AP, USA Today overstated math scores since No Child Left Behind became law
While both noted that reading scores were "mixed," an October 19 Associated Press article and an October 20 USA Today editorial overstated the modest improvement in math scores for fourth- and eighth-grade students since President Bush's No Child Left Behind education policy was put in place in 2003. The results were documented in the newly released report by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a national "report card" produced by the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education.
The AP reported: "Across the country, math scores were up in grades four and eight." Similarly, USA Today described the math results as "a promising uptick." But while acknowledging that reading scores have been "mixed" since No Child Left Behind was passed in 2003 -- they have barely improved among fourth-graders and have declined among eighth-graders -- neither the AP nor USA Today noted that the NAEP also found that even the growth in math scores has slowed since Bush's education policy was put into law.
By contrast, an October 20 Washington Post article noted: "The strongest results nationally were in math, but growth was slower over the past two years than it had been over the previous three." An October 20 Christian Science Monitor report noted that, considered together, the reading and math scores "show that progress slowed between 2003 and 2005, when the No Child Left Behind law was most fully implemented."
Math scores for fourth- and eighth-graders, respectively, from the NAEP report:
Reading scores for fourth- and eighth-graders, respectively, from the NAEP report:
Let me be the first to say this here:
I teach BIOLOGY at a university in Chicago. The innumeracy of our students (who have to pass math tests before they are allowed to declare a major) is SHOCKING! Forget about algebra, they can't deal with solving for an unknown that can be determined by arithmetic, e.g., 100 - 70 - 20 = what?
ALL of my recent students who are 'A' students went to high school before "teaching to the test" went from a tacit understanding to an actual policy.
If this is not remedied SOON, this country will be the first to be conquered by other nations simply because those nations were smarter.
- they have barely improved among fourth-graders and have declined among eighth-graders - mmfa ================================================================ Fourth grade math scores have increased at twice the rate under Pres.Bush versus the Clinton years.
Eighth grade math scores have increased at a slightly higher rate under Pres.Bush versus the Clinton years.
Fourth grade reading scores decreased during the Clinton years and have increased under Pres.Bush.
Eighth grade reading scores increased slightly during the Clinton years and decreased slightly under Pres. Bush.
All of these test results have improved from Clinton's first term to this point in Pres.Bush's terms.
What's the point? This thread is a very puny effort at turning a positive into a negative. Why? Partisan spin and "inordinate gloom".
Yep...The report by the MRC was right on the money...proved once again by mmfa. Soros better check the payroll budget because it appears the mmfa staff has too much time on their hands.
>>Eighth grade reading scores increased slightly during the Clinton years and decreased slightly under Pres. Bush.
>>All of these test results have improved from Clinton's first term to this point in Pres.Bush's terms
Your second sentence contradicts your first.
More importantly, you don't talk about the scores of other grades, those of elementary or high schoolers. As an educator, I can assure you that less learning takes place every year. Even the slight increase of scores you quote are so insignificant as to be ludicrous.
>>Soros better check the payroll budget because it appears the mmfa staff has too much time on their hands.
And you had better check your facts. Soros does not provide funding for MMFA.
[link to mediamatters.org]
Please, moveon.org gave money to this website and Peter Lewis has given money. Too claim no Soros bling bling has gone this direction is a huge belly laugh.
"The Democracy Alliance will act as a clearinghouse and is expected to channel much of its money to new organizations and existing ones such as John Podesta’s Center for American Progress and David Brock’s Media Matters for America."
[link to www.hillnews.com]
>>Too claim no Soros bling bling has gone this direction is a huge belly laugh.
Translation: I have no proof.
>>The Democracy Alliance [etc.]
The Democracy Alliance is not Soros. Further, the article simply speculates.
When you have proof, let me know, but having read your flame-throwing posts in the past, which are always easily refuted, I won't hold my breath.
Obviously you are not up to speed on the latest Media Matters claims.
[link to www.cnsnews.com]
"After initially claiming on Dec. 1, 2004 that "neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated," the group is no longer disavowing any connection with groups "affiliated" with Soros."
So, while you can run around and say Media Matters didn't get any money "directly" from George Soros, Media Matters did take money from an organization he started and sponsored and will continue to take money from Soros sponsored organizations.
Here's wikpedia directly from the biography of George Soros.
On the weekend of April 16, 2005, Soros met with 70 likeminded millionaires and billionaires to discuss strategy for the creation of left-leaning thinktanks to compete with conservative institutions such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Leadership Institute. Former Bill Clinton Commerce Department official Rob Stein's Democracy Alliance will act as a clearinghouse and channel funds to organizations new and old, like David Brock's Media Matters for America and John Podesta's Center for American Progress.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Media Matters no longer denies the claims it takes money from Soros-funded agencies. So you might as well quit claiming it does not take money from them. Media Matters claims it does not take money "directly" from George Soros.
Bill Clinton would be proud of that hair splitting.
Leatherhelmet, do you think Tom Delay is teaching these organizations how to funnel money so it can't be traced back to the individual donors?
LOL!
Why doesn't Media Matters just proudly say they are a member of the Soros Progressive movement? Why the smoke and mirrors?
There is another thread on this site where Rush Limbaugh says he can be represent a liberal because he won't lie about what a liberal really believes. Looks like Media Matters is making Rush right on this point.
leatherhelmet:
I like your reasoning that taking "2nd hand" money, not directly from a person (or organization), but from a "subsidiary" makes no practical difference. If MMFA's funding comes partly from an organization funded by Soros, then MMFA is a Soros funded operation.
I'll buy that. Soros helps fund MMFA. No argument.
The reason I like your construct is that this is exactly the defense Tom Delay is using. He says corporations didn't fund individual legislator's races in Texas (which would be illegal). He says corporate money was sent to the RNC, and then the RNC funded those individual campaigns.
I only hope Delay's jury is filled with people just like you, who are not fooled for an instant by such shenanigans as money laundering. If you apply your Soros logic directly to Delay, he'll be warming up a jail cell in short order.
Luckily, there is nothing illegal about Soros or anyone funding MMFA.
Maybe Delay's lawyers will use the "Media Matters Defense" to spoil Mr. Earle's party.
Zing.
What a life!! Spending all your time looking for a negative even in a positive! The positive here is the trend is in the right direction, even if it is not as great as the professional pickle suckers (PPS) think it should be. It took time for the drop in student performance to get people worked up, it will take time to reverse the inertia and to see big improvements. This also proves that "throwing money" at a problem (even though it's never enough)is not the total solution.
It took time for the drop in student performance to get people worked up, it will take time to reverse the inertia and to see big improvements.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The data linked to by MMFA didn't show a drop in student performance before No Child Left Behind, oscar. Do you mean before 1990? If so, do you know of somewhere those data are posted? Thanks.
I don't have any data you can put your finger on, however, I know that when I graduated from High School, my class could, as a whole, read, write and do math a whole lot better than I have seen in from High School attendees (as a whole) in the last twenty years. That's why I said it took a long time to go down as far as we have gone in education, it will take a long time to get back to where we need to be.
Since Ted Kennedy was a main author of the legislation I find it funny that MMFA would slam its own cause.
leatherhelmet - Sunday October 23, 2005 02:37:28 PM EST
Kennedy was a major sponser who signed on when Bush promised him he would fully fund the bill. What a shock that Bush lies to Senators as easily as he lies to everyone else
Call it cynicism, but it's seems easier to believe that test score data could be exaggerated or misinterpreted, in the two short years since this federal (funding!) law was implemented, than to believe that children are now proficient in multiplying and dividing fractions, due to a federal (funding!) law, in two short years.
Dem02020 - Sunday October 23, 2005 08:15:37 AM EST
Even easier to believe they are doing better on the tests which have become the focus of teaching but in no way being better educated.
Sure, if you think that mastering skill sets is a waste of time. Tests are important. Making sure that kids master the skill sets necessary for school achievment is not a waste of time. The tests also make sure that teachers are competent. "Teaching to the test" and the usual whining that accompanies that phrase only serves to protect incompetent teachers who ought to be fired.
In the long run, education will not improve in the US so long as the Federal Government is involved. It's interesting to note that the GOP used to be the party calling for the abolition of the Department of Education (created under Carter), yet now touts it as the answer to America's education problems and has greatly increased its funding.
Check the Constitution. There is NO role for the Federal Government in the education of the citizenry. It is not a proper object for the Fed. You want to improve education? Privatizing it is the only way to go (read: competition). Since when has a government program really improved anything?
publius:
Do "MARKET SOLUTIONS" really cure all ills?
Whenever there is a commodity, the MARKET treats it like a scarce resource. Nothing wrong with this in theory. There are not many Lexus automobiles, and not everybody can have one. Only if you can afford the commodity, do you get to enjoy its benefits.
The market has no notion of "PUBLIC GOOD". A pure market society would have no military, no roads, no schools, no public health care. All commodities would be available ONLY to those who can afford them. Sound silly? Not at all. History informs us that even DEFENSE was managed by private armies, answerable to the Lords who paid them.
The argument here, then, is whether it is worthwhile to have a policy of PUBLIC GOOD. It's a simple decision, really. You either HAVE it, or you don't.
If you HAVE a policy of addressing public good (i.e. a military, roads, zoning laws, etc.), then it's only a matter of debating what CONSTITUTES a public good.
Since our founding, it has been recognized that a democracy could simply not survive without an educated populace. Democracy depended, it was decided, on providing a minimal education (reading, cyphering, history) to its citizens. Such a public good could NOT be left to "the market", where only parents who could AFFORD education would be able to provide it for their children. It was deemed unacceptable to have only the children of the wealthy educated. It was deemed unacceptable to have an ignorant unschooled citizenry.
As with health care, there are dire consequences by adhering to pure MARKET solutions. Unless it is acceptable to a society to just let those who can't afford a service do without (i.e. Can't afford the hospital? Die, then. Try to do so quietly without bothering anyone.), then provisions must be made thru policy to provide those services considered "Public Goods".
Your idea of privatization is sound in theory. In PRACTICE, though, it would lead to a society that NOBODY would care to live in, marked by suffering and ignorance and nation-threatening hardships.
Thanks for offering up your "solution". It's been tried in the past many times, and those nations which tried it had no quality of life, no freedom, no democracy ... and no FUTURE.
"Thanks for offering up your "solution". It's been tried in the past many times, and those nations which tried it had no quality of life, no freedom, no democracy ... and no FUTURE." Tex
Name one nation that has tried that Tex. Just one........
As to this:Check the Constitution. There is NO role for the Federal Government in the education of the citizenry>>
I disagree, I think the part about promoting the general welfare covers public education. Since a country is better off the better educated ALL of its citizens are, this is clearly a case of promoting the general welfare
This:Since when has a government program really improved anything?<
A rightwing canard (whether or not you are a rightwinger) is simply wrong, since you phrased it in the form of a question I would say clearly rural electrification, really improved something.
"Do "MARKET SOLUTIONS" really cure all ills?"
My point was not that the free market is the answer to all ills, but we know the federal government sure isn't.
"Only if you can afford the commodity, do you get to enjoy its benefits."
By this I assume you mean that privatizing education would necessarily be more expensive than the current, "public" system. Why is that necessarily so?
"The market has no notion of "PUBLIC GOOD".
Who says the market has 'no notion of public good'?
"A pure market society would have no military, no roads, no schools, no public health care."
Where does this idea come from?
"The argument here, then, is whether it is worthwhile to have a policy of PUBLIC GOOD. It's a simple decision, really. You either HAVE it, or you don't."
Well, we had private education prior to the "public system" now in place. What prompted the change?
"Since our founding, it has been recognized that a democracy could simply not survive without an educated populace. Democracy depended, it was decided, on providing a minimal education (reading, cyphering, history) to its citizens. Such a public good could NOT be left to "the market..."
Oh, but it was. What precipitated the change?
"As with health care, there are dire consequences by adhering to pure MARKET solutions. Unless it is acceptable to a society to just let those who can't afford a service do without (i.e. Can't afford the hospital? Die, then. Try to do so quietly without bothering anyone.), then provisions must be made thru policy to provide those services considered "Public Goods"."
You're a proponent of national health care then, I take it.
"Your idea of privatization is sound in theory. In PRACTICE, though, it would lead to a society that NOBODY would care to live in, marked by suffering and ignorance and nation-threatening hardships."
Really? That's your theory, I guess.
"Thanks for offering up your "solution". It's been tried in the past many times, and those nations which tried it had no quality of life, no freedom, no democracy ... and no FUTURE."
Please enumerate these nations for me, so that I can better judge.
publius:
You say, "My point was not that the free market is the answer to all ills, but we know the federal government sure isn't."
RESPONSE: First off, the federal government doesn't run the schools; the STATES do. Second, if you eliminate public schools, by default education is only available from private sources. Your "solution", then, must be defended from that standpoint. It's clever and simple to simply slam government, but your "solution" of privatization must address the realities of the market ... particularly the aspect of a service being completely denied to those who can't affort it.
You say, "By this I assume you mean that privatizing education would necessarily be more expensive than the current, "public" system. Why is that necessarily so?"
RESPONSE: The expense is really irrelevant (a separate discussion); the issue is availability. Regardless of cost, there will be many who will opt (or be forced) NOT to educate their children. Whether this is acceptable to society is the question on the table.
You say, "Who says the market has 'no notion of public good'?"
RESPONSE: The market is exclusively "FOR PROFIT". Anything that brings cost without immediate cash return puts any company engaging in the practice at a competitive disadvantage with companies which do not incur that cost. While a company might wish to be altruistic and provide services for the community, such a condition would ultimately lead to their downfall, losing out to companies who are not so public spirited, but who have lower prices because they have lower "expenses".
You say to "A pure market society would have no military, no roads, no schools, no public health care." ... "Where does this idea come from?"
RESPONSE: Are you feigning being obtuse? In a purely market society, EVERYTHING would be "privatized". There would be nothing in the public realm. It could not be otherwise.
You say, "Well, we had private education prior to the "public system" now in place. What prompted the change?"
RESPONSE: Lack of education and illiteracy rates were "balkanizing" our society, and the unequal access to education (highly discriminatory) was both harmful to America's future and a disaster for Democracy. WHAT HAPPENED is that these problems were recognized, and addressed.
You say, "You're a proponent of national health care then, I take it."
RESPONSE: I'm a proponent of viewing health care for all as a "public good". Thankfully, this is currently our national policy.
You say to, "Your idea of privatization is sound in theory. In PRACTICE, though, it would lead to a society that NOBODY would care to live in, marked by suffering and ignorance and nation-threatening hardships." ... Really? That's your theory, I guess.
RESPONSE: Actually, I look to historic example to form this "theory", which actually is under the "Those who fail to heed history are doomed to repeat it" rubric ... looking at America's prosperity and condition WITH public education (a truly astonishing tale of success), and looking at nations throughout history which did not value education for all, and kept the masses ignorant and under the control of elites.
You say, "Please enumerate these nations for me, so that I can better judge."
RESPONSE: In your self-education on world reality, start your search with FEUDALISM (France pre-revolution will do to begin your quest for knowledge) ... no "public goods", masses kept ignorant, elitism, discrimination. It goes back to Roman times and continues through China today, so you should have a wealth of examples to explore.
"RESPONSE: In your self-education on world reality, start your search with FEUDALISM (France pre-revolution will do to begin your quest for knowledge) ... no "public goods", masses kept ignorant, elitism, discrimination. It goes back to Roman times and continues through China today, so you should have a wealth of examples to explore" Tex.
Cleary you have no idea what you are talking about. Feudalism and a free market economy are completely different animals. Again you are letting your hatred of all things free get in the way of reality and history.
I am truly amazed at the number of people who have swallowed the "public education is broken" line without much more than anecdotal proof. How many of you against public education were schooled by it? Almost every person I know was. Several went on to very good jobs. How can this have happened? They went to public school so we know they can't read or do basic math, so how could one work for NASA? How could a publicly educated friend of mine be VP at a major NE region bank? Impossible! I must be full of it! How could I have been regional manager at a large bank for years? It must also be a lie. I know several people in public education at different levels (administration, teaching, etc.) and the biggest problem facing our system is the parents. They (like the republican party) want to blame the system without looking at themselves. The ones who come in yelling about the teachers and the system are the same who are never seen at any other times. They are not present for any teacher/parent nights, nor making sure their children are doing assignments. Public education is a tool. If used properly, it is a very good tool. If ignored, it is useless.
Libby- while you are right that feudalism and capiltolism are different and often contradictory economic systems, I'm pretty sure that tex doesn't hate all things free. As a matter of fact I'm sure he likes freedom just as much as you do, and in regards to certain types of freedom even likes it more. A fair comment would have been that tex dislikes uthe free market, particularly using as the ultimate barrometer as to weather or not somethng is a good policy or not.
Tex- I'm pretty sure that publius is not intentionally being obtuse or infavore of using the education system to create a terrible dystopia that closely resembles the balkans or China under Mao. It would be a nice switch to read a responce from you to someone who disagrees with you that doesn't imply that not only is the disenter wrong, they are are also an idiot and jerk to boot. Proving someone wrong should be sufficient to make your point, and insulting people doesn't make them a sympathetic reader to you usualy not entirely wrong argument.
Viewing education as a public good best regulated by government instead of a free market does have some costs. First of all tex points out that the federal government doesn't control education--state governments do. This is sort of true, state governments have the most authority about what dictates the day to day matters of schools on a macro level-- but a more accurately, insofar as educaiton in America is an issue for government it is controled by a mix of local elected or appointed authority in the forms of school boards, elected state authority and elected federal authority. These often leads to some very strange terretory issues taht often can slow down eduactional reform in America.
The second big cost is that when you put state in charge of the administration of educaiton as a public good--you are stuck with whatever the state thinks is the best way to serve the public good--which lead to all kinds of crazy ideosyncracies in education. Military dad notes that his public education was excellent, as were many people he knows, and I have no doubt he was telling the truth. However, military dad went to school before the institution of standards of learning tests and all of the new certification requirements for people who want to be teachers. These are both educational fads, and though there are things to be said for both of them, they have the downside of taking a lot of the creativity out of the classroom by 1) forcing teachers to teach to a test, instead of encouraging them to teach off the page, a 2) limiting the kind of teacher you get, since they all now come from teh same teacher creation programs. Or, even better, you get a situation like you have in Kansas where the "public good" is decided to mean teaching all points of views in science classes--even non-scientific points of views.
Third, by treating education as a public good instead of a private good, you run the risk of keeping teachers as perenially underpaid professionals. Lawyers, doctors (in this country), MBA holders are all professionals that are in high demand on the market because their services are very necessary, and because they are not considered responcible for providing a public good, they get to charge commenserate with their skill and teh demand for it. Teachers, because they are percieved as providing a public good are less able to demand salary comensurate to skill and need. The idea is that one goes into teaching to help people not make money, and so it seems wrong when teachers demand to be paid like other professionals. This has the downside of causing you to miss out on a lot of people who might have been very good teachers who don't become teachers because they can't earn enough doing it. I imagine that since there is currently a teacher shortage in this country, an education system more controlled by the market would likely drag up teacher salaries.
I actually don't think privatizing education is a good solution--mostly because I don't think there is enough money to be made in education for corperations to invest in it to the degree that would constitute and improvement. I think we probably just need to massively re-organize how state run education in this country functions, since in my experiance with schools what we actually have is a very polarized educational experiance in this country--good schools are great, and bad schools are dangerously bad.