Why did BoE nix the diversity study?

[CatherineE]

Still wondering about the Board of Education members' decision to nix the diversity study. Has any information ever been shared publicly as to why Chair Rosa Gill and several BoE members refused to allow the study to go forward?

There's no data validating whether the current diversity policy's reassignment plan is working to improve Wake County students test scores and academic achievement on an individual basis (studying those children who've been reassigned as a subset of the entire school affected).

Why no study?

[chaboard]

Still wondering about the Board of Education members' decision to nix the diversity study. Has any information ever been shared publicly as to why Chair Rosa Gill and several BoE members refused to allow the study to go forward?


Yes.



There's no data validating whether the current diversity policy's reassignment plan is working to improve Wake County students test scores and academic achievement on an individual basis (studying those children who've been reassigned as a subset of the entire school affected).

Why no study?

Just to piss you off.

[Brent]

Catherine, I'll try for a more constructive reply.

The BoE(eR) wasn't sure that their policies would be validated if a study were done, so they declined to do one.

In the meantime, there's a recent study, based on real-world data, that shows that the Wake BoE(eR)'s policies are no better than Char/Meck's policies, and inferior in some areas, in terms of student outcomes.

The facts and data are clearly present. Almost no one on the Boe(eR) chooses to lift their head out of the sand long enough to consider that perhaps improvements could be made in the education of Wake County's children.

[chaboard]

Catherine, I'll try for a more constructive reply.


Mine - at least the first non-sarcastic one - had the advantage of being factual and non-subjective, though.



The BoE(eR) wasn't sure that their policies would be validated if a study were done, so they declined to do one.


Yours, on the other hand, is clearly JUST political spin.

So what is your reason for concluding that the reasons offered publicly by the Board members were not their *real* reasons? Are you a mind reader, do you have some factual basis for that belief, or is it something you just want to believe? I'm thinking clearly door #3 but I'm open to evidence otherwise.



In the meantime, there's a recent study, based on real-world data, that shows that the Wake BoE(eR)'s policies are no better than Char/Meck's policies, and inferior in some areas, in terms of student outcomes.


Like I asked elsewhere...let's see it. Got a link to this "study"?

[Brent]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/education/story/1419640.html

[chaboard]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/education/story/1419640.html

See the other thread. It doesn't say what you say it says.

[chaboard]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/education/story/1419640.html

See the other thread. It doesn't say what you say it says.

"It" being the study, not Keung's article. To be fair to you, Keung makes the same misstatement of the report's conclusions as you do...which may be where you got your misunderstanding of it. Read the report itself.

[chaboard]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/education/story/1419640.html

See the other thread. It doesn't say what you say it says.

"It" being the study, not Keung's article. To be fair to you, Keung makes the same misstatement of the report's conclusions as you do...which may be where you got your misunderstanding of it. Read the report itself.

Replying to myself one last time to make one more point. In the other thread I demonstrated that the study din't say what you thought it said.

But in the interest of accuracy it should also be noted that it is not a statistical "study" at all. There is no null hypothesis being tested, no confidence intervals, no tests for whether the data are significant, no p-values, no regions of acceptance - none of the stuff associated with real statistical studies of a question.

It is, instead, a simple collection and descriptive comparison of data. (The authors are mostly upfront about this point, btw - note that they call their work an "analysis" rather than a "study". They do slip up and use the word "significant" in it's colloquial sense a few times when it could be misread to imply statistical significance, though) There's nothing WRONG with that as long as you keep in mind the built in limits of such an approach...but you DO need to keep those limits in mind when talking about it. For example, one of those limits is that you CANNOT state that the analysis "shows" or "demonstrates" any conclusion - statistically it does not. You CAN say it "seems to imply" or "is consistent with" or something along those lines.