3 ms·

The educational experience of students is not dictated wholly by teachers, curriculum, and facilities.

by Kalium 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago
You are coming dangerously close to implying that children in poorly performing school districts are intrinsically unschoolable. That can't be what you mean to imply, so I think maybe step back and examine how you've ended up in an incoherent position.
- Kalium 10y ago
  I don't think anyone is unschoolable. I do think that changing populations can mean changing how resources are allocated, and this can affect more than just the part of the population that has changed. For example, I've seen schools cut special needs education programs because populations have shifted and resources haven't.
- harryh 10y ago
  "intrinsically unschoolable" might be going to far, but I think it's generally agreed upon that children in poorly performing school districts are (on average) more difficult to teach. It's also generally agreed upon that students have an impact on their peers. This is the whole rationalization for better integrated schools in the first place. We can certainly debate how many (as a % or raw number) challenging students a "good school" can import before overall quality begins to degrade. But I don't think that it's especially controversial to say that degradation will happen at some point.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Yes, but it's not agreed upon why that's the case, and that's Rayiner's point. If the problem is that students are forced to compete academically while being raised in broken neighborhoods, moving them out of those neighborhoods might be a better solution than pouring more money into the schools. I don't know that I agree with the intervention he's recommending, but the underlying point he's making makes sense.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  There is considerable evidence showing this is more or less true. "Intrinsically unschoolable" is a strong and incorrect statement, but "less schoolable" yields similar conclusions and is well supported by research. Consider Raj Chetty's work; he shows that the primary determinant of student performance is intrinsic student qualities, but that teachers also matter a fair bit. http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/value_added.pdf http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/value_added.pdf http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/w19423.pdf http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/w19423.pdf Why would you consider this factual claim to be an "incoherent position"?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The papers you've cited make essentially the opposite case as your comment does. Chetty's work suggests that a single year of teaching under a high quality teacher raises the lifetime earnings expectation of a student by $50,000.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      The papers show large and significant effects from student quality as well, a position you described as "incoherent". The fact that teachers also have an effect doesn't change this. If you were actually correct, and teacher quality was the primary determinant, then we could skip VAM and just use raw test scores to measure teacher quality. I.e., if teacher A had a class of underprivileged black students while teacher B had a class of rich Asian students, and teacher B got higher test scores, that would be evidence teacher B was a better teacher. Is this actually your belief?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Can you point out the section of the major Chetty VA study that distinguishes student circumstances from student intrinsic quality? The context of the thread you've jumped into is what the best intervention to circumstance might be to improve outcomes for students. You appear to be begging the question.

The educational experience of students is not dictated wholly by teachers, curriculum, and facilities.

by Kalium 10y ago

The educational experience of students is not dictated wholly by teachers, curriculum, and facilities.

You are coming dangerously close to implying that children in poorly performing school districts are intrinsically unschoolable. That can't be what you mean to imply, so I think maybe step back and examine how you've ended up in an incoherent position.

Kalium 10y ago
I don't think anyone is unschoolable. I do think that changing populations can mean changing how resources are allocated, and this can affect more than just the part of the population that has changed. For example, I've seen schools cut special needs education programs because populations have shifted and resources haven't.
harryh 10y ago
"intrinsically unschoolable" might be going to far, but I think it's generally agreed upon that children in poorly performing school districts are (on average) more difficult to teach. It's also generally agreed upon that students have an impact on their peers. This is the whole rationalization for better integrated schools in the first place. We can certainly debate how many (as a % or raw number) challenging students a "good school" can import before overall quality begins to degrade. But I don't think that it's especially controversial to say that degradation will happen at some point.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Yes, but it's not agreed upon why that's the case, and that's Rayiner's point. If the problem is that students are forced to compete academically while being raised in broken neighborhoods, moving them out of those neighborhoods might be a better solution than pouring more money into the schools. I don't know that I agree with the intervention he's recommending, but the underlying point he's making makes sense.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
There is considerable evidence showing this is more or less true. "Intrinsically unschoolable" is a strong and incorrect statement, but "less schoolable" yields similar conclusions and is well supported by research. Consider Raj Chetty's work; he shows that the primary determinant of student performance is intrinsic student qualities, but that teachers also matter a fair bit. http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/value_added.pdf http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/value_added.pdf http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/w19423.pdf http://www.rajchetty.com/chettyfiles/w19423.pdf Why would you consider this factual claim to be an "incoherent position"?
- tptacek 10y ago
  The papers you've cited make essentially the opposite case as your comment does. Chetty's work suggests that a single year of teaching under a high quality teacher raises the lifetime earnings expectation of a student by $50,000.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    The papers show large and significant effects from student quality as well, a position you described as "incoherent". The fact that teachers also have an effect doesn't change this. If you were actually correct, and teacher quality was the primary determinant, then we could skip VAM and just use raw test scores to measure teacher quality. I.e., if teacher A had a class of underprivileged black students while teacher B had a class of rich Asian students, and teacher B got higher test scores, that would be evidence teacher B was a better teacher. Is this actually your belief?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Can you point out the section of the major Chetty VA study that distinguishes student circumstances from student intrinsic quality? The context of the thread you've jumped into is what the best intervention to circumstance might be to improve outcomes for students. You appear to be begging the question.