New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | June 9, 2005

Lisa Snell catches bad schools glancing at their neighbors' papers.

Comments

|6.9.05 @ 11:35AM|#

Locke is not unique. In the 2003�04 school year only 26 of the nation�s 91,000 public schools were labeled persistently dangerous.

And those 26 include 2 in South Dakota, 14 in PA and 10 in NJ. So we know at least 3 states have enough brass in their shorts to be somewhat honest about their schools.

|6.9.05 @ 12:13PM|#

What really shocked me in this article came at the end: 'proficiency' is often defined as exceeding a certain percentile (e.g., the 51st). Not only is this definition not tied to objective, pre-specified measures of grade-level proficiency (in the standard sense of the word), it's completely relative to the performace of other students!

In other words, if every student in the state is a complete dullard, about 50% of them will still be 'proficient'. Conversely, if every 3rd grader is composing Shakespearean sonnets and doing calculus, half are still 'not proficient.'

It seems to me that even if the particular numbers were chosen reasonably (and they weren't), the law is asking every school to be above-average.

|6.9.05 @ 12:30PM|#

the law is asking every school to be above-average

That's why you need 2 sets of test papers: The ones that are graded and used to compute the state average, and the ones that are graded and used to determine you're school's ranking relative to the state average.

(And yes, I know, there is a difference between median and average, but in practice the 2 numbers are often fairly close.)

|6.9.05 @ 12:32PM|#

No Child Left Behind sucks. Everyone on all political sides knows it, the only people who publicly say otherwise were/are either involved in it's creation, passage, or enforcement, or are political shills for those people.

People hate it for different reasons, however, and I'm betting that when it gets amended or scrapped, it gets replaced with something even worse.

|6.9.05 @ 12:36PM|#

What's so ironic about No Child Left Behind is that in 2000 I completed my journey away from the left and finally decided that Newt Gingrich was right: The federal Department of Education needs to be abolished.

Then, in 2001, we had unified GOP control of the government and one of the first things they did was pass NCLB. And I was thinking to myself "Whoah, I finally jump on the conservative bandwagon and then they go and change it on me? Fuckers!"

So I joined the LP.

|6.9.05 @ 12:44PM|#

thoreau, I can't tell if you were making a statistics joke or not (my tolerance for such things is low).... but I guess I should amend my post to say that the law is asking every school to be above the median. Which is even more bizarre than asking them all to be above-average, since not matter how the scores are spread, half of schools will be below median.

|6.9.05 @ 12:45PM|#

thoreau,

Good for you. You never have to worry about the LP betraying a promise. That would require being in office.

Milton Friedman always specifically talks up legalization and vouchers in his interviews these days, and he's right. Drugs and education are probably the two areas where the government is most seriously damaging the fabric of our society, whether you agree with his prescriptions or not.

|6.9.05 @ 12:47PM|#

phocion-

I'm actually more pragmatic than that post let on. My main point was that I decided the GOP should not get my undying loyalty. Depending on the situation I'll sometimes vote LP, sometimes vote GOP, and sometimes vote Dem. I'm a swing voter that nobody can take for granted.


cjp-

My main point was that I knew I was being sloppy with my use of "average", and I knew that on this forum there's a good chance that somebody might come along and take me to task for it. So I was covering myself.

|6.9.05 @ 1:06PM|#

thoreau,

Yeah, I was just bashing the LP, not taking you to task for being an idealist. But I bash because I love. I too vote LP, GOP, or Dem depending on what I'm given to choose from. Lately, it's not much. Santorum vs. Casey next year should be a real doozy.

|6.9.05 @ 1:11PM|#

phocion,

Are you a Pennsylvania voter, too?

|6.9.05 @ 1:16PM|#

Yes, though I haven't actually lived and worked there since 1999. But I'm moving back to the state later this year. I'm used to Philly life, but I'll have to adapt to Pittsburgh...

|6.9.05 @ 1:21PM|#

Get used to saying "yins," "donton" instead of "downtown," "pop" instead of "soda," and get ready to root for the "Stillers."

|6.9.05 @ 1:24PM|#

I can deal with the first three (I'm living in a "pop" area right now), but I bleed green.

|6.9.05 @ 1:47PM|#

Practice these Pennsyltuckian phrases: "Yins gonna go down ta Sheetzes fur some SUPper? Get some hut dogs? Then yins kin go down to tha crick fur a spell..."

(No, I'm not from Penn, but I know someone from the sticks there who does some wicked impressions...)

The Wine Commonsewer|6.9.05 @ 1:58PM|#

All this talk about the 'Burgh reminds me of the worst beer ever made on the planet.

Had a good friend who was born and raised there who insisted that West Virginia exists so that people in Pittsburgh will have something to look down on.

BTW, the education article is the hands-down best article Reason has published this year.

|6.9.05 @ 1:58PM|#

In the case of the 50th percentile in this case I was actually talking about a cut score on a criterian referenced test rather than a norm referenced percentile. Because of the way the definiton was worded in California--they used percentile--it sounds like a norm referenced test and I should have made it clearer.

In several publications that I used for reference cut scores on criterion referenced tests were referred to as percentile. Meaning the percentile correct. The cut scores were the number of questions you needed to answer correctly not the norm referenced percentile in reference to all test takers. I should have clarified the terms better.

For exaample: Here was one definiton of the cut score: With criterion referenced testing scores are compared to a particular "cut score" or criterion. Often times the cut score is expressed as a percentile. Scores that meet or exceed for example the 80 percent correct are considered proficient and those scores that fall short are considered not proficient.

I'm sure the cut scores are partially determined originally by norm-referenced groups in pre-testing--which still calls into question the entire premise of 100 percent of students ever reaching proficiency under NCLB-which is statistically impossible in that you always have a statistical curve. As you all point out there is no way an average student will ever score above the average percentile. So the cut scores would have to be set extremely low to ever reach 100 proficiency.

Hope this helps.

|6.9.05 @ 2:11PM|#

All this talk about the 'Burgh reminds me of the worst beer ever made on the planet.

IC's Sierra brand had to be the absolute worst crap on the planet. We used to make raids over the boarder to PA to pick up cases of that crap (literally about $3.50 a case) for home games (at WVU) because we were cheap bastards.

Had a good friend who was born and raised there who insisted that West Virginia exists so that people in Pittsburgh will have something to look down on.

Trust me, the feeling was mutual. There's no place more depressing than W.Pa. I like Pbgh quite a bit, but get about 2 feet beyond the city limits and you're in hell.

|6.9.05 @ 2:26PM|#

phocion -

I was so praying that the dems gave me someone I could vote for in order to punish Santorum for his shameless grandstanding in the Schiavo fiasco. But Casey? Ugh. I guess I'll find some third party type to waste my vote on again...

|6.9.05 @ 2:34PM|#

On the other hand, being in Pittsburgh means that you can get Yuengling, the *best* beer on the planet.

Oh Yuengling, you turned me into a beer drinker and then I had to leave you. I miss you so...

The Wine Commonsewer|6.9.05 @ 3:59PM|#

So Lisa, the way I understand this is that the 50th percentile actually means that 50% of the questions were answered correctly and NOT that 50% of the kids taking the test did better and 50% did worse. Correct?

Nathan, I liked Pgh but never was there during the sleety, slushy, freezing winter. Thought it was awfully rusty though. :-)

Was shocked at the beautiful drive to Maryland on the rural road that follows the Monongahela river back into the mountains. Towns right out of a painting and nothing but lovely. Equally shocked at how godawful the Pa Turnpike was. I remember asking one toll booth guy how they had the balls to charge money to use that road.

Isildir, never had that beer.

Jesse Walker|6.9.05 @ 4:03PM|#

BTW, the education article is the hands-down best article Reason has published this year.

That's the sort of thing that moves us here at Reason: testimonials from ordinary readers who have no reason to be prejudiced for or against any particular article or author. :>

|6.9.05 @ 4:11PM|#

Equally shocked at how godawful the Pa Turnpike was.

Ahh.. the PA roads. Truely awful. You know you had really bad roads when crossing the boarder into WV was an improvement. I literally couldn't listen to my CD player when driving down any major route for the skipping (In PA's defense, as loathed as I am to defend 'em, from what little driving I've done there in the last few years it looks like thinks have improved quite a bit).

Also, the head of the PA Dept. of Transportation should be strung up by his balls for allowing the clusterfuck that Breezewood is to continue to exist.

Back to beer, I have to agree that Yuengling is one tasty brew. Rolling Rock, on the other hand, not so much.

|6.9.05 @ 4:50PM|#

The PA Turnpike's plazas seem really shitty now that the Ohio Turnpike has opened up brand new, beautiful, enormous ones just across the border.

I think Pennsylvania roads have improved over the past few years. I'd rank them better than here in Michigan in terms of condition, though keep in mind PA also has annoying fuckups like Breezewood and blatant pork like the numbering guideline-ignoring I-99.

|6.9.05 @ 6:02PM|#

Details on how to cheat on NCLB tests w/o actually cheating ... for the mathematically inclined: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/gap.htm

Larry A|6.9.05 @ 6:10PM|#

I don't see what the problem is. After all, the NCLB is meeting its goal. If the average kid doesn't get anywhere, then no child is left behind.

The Wine Commonsewer|6.9.05 @ 7:57PM|#

Jesse, thanks, thought the feedback would be quite helpful. Just doing my part ya know. :>

Breezewood. Now that's a place where once you get very far from the turnpike it becomes quite clear that you ain't in Kansas no moh.

Rolling Rock, agreed, kind of pale but pretty good.

Larry A. One of the insanities connected to NCLB is that a failing school is only required to make the most minimal of improvements over time to stay off the list. Adequate Yearly Progress I believe it is called.

The elementary school that that my kids were supposed to attend was so bad it would have taken two or three elementary school generations to come up to snuff at the minimum improvement rate prescribed in NCLB. So, what happens to all the kids between failing (now) and not failing (in 10 to 18 years)?

We picked private school but luckily the district closed the almost failing school and assigned our kids to a top notch public school. Yes, there are some out there.

|6.9.05 @ 9:56PM|#

i was just in western pa for a wedding (cambridge springs)

it's nice, if you like that sort of thing.

empty, desolate and mulleted, that is.

|6.12.05 @ 9:56PM|#

I'm shocked! Julian works for a Republican magazine? Which one?!