4 ms·

Not sure why the author would bother analyzing claims she has already decided were false.

dsjoerg 12y ago
Even if the article were instead titled with the more accurate "How to refute..." it would nevertheless be interesting and worthy of further discussion.
msabalau 12y ago
It seems straightforward enough to understand that if you believed that there was a pattern of zombie memes recurring, that it would be helpful to have a structure to efficiently evaluate poor journalism.
shoover 12y ago
The more accurate title is in the article: How to Read News Stories about Charter Schools. And then the justification for why bother: It grows tiresome to dispute every tendentious article written on charter schools. But let's see how the ICBS strategy would help us evaluate a sample story.
crusso 12y ago
Because it's a political hit piece, designed to help nip this nasty threat to the established public education power structure in the bud. At the end of the day, school choice doesn't matter. The fact that Charter schools are relatively new and just finding their way doesn't matter. I'm all for apples to apples comparisons. But when you have a huge basket of fruit you're trying to normalize to apples, it's really telling which ones are picked.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  Your comment would be more persuasive is it were accompanied by evidence that the errors described in the article were not, in fact, pervasive and that there were real data to indicate that charter schools outperform ordinary public schools. As it is, your comment reads like a similar attempt to nip a nasty threat to charter schools in the bud.
  - crusso 12y ago
    Your comment indicates that you didn't really even read or attempt to think about mine. You're asking me to nitpick statistics that frame the exact worldview the article was pushing. I'm saying that in the big picture, those probably aren't the specific statistics that many people even care much about at this point. It's like an article comparing a Tesla to a Ford pickup truck that focuses solely on 0-60 speed and fuel costs but never bothers talking about towing capacity, load capacity, ability to refuel anywhere, etc.
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      I still don't get it. The article only points out that, in determining whether a Charter School provides a superior education to ordinary public schools (which is the claim made by the Economist and many other sources in the media) we need to know more than raw test scores. We need to control for a number of variables, such as the resources of attendees, etc. If Charter Schools are attended by (e.g.) wealthier students than public schools, or students with more involved parents, then a charter school's superior aggregate performance on a standardized test tells us precisely zero about the educational quality of the school unless one can somehow compensate for this confounding variable. Yet this is routinely overlooked in the media. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't care about controlling for variables like this and should, instead, look at other ones. OK. But you don't tell us why, or what statistics would be preferable, or give any evidence to suggest that publications like the Economist actually consider your preferred measures in lieu of those suggested by the article (remember: the article is about how to evaluate the claims made in the media about charter schools, not about the merits of charter schools themselves -- though I readily grant that the author clearly has a view on the latter topic as well).
      - crusso 12y ago
        Meh, I'll let TokenAdult post the very long and detailed refutation of the statistics themselves and the validity of the questions being asked. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't care about controlling for variables like this I'm saying that those variables and the questions that this "expert" chose to put forth miss the mark on the questions that should be asked and the variables that should be examined. But you don't tell us why, or what statistics would be preferable I did tell you why. My guess is that if you thought that choice was important in education then my thinly veiled sarcasm about choice would have caught your attention. Regarding statistics, the statistic alone that typically Charter schools receive less per student than mainstream public schools renders questionable every other statistic that this article mentioned.
- hvs 12y ago
  A "hit piece" is not "something I disagree with." This article presents a very clear line of argument that can be discussed without resorting to the sort of tactics usually associated with "hit pieces". You may not agree with the author, but I think "hit piece" is a bit harsh.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    It's also fair to say that the same skeptical lens applied to the charter schools is not also applied to other kinds of schools and schooling techniques. I agree that statistics are massively abused in politics, and ironically these sorts of post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments are especially prevalent when it comes to issues of education. Take, for example, the recent push for universal public preschool.
  - crusso 12y ago
    It purports to be an article about correctly analyzing Charter school articles, but then it goes into advocacy mode cherry picking the stats it wants to while framing the whole argument in a specific light. I didn't call it a "hit piece" because I necessarily disagree with the statistics the author chose to present. I called it a hit piece because of the specific statistics the author chose to present and the condescending manner in which the author presented them.
pdabbadabba 12y ago
I think you have this backwards. > It was, as is typical among news stories, incredibly naive. The writer didn’t ask the right questions. Maybe he already believed in the charter “miracle” story and didn’t ask any questions. The author concluded that the claims in the story were probably false (or at least not supported by evidence) on the basis of the framework described in the article. That's what is meant by "didn't ask the right questions." (Of course, given that the author is well versed in this area, it did not take much effort to spot the mistakes.)

Even if the article were instead titled with the more accurate "How to refute..." it would nevertheless be interesting and worthy of further discussion.

msabalau 12y ago

It seems straightforward enough to understand that if you believed that there was a pattern of zombie memes recurring, that it would be helpful to have a structure to efficiently evaluate poor journalism.

shoover 12y ago

The more accurate title is in the article: How to Read News Stories about Charter Schools. And then the justification for why bother: It grows tiresome to dispute every tendentious article written on charter schools. But let's see how the ICBS strategy would help us evaluate a sample story.

crusso 12y ago

Because it's a political hit piece, designed to help nip this nasty threat to the established public education power structure in the bud. At the end of the day, school choice doesn't matter. The fact that Charter schools are relatively new and just finding their way doesn't matter. I'm all for apples to apples comparisons. But when you have a huge basket of fruit you're trying to normalize to apples, it's really telling which ones are picked.

pdabbadabba 12y ago
Your comment would be more persuasive is it were accompanied by evidence that the errors described in the article were not, in fact, pervasive and that there were real data to indicate that charter schools outperform ordinary public schools. As it is, your comment reads like a similar attempt to nip a nasty threat to charter schools in the bud.
- crusso 12y ago
  Your comment indicates that you didn't really even read or attempt to think about mine. You're asking me to nitpick statistics that frame the exact worldview the article was pushing. I'm saying that in the big picture, those probably aren't the specific statistics that many people even care much about at this point. It's like an article comparing a Tesla to a Ford pickup truck that focuses solely on 0-60 speed and fuel costs but never bothers talking about towing capacity, load capacity, ability to refuel anywhere, etc.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    I still don't get it. The article only points out that, in determining whether a Charter School provides a superior education to ordinary public schools (which is the claim made by the Economist and many other sources in the media) we need to know more than raw test scores. We need to control for a number of variables, such as the resources of attendees, etc. If Charter Schools are attended by (e.g.) wealthier students than public schools, or students with more involved parents, then a charter school's superior aggregate performance on a standardized test tells us precisely zero about the educational quality of the school unless one can somehow compensate for this confounding variable. Yet this is routinely overlooked in the media. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't care about controlling for variables like this and should, instead, look at other ones. OK. But you don't tell us why, or what statistics would be preferable, or give any evidence to suggest that publications like the Economist actually consider your preferred measures in lieu of those suggested by the article (remember: the article is about how to evaluate the claims made in the media about charter schools, not about the merits of charter schools themselves -- though I readily grant that the author clearly has a view on the latter topic as well).
    - crusso 12y ago
      Meh, I'll let TokenAdult post the very long and detailed refutation of the statistics themselves and the validity of the questions being asked. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't care about controlling for variables like this I'm saying that those variables and the questions that this "expert" chose to put forth miss the mark on the questions that should be asked and the variables that should be examined. But you don't tell us why, or what statistics would be preferable I did tell you why. My guess is that if you thought that choice was important in education then my thinly veiled sarcasm about choice would have caught your attention. Regarding statistics, the statistic alone that typically Charter schools receive less per student than mainstream public schools renders questionable every other statistic that this article mentioned.
hvs 12y ago
A "hit piece" is not "something I disagree with." This article presents a very clear line of argument that can be discussed without resorting to the sort of tactics usually associated with "hit pieces". You may not agree with the author, but I think "hit piece" is a bit harsh.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  It's also fair to say that the same skeptical lens applied to the charter schools is not also applied to other kinds of schools and schooling techniques. I agree that statistics are massively abused in politics, and ironically these sorts of post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments are especially prevalent when it comes to issues of education. Take, for example, the recent push for universal public preschool.
- crusso 12y ago
  It purports to be an article about correctly analyzing Charter school articles, but then it goes into advocacy mode cherry picking the stats it wants to while framing the whole argument in a specific light. I didn't call it a "hit piece" because I necessarily disagree with the statistics the author chose to present. I called it a hit piece because of the specific statistics the author chose to present and the condescending manner in which the author presented them.

pdabbadabba 12y ago

I think you have this backwards. > It was, as is typical among news stories, incredibly naive. The writer didn’t ask the right questions. Maybe he already believed in the charter “miracle” story and didn’t ask any questions. The author concluded that the claims in the story were probably false (or at least not supported by evidence) on the basis of the framework described in the article. That's what is meant by "didn't ask the right questions." (Of course, given that the author is well versed in this area, it did not take much effort to spot the mistakes.)