Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is the matter with you I posted this in response to you about two pages ago. Do even read what you are responding to?
From the Sanford study.
This remains for other researchers to pursue. In addition, other data and other
methodologies could shed further light on these questions. LOOK HERE Adding information about
parent education levels might make a difference in the measurement of student
background; IF YOU ARE READING THIS GO BACKadding data about school and district size (from the Common Core of
Data) and curriculum and testing approaches (from the NAEP background surveys)
might shed greater light on school factors that matter; and adjusting salary and
spending data for cost of living differentials might allow a better evaluation of fiscal
influences."
Maybe research and its various ANALYSES are beyond you but I will try to explain. Again.
Just because they did not break out parent education level as separate matrices does not mean it was not part of the larger measure of socioeconmic status.
Here is a simple analogy. If we are studying factors that effect currents in the ocean and density is controlled for, that means that salinity and temperature are taken into the controlled factors since they control density. To be even more simple since salinity controls density we can see that salinity is also controlled for.
Since we know that the larger socioeconomic factors (class, income, etc) are controlled (at least in part) by parental education level, it is inherently controlled for. Get it yet?
It is entirely possible that there maybe a slightly different r-value for parental education level if it was broken out as its own correlate but it is not possible for it to be completely different from the overall measure of socioeconomic factors since it is a DIRECT relationship.
Maybe research and its various ANALYSES are beyond you but I will try to explain. Again.
Just because they did not break out parent education level as separate matrices does not mean it was not part of the larger measure of socioeconmic status.
Here is a simple analogy. If we are studying factors that effect currents in the ocean and density is controlled for, that means that salinity and temperature are taken into the controlled factors since they control density. To be even more simple since salinity controls density we can see that salinity is also controlled for.
Since we know that the larger socioeconomic factors (class, income, etc) are controlled (at least in part) by parental education level, it is inherently controlled for. Get it yet?
It is entirely possible that there maybe a slightly different r-value for parental education level if it was broken out as its own correlate but it is not possible for it to be completely different from the overall measure of socioeconomic factors since it is a DIRECT relationship.
You simply can't be that dense. It is not inherently controlled for, you assume there is a direct correlation between parental education levels and those other socioeconomic factors. You have no basis for making the statement that there is a direct relationship between those other socioeconomic factors and parental education.You have no basis for claiming there would be a slightly different r-value for parental education level. Since it wasn't controlled for you are making a complete guess.It is possible the difference could be moderate or large. That is why the authors point out that if you do control for parental educational levels it might make a difference. A study certainly could be designed controlling those factors as well.
Using your example, you know all the variables and their relationship to each other. As a matter of fact here is a chart. http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2odenscalc.html Plug in the numbers and out comes a solution. That is because all the variables relationships are known. So now tell me what is the effect of parental education on the socioeconomic factors? You can't answer the question because this study did not control for it.
You are still avoiding the larger point.
No one is denying the value of well qualified teachers just as no one should question the role of affluence and parental educational levels in student achievement. The bottom line is, as validated by your own report per pupil expenditures are not necessarily related to achievement.
NJ is in dire fiscal shape cuts have to made. If the NJEA would cooperate the educational system could be revamped to accommodate the new reality. As many studies suggest increased class size and decreased funding can be offset by quality teachers. If the NJEA would allow districts to keep the most qualified teachers rather than by seniority, they would really show how much they care about the kids.
Last edited by shorebaby; 05-31-2010 at 05:13 PM..
You simply can't be that dense. It is not inherently controlled for, you assume there is a direct correlation between parental education levels and those other socioeconomic factors. You have no basis for making the statement that there is a direct relationship between those other socioeconomic factors and parental education.
Are you actually claiming we do not know the effect of parental education level on income? or socioeconomic status?
Seriously?
Its so well known its not even studied anymore. That would be like studying if things fall when you drop them.
You have no basis for claiming there would be a slightly different r-value for parental education level. Since it wasn't controlled for you are making a complete guess.
Maybe you are unaware of how science works? We do not control for things we already know the relationship for. We KNOW that parental education level has a direct positive correlation with socioeconomic status. Therefore if something else like achievement has a positive correlation with socioeconomic (and the study did find that) then we know that both things positively correlate. What your suggesting is two positive numbers sum to a negative one.
Maybe you do not know what controlled for mean? That means when you find the mathematical relationship for those factors (in this case SES and achievement) and subtract it from the equation, there is still a stronger correlation for other factors. In the case of the study it was teacher quality. Meaning whether of high or low SES the strongest correlate for success was teacher quality.
No one needs to control for things we KNOW how they work. Do we control for gravity in a study on behavior of bees?
Quote:
It is possible the difference could be moderate or large. That is why the authors point out that if you do control for parental educational levels it might make a difference. A study certainly could be designed controlling those factors as well.
LOL!! Since it is a factor of SES it cannot possibly be larger than the SES effect itself. That is like having a single slice of pie being larger than the entire pie!!
Quote:
Using your example, you know all the variables and their relationship to each other. As a matter of fact here is a chart. Water Density Calculator Plug in the numbers and out comes a solution. That is because all the variables relationships are known. So now tell me what is the effect of parental education on the socioeconomic factors? You can't answer the question because this study did not control for it.
Actually I can tell you because the definition for SES is well established. SES is the sum of several factors. Four things equate to the standard definition of socioeconomic status; family income, parent education level, parent occupation and social status.
There is a direct correlation between each of those factors and socioeconomic status.
You are claiming that one of those factors is larger than the sum of their parts. Do you finally get it? Somehow I doubt it.
And you are avoiding admitting you were wrong. I am not claiming nor have I ever that cuts do not need to be made. As I have stated numerous times I agreed to the pay freeze and I already pay the 1.5%. You choose to ignore anything that shows your talking points to be wrong. I am getting used to it.
But the reality is that the best teachers (you know the ones that have the SINGLE LARGEST EFFECT ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT) have the most options and will leave when you cut benefits and pay to the bone. I know I will as have two teachers in my district already. And you can mock all you like my students success speaks for my abilities, especially since many of them come from low SESs and based on your argument they should not be succeeding.
Maybe you are unaware of how science works? We do not control for things we already know the relationship for. We KNOW that parental education level has a direct positive correlation with socioeconomic status. Therefore if something else like achievement has a positive correlation with socioeconomic (and the study did find that) then we know that both things positively correlate. What your suggesting is two positive numbers sum to a negative one.
Maybe you do not know what controlled for mean? That means when you find the mathematical relationship for those factors (in this case SES and achievement) and subtract it from the equation, there is still a stronger correlation for other factors. In the case of the study it was teacher quality. Meaning whether of high or low SES the strongest correlate for success was teacher quality.
No one needs to control for things we KNOW how they work. Do we control for gravity in a study on behavior of bees?
LOL!! Since it is a factor of SES it cannot possibly be larger than the SES effect itself. That is like having a single slice of pie being larger than the entire pie!!
Actually I can tell you because the definition for SES is well established. SES is the sum of several factors. Four things equate to the standard definition of socioeconomic status; family income, parent education level, parent occupation and social status.
There is a direct correlation between each of those factors and socioeconomic status.
You are claiming that one of those factors is larger than the sum of their parts. Do you finally get it? Somehow I doubt it.
And you are avoiding admitting you were wrong. I am not claiming nor have I ever that cuts do not need to be made. As I have stated numerous times I agreed to the pay freeze and I already pay the 1.5%. You choose to ignore anything that shows your talking points to be wrong. I am getting used to it.
But the reality is that the best teachers (you know the ones that have the SINGLE LARGEST EFFECT ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT) have the most options and will leave when you cut benefits and pay to the bone. I know I will as have two teachers in my district already. And you can mock all you like my students success speaks for my abilities, especially since many of them come from low SESs and based on your argument they should not be succeeding.
I (as well as the studies author) are telling you that the effect of parental education on academic acheivement isn't known and to use the study's words "Adding information about
parent education levels might make a difference in the measurement of student
background." So clearly the magnatude of the effect is also unknown. Also it doesn't need to be "larger than the whole pie" to be profound . I know the folks at Stanford may not know as much as a high school science teacher from Manasquan but I think I will go with them.
Also do not forget the authors admonition changes in any of these variables changes the SES impact:
"While the triangulation of data from several sources lends some confidence to
these findings, they should be viewed with caution. Like all studies that draw
inferences from broad state trends and correlational data, there are many variables in
play at any given time and many possible explanations for any phenomenon observed. While this article presents a range of competing explanations for student achievement trends (student background, curriculum and testing policies, school funding and equalization, school and class sizes), it could not fully test all of these explanations.
This remains for other researchers to pursue. In addition, other data and other
methodologies could shed further light on these questions. Adding information about
parent education levels might make a difference in the measurement of student
background; adding data about school and district size (from the Common Core of
Data) and curriculum and testing approaches (from the NAEP background surveys)
might shed greater light on school factors that matter; and adjusting salary and
spending data for cost of living differentials might allow a better evaluation of fiscal
Only a teacher would deny the role of parents in a childs academic success. In addition I haven't been able to find any other study that comes to the same conclusion as this 11 year old study. Perhaps you have something else.
Again you answer the question that wasn't asked and avoid the real issue.
No one is denying the value of well qualified teachers just as no one should question the role of affluence and parental educational levels in student achievement. The bottom line is, as validated by your own report per pupil expenditures are not necessarily related to achievement.
NJ is in dire fiscal shape cuts have to made. If the NJEA would cooperate the educational system could be revamped to accommodate the new reality. As many studies suggest increased class size and decreased funding can be offset by quality teachers. If the NJEA would allow districts to keep the most qualified teachers rather than by seniority, they would really show how much they care about the kids.
You now discuss imaginary pay cuts, just address what has been presented 3 times.
Last edited by shorebaby; 05-31-2010 at 08:17 PM..
I (as well as the studies author) are telling you that the effect of parental education on academic acheivement isn't known and to use the study's words "Adding information about parent education levels might make a difference in the measurement of student background." So clearly the magnatude of the effect is also unknown. Also it doesn't need to be "larger than the whole pie" to be profound . I know the folks at Stanford may not know as much as a high school science teacher from Manasquan but I think I will go with them.
Only a teacher would deny the role of parents in a childs academic success. In addition I haven't been able to find any other study that comes to the same conclusion as this 11 year old study. Perhaps you have something else.
Why do you LIE? No wonder you have such a jones for the Gov.
I NEVER said parents and SES are not MAJOR factors in the student achievement equation. I only said teacher quality is the SINGLE LARGEST FACTOR. You are the one who refuses to acknowledge this and cannot seem understand how science works.
Seriously, simple question. Can a piece of pie be larger than the pie itself?
And that study is nationwide, with a huge sample set, and the most comprehensive review of the lit. What would change that would make its 11 year old status relevant? Are you suggesting that human being changed significantly in the way they learn?
Quote:
Again you aswer the question that wasn't asked and avoid the real issue.
No one is denying the value of well qualified teachers just as no one should question the role of affluence and parental educational levels in student achievement. The bottom line is, as validated by your own report per pupil expenditures are not necessarily related to achievement.
Really? Then how come every time some one suggests a loss in the best teachers may effect student achievement you state that it wont? You really do remind me of the Gov. himself. Are you going to claim as he did that there will be no reforms to pensions now too?
Quote:
NJ is in dire fiscal shape cuts have to made. If the NJEA would cooperate the educational system could be revamped to accommodate the new reality. As many studies suggest increased class size and decreased funding can be offset by quality teachers. If the NJEA would allow districts to keep the most qualified teachers rather than by seniority, they would really show how much they care about the kids.
You now discuss imaginary pay cuts, just address what has been presented 3 times.
Its a pay cut (in real compensation) when the Gov tried to get those not vested and new hires into a 401k. Its a pay cut when you take a pay freeze that you are contractually entitled to. Its a pay cut when you have to pay for a benefits package that was originally part of your compensation package.
Are some of those things apt in a poor economy? Sure, but don't lie and say that teachers are not being asked to take a pay cut when their total compensation is being reduced. But as your go to is to argue semantics I am sure you will whine about reducing total compensation is not a pay cut.
Why do you LIE? No wonder you have such a jones for the Gov.
I NEVER said parents and SES are not MAJOR factors in the student achievement equation. I only said teacher quality is the SINGLE LARGEST FACTOR. You are the one who refuses to acknowledge this and cannot seem understand how science works.
Seriously, simple question. Can a piece of pie be larger than the pie itself?
And that study is nationwide, with a huge sample set, and the most comprehensive review of the lit. What would change that would make its 11 year old status relevant? Are you suggesting that human being changed significantly in the way they learn?
Really? Then how come every time some one suggests a loss in the best teachers may effect student achievement you state that it wont? You really do remind me of the Gov. himself. Are you going to claim as he did that there will be no reforms to pensions now too?
Its a pay cut (in real compensation) when the Gov tried to get those not vested and new hires into a 401k. Its a pay cut when you take a pay freeze that you are contractually entitled to. Its a pay cut when you have to pay for a benefits package that was originally part of your compensation package.
Are some of those things apt in a poor economy? Sure, but don't lie and say that teachers are not being asked to take a pay cut when their total compensation is being reduced. But as your go to is to argue semantics I am sure you will whine about reducing total compensation is not a pay cut.
The only whining is from the teachers. Remember this?
Only a die hard union tool would describe what you have descibed as cut to the bone.
Listen to the teacher in the video, she does it for the love of the children, now where's my money. By the way, this imbicile makes MORE than the formula she proposed to the Governor as fair!
So I guess no other study exists that comes to the same conclusion.
Just for giggles please point out when I said the loss of the best teachers won't affect student achievement. Maybe it was this? "No one is denying the value of well qualified teachers" Talk about lying! LOL
Last edited by shorebaby; 05-31-2010 at 09:00 PM..
Only a die hard union tool would describe what you have descibed as cut to the bone.
Listen to the teacher in the video, she does it for the love of the children, now where's my money. By the way, this imbicile makes MORE than the formula she proposed to the Governor as fair!
So I guess no other study exists that comes to the same conclusion.
Just for giggles please point out when I said the loss of the best teachers won't affect student achievement. Maybe it was this? "No one is denying the value of well qualified teachers" Talk about lying! LOL
Shorebaby, let me help you out here. Getting in the last word doesn't make you the "winner" of a discussion. Neither does calling other people lots of nasty names. Perhaps if you went on here with the mindset that you are willing to learn something from those with different ideas, instead of lecturing them about the errors of their ways, you might learn something. The problem with insisting on being right all the time is that it doesn't work very well when you're wrong.
Whether or not you were paying attention, I'd say the teacher "schooled" you pretty well in this thread. Now I honestly don't believe that putting the Millburn HS teachers in front of the Irvington HS kids would turn Irvington HS into Millburn HS, but I've got to say that I've seen much more disconfirming evidence than confirming evidence for my views in this thread.
The reason I cannot give you ALL of the extensive list of articles coming to this conclusion is that generally speaking scientific research articles less than 5 years old are not made available FREE. Somehow I doubt you have journal access.
Quote:
Just for giggles please point out when I said the loss of the best teachers won't affect student achievement. Maybe it was this? "No one is denying the value of well qualified teachers" Talk about lying! LOL
You are doing it again. You have repeatedly made the claim that the loss of the best teachers would not effect schools since those students achievements are based primarily on having well educated parents. Are you really claiming that is not the case?
"The achievement of our children is due, in large measure to their backgrounds. The parents of these children happen to be among the best educated and affluent in the country. It is not at all surprising they succeed academically"
The reason I cannot give you ALL of the extensive list of articles coming to this conclusion is that generally speaking scientific research articles less than 5 years old are not made available FREE. Somehow I doubt you have journal access.
You are doing it again. You have repeatedly made the claim that the loss of the best teachers would not effect schools since those students achievements are based primarily on having well educated parents. Are you really claiming that is not the case?
"The achievement of our children is due, in large measure to their backgrounds. The parents of these children happen to be among the best educated and affluent in the country. It is not at all surprising they succeed academically"
Again parents do play a role in a childs academic acheivement as do teachers as I have said repeatedly.
Claiming that it is no surprise that the children of the affluent and well educated turn out to be affluent and well educated themselves is hardly radical. As you yourself have stated theses kids would do fine anywhere. I agree, I think teachers taking all the credit for a childs academic success is wrong. And since parents play a role they deserve credit as well, and since NJ has the highest educated and most affluent parents their effect is outsized compared to the rest of the country.
I have never said the loss of the best teachers would not affect children and you inserted the word "primarily" based on having educated parents. As a matter of fact I pointed out your study said class size is less of a factor in success and we could keep the best teachers if the NJEA would allow for reductions based on quality not longevity.
Also making this claim does not diminish the need for teachers.
Again parents do play a role in a childs academic acheivement as do teachers as I have said repeatedly.
Claiming that it is no surprise that the children of the affluent and well educated turn out to be affluent and well educated themselves is hardly radical. As you yourself have stated theses kids would do fine anywhere. I agree, I think teachers taking all the credit for a childs academic success is wrong. And since parents play a role they deserve credit as well, and since NJ has the highest educated and most affluent parents their effect is outsized compared to the rest of the country.
I have never said the loss of the best teachers would not affect children and you inserted the word "primarily" based on having educated parents. As a matter of fact I pointed out your study said class size is less of a factor in success and we could keep the best teachers if the NJEA would allow for reductions based on quality not longevity.
Also making this claim does not diminish the need for teachers.
"One of the most cited studies on graduate education and teacher effectiveness dates back to 1997. 'Evaluating the Effect of Teacher Degree Level on Educational Performance' , published by Dan D. Goldhaber and Dominic J. Brewer, explores the relationship between student achievement and a series of variables in their schools, classes and teachers. The theory is that if we measure teacher effectiveness by the achievements of their students, then the things that make teachers more effective should also lead to higher-achieving pupils.
Goldhaber and Brewer's results suggest that a master's degree is not one of those things - they found no significant statistical relationship between advanced teaching degrees and students' test scores, overall. They did find that teachers with training in specific subject areas such as science or math were more effective in those areas, but that held true at the bachelor's level as well as the master's level. It's worth noting, however, that subsequent studies have found that math is the one area where a master's degree can lead to more effective teaching, but the degree must be specifically in math."
"The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) published 'Increasing the Odds' in 2004, a review of the research on teacher effectiveness that was intended to be a guiding tool for educational policymakers. The publication points to the large body of evidence that has developed since Goldhaber and Brewer's study, and which almost unilaterally supports their conclusions. The NCTQ goes beyond the assertion that the master's degree has no effect, pointing out that the money spent by school districts on both subsidized tuition and dubiously earned pay raises represents a massive waste of resources."
So what makes a quality teacher?
"Teach for America is one group that has some answers. They've collected years of data on teacher quality within their own nationwide teacher corps, most of whom are hired straight out of college. When they've compared more effective teachers with those whose students do not show as much improvement, they've found that two traits stand out in successful teachers: perseverance and a high self-rated level of 'life satisfaction.' The organization suggests that teachers with a lot of 'grit' are more likely to work hard to achieve their goals - in this case, academic growth in their students. Likewise, teachers who rate themselves high in life satisfaction may naturally spread this enthusiasm to their students.
Another factor that Teach for America found to be highly predictive of success is past performance. Teachers who achieved large, measurable goals as college students, particularly in a leadership role, are more likely to do the same as teachers"
]"A closer examination of the results reveals that
few of the school, teacher, or class coefficients are
statistically significant in the expected direction. For
instance, we find the counterintuitive result that class
size is positively associated with student achievement
in three of the four subject areas (with history being
the exception).[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]6 [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=3][SIZE=3]We also find the percentage of
teachers with at least an MA degree is statistically
insignificant in all four subject areas (this is true in
both the model estimated with only school-level
variables and the models shown in table 2 which
include school, teacher, and class variables). Although
this finding may simply indicate that there is
little relationship between school-level variables and
individual student achievement, it is certainly consistent
with previous findings which
have helped to shape the impression
that teachers’ qualifications don’t
matter."
Again this is not to assail teacher but a reality check.
Last edited by shorebaby; 06-02-2010 at 10:51 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
