3 ms·

I, like many, hope the MET project yields fruit. However, see this post for a strong critique of one of the key claims of the MET study: http://garyrubinstein

I, like many, hope the MET project yields fruit. However, see this post for a strong critique of one of the key claims of the MET study: http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2013/01/09/the-50-million-dollar-lie/ http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2013/01/09/the-50-milli... Namely, in the scatterplot correlating predicted effectiveness and actual effectiveness, they pooled teachers into 5% groups. This naturally reduces the variance, yielding a much straighter line of points than would an ordinary scatter plot. This is not, to my knowledge, an accepted or ordinary technique.

crusso 14y ago
Ugh, right from the get-go, Rubinstein throws away any attempt at statistical rigor by using an outlier example to try to prove something. The 5% groupings doesn't evaluate the metric. It just means that if they plan to use this actual study as a guideline, they should use the same technique in grouping teachers.
MarkMc 14y ago
I don't know enough about statistics to judge the strength of Mr Rubinstein's critique, but I find this a little odd: The axes on his graph is a 'raw score' between -1 and 1, but the axes on the MET study graph is 'standard deviations'. Is that significant?