3 ms·

> On June 10th they wrote, in reference to LA teachers going on strike, that “the average classroom had forty-six students”. (This was in the lede, where the au

> On June 10th they wrote, in reference to LA teachers going on strike, that “the average classroom had forty-six students”. (This was in the lede, where the author was setting context for how upset the reader should be.) When you average out grade levels, most US classrooms have a number of students that starts with a two. More rarely it’s a one or a three. It’s never a four. (At some outlier schools? Maybe. As an average across a large sample? Never.) ...Except the figure given was obviously in context of Los Angeles, not the entire US. Here's the context: > On Monday, January 14, 2019, Los Angeles’s thirty-four thousand public-school teachers went on strike. They demanded smaller classes (the average classroom had forty-six students) However, finding out actual figures for LA schools is hard, as you have differing figures published by differing sites, based on sources who are on either side of a dispute that involves class sizes. That said, based on this one I found, it looks like the average isn't 46, that's more of an outlier, but neither is it in the "most have a number of students that start with two. More rarely it's a one or three". https://edsource.org/2019/class-size-conundrum-at-the-heart-of-los-angeles-teachers-strike/607412 https://edsource.org/2019/class-size-conundrum-at-the-heart-... > Science teacher Michelle Levin has only 33 kids in each of her classes — which makes her fortunate. That’s not because a class of 33 is “small.” Levin’s class sizes at Daniel Webster Middle School in West Los Angeles are larger than national averages for similar middle schools, which range from 26 to 28 students. But Levin says 33 students is small by L.A. Unified School District standards. In most LAUSD middle schools, the largest core classes have 37 kids — and can sometimes be as large as 46. Noted caveat - this is only for middle schools. Other caveat - I really can't find any non-partisan figures on this. However, I am happy to contend the author is taking claims out of context in this particular instance to make a point, and backs it up with tweets, one of which is no longer available, and the other is from someone who works for a right wing think tank. So... yeah. Qui custodet custodes? If you're publishing from "savingjournalism.substack.com", perhaps try to properly source (Cato Institute associate scholars are a biased source on union disputes for obvious reasons) the objections you're making. And treat the claims you're 'debunking' in context, please.

apsec112 6y ago
The New Yorker themselves corrected it from "the average classroom had forty-six students" to "as many as forty-six students". They published a "fact", in the lead paragraph, that they themselves eventually agreed was wrong. How is that "taking claims out of context"?
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  Did you read my comment? 1) Author contrasted claims made to _national_ averages, not _LA_ averages. 2) I agree with you that they got it wrong, I even said as such: > However, finding out actual figures for LA schools is hard, as you have differing figures published by differing sites, based on sources who are on either side of a dispute that involves class sizes. That said, based on this one I found, it looks like the average isn't 46, that's more of an outlier, but neither is it in the "most have a number of students that start with two. More rarely it's a one or three". However, the author's assertions of _how they got it wrong_, are, from a cursory reading, also misleading.
  - edbob 6y ago
    I don't see any assertions of "how they got it wrong" in the article, at least about the class sizes. The article states that the number was wrong, that it was obviously wrong, and investigates how the mistake was "corrected". The article is not concerned with "how they got it wrong" at all, only "how they corrected it". The obviousness of the error is brought up because it's relevant to these bullet points: "Both correction notices are notably vague as to how bad the errors were" and "They don’t seem to have reviewed the teacher strike piece for other mistakes".
edbob 6y ago
The original text, before you clipped it out of context and framed it, says "When you average out grade levels, most US classrooms have a number of students that starts with a two. More rarely it’s a one or a three. It’s never a four. (At some outlier schools? Maybe. As an average across a large sample? Never.)" This is accurate, as is the claim that The New Yorker's figure of an average of 46 is completely off base. As your own figures clearly show. > someone who works for a right wing think tank. This kind of bias contributes nothing and makes good-faith discussion impossible. It's openly insulting and can only produce a flame war. Edit: Reworded to be a little nicer.
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  sigh Did you even read the bit where I pointed out my issue was comparing claims made about LA averages to _national_ averages? No? At least you're open about your bias. > At least you're open about your bias. Newsflash: people who work for right wing think tanks generally have a predetermined position in any dispute involving unions. Film at 11 for anyone who really needs it.

apsec112 6y ago

The New Yorker themselves corrected it from "the average classroom had forty-six students" to "as many as forty-six students". They published a "fact", in the lead paragraph, that they themselves eventually agreed was wrong. How is that "taking claims out of context"?

EdwardDiego 6y ago
Did you read my comment? 1) Author contrasted claims made to _national_ averages, not _LA_ averages. 2) I agree with you that they got it wrong, I even said as such: > However, finding out actual figures for LA schools is hard, as you have differing figures published by differing sites, based on sources who are on either side of a dispute that involves class sizes. That said, based on this one I found, it looks like the average isn't 46, that's more of an outlier, but neither is it in the "most have a number of students that start with two. More rarely it's a one or three". However, the author's assertions of _how they got it wrong_, are, from a cursory reading, also misleading.
- edbob 6y ago
  I don't see any assertions of "how they got it wrong" in the article, at least about the class sizes. The article states that the number was wrong, that it was obviously wrong, and investigates how the mistake was "corrected". The article is not concerned with "how they got it wrong" at all, only "how they corrected it". The obviousness of the error is brought up because it's relevant to these bullet points: "Both correction notices are notably vague as to how bad the errors were" and "They don’t seem to have reviewed the teacher strike piece for other mistakes".

edbob 6y ago

The original text, before you clipped it out of context and framed it, says "When you average out grade levels, most US classrooms have a number of students that starts with a two. More rarely it’s a one or a three. It’s never a four. (At some outlier schools? Maybe. As an average across a large sample? Never.)" This is accurate, as is the claim that The New Yorker's figure of an average of 46 is completely off base. As your own figures clearly show. > someone who works for a right wing think tank. This kind of bias contributes nothing and makes good-faith discussion impossible. It's openly insulting and can only produce a flame war. Edit: Reworded to be a little nicer.

EdwardDiego 6y ago
sigh Did you even read the bit where I pointed out my issue was comparing claims made about LA averages to _national_ averages? No? At least you're open about your bias. > At least you're open about your bias. Newsflash: people who work for right wing think tanks generally have a predetermined position in any dispute involving unions. Film at 11 for anyone who really needs it.