Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
It gave the size of the school and the number of teachers.
In this area, 3 physics teachers is unusual for a public high
school of that size.
But beyond
subsequent performance,
Which is not the topic, The topic is fun, which translates into
getting students to take the course.
you need to factor out the effect of high SES. Hightwo
SES is the only reason for superior performance of private schools as
recent studies have confirmed.
That's easy for you to say, John. Where's the proof? Not
all asiatics are rich. My parents were scraping along during the
depression - one counterexample, even if anecdotal, should suggest that a
general rule is false.
> The evidence is that on the average private
schools in general do a poorer job of education once the output scoresare
corrected for SES.
That may be someone's conclusion, but it's a misnomer to
call it evidence. But, again, that's another topic.
> There are also no Nobels for raising student thinking from low to
high levels.In the context, the suggestion that FCI scores measure how much
student thinking is raised is pure pontification. The total content of
the suggestion is that John chooses to define the phrase
"high FCI gain"
as equivalent to the phrase
"raising student thinking from low to high levels".
Justification for that equivalence must await another decade or two of
investigation. The same comment suffices for the rest of John's quote,
for I grow weary.
Reuven Feuerstein does this routinely and will never get aprogress
Nobel. I consider his work to be far more significant for human
than most Nobels. However FCI scores do track well with the ability toAgain, that seems to be easy for John to say. I await the
think. And thinking ability seems to be a limiting factor for the FCI.
proof in the form of direct quotes from relevant papers (as opposed to
suggest reading assignments).