Re: goebbels/greene

[aburke5054@aol.com]

Please.  Comparing Greene to Goebbels is warped.  There is no other 
word for it, there is no excuse for it, and no discouse about education 
benefits from it.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: GERALD BRACEY <gbracey1@verizon.net>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:25:51 -0400
Subject: [arn-l] goebbels/greene

 Art,

 Happy to see you've got such a memory. Well, Goebbels fomented hatred 
against Jews by repeating lies over and over. If you've actually read 
the Greene piece and his other works you'll see that Greene is 
fomenting hatred against public schools by repeating lies over an over 
like, "Economist Eric Hanushek of Stanford University examined every 
solid study on spending and outcomes--a total of 163 research 
papers--and concluded that extra resources are more likely to be 
squandered than to have a productive effect."

 1. Hanushek never used a word like "squandered" nor did he intimate 
anything like it through innuendo.

 2. The studies were not "solid" and many of them had nothing to do 
with extra spending, per se. If we applied NCLB's criteria for SBR, I 
doubt even one would be acceptable. Consider titles like Student 
Perceptions, IQ and Achievement; Instructor Effects in Economics in 
Elementary and Junior High Schools; School District Leave Policies, 
Teacher Absenteeism, and Student Achievement; Selectivity Bias and the 
Determinants of SAT scores (The SAT is a measure of achievement???).

 3. Hanushek's conclusion was totally arbitrary and he didn't say how 
he made his decision. 38 of the studies were positive and 16 were 
negative (only three significantly negative). If there's no systematic 
relationship, then positive and negative should be nearly equal (there 
weren't 163 studies in the original analysis).

 4. His analysis is for LEVEL of Achievement but his policy 
recommendations are illogical-- they're for INCREASES in 
Achievement--money is more tightly linked to increases, but he has only 
level data.

 5. His method is, to use a favorite Art word, wacky (I). He used a 
primitive vote counting technique which absolutely prevented him from 
finding a "strong" relationship.

 6. His method is wacky (II). He counted every single comparison. Of 
the 122 estimates generated, 48 came from just two studies, The merits 
of a longer school day" and "Classmate Effects on Black Student 
Achievement." Think they meet anyone's criteria for "Scientifically 
Based Research?" or "Solid?"

 7. He has steadfastly refused to put the results from Project STAR 
(Tennessee small class study) into his analysis. Why? He says because 
it didn't control for background characteristics. Well, duh, Ric, the 
kids and teachers in each building were randomly assigned--you don't 
need those controls. I say he won't use it because, using his counting 
techniques, Project Star alone would generate 400 estimates and reverse 
his conclusion. (If you use a more justifiable approach of one estimate 
per study, his conclusion is also reversed).

 And now Jay comes along and writes his general statement of 
horsehockey above as if these problems didn't demolish Hanushek's 
claims. Jay is too smart not to know that he is lying.

 You can only do that if you subordinate facts to an ideological and 
political agenda.

Goebbels, I say, Goebbels.

Jerry



________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email 
and IM. All on demand. Always Free.