And here is the story on ‘Capital Gains’ regarding Math DC-CAS Scores

Bottom Line?

More of the same. Experimental group did worse. Rhee needs to go, and so does this goofy program.

Just tables, this time. (I didn’t think the graphs were all that useful, plus they took a long time to make, and I do have other things to do.)

First, the experimental group of 15 middle schools where the kids were bribed to do the right thing; these are the percentages of students at those schools scoring ‘proficient’ or better in each of the years 2007 through 2010. The last three columns look at changes over time, and the bottom right-hand corner looks at average and median changes. Here goes:

(This has been only partly fixed. Please switch the figures for Hart for 2009 and 2010.)

And, next, much the same thing, but for the control group (where the kids were NOT bribed):

Once again, in every single instance, the changes over time in the control group were more favorable than those in the experimental group. (You do recall that -1.80 is higher (i.e., less bad) than -2.40, right?)

Enough said and done. Please keep your promise, MR!

Published in: on September 15, 2010 at 5:22 pm  Comments (2)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/and-here-is-the-story-on-capital-gains-regarding-math-dc-cas-scores/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. This is a mess. Not worth the bother.
    First:Tell the reader the years the experimental treatments took place. Without that, one doesn’t know pre from during from post.
    Second: Tell the reader the treatment was of the whole school (or all students in middle school grades, or whatever the protocol was. As a long-time teacher, that means that both kids AND teachers were part of the experiment. Kids move on. Teachers and teaching behavior stays with the school. Now you are prepared to claim your data, when you figure out clear labeling, can mean something: that the schools were worse off after treatment.
    Third: If you don’t show both math and reading, nobody should be draw conclusions.
    Fourth: Simplify; Just pre and latest please. No patience for all the redundant comparisons.
    Fifth: Make a demand of the Chancellor that the performances of the kids who exited the experiments from promotion be compared to their pre-treatment performances. That’s the measure of the desired treatment change.

    Like

    • Oh, enlightened one. Please do it better for me so that grasshopper can learn by your shining example.

      Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: