5 ms·
The blog post doesn't have any statistics to ignore. Graphs are not statistics. Why doesn't he give us a correlation coefficient on his big blue blob graph?
by ef4 14y ago
The blog post doesn't have any statistics to ignore.
Graphs are not statistics. Why doesn't he give us a correlation coefficient on his big blue blob graph?
- streptomycin 14y agoYou criticize a short blog post for something that is not done in the Gates publication. Do you have some bias, perhaps? Why does Gates not even give us a scatter plot, let alone a correlation coefficient? This is the critical point raised by the blog.
- spikels 14y agoThere are quite a few statistics reported in the Gates Foundation publication. Take a look for yourself: http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Validating_Using_Random_Assignment_Research_Paper.pdf http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Validating_Using_Ran...
- streptomycin 14y agoI never said they don't report "quite a few statistics". I said they don't report this one specific particularly important statistic, and instead obscure it behind a ridiculous averaging procedure. This was either done because they are incompetent or because they are purposely trying to mislead. That's the whole point of TFA.
- spikels 14y agoWhat one particular statistic do you want? Take a look at the FULL report. All the statistics behind the graph you criticize are in Table 1 on page 10. The next 40 pages seem to be a pretty competent description of both the strengths and weaknesses of their study.
- jhales 14y agoWas thinking the same thing. I think it is: "...correlation coefficient of .35..." Found it following the link: http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/02/26/analyzing-released-nyc-value-added-data-part-1/ http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/02/26/analyzing-re...