tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post5288603281910295270..comments2024-03-26T14:44:37.985-04:00Comments on D-Ed Reckoning: Still Waiting on Broader, BolderKDeRosahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-63205953385594372342008-07-29T09:54:00.000-04:002008-07-29T09:54:00.000-04:00Parry, by larger issue I meant should government b...Parry, by larger issue I meant should government be in the business of providing these services at all, but that ship has already sailed.<BR/><BR/><I>it might be of benefit to low-income children/families to host certain social services on school sites, especially because of the possibility of increased availability and coordination</I><BR/><BR/>You could justify the provisioning of any service based on this rationale. We might as well farm out the remaining parental responsibilities as well since the kids are already at school half the day.<BR/><BR/>Joking aside, this implies a simple experiment. Set up a small number of schools that provide these services at school, find matching schools to serve as the control and observe the results.<BR/><BR/><I>Do these services adequately address a need among families in the community (although not an education-related need), and might more children/families avail themselves of these services if they were hosted at school sites?<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>This might be a fair question, but the broader, bolder folks are claiming the provisioning of these services will lead to better educational outcomes.<BR/><BR/><I> In my opinion, lacking that iron-clad research (which is rarely available), public sector leaders should rely on a preponderance of evidence in making their decisions. </I><BR/><BR/>Do we even have a preponderance of the evidence at this point?<BR/><BR/>I'm not advoating for iron-clad research. I'll settle for typical social-science research that contains a control group. And weigh the benefits compared to the costs.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-60975923887297644362008-07-29T05:34:00.000-04:002008-07-29T05:34:00.000-04:00Furthermore, I believe it is simply unrealistic in...<I> Furthermore, I believe it is simply unrealistic in many cases to expect direct causal, research-based evidence linking a specific action with a specific outcome in the public sector. Does the evidence available strongly suggest a likely outcome?</I><BR/><BR/>On the other hand, there is some convincing evidence that it is very very hard to improve children's educational outcomes by providing social services that are not directly related to education. <BR/><BR/>There is a fascinating post on Marginal Revolution at http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/11/nature_nurture_.html. This is a summary of an article, looking at adopted children's performance. The interesting thing about this study is that it looks at adoptions done by an organisation, Holt's International Children's Services, who under their adoption contract, if parents are accepted into the programme then children are randomly assigned. The study found that the income of biological children of those parents increased with parental income, but the income of adoptive children of those parents was not affected by their parental income. (Some adopted children had low incomes, some had high incomes, the point is that you can't predict the adopted children's incomes by knowing their adoptive parents' incomes). Being adopted is a far more radical change of environment than any school can manage. <BR/><BR/>There may of course be some social programme that can improve children's outcomes. This study does not prove that it is impossible to improve children's outcomes. The study however means that our default assumption to any proposal based merely on correlation should be one of skepticism. <BR/><BR/>Note that the study excludes very bad parenting because prospective parents had to be accepted by Holt in the first place. It is entirely plausible that a parent who hits their kids on the head with frying pans or looks them into the cellar for a year is wrecking their lives quite independently of the genes the parent provided. Indeed, it's hard to figure out a mechanism by which they wouldn't be, though ethics prevents a proper study.Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-80305990111003091412008-07-28T21:09:00.000-04:002008-07-28T21:09:00.000-04:00Ken, my understanding of the larger issue (and may...Ken, my understanding of the larger issue (and maybe I am mistaking the larger issue) is that it might be of benefit to low-income children/families to host certain social services on school sites, especially because of the possibility of increased availability and coordination. I agree with palisadesk —- whether or not these services should be offered at schools and whether or not schools should oversee these services are two different questions. As a public school administrator, I would say “No, thank you” to the second question, but might say “Sure, depending on the details” to the first question. Would hosting those services at a school lead to increased student achievement? Maybe, but I would imagine only very indirectly, only for some students, and probably not in a way that could be easily measured. But, from my reading, the larger questions are: Do these services adequately address a need among families in the community (although not an education-related need), and might more children/families avail themselves of these services if they were hosted at school sites?<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, I wasn’t making an argument, simply trying to understand the arguments being advanced on the board.<BR/><BR/>TangoMan, I agree with you. Public money should never be spent without justification, available evidence should always inform decisions about how to spend public money, and public leaders should be able to make clear and well-supported arguments to justify funding decisions. At the same time, we live in a messy world. If leaders in the public sector needed iron-clad evidence to support every funding decision they made, they would rarely be able to allocate funds. This would likely mean that important and effective (if under-researched) efforts would fall by the wayside. In my opinion, lacking that iron-clad research (which is rarely available), public sector leaders should rely on a preponderance of evidence in making their decisions. Furthermore, I believe it is simply unrealistic in many cases to expect direct causal, research-based evidence linking a specific action with a specific outcome in the public sector. Does the evidence available strongly suggest a likely outcome? Then move forward, and evaluate as you go. Is the evidence available ambiguous, contradictory, or negative? Then go back to the drawing board. <BR/><BR/>ParryParry Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01109638345554364909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-23776382482434883522008-07-28T19:27:00.000-04:002008-07-28T19:27:00.000-04:00Parry,At the same time, are people on this board m...Parry,<BR/><BR/><I>At the same time, are people on this board making the argument that no social service should ever be provided until a direct, irrefutable causal link <B>between that service and specified outcomes</B> has been established through rigorous scientific experimentation, utilizing random assignments in controlled situations?</I><BR/><BR/>I've bolded the point I want to address. If an advocate is claiming that a service should be publicly funded BECAUSE it will yield a desired outcome then I argue that this advocate should be able to offer evidence in support of his claim. If he can't offer evidence, then his whole argument falls apart, and in sense, is reduced to "fund this service with public monies because, well, just because."<BR/><BR/>Encountering that type of reasoning leaves a bad taste in my mouth.TangoManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18228734445464184781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-91020978555582350222008-07-28T17:52:00.000-04:002008-07-28T17:52:00.000-04:00Parry,Are you arguing that we should take money (v...Parry,<BR/><BR/>Are you arguing that we should take money (via taxes) and provide services that aren't proven to be effective?<BR/><BR/>It's what we do anyways, but at least someone will finally admit it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-40502920819036225222008-07-28T17:40:00.000-04:002008-07-28T17:40:00.000-04:00Parry, most of these non-educational services are ...Parry, most of these non-educational services are already being provided in most states, so the larger question is mostly moot.<BR/><BR/>The issue is should we permit the expansion and/or co-opting of these non-educational services by public schools for the purpose of increasing educational outcomes with little or no proof.<BR/><BR/>I think we can wait for some small scale, and perhaps some large scale, research before mandating such programs.<BR/><BR/>The union has survived all these years without universal preschool, it'll hold-up until we finally find a model that works and has been validated.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-1466015721541682672008-07-28T17:04:00.000-04:002008-07-28T17:04:00.000-04:00I absolutely agree that any program using public f...I absolutely agree that any program using public funds (education especially included) should be evaluated to determine its effectiveness, and that evaluation should impact decisions about future funding and implementation.<BR/><BR/>At the same time, are people on this board making the argument that no social service should ever be provided until a direct, irrefutable causal link between that service and specified outcomes has been established through rigorous scientific experimentation, utilizing random assignments in controlled situations?Parry Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01109638345554364909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-28300064365818210052008-07-28T10:13:00.000-04:002008-07-28T10:13:00.000-04:00Bill wrote "I'd use elements of DI that make sense...Bill wrote "I'd use elements of DI that make sense within the context of any course I ran. The same is true of project-based learning, or direct inquiry, or Socratic questioning, or quiz-based drill. Depending on the educational context and goals, they all have a role to play, and dogmatic adherence to any method is both myopic and bad teaching."<BR/><BR/>Just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean that it will work and vice versa. We can't just go by intuition; we have to actually test it.<BR/><BR/>I'm all for healthier kids but the biggest health problem we're facing is obesity. America isn't some third world country where people work for hours in order to afford a bag of lentils (which is far more nutritious and cheaper than what you'd find in the typical American diet). <BR/><BR/><BR/>ari-freeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-65519088571542245252008-07-28T09:12:00.000-04:002008-07-28T09:12:00.000-04:00Here are the findings from Coordinated school heal...Here are the findings from Coordinated school health programs and academic achievement: a systematic review of the literature, Nov. 2007, Cross et al. cited by Bill Fitzgerald:<BR/><BR/>* An asthma self-management program incorporating health education and parental involvement increased academic grades for low-income minority children but not standardized test scores. (Evans et al.)<BR/><BR/>* A subsequent study of the asthma self-management program was expanded to include health education for asthmatic children and their classmates, orientation for school principals and counselors, briefings for school custodians, school fairs including caretakers, and communication with clinicians demonstrated higher grades for science but not math or reading and fewer absences attributed to asthma as reported by parents but not fewer school-recorded absences. (Clark et al.)<BR/><BR/>* A rigorous evaluation of Project SPARK, a physical education program, demonstrated significant gains for reading, losses for language, and no differences for math scores on a standardized test, suggesting that, even with time taken away from the academic program for physical education, overall academic functioning was not impaired. (Sallis et al.)<BR/><BR/>*In a randomized trial of physical education programs incorporating fitness or skill training for 75 minutes per day, compared with usual physical education offered 3 times a week for 30 minutes, students in the fitness and skill groups demonstrated no significant decrement in test scores compared with controls. (Dwyer et al.)<BR/><BR/>The remaining studies evaluated were not as rigorous and the authors conclude: Limited evidence from scientifically rigorous evaluations support the effect of nutrition services, health services, and mental health programs, and no scientifically rigorous evidence is found in the literature to support the effect of staff health promotion programs or school environment interventions on academic outcomes.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-7249135959681216472008-07-28T07:22:00.000-04:002008-07-28T07:22:00.000-04:00ib shango: This is a very complex issue. "Show me ...ib shango: <I>This is a very complex issue. "Show me the money" is a strange call to action considering the human costs of not caring for children and schools.</I><BR/><BR/>It's a very important call though. Even though this is counter-intuitive, it is very very important to consider if you are spending money effectively. It is entirely possible to spend money on a programme that doesn't actually improve outcomes for children. Medicine has learnt this bitterly over the centuries, it had many many ideas, such as bleeding, that were intended to help children (and adults) but were generally far worse than doing nothing. <BR/><BR/>Bill Fitzgerald: <I>As to the line of argumentation that school districts should not be providing these services because they are doing a bad job managing education, this line of reasoning makes sense only when you ignore the reality that, for many students, not receiving these services within schools means they won't get them. </I><BR/><BR/>So it doesn't matter if those services are effective or not, as long as they are provided. Somehow the logic escapes me. <BR/><BR/><I>The argument over who delivers these services is a red herring. Getting people access to quality health care and food is a *good* thing; as a humane society we should support it.</I><BR/><BR/>However, if you are to provide people with access to quality healthcare and food, then you do have to argue over who delivers these services. It is entirely possible to deliver a service incompetently and provide bad quality healthcare and food. For example, for much of English history, probably people were better off if they avoided doctors. We also know that a market economy is far better at delivering food than a planned economy. These arguments are not red herrings - the provision of quality healthcare and food is highly dependent on who delivers those services. <BR/><BR/><I>And, just to emphasize: if you, or your child, is the one that is hungry, the problem will seem very real. No amount of pretty words will change that.</I><BR/><BR/>Which is exactly why arguing over who delivers these services is a very important thing. Caring isn't enough, effectiveness counts too. <BR/><BR/><I>As I'm sure you are aware, causality is incredibly hard to pin down when working with both human subjects and large numbers of variables. The reasons for pretending otherwise range from simple ignorance to intellectual dishonesty, but regardless, it's an artificially narrow frame that doesn't reflect the complexity of human to human interactions, or the complexity of conducting research on people.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not narrow to ask if a service will actually increase outcomes. <BR/><BR/><I>But really, to get back to the point: when we talk about services we are talking about real people. Services improve the lives of real people. The majority of the people who are *doing* this work don't have the time to prattle on about it as we do in this thread -- they are trying to stretch resources to help people. </I><BR/><BR/>The idea that the providers of a service don't have time to worry about whether they are actually improving things is a dangerous attitude. For example, Florence Nightengale worked out, after the Crimean war, that she had actually harmed a lot of her soldiers. She had insisted that the men drink lemonade, not beer. The water supply was contaminted by a dead horse, so the men acquired infections from bacteria that the brewing process would have killed. So her hospital had a lot higher death rate. If she had spent time during the crisis looking at whether she really was being effective, she would have avoided killing a lot of people, and saved herself a lot of guilt.<BR/><BR/><I>it is a call to common sense in recognizing that in tracking issues related to behavior, learning, teaching, resilience, etc, that there are some very real obstacles to establishing causality. </I><BR/><BR/>Common sense should also take into account the very real harm caused by not establishing causality. Indeed, you don't need common sense, just a knowledge of history.Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-67590196916053853102008-07-27T21:59:00.000-04:002008-07-27T21:59:00.000-04:00You realize, of course, that you just cited someth...<I>You realize, of course, that you just cited something to me that I cited to you earlier in this thread?</I><BR/><BR/>I know. I wanted to provide you reference so you knew what I was referring to.<BR/><BR/>Did you mererly read the abstract or did you actually read the entire study?<BR/><BR/><I>Especially considering the study you quoted earlier</I><BR/><BR/>The difference was that I wasn't citing the studt to prove anything, but to show that in 2003 that a literature review was conducted and found little relevant research. See the difference?<BR/><BR/><I>Literature reviews are useful because they, well, review literature.</I><BR/><BR/>Depends on how well the literature review was done.<BR/><BR/><I>and here I was thinking experience, study, and skill were good things. Kind of ironic coming from someone who also argues for the value of "deep mastery" and the need of a solid understanding of context as a pre-req for that deep content.</I><BR/><BR/>They are useful because they tend to produce useful results. It is the results we are interested in, not the credentials. That's why appeals to authorities are logical fallacies. I really shouldn't need to explain this for you.<BR/><BR/><I>So illogical as to defy refutation. </I><BR/><BR/>This is a conclusory statement. Explain your argument, zen master.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-56237997767145423652008-07-27T21:54:00.000-04:002008-07-27T21:54:00.000-04:00Bill:"Depending on the educational context and goa...Bill:<BR/><BR/>"Depending on the educational context and goals, they all have a role to play, and dogmatic adherence to any method is both myopic and bad teaching."<BR/><BR/>Can you cite any evidence for this?<BR/><BR/>How do you determine if your approach is effective?<BR/><BR/>Would you go to a doctor who prescribes hormone treatments for your wife, and who ignores the multi-year study linking them to breast cancer? (if your not married, assume it's a good friend's wife)<BR/><BR/>The last example is exactly what the educational establishment does. <BR/><BR/>And they continue to do it, in the face of evidence contradicting their assumptions.<BR/><BR/>It's interesting . . . I haven't heard one of Ken's detractors determine what flaws make Follow Through unacceptable in their eyes. Was it the massive student population? The multiple years of the study? The outcome that they don't like?<BR/><BR/>What?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-62816902197181649282008-07-27T21:30:00.000-04:002008-07-27T21:30:00.000-04:00Ken -- RE: "http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jou...Ken -- <BR/><BR/>RE: "http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/<BR/>journal/117974240/abstract"<BR/><BR/>You realize, of course, that you just cited something to me that I cited to you earlier in this thread?<BR/><BR/>RE: "Of course, this is merely an article rounding up research as opposed to research itself; nonetheless, I'll take a look."<BR/><BR/>Big of you. Especially considering the study you quoted earlier: "A thorough literature review conducted in 2003 yielded 7 studies on the link between SBHCs and academic outcomes... The current research base provides insufficent evidence to demonstrate a direct link between SBHCs and academic peformance that can be widely generalized."<BR/><BR/>Literature reviews are useful because they, well, review literature. <BR/><BR/>RE the CDC as an appeal to authority: and here I was thinking experience, study, and skill were good things. Kind of ironic coming from someone who also argues for the value of "deep mastery" and the need of a solid understanding of context as a pre-req for that deep content.<BR/><BR/>But my favorite: "Actually, that's exactly what it is. You're asking us to fund what feels good to you based on your common sense. The reason, as you admit, is because you have no valid proof."<BR/><BR/>Zen-like prose. Bravo. So illogical as to defy refutation. If an argument dies of its own inadequacies and no one cares, does it make a sound?Bill Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14264426268788575790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-49732215250391843822008-07-27T21:15:00.000-04:002008-07-27T21:15:00.000-04:00http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/1179742...<I>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/<BR/>journal/117974240/abstract</I><BR/><BR/>See. now was that so hard?<BR/><BR/>Of course, this is merely an article rounding up research as opposed to research itself; nonetheless, I'll take a look.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-62331346291610840642008-07-27T20:44:00.000-04:002008-07-27T20:44:00.000-04:00is a frequent line of yours, particularly when pre...<I>is a frequent line of yours, particularly when presented with differing opinions.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, it's a frequent line of science. It's how science gets past the opinion stage-- a place you appear reluctant to leave.<BR/><BR/><I>Just to be clear, I'm not going to do your digging for you either.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks, Bill, but I'll take care of my own digging.<BR/><BR/><I>From your viewpoint, it appears that you are putting your "experience" with this issue as superior to the CDC's, which is just one of the many research-backed resources you were pointed to.</I><BR/><BR/>This is an appeal to authority -- a logical fallacy. The CDC's authority extends to the valid research it has conducted. Feel free to cite an CDC research you care to.<BR/><BR/><I>Doesn't it feel a little bit silly to be holding up your experience as superior to that of the CDC? Have you really studied these issues to the extent that your individual opinion should be valued higher than the collected work of professionals who study the research and data as part of their life's work?</I><BR/><BR/>Another appeal to authority. My experience is irrelevant,as is the CDC's. What is relevant is the valid research we cite/conduct.<BR/><BR/><I>However, the artificially narrow terms from which you choose to frame the issue don't reflect either the realities of the classroom, the school, or research with human subjects, especially minors. </I><BR/><BR/>ANd that research is what?<BR/><BR/><I>This is not a call to direct funding and policy to whatever "feels good;" rather, it is a call to common sense in recognizing that in tracking issues related to behavior, learning, teaching, resilience, etc, that there are some very real obstacles to establishing causality.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, that's exactly what it is. You're asking us to fund what feels good to you based on your common sense. The reason, as you admit, is because you have no valid proof.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-4919940069370650532008-07-27T18:58:00.000-04:002008-07-27T18:58:00.000-04:00@ken -- http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...@ken -- <BR/><BR/>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/<BR/>journal/117974240/abstract<BR/><BR/>The above link is to an abstract of a study from 2007: Murray NG, Low BJ, Hollis C, Cross AW, Davis SM. Coordinated School Health Programs and Academic Achievement: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of School Health 2007; 77(9): 589–600.<BR/><BR/>From the abstract: <BR/><BR/>"Results: The strongest evidence from scientifically rigorous evaluations exists for a positive effect on some academic outcomes from school health programs for asthmatic children that incorporate health education and parental involvement. Strong evidence also exists for a lack of negative effects of physical education programs on academic outcomes. Limited evidence from scientifically rigorous evaluations support the effect of nutrition services, health services, and mental health programs, but no such evidence is found in the literature to support the effect of staff health promotion programs or school environment interventions on academic outcomes.<BR/><BR/>Conclusions: Scientifically rigorous evaluation of school health programs is challenging to conduct due to issues related to sample size, recruitment, random assignment to condition, implementation fidelity, costs, and adequate follow-up time. However, school health programs hold promise for improving academic outcomes for children."<BR/><BR/>Nothing really earth-shattering here, just confirmation of what makes sense. In some areas, there are measurable improvements. In others, there are smaller improvements. Negative effects seem to be non-existent.<BR/><BR/>What a surprise. Looking at the whole student has some benefits, and it holds promise for greater benefits. Guess we should stop doing that, though, because we can't prove that doing it actually makes a difference.<BR/><BR/>Ken -- this conversation is getting both boring and repetitive. You have your opinion, and of course, you are completely right -- and it was incredibly presumptuous of me to dare suggest otherwise. However, I hope that other people stumbling across this thread will actually use some of the resources you attempt to discredit, and see that attempts to artificially narrow the scope of the discussion leads to a myopic focus on trivia, as opposed to open discourse that can lead to greater understanding. <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>BillDoot-de-doohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09566914617392278380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-61032626511196903632008-07-27T18:56:00.000-04:002008-07-27T18:56:00.000-04:00Common sense shouldn't be a barrier to discourse, ...<I>Common sense shouldn't be a barrier to discourse, or making informed judgments.</I><BR/><BR/>The problem is that in the public policy arena, common sense is lacking. Moreover, what passes for common sense are usually the feel-good policies that you decry. Isn't it just common sense that we can reverse global warming? Isn't it common sense that if we spend more money education will improve?<BR/><BR/>When my money is at stake, I need more than "common sense", however difficult such evidence is to obtain. To do any less is to betray the taxpayers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-56482796353341620582008-07-27T18:29:00.000-04:002008-07-27T18:29:00.000-04:00@ken -- You and I were commenting at the same time...@ken -- You and I were commenting at the same time, so I missed your comment -- <BR/><BR/>RE: "The yoke is on you to prove your position. I'm not going to do your digging for you." -- this is a frequent line of yours, particularly when presented with differing opinions. It is a pretty standard non-answer, the ugly cousin of "show me the data."<BR/><BR/>To clarify: there is no "yoke" -- on the one hand, you say "send me links to research" -- then, you say "I'm not going to do your digging for you."<BR/><BR/>Just to be clear, I'm not going to do your digging for you either. From your viewpoint, it appears that you are putting your "experience" with this issue as superior to the CDC's, which is just one of the many research-backed resources you were pointed to. <BR/><BR/>Doesn't it feel a little bit silly to be holding up your experience as superior to that of the CDC? Have you really studied these issues to the extent that your individual opinion should be valued higher than the collected work of professionals who study the research and data as part of their life's work?<BR/><BR/>And please don't misunderstand: I have no illusions that this conversation will change your mind, or the opinions of any of your regular readers. Truth be told, I don't much care about altering your opinion. However, the artificially narrow terms from which you choose to frame the issue don't reflect either the realities of the classroom, the school, or research with human subjects, especially minors. This is not a call to direct funding and policy to whatever "feels good;" rather, it is a call to common sense in recognizing that in tracking issues related to behavior, learning, teaching, resilience, etc, that there are some very real obstacles to establishing causality. <BR/><BR/>Common sense shouldn't be a barrier to discourse, or making informed judgments. <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>BillDoot-de-doohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09566914617392278380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-67190468408353400852008-07-27T18:23:00.000-04:002008-07-27T18:23:00.000-04:00Here's a start:Williams K. Final Evaluation of the...Here's a start:<BR/><BR/>Williams K. Final Evaluation of the 2002-2003 Youth and Family Centers Program. Dallas, TX: Dallas<BR/>Independent School District Division of Evaluation and Accountability; 2003.<BR/><BR/>Apparently not available online but may show academic performance effects from SBHCs. If someone has a copy let me know.<BR/><BR/>Probably the only study to have done so. From: School-Based Health Centers An Academic Outcomes (<A HREF="http://www.schoolhealthcenters.org/docs/Resources/AMARAL_Gorette_SBHCs_and_%20Academic_Outcomes.ppt#390,1,School-Based%20Health%20Centers%20%20and%20Academic%20Outcomes" REL="nofollow">PPT</A>):<BR/><BR/>A thorough literature review conducted in 2003 yielded 7 studies on the link between SBHCs and academic outcomes... The current research base provides insufficent evidence to demonstrate a direct link between SBHCs and academic peformance that can be widely generalized.<BR/><BR/>Happy hunting.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-17018347597896398462008-07-27T18:04:00.000-04:002008-07-27T18:04:00.000-04:00@ari -- I'd use elements of DI that make sense wit...@ari -- <BR/><BR/>I'd use elements of DI that make sense within the context of any course I ran. The same is true of project-based learning, or direct inquiry, or Socratic questioning, or quiz-based drill. Depending on the educational context and goals, they all have a role to play, and dogmatic adherence to any method is both myopic and bad teaching.<BR/><BR/>@Former NYC Math Teacher -- really, I'm laughing too hard at the excessive generalizations to really care much about responding in detail. I'll leave you with this:<BR/><BR/>Re: "Yes -- proof of a causal relationship before I haved (sic) to shell out endless tax dollars" -- are you talking about global warming, funding education, or launching and extending the Iraq war?<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>BillDoot-de-doohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09566914617392278380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-21304724236510926722008-07-27T17:59:00.000-04:002008-07-27T17:59:00.000-04:00Bill,Actually I'm just trying to get you and your ...Bill,<BR/><BR/>Actually I'm just trying to get you and your progressive brethen to support your opinions with some actual data.<BR/><BR/>Let's stick with nutritioanl studies which appear to be near and dear to you. <BR/><BR/>Provide me with one study having a coontrol group and a calculated p value. Teh control group should be receiving the traditional free and reduced lunch program. The experimental group should have gotten additional nutrition to reduce their "hunger." The manner in which the students receive this additional nutrition should be the same as you are advocating (whatever that may be since you are being vague so far). The experiment should last for at least a year. There should be a pretest and a posttest which measure student achievement. The testing instrument should be reliable, valid, and well recognized, preferrably standardized. Effect sizes shoul dbe calculated or calculatable from the data. The effect size should preferrably be educationally significant along with being statistically significant.<BR/><BR/>I just want one study. Don't point me to some advocacy paper with dozens of links to non-research. The yoke is on you to prove your position. I'm not going to do your digging for you. <BR/><BR/>If you can't find one for nutritional supplements then find one for some other beneficial social service. I don't care which.<BR/><BR/>AFter you've upheld your end of the bargain then I'll uphold mine.<BR/><BR/>This goes for anyone else who wants to cite research.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-4277180426114938152008-07-27T17:07:00.000-04:002008-07-27T17:07:00.000-04:00Additionally, you dismiss data that shows a high c...<I>Additionally, you dismiss data that shows a high correlation, claiming a need to show causality. As I'm sure you are aware, causality is incredibly hard to pin down when working with both human subjects and large numbers of variables.</I><BR/><BR/>So...we should base public policy on simple correlation? We should commit tax dollars to something that <I>may</I> cause something else because it <I>seems</I> to do so and, by golly, it's just too hard to pin down what with human subjects and variables and all. It's not that the two variables might be affected by a third variable towards which we should direct our dollars. If the policy doesn't work, claim it does anyway, or just claim that it would work if we just had more money. Other people's money, that is.<BR/><BR/>History is rife with examples of such good intentions gone awry. Why, how could helping indigent families by simply tossing money at them fail? After all, wasn't lack of money the problem? If they only had more money they could get back on their feet and make a contribution to society. Such was the welfare state and the near total destruction of the black family was the result, of course.<BR/><BR/>(And, yes, I would like some proof beyond Al Gore's endlessly repeated consensus that global warming is a crisis that we should, or even can, reverse. Yes -- proof of a causal relationship before I haved to shell out endless tax dollars to satisfy yet another leftist lobby. Boy, I wonder what our ancestors did to avoid extinction during previous warming cycles. They didn't even have the benefit of Al Gore!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-33428273756136712172008-07-27T16:35:00.000-04:002008-07-27T16:35:00.000-04:00Eduwonkette,On the pre-K issue, Nobel laureate Jim...Eduwonkette,<BR/><BR/><I>On the pre-K issue, Nobel laureate Jim Heckman, a signer on the statement, has written extensively about the causal impact of pre-K programs on achievement, on issues of scale and pre-K, etc. I believe all of this should be at his webpage.</I><BR/><BR/>It's interesting that you mention Heckman, in that he is a rare bird indeed for he can admit when he is in error. Let's be clear about his position.<BR/><BR/>Recall his scathing <A HREF="http://reason.com/9503/dept.bk.HECKMAN.text.shtml" REL="nofollow">critique</A> of the Bell Curve:<BR/><I><BR/>What little is known indicates that ability--or IQ--is not a fixed trait for the young (persons up to age 8 or so). Herrnstein noted this in IQ and the Meritocracy. Sustained high-intensity investments in the education of young children, including such parental activities as reading and responding to children, stimulate learning and further education. Good environments promote learning for young children at all levels of ability. In this sense, there is fragmentary evidence that enriched education can be a good investment even for children of low initial ability...<BR/><BR/><B>Future research should focus on growth and development in measured ability prior to age 15 (the age of the youngest person in the Murray-Herrnstein sample), because existing research indicates that values are formed and cognition is developed prior to that age.</B><BR/></I><BR/><BR/>So Heckman laid out a research plan for the future. Let's see what he <A HREF="http://www.buildinitiative.org/pdf/Heckman2.pdf" REL="nofollow">thinks</A> a decade later:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Another continuing blind spot in the vision of most educational planners and policy makers is a preoccupation with achievement tests and measures of cognitive skill as indicators of the success of an educational intervention. By narrowly focusing on cognition, they ignore the full array of socially and economically valuable non-cognitive skills and motivation produced by schools, families and other institutions. This emphasis also critically affects the way certain early intervention programs have been evaluated. For example, while <B>enriched early intervention programs do not substantially alter IQ</B>, they do substantially raise the non-cognitive skills and social competence of participants.”...<BR/><BR/>An important lesson to draw from the entire literature on successful early interventions is that <B>it is the social skills and motivation of the child that are more easily altered— not IQ.</B> These social and emotional skills affect performance in school and in the workplace. We too often have a bias toward believing that only cognitive skills are of fundamental importance to success in life.”<BR/></I>TangoManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18228734445464184781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-8296114997781177692008-07-27T16:05:00.000-04:002008-07-27T16:05:00.000-04:00Bill, would you accept the findings that show that...Bill, would you accept the findings that show that DI is an effective method of instruction?<BR/><BR/><BR/>ari-freeAri-freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00846863080189545029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-81086332263663194672008-07-27T12:54:00.000-04:002008-07-27T12:54:00.000-04:00Hello, Ken,There are a few elements to this discus...Hello, Ken,<BR/><BR/>There are a few elements to this discussion -- and your attempts to squeeze it into an artificially narrow frame -- that push this thread away from open discourse and into the realm of demagoguery.<BR/><BR/>First, you attempt to remove the human element from these conversations by reducing the focus to strictly policy. For example, you say in your original post: "Last I checked, schools offer free and reduced price lunches to practically the entire left side of the socio-economic curve. If these kids are still hungry what makes you think that expanding these current programs will solve the problem, to the extent that there even is one."<BR/><BR/>I have looked hungry students in the face as I taught them. In case you have forgotten, there are *real people* who benefit from additional services. Your discussion has yet to include any mention of human and financial cost of not providing services. As to the line of argumentation that school districts should not be providing these services because they are doing a bad job managing education, this line of reasoning makes sense only when you ignore the reality that, for many students, not receiving these services within schools means they won't get them. The argument over who delivers these services is a red herring. Getting people access to quality health care and food is a *good* thing; as a humane society we should support it. As to the extent of the problem, the USDA has been surveying hunger and food insecurity for a while, and a 2006 report found that it affected nearly 11% of households in the US -- the USDA study is here: <BR/><BR/>http://www.ers.usda.gov/<BR/>Briefing/FoodSecurity/<BR/><BR/>and it is also discussed here: <BR/>http://www.frac.org/html/<BR/>hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html<BR/><BR/>And, just to emphasize: if you, or your child, is the one that is hungry, the problem will seem very real. No amount of pretty words will change that.<BR/><BR/>Second, your dismissals of differing viewpoints appear intellectually dishonest. For example, in response to ib shango, you say: "The first link is aposition paper, not research."<BR/><BR/>However, the first link points to this page on the CDC web site: <BR/>http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/<BR/>health_and_academics/index.htm<BR/><BR/>This page contains 32 citations, and is clearly based on research. To dismiss it as a "position paper" without examining -- or even acknowledging -- the cited research, is either lazy, disingenuous, or intellectually dishonest. So, what exactly do you mean when you say, "If you want me to take a look at any of the "research" contained in the first or third papers, please provide a link." -- the poster did provide a link. You didn't acknowledge the research contained within the link.<BR/><BR/>The third link provided by ib shango points to: <BR/>http://www.adcieohost.com/<BR/>nasbhc/downloads/<BR/>PUB_Academic_Outcomes.pdf<BR/><BR/>Page 16 of the paper includes 25 references<BR/><BR/>Additionally, you dismiss data that shows a high correlation, claiming a need to show causality. As I'm sure you are aware, causality is incredibly hard to pin down when working with both human subjects and large numbers of variables. The reasons for pretending otherwise range from simple ignorance to intellectual dishonesty, but regardless, it's an artificially narrow frame that doesn't reflect the complexity of human to human interactions, or the complexity of conducting research on people. What's interesting is that these methodological challenges are clearly described within the paper linked above at PUB_Academic_Outcomes.pdf -- this discussion begins on page 8, and continues for several pages, and provides a good primer on some of the challenges in establishing direct causality. <BR/><BR/>The approach to ignoring data that shows a high correlation aligns neatly with the strategies employed by people who attempted to dismiss global warming. They cited a lack of causal data, and insisted that a high correlation wasn't enough to "prove" anything.<BR/><BR/>But really, to get back to the point: when we talk about services we are talking about real people. Services improve the lives of real people. The majority of the people who are *doing* this work don't have the time to prattle on about it as we do in this thread -- they are trying to stretch resources to help people. So please, as we continue to attempt to score rhetorical points over one another, let's not forget that there are people who need and deserve better. This conversation does nothing to improve the world around us -- and truly, I feel a sense of regret for wasting the time I have spent here replying to this thread.<BR/><BR/>BillDoot-de-doohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09566914617392278380noreply@blogger.com