tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post981395373617598867..comments2024-03-26T14:44:37.985-04:00Comments on D-Ed Reckoning: WaPo Colors outside the linesKDeRosahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-21736393539213986632008-03-12T22:09:00.000-04:002008-03-12T22:09:00.000-04:00Before I get too bogged down responding to your so...Before I get too bogged down responding to your sophistry let me address the major point of contention. The WaPo journalist could have and should have written a more factually accurate, less misleading, less slanted, and more honest piece by substituting a few words:<BR/><BR/>"It was all art, all morning at the Montgomery County school, casting a local spotlight on a national reality: that art is [sometimes, occaisonally, increasingly] squeezed out of the curriculum by the academic rigors of the No Child Left Behind law.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>Her sentiments echoed a report released last month by the Washington-based Center on Education Policy, which found that [some, a few, a small percentage] elementary schools across the country have allotted more time to reading and math by cutting time for social studies, science, art and physical education."<BR/><BR/>All of those words are accurate and present a fair interpretation of the data. Unlike "many" which connotes a "large number of" and "often" which connotes "frequently" to the general reader not inclined to actually search for read the underlying report.<BR/><BR/>There is no reliable baseline pre-NCLB data that supports a comparative interpretation of "often" and "many" which permits a usage, as you propose, in which a small number/infrequent qualifies as many/frequent.<BR/><BR/>You resort to an extreme example, the only kind of example, that supports your argument. But, the facts of the article are not comparable to your example. Hence, your need to resort to arguing by analogy.<BR/><BR/>In the absence of special circumstances, the dictionary meaning should be prevail for the general reader rather than your contrived usage.<BR/><BR/>Now let's mop up the minor points.<BR/><BR/>With respect to your analogy arfument, I was equating "mass changes to curriculum" a perennial and highly disruptive event in schools that is surely on par with and at times contains changes in instructional times. So, I did address your analogy properly, though you may disagree with the merits of that argument.<BR/><BR/>With respect to my informal survey/poll, this is a perfectly legitimate argument since it addresses the interpretation of the disputed words by people like those who would read the article. I never claimed the results were representative of all readers or statistically signifcant.<BR/><BR/>With respect to me "agenda," it is to point out and corect out misleading and biased journalism like the instant article.<BR/><BR/><I>It may be the case that too much time was spent on art. This does not change the fact that the curriculum reform "often" resulted in arts classes being canceled.</I><BR/><BR/>The point is: who cares given that instructional time varies in each school anyway and that it does matter if too much time ws being spent on art classes-- a point taht is unknown and highly relevant the the merits of the underlying argument. And, you need to get your facts staright: art classes weren't getting cancelled, instructional time was being reduced (50 odd minutes on average -- and that includes music class) in a handful of schools (see I can play that game too).<BR/><BR/><I>There is not evidence to support this [low academic performance] conclusion.</I><BR/><BR/>Sure there is. See my latest post on at-risk black kids in PA.<BR/><BR/><I>Untested, and unreported, is the likely corresponding decline in the subjects that were not taught.</I><BR/><BR/>The NAEP data contradicts this conjecture.<BR/><BR/><I>And therefore, we cannot make the case that "academic performance" improved, and therefore, "academic performance" does not provide evidence for your assertion.<BR/><BR/>For those who are keeping track, this is a fallacy of substitution: providing figures that describe A in an attempt to establish a fact about B.</I><BR/><BR/>This is lawyers say that you never ask a question you don't know the answer to. Often you wind up looking like a fool. As is the case here. Again, check the NAEP data for history and science for all grades across the board.<BR/><BR/>With respect to school expenditures, there is ample longitudinal data that school expenditures have been raising at a reate greater than inflation for at least the past 30 years. This is across the board and on all levels including capital, operation, and instructional spending. Which is to say, any area that any teacher in any school could possibly be referring to. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.<BR/><BR/><I>Your supposition involves a PRESUMPTION of dishonesty on the part of the teacher.</I><BR/><BR/>No, I wrote "either a) misinformed, b) lying, or c) both" -- point b does not require a presumption of dishonesty.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-10806568625281241832008-03-12T13:06:00.000-04:002008-03-12T13:06:00.000-04:00> In the context of school curricular reform, mass...> In the context of school curricular reform, mass changes to curriculum occur much more frequently than the incidence of punches to noses.<BR/><BR/>First of all... so what?<BR/><BR/>Second of all... is this even true? <BR/><BR/>And third... you are doing what you do so well, comparing the wrong things.<BR/><BR/>The analogy I offered has the form a:b is like c:d (curricular reform:cancellation of art is like passing people:being punched).<BR/><BR/>The appropriate comparison is either the antecedent (a compared to c) or the consequent (b compared to d). Comparing a to d (curricular reform - being punched in the nose) is a fallacious criticism. It is not a valid way to criticize metaphors.<BR/><BR/>Again - YOU know this, what you are hoping is that your readers won't know this. <BR/> <BR/>It gets my gander up when people knowingly and deliberately commit errors of reasoning in order to score rhetorical points.<BR/><BR/><BR/>> Notwithstanding the context argument, the exact figure from the report was easily obtainable and should have ben given so that readers could determine what the author meant by "many" or "often."<BR/><BR/>Why? The uses of 'many' and 'often' are not misleading. They are accurate and easily accessible ways of describing the result, without bogging the reader down in uninterpreted numbers.<BR/><BR/>> My informal survery reveals that most people think that in this context those words mean a majority of schools.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, this is you using a very narrow and unrepresentative data set and representing it as evidence again.<BR/><BR/>Again - since you KNOW this is a fallacious for of reasoning, I can only infer that you are doing it deliberately.<BR/><BR/>Which to me raises the far more interesting question: WHY are you so intent on misleading your readers in this way?<BR/><BR/>What's the agenda? What's the point? <BR/><BR/>But you never talk about this.<BR/><BR/>> Except that it assumes that "the optimal mix of subjects and time" were already in place before NCLB, <BR/><BR/>Not so.<BR/><BR/>It may be the case that too much time was spent on art. This does not change the fact that the curriculum reform "often" resulted in arts classes being canceled.<BR/><BR/>> Clearly that was not the case based on academic performance, so your conclusion does not stand.<BR/><BR/>There is not evidence to support this conclusion.<BR/><BR/>At the very best, the evidence would say that performance in math and language improved.<BR/><BR/>Untested, and unreported, is the likely corresponding decline in the subjects that were not taught.<BR/><BR/>We have no way of knowing whether improvements (if any) in math and language offset losses in other subjects.<BR/><BR/>And therefore, we cannot make the case that "academic performance" improved, and therefore, "academic performance" does not provide evidence for your assertion.<BR/><BR/>For those who are keeping track, this is a fallacy of substitution: providing figures that describe A in an attempt to establish a fact about B.<BR/><BR/>Another common fallacy,and again, probably deliberate.<BR/><BR/>> A fine display of cherry-picked data, Stephen.<BR/><BR/>May be so. But there is no reason to suppose that *this* was the data alluded to when the people were making their remarks.<BR/><BR/>You are representing people of speaking about A when there is evidence that suggests that they were probably speaking about B.<BR/><BR/>> we see the same rising trend as total expenditures....<BR/><BR/>As a WHOLE, over the LONG TERM.<BR/><BR/>Unless you can show that they were speaking of the whole over the long term, you have utterly no basis for making the very scathing remarks that you made.<BR/><BR/>> These are the things the teacher was no doubt talking about.<BR/><BR/>On what evidence do you offer this? None. <BR/><BR/>Rather - it somehow makes more sense for you to assume that the teacher was talking about something that was increasing, knowing that it was increasing, and saying that it was decreasing.<BR/><BR/>People lie, sure - but seldom so blatantly and so badly.<BR/><BR/>Your supposition involves a PRESUMPTION of dishonesty on the part of the teacher.<BR/><BR/>This again, suggests to me that you have no intent to express the state of affairs factually and honestly, and instead are manipulating quotes, facts and statistics in order to mislead and confuse people.<BR/><BR/>Shame.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-76257405842320996062008-03-08T05:47:00.000-05:002008-03-08T05:47:00.000-05:00The "art" part of each night's homework assignment...<I>The "art" part of each night's homework assignment takes an inordinate amount of time with little instructional pay-off, at least in mathematics.</I><BR/><BR/>And don't you remind <I>me</I>, either. My bulletin boards are due to be updated soon and I have to come up with some cockamamie project artistic enough for display. I think I'll have my best, most attentive class waste their time doing it. At least that will minimize the number of crayons launched across the room.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-10979230828064048092008-03-07T08:05:00.000-05:002008-03-07T08:05:00.000-05:00Don't remind me.The "art" part of each night's hom...Don't remind me.<BR/><BR/>The "art" part of each night's homework assignment takes an inordinate amount of time with little instructional pay-off, at least in mathematics.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-85905394253782081542008-03-07T07:58:00.000-05:002008-03-07T07:58:00.000-05:00Believe me, the students are getting plenty of art...Believe me, the students are getting plenty of art instruction. You know, cut paper, colored pencils, sketching.... <BR/><BR/>Oh wait, that's Everyday Math....<BR/><BR/>heh. heh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-15417018113399131902008-03-06T17:10:00.000-05:002008-03-06T17:10:00.000-05:00As a musician and composer, I can say that trading...As a musician and composer, I can say that trading some time teaching music for time teaching reading, assuming they're actually teaching reading, is a perfectly OK tradeoff. <BR/><BR/>Why? Because one can't perform written sheet music without being able to read. One's decoding skills have to be good enough to recognize words from English, Italian, French, and German. <BR/><BR/>I'm looking at a piece right now that has the following words on it, just on the first line: Trompete, Langsam, Con Sordino, crescendo, Senza Sordino<BR/><BR/>If I couldn't read those words, I wouldn't be able to play the music, even if I could perfectly execute the instructions encoded on the staff itself.<BR/><BR/>Music and art are valuable for both the heart and mind, but reading and math are necessary for success in anything, including music and art. (Before you say anything, finger painting and other such free-form activites, while diverting, don't count in the serious study of art.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-77011506587121222942008-03-06T15:33:00.000-05:002008-03-06T15:33:00.000-05:00Stephen, why do you bother to make criticisms that...Stephen, why do you bother to make criticisms that are so easily refuted. Though, admittedly, I am impressed by your ability to be consistently the first commenter to make those criticisms.<BR/><BR/>In the context of school curricular reform, mass changes to curriculum occur much more frequently than the incidence of punches to noses.<BR/><BR/>Notwithstanding the context argument, the exact figure from the report was easily obtainable and should have ben given so that readers could determine what the author meant by "many" or "often." My informal survery reveals that most people think that in this context those words mean a majority of schools.<BR/><BR/><I>This would suggest that the Washington Post article was fundamentally accurate.</I><BR/><BR/>Except that it assumes that "the optimal mix of subjects and time" were already in place before NCLB, Clearly that was not the case based on academic performance, so your conclusion does not stand.<BR/><BR/><I>All of these - *combined* with a diversion of funding from arts, social studies, and science to math and English, could very well lead a teacher quite reasonably to attribute the decline to budget cuts.</I><BR/><BR/>A fine display of cherry-picked data, Stephen.<BR/><BR/>Of course when we look at money going to classroom, instruction, instructional support, and pupil support, we see the same rising trend as total expenditures. These are the things the teacher was no doubt talking about.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-64491890836162799292008-03-06T15:02:00.000-05:002008-03-06T15:02:00.000-05:00The argument that 16 percent does not constitute "...The argument that 16 percent does not constitute "often" is spurious and misleading.<BR/><BR/>If 16 percent of the people you meet in a day punched you in the nose, you'd say it happened "often".<BR/><BR/>Rather than be misdirected by your interpretation of the report, let's look at what the authors actually conclude:<BR/><BR/>"Taken together, tables 1 through 5 indicate that since NCLB took effect, relatively large shifts have occurred at the elementary level in the amount of instructional time allotted for <BR/>various subjects in a large number of districts. Forty-four percent of all districts nationwide have added time for English language arts and/or math, at the expense of social studies, science, art and music, physical education, recess, or lunch. Where these changes have <BR/>occurred, the magnitude is large, typically amounting to cuts in other subjects of 75 minutes per week or more."<BR/><BR/>This would suggest that the Washington Post article was fundamentally accurate.<BR/><BR/>Similarly misleading is your response to a teacher who attributes the decline in the teaching of arts to budget cuts.<BR/><BR/>Nobody would expect actual overall expenditures on education to decrease in a region like Montgomery County, where more than 40 percent of households make more than $100K per year, well above the state average.<BR/><BR/>It is unreasonable to expect the teacher to be making a blanket statement about county funding as a whole over a 5 year period.<BR/><BR/>If you look at the figures in detail, you can see justification for such a remark. For example, if you look at the 'new money' table, you see a significant decrease in pupil support in 2003-4, and a similarly large decrease in instructional staff support in 2004-5. Notwithstanding that these cuts were offset by increases in other years, there was nonetheless a significant decrease in funding in some areas at some times.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, if we look at the 'compensation' table, we see compensation falling in 2006 as a percentage of core funding. We see salaries dropping significantly as a percentage of total compensation. We see 'instructional staff support' dropping by more than 30 percent over 2005-2006.<BR/><BR/>All of these - *combined* with a diversion of funding from arts, social studies, and science to math and English, could very well lead a teacher quite reasonably to attribute the decline to budget cuts.<BR/><BR/>It is simply irresponsible to state that "Whenever some educator claims that there's been budget cuts you can rest assured they are either a) misinformed, b) lying, or c) both." This presupposes that there are never budget cuts - which is proven to be false, even in the statistics you adduce to support your case. <BR/><BR/>If you had actually taken the time to study the statistics, you would see that most of the putative 'increase' is taken up in capital expenses, while at the same time operating expenses, taken as a whole, decreased from 2005-2006, from almost 90 percent of funding, to just under 83 percent of funding. That's a huge difference, and it is beyond ungenerous to attribute the teacher's remarks to lying or misinformation.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, the tone of this post as a whole demonstrates no interest in being fair to either the teachers in question or to the author of the article.<BR/><BR/>One wonders what the point of such a post is. It so scantly - and inaccurately - refers to the facts of the matter that it certainly cannot have been to set the record straight.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.com