not have done as well but EVEN BETTER in government schools if they'd spent the $8,000 on a Nikon microscope, an electronics kit from Radio Shack, and subscriptions to Science News and Astronomy.
Look, ma! No insults!

A.) ANTPogo has provided the data and explanations for why it's problematic to make the claim that charter schools outperform state run compulsory schools.
B.) A more parsimonious explanation is marketing. As ANTPogo's link and her explanation point out, the marketers can cherry pick their data. They don't have to account for closed charter schools. Further, the data is not definitive.

 

[A'isha]

No. "A AND B AND C" is true only if A is true AND B is true AND C is true. TIMSS cannot have shown that students in countries with ALL those conditions outperform students in countries with some (or none) of those conditions if it only compared students in countries with All those conditions to students in other countries with All those conditions.

Except, as I noted in the very post you quoted, they don't "only compar[e] students in countries with All those conditions to students in other countries with All those conditions": Botswana and Oman, part of TIMSS 2011, did not have compulsory education.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

A.) ANTPogo has provided the data and explanations for why it's problematic to make the claim that charter schools outperform state run compulsory schools.
B.) A more parsimonious explanation is marketing. As ANTPogo's link and her explanation point out, the marketers can cherry pick their data. They don't have to account for closed charter schools. Further, the data is not definitive.

That's not "parsimonious". We're not talking about marketing but quantitative studies that compare students who win lotteries and attend charter schools to students who apply for vouchers and do not win the lottery, who then attend the wretched government school which the NEA/AFT/AFSCME operates. Charters, in many cases, are not bound by statute to join regular schools in collective bargaining agreements. Opposition to parent control is all about preserving the cartel's dues-generated revenue stream and maintaining insider control over construction, consulting, and supply contracts.

 

[RandFan]

That's not "parsimonious". We're not talking about marketing but quantitative studies that compare students who win lotteries and attend charter schools to students who apply for vouchers and do not win the lottery, who then attend the wretched government school which the NEA/AFT/AFSCME operates. Charters, in many cases, are not bound by statute to join regular schools in collective bargaining agreements. Opposition to parent control is all about preserving the cartel's dues-generated revenue stream and maintaining insider control over construction, consulting, and supply contracts.

It is parsimonious. The three books listed above by ANTPogo includes a comprehensive study that shows the weaknesses of the previous studies. I don't know to what extent there were lotteries but even if all of them were based on lottery they are still self selected. People have to apply for the lottery. If that is not correct then please provide a source for your claim.

 

[RandFan]

Malcolm,

Please to address this point.

But parents, whose opinions are what really matter, see things very differently. Seventy-seven percent currently give their local schools an A or a B—the highest grades in the 45-year history of the Gallup-Phi Delta Kappa annual poll.

You say you want more choices for parents and I want that also. But, AIU, you want to take the *public option away from parents even though most give their state run compulsory schools a grade of A or B.

Isn't there an inherent contradiction to your position? You put a lot of trust in parents to handle the education of their children yet those parents want state run compulsory schools.

*State run compulsory education

 

[icebear]

The US public education/indoctrination system was originally based on the Prussian model. Even in 1955 when US public schools still worked in the sense of being able to teach the dopier kids how to read and write, they were nobody' idea of fun to be in.

 

[icebear]

Basic reality, US public schools were never intended to produce self-reliant people. They were intended to produce cannon fodder and bricks in the wall.

 

[RandFan]

Sometimes I miss seeing the world in such stark relief.