Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation

Since the terms Correlation and Causation have come up in our discussions, I decided to provided some serious and humorous links to help folks learn about this concept that is so critical in our normal discussions.

Any good or humorous examples that you would like to add of where people have abused this?

Dilbert Correlation does not imply Causation
Qualtrics Correlation and Causation
Prudent Investor: Correlation vs Causation Cartoon
Wiki Correlation does not imply causation
Stats Help Correlation vs Causation
Youtube: Correlation and Causation - Employee Satisfaction
YouTube: Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation

As it applies to our recent discussions.  We know that many things are Correlated to poor test scores.  Meaning that they tend occur at the same time.  Some include:
  • Lower incomes
  • Minorities
  • Urban
  • Public Schools
However it is irresponsible to say that lower income, minorities, urban or public school Causes poor test scores.

It is likely that there are a number of additional factors that are not listed that may actually Cause the poor test scores. Some may be:
  • Less access to books or other supplies
  • Ineffective Teacher(s)
  • Too much screen time
  • Not doing homework / studying
  • Parents irresponsible / Poor modeling
Questions?

40 comments:

John said...

Food for thought. How do the contributions we documented fit these terms? G2A Blame vs Contributions

Anonymous said...

I would like to add a huge and glaring example; humorous were it not such a deadly danger to human hope and development, and that is Global Warming. The sole piece of real scientific evidence in Al Gore's movie occurs when he points to the graph of the 400,000 years of ice core data showing temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over that long history and says, "look at these two graphs. Doesn't it look like they go up and down together?" And indeed they do. They track very closely with one another, and can be said to be "highly correlated." There is only one flaw in assuming that CO2 causes global warming, and that is that every rise in CO2 does not precede the rise in temperature but actually follows BEHIND it!

Which brings me to the other caveat about correlation and causation. That is, if you know there is a correlation between two things and want to say that one thing causes the other, it is necessary to show that there is some MECHANISM by which the one thing affects the other. One reason the global warming myth is so effective is because of the greenhouse gas theory – scientifically well accepted – which says that greenhouse gases like CO2 (but mostly water vapor) cause Earth to be warmer than it would be without them. But we have just proven, thanks to Al Gore, that CO2 alone does NOT cause global warming, but that global warming causes CO2! Fortunately for us skeptics, there is a mechanism for that causation path as well. Three fourths of the earth is covered in water. Cold water holds more CO2 than warm water does. Therefore if some third variable (like, oh, maybe the sun) heats the water, the CO2 goes up (on average 800 years later, there's a lot of water in the ocean). QED

So, applying this "mechanism" filter to your list of factors driving poor test scores, the thing that jumps out at me is "ineffective teachers." Obviously there are many contributing factors to ineffective teaching, many of which are not even the fault of the individual teacher and certainly not all teachers. But removing that one huge cause of poor test scores by "fixing" the many contributing factors, would have a large and direct impact on test scores. We know this from multivariate analysis of hundreds of education studies.

Curiously enough, the excuse of "poverty" for poor academic performance can be shown to have a similar causative mechanism, but in this case it is a secondary cause. For example, we know that children who eat a good breakfast do better in school. If family poverty prevents the kid from having a good breakfast, the kid does not test well, but that ONLY applies if the poor kid doesn't get breakfast. If he does, despite the poverty, the poverty isn't predictive, only the breakfast is, and thus we see the requirement to establish a "causative string" between the "root cause" and the "proximate cause," the one closest to the problem.

Here's an example of a causative string: if we are to believe that man-made CO2 causes global warming (not climate change, since the only proposed mechanism causes warming, not cooling) then we must scientifically establish that: an increase in man-made CO2 is the principal cause of increasing global CO2, the increasing global CO2 is the principal cause of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are the principal cause of global temperature rise, that this global temperature rise is predictably linear, and that at some point in the future, this temperature rise will be catastrophic to the planet. To date, NONE of these causations has been scientifically proven, but that's a different subject. Maybe if kids had a better education….

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

"However it is irresponsible to say that lower income, minorities, urban or public school Causes poor test scores."

I don't know if it's irresponsible to say that. Correlation may not imply causation but it's certainly evidence of a relationship between the two. But of course you don't have to rely on statistics to get an understanding of why many poor kids fail and many rich kids succeed.

--Hiram

John said...

J,
I was hoping someone was going to throw Global Warming out there. It is definitely an interesting example.

As for the Teacher being the prime cause of poor results, of course I disagree. Even with mediocre Teachers, engaged and prepared students can learn adequately. Maybe not great results, but good enough to pass the tests.

However if the Student is unable or unwilling to learn, it is not going to happen. Especially as more of classroom is shared by more students with a similar mind set.

So the next question is what causes the student to be unable or unwilling to learn? Which brings me back to the home, Parents and community, they have had 5 yrs to create the child's belief system, priorities and behaviors. On top of this they are continually reinforcing it. (ie HCZ theory)

John said...

Hiram,
You may be right that we "do not have to rely on statistics to get an understanding of why many poor kids fail and many rich kids succeed".

However, if you want to fix the problem you had better understand and validate causation. (ie root cause)

Here is a example:

Let's assume my car makes a squealing noise whenever I take a right turn. Therefore "squeal and right turn" are correlated. Not knowing better, I am assume that taking a right turn Causes my car to squeal. So as a rational person I choose to only make left turns from now on...

This would likely be a very inconventient and likely expensive choice. Where as understanding that the squeal is Caused by a failing wheel bearing and getting it replaced would be much more effective.

Kind of like J's Global Warming example, if us humans aren't the Cause... We are spending a lot of money that won't do a thing.

Anonymous said...

However, if you want to fix the problem you had better understand and validate causation. (ie root cause)

Automobile analogies don't work for me. While I know little about schools, I know nothing about cars. When auto repair guys explain to me what's gone wrong with my care they use school analogies.

The problem isn't the numbers. And where schools are concerned, what do you do when you can't solve the underlying problems, poverty among them? Just give up?

--Hiram

John said...

That implies poverty is a cause... Which it is NOT !!!

And if I was poor with an academically successful student, I would be very frustrated with the demeaning belief that poverty is a cause of poor academics.

See this link for my evidence.
G2A One More Try

Note that approximately half the free and reduced lunch kids are proficient. Meaning that poverty is not the cause...

John said...

Oh I forgot, if cars don't work, how about Dilbert?

See Dilbert and Wally's pointy haired boss thinks that Dilbert is sending the offending emails because he gets them after leaving Dilbert's cube.

Now if the Boss spent time and energy on fixing Dilbert, he would be wasting the energy, emotions, time, etc and likely damage his relationship with Dilbert because Dilbert is not causing the emails...

Only by finding and addressing the true cause or root cause can he stop the emails...

Watch out Wally....

Anonymous said...

"As for the Teacher being the prime cause of poor results, of course I disagree. Even with mediocre Teachers, engaged and prepared students can learn adequately. Maybe not great results, but good enough to pass the tests."

Sorry, but the best research studies say that a "good teacher" IS, in fact, the prime determinant of academic success in students. Of course kids who are going to succeed in school will do so in spite of the obstacles, like poor teaching, but that is not the kind of student we are talking about.

If the primary cause of academic success is a good teacher, which it is, then the converse that academic failure is caused by lack of a good teacher is equally true, and this is completely independent of poverty or any other factor! Therefore, until we get a good teacher in every classroom, which is something we CAN control, we should not be running around madly trying to change those less important or even irrelevant factors like the amount of money spent, or those things that we cannot change like poverty or a culture of dependence and despair.

All the search for "factors" does is confuse the issue, when the cause of the failure is obvious: Failing schools fail students because they are failed schools. Such failure would not be tolerated in any other product or service in a free market, but when it comes our most precious resource, nobody wants to fix the problem. How odd.

The cause has already

J. Ewing

John said...

You know what I am going to ask for. Sources?

Anonymous said...

Teachers matter, quite a bit. Here's a good look at a recent study. From the NYT. A liberal columnist, no less. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/opinion/kristof-the-value-of-teachers.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

However, to think that poverty, poor nutrition, one parent vs two, early childhood ed, quality daycare/preschool, exposure to music and culture enrichment, etc, don't matter is just disingenuous. Of course it does.

--Annie

John said...

J,
Let's discuss your circular logic a bit. "Failing schools fail students because they are failed schools."

If "Failed Schools" was a cause, I would expect this to occur across all communities with a similar failure rate. Yet almost all of the "Failed Schools" seem to reside in the Urban and Poorer communities. Therefore your conclusion seems incorrect.

There must be something else at work here.

John said...

NY Times Value of Teachers

John said...

Annie,
That was an excellent read. Now I wonder when the Teacher's Union will start allowing their ranks to be improved.

The thing I find flawed with these types of studies is that they measure improvement across the same group of kids. And I can see that the ~1% improvement is definitely worth getting rid of poor teachers.

Yet relative to the huge academic gap of urban poor America, the improvement would be like peeing in the ocean. Something else has to change also.

Anonymous said...

"If "Failed Schools" was a cause, I would expect this to occur across all communities with a similar failure rate. Yet almost all of the "Failed Schools" seem to reside in the Urban and Poorer communities. Therefore your conclusion seems incorrect. "

John, I love it when people start to apply logic to these highly emotional problems. Thank you. What you are proposing here is actually another correlation – that failing schools occur most often in our inner cities. That is also where most of the minorities live, where most of the poverty is and where most of the dysfunctional segments of our society seem to be. To some extent, you have encapsulated all of the other factors into a single one, and one which correlates even more closely with poor academic performance. By the way, if it was me, I would improve the correlation by saying "academic failures in PUBLIC schools."

The only problem, again, is that there is no MECHANISM by which to explain why the mere location of a school causes it to fail, particularly when it is not 100% predictive – not all urban schools or even urban school systems produce failing results. What I would suggest is that there is a causal mechanism that /can/ create a failing school in an urban setting, but that does not necessarily. The urban setting therefore is not the direct cause of the failure; the failure is created by the school's failure to properly manage the extra challenges.

For example, even though urban schools pay more in general than suburban schools, it seems that most of the "good" teachers go to the suburban schools when they have a chance. They have the opportunity to simply teach, rather than deal with the challenges and even dangers of the urban environment. Many of them also have children themselves and want them in the better schools, so to some extent it is a vicious circle where good schools beget the good teachers and the urban schools get whoever is left. And it isn't just the teachers, not even close. The teaching techniques and curriculum required for disadvantaged students, and I won't deny that the urban cores have more than their share, just aren't there. School districts need to adjust their model, down to the local school, or classroom, or even individual student if necessary, and no, it doesn't involve much additional money, certainly no more than what is already being pumped into these schools. Failure to do that is the fault of the school, not the students or parents or taxpayers. These are things "we" can fix, and should. After that, we may see these other problems start to cure themselves.

J. Ewing

John said...

I guess that is one way to rationalize assigning "cause" to th urban schools and teachers, though it seems bit of a reach. Let me paraphrase and see if I have the gist of the argument.

The majority of Urban Schools and Teachers are causing poor academic performance because they are not significantly more proficient than their Suburban peers. Thus they are not overcoming the additional challenges that Urban students, parents and communities present.

It seems kind of like assigning cause/blame to a squad of soldiers that get killed after being ordered to attack a platoon of the enemy.

It would sound like this...

"I mean the "typical" squad was able to handle an enemy squad... Why could the "dead" squad not handle that enemy platoon. It shouldn't have been that much more difficult. Those slackers deserved what they got. Now who wants to sign up for the next squad vs platoon attack. C'mon you can do it."

Maybe you are right though, it would likely help to fill the Urban schools with 95th percentile Teachers and Administrators. It may help some, if only we can pay them enough to deal with few extra challenges and the risk to their personnel safety.

By the way, thank you. I'll try to stay logical.

Anonymous said...

Is there an implicit assumption here that with respect to any issue you must definitively prove and explain causation before you can move forward? Because it seems to me, that sets a pretty high barrier to moving forward in a lot of areas. Take a look at cigarette smoking. We know there is a high correlation between smoking and various negative health effects. I think it's the case that we can't explain the mechanism of that in terms of causation in a completely satisfactory way. Because of that, should we ignore the correlation, and start smoking?

One other thing to note. Lots of people smoke and go on to live healthy lives to ripe old ages. Is that definitive evidence that smoking isn't bad for you?

--Hiram

John said...

My quick thought is:

Smoking or not smoking is an action that people control directly.

Poverty is a state of being that is caused by by many factors. Some in the control of the individual and some not.

My thought then is that one can stop smoking, yet I am not sure how you stop being poor. I am thinking of the stereotypical lottery winner that is broke again after some period of time.

Something more has to change than just giving money. As J often points out.

As for needing to identify "root cause". One can sometimes fix problems without doing this, however there is a much greater risk that you will fail, miss opportunities or waste resources.

Sometimes with equipment failures, when my team can not identify the root cause, we end up applying the belt and suspenders approach. Meaning we work to improve or over design every aspect of the component. If we did this all the time, no one would buy our equipment because it would simply be too expensive.

So usually we strive to find a way to replicate the failure. Once we can turn the failure on/off, then we can more effectively fix it.

In the case of Public Education, resources are constrained. Therefore I don't think we can afford the belt and suspenders approach.

Anonymous said...

"The majority of Urban Schools and Teachers are causing poor academic performance because they are not significantly more proficient than their Suburban peers. Thus they are not overcoming the additional challenges that Urban students, parents and communities present.

It seems kind of like assigning cause/blame to a squad of soldiers that get killed after being ordered to attack a platoon of the enemy."

John, I think you have stated the problem very well, and your analogy is reasonably apt. The only quibble I have with your problem statement is the word "proficient." So long as we define that broadly as "producing academic success" I am okay with it. This leaves us to define later what are the qualities of teachers, schools and school districts that create academic success in urban environments. That is probably beyond the scope of this discussion, and normally would be left to the so-called experts, except that it is experts that seem to have gotten us into this unacceptable situation. I think you'll find that there are many factors involved, each compounding the effect of the other over many years, creating a vicious circle almost impossible to "fix."

That is why I actually like your analogy. I don't think there is anything in your analogy that should lead us to blame the dead soldiers for their own deaths. Similarly, we should not blame students and parents for not getting an education. I suspect you are looking at it from the other side of the battle, but it is hard for me to see the schools as the ones defeated, either. THEY live on, while individual hopes and aspirations and possibilities are killed. Though most of the individual teachers still fight valiantly, they suffer from poor morale, poor training, a lack of strategic intelligence about the enemy, incompetent leadership and a lack, most of all, of adequate "weapons" they can use.

The battle scenario points out one other very important thing. I would like to go back to your suggestion that we separate out all the unlucky kids into one school, and the lucky ones into the other. My question at the time was what you would be doing differently in either school to create more academic success. Your assumption, apparently, was that the lucky kids would beget all of the advantages that the suburban schools in general seem to have by mere happenstance of location. But what your scenario did not do was to propose what magic incense would permeate the unlucky schools so that they suddenly became academically successful. The thing about vicious circles is that you cannot attack them abruptly and at one point. They must be attacked on multiple fronts, successfully and simultaneously, and then have continual pressure applied. We are not going to fix the urban schools by nibbling around the edges. Appointing a new superintendent or having a new math curriculum or getting all the teachers an unwarranted raise or even a warranted raise based on performance, is not going to be enough. That is why "reconstituted" schools often do so well; they break the circle at all points EXCEPT the one that shouldn't matter, which is location.

correlation is not causation.

J. Ewing

John said...

Interestingly enough, I believe "location" is not a cause, just like "poverty" is not a cause.

I'll post in the near future about the school side first, so we can discuss that. Then I'll post about student body / community side.

As for the separate schools, unfortunately I was accepting the unpleasant reality that the kids in the "Community" schools were likely doomed to failure and working as ditch diggers. I don't think the system can overcome the Parental shortcomings without taking more control from them at an early age. Which is unacceptable to most Conservatives and likely expensive.

Anonymous said...

"I don't think the system can overcome the Parental shortcomings…"

That is a very dismal outlook and fails to explain how schools like the Harlem Project or the DC Opportunity Scholarship program succeed so well with students of essentially the same demographic. It doesn't even explain why, when private scholarships are offered by lottery, hundreds of parents turn out for each one offered. There are obviously far more parents who care about educations for their children than there are educrats who care about children. Why should a child be denied a good education because he didn't win a lottery?

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

and let me ask this: if the school district gets to pick which parents get to send their kids to the best schools, do you think somebody like me that opposed a Levy referendum would make the cut?

J. Ewing

John said...

HCZ works because it starts before the child are born if possible and works with the willing parents. Then it continues through Early Ed, through K-12 and beyond.

Also, they do have failures and lose kids at times. Then these kids end up back at the Public school. Did you ever read "Whatever it Takes"?

As for would the schools accept vote no'ers kids. Definitely if the kids are well behaved and work hard. They want the funding...

Anonymous said...

I still refuse to accept your theory that "unlucky kids" are doomed to a life of penury and squalor. If kids aren't being educated it MUST be because schools are not educating them, and offering excuses for why simply lets them evade their primary responsibility. Until we see that most kids, even the ones in urban settings, are performing somewhere near their "lucky" peers, I want that responsibility squarely where it belongs, on the schools.

J. Ewing

John said...

Time for some math:

5 yrs x 365 x 24 = 43,800 hrs
13 yrs x 190 x 24 = 59,280 hrs
13 yrs x 175 x 17 = 38,675 hrs

Total Parent, Peer & Community hours = 141,755

Sleep = 9 x 365 x 18 = 59,130 hrs

Total PPC - Sleep = 82,6265 hrs

School = 13 x 7 x 175 = 15,925 hrs

I don't think the school has enough hours to unteach what the PPC has embedded in the first 5 years. Especially when the PPC has ~5 times the number of hours.

We have to get to these particular children earlier...

Anonymous said...

What are "we" going to get to them WITH? And do you really believe that a failing school will suddenly succeed once all of these eager but still uneducated kids get there?

Yes, the culture gives kids attitudes and values, and my big concern has always been that the schools should NOT be contradicting the values taught in the home. But the home is NOT the place where math and science is supposed to be learned, unless you are homeschooling; SCHOOL is for learning academics. If the kids are not mastering the academics it is because they aren't being taught the academics. I don't see how any other assignment of responsibility is possible. There ARE schools that succeed with poor students, and prove that failing schools are failing because that is what they are. It is their nature and it has to change.

J. Ewing

John said...

Remember one of my favorite stories on the topic.

A man comes up to a little girl in Chicago and asks her what she is going to be when she grows up. She says she does not know. He asks if she wants to go to college to become a lawyer, doctor, etc. At which point her Grandma pipes up that the girl ain't going to no college, cause she's from the projects. Ain't no way she's getting out.

I am thinking the Unlucky kids would better off if the schools do an excellent job of contradicting the Parent's views and beliefs. In fact I hope they can brainwash these kids asap.

You keep looking for the best in parents, unfortunately I am thinking their is a much higher percentage of poor parents than poor Teachers. At least most Teachers need to be educated, licensed and have some oversight, where as a woman and man just need to have sex. I mean they don't even need to be capable of holding a job to get it on...

And ironically, the most irresponsible men and women often end up being the most unprepared and irresponsible Parent(s). Thus the problem propogates.

It may also be a cause of why poverty and poor test scores are correlated.

Anonymous said...

J, are you familiar with Maslow's heirarchy of needs? It's a pretty well-accepted psychological theory that says that until/unless certain needs are met at a basic level, others cannot be attained. Look it over here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Do you think that a child who isn't receiving adequate food and supervision at home, who lives in a shelter, who doesn't feel physically safe or emotionally nurtured--do you think schools can in 6 hours reasonably overcome the instability of the other 18 hours?

Humans don't compartmentalize their lives as efficiently as you'd like. If you lived alone on pepsi and cornchips in your car every night, would your workplace performance eventually suffer? And would it be your supervisor's fault?

--Annie

Anonymous said...

John, Annie

I am familiar with Maslow, but I think Annie makes the same mistake in applying it here as John makes in more general terms. That is, American poverty is different. Most of the poor have cars, homes, color TVs, microwaves and other amenities, plus enough food that obesity is a problem. The number of truly homeless is pretty small and the number of hungry even smaller. I suspect that abused or neglected children are actually more prevalent, up to a few percent of the total, though obviously figures on this last aren't reliably available.

My point is that, if there is anything wrong with the "subculture" in poor urban communities it is caused by years of government dependency and handouts, to where some percentage-- and I've met them-- have no concept of a work ethic and see no need to have one. Again, that is a small group, less than 10% of the urban poor by a rough estimate. It would be even less if they were GIVEN some chance and responsibility to better themselves or the lives of their children, say with a universal voucher, OR just a school that would educate, rather than just incarcerating the child until illiteracy (1 in 3, by the latest studies).

OK, I will compromise with both of you. Let us raise the level of education to the point where we are able to pick out those who OUGHT to be doing better, and then look for the social or cultural reasons-- homelessness, abuse, hunger-- and refer social services.

For proof, look at it another way. We now give poor kids a free school lunch, and in most cases breakfast, yet about half (again a rough estimate) still cannot learn to read. How do you explain that, if not that they aren't being taught to read?

J. Ewing

John said...

So many numbers... So few sources...

My answer is the same as always. You can bring the horse to the watering trough, but you can't make them drink... Even if the water is of moderate quality.

Anonymous said...

So poor kids are just stubborn horses who cannot learn? That's not compassionate, and doesn't square with what I know of the world. Too bad, you were doing so well with logical analysis.

You're really going to insist that there's nothing wrong with the education delivered by inner city schools? That it is easier to fix society's many problems than to look at a better way to educate kids, when we KNOW better ways to educate kids?

J.

John said...

I always am amazed how you see things as "either or"... Is that just your personality or are you trying to tweak me?

I believe that Teacher quality needs to be improved.

And

I believe the stubborn horses will go thirsty unless we get to them earlier and help them improve their attitudes / beliefs regarding water and self reliance.

Neither by themselves will get us where we want to go.

Anonymous said...

"You're really going to insist that there's nothing wrong with the education delivered by inner city schools?"

Where is the straw man with whom you're having this imaginary argument, J?

EVERYONE here is looking for better education solutions. But I believe the point being made is that it's futile to put time and energy ONLY into education reform when there are many other elements of the most troubled kids' lives that need help and support.

Feeding a kid breakfast is great, but it doesn't fix the systemic issues that surround poverty, nor does it address Maslow's other basic needs.

Here's another example: stress(from conflict, instability, lack of care, etc) causes permanent, irreversible damange in a developing child's brain--http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/kristof-a-poverty-solution-that-starts-with-a-hug.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Quality prenatal can reduce/prevent many birth defects--low birth weight, cerebral palsy, FAS, neural tube defects among them. The best teacher in the world can't "fix" those problems. Quality parent and early childhood education can give every child a stable foundation before they ever start kindergarten.

You have a habit of ignoring all research that doesn't specifically relate to the teacher's union or vouchers. This is a multifacted problem that will require a complex solution.

--Annie

Anonymous said...

John--here's another piece I think you'll enjoy--NYT has multiple analyses and opinions on research around rating teachers by their students' scores.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/16/can-a-few-years-data-reveal-bad-teachers

--Annie

John said...

Annie,
Excellent summary !!!

NYT Starts with a Hug

NYT Teachers

Anonymous said...

"I always am amazed how you see things as "either or"... Is that just your personality or are you trying to tweak me?" -John

"You have a habit of ignoring all research that doesn't specifically relate to the teacher's union or vouchers. This is a multifacted problem that will require a complex solution."

What you are "seeing" is a simple pragmatism. For 30 years, public education has told us that if we just give them more money, and adjust the state aid formula to send more money still to the urban schools, we can teach anybody, despite the social problems. We've also had 30 years of government efforts to fix those same social problems. That kids are still being robbed of their right to a "good" education is a failure of government, no "complexity" about it.

Now, to fix the problem, the simplest solution is to find the largest factor and eliminate that. The largest factor in education is a qualified teacher and, I would add, in an environment where that ability is well-utilized. (As I have previously explained, the two tend to go hand-in-hand, to the detriment of inner-city schools.) It is attempting to control first that thing that "we" have the most control over, which is public employees and their work environment, NOT every individual parent and their unique socioeconomic mishaps and mistakes. By eliminating the largest single cause first we get the most rapid improvement, and we make the lesser causes easier to differentiate and solve. Simple, but unfortunately not easy. Is it really that hard to "see"?

J. Ewing

John said...

Having an opinion and saying it repeatedly will not make it so.

"The largest factor in education is a qualified teacher and, I would add, in an environment where that ability is well-utilized."

Show of some sources that support your adamant belief.

Anonymous said...

well, it has been said by Barack Obama, Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan, President Bush, the NEA, numerous Education leaders around the country and large amounts of research. This one, unlike the class-size argument, actually has research and conventional wisdom lining up pretty well. You COULD simply accept it on that basis, or you could go off and do your own research.

Prove to me that good teachers and bad teachers get the same results, or that good teachers in a bad system produce better results than they do in a good system, and I will reconsider.

J. Ewing

John said...

Nothing to prove. I agree with you to a point.

I just don't think it will make a significant difference without some other changes.

Anonymous said...

I will agree with you on that point, too. I have often said that good people in a bad system produce bad results and not good ones, so putting better teachers into the urban schools, even assuming we had some magic way of making that happen, would not move the needle very far. That is why I like your "2+7" idea, if only as a spur to end what I consider the myth, educationally speaking, that demography is destiny. I claim that simply separating kids into different schools based on "lucky" or "unlucky" demographics won't accomplish very much, either, unless something else and perhaps MUCH else changes in those schools. And if the "educational establishment" knew what changes to make, assumedly in both sets of schools, why haven't they already made them?

J. Ewing