Well, school’s about to start and I’m two thirds of a way through a piece that I probably won’t finish for a while, and I’ve decided I need something longer than Twitter but shorter than the usual me to send out when people are being annoying.
So let’s call this the reverse drinking game post. Every time someone doesn’t mention cognitive ability while discussing student outcomes, go grab a beer.
So for example, Michael Petrilli writes about the problem of proficiency:
Proficiency rates are terrible measures of school effectiveness. As any graduate student will tell you, those rates mostly reflect a school’s demographics.
Grab a beer.
When Checker Finn rebuts Petrilli, saying:
One more point: Mike began his argument with the assumption that many schools have scads of entering pupils who are already far below “proficiency” when they arrive. He had in mind middle and high schools—and there is no doubt that many such schools do indeed face a large remediation challenge with incoming eleven- through fourteen-year-olds who have already been gypped educationally in the early grades.
Crack one open.
When Richard Venning writes:
The inconvenient truth I describe below is that when we benchmark academic growth rates, the best velocity is often not adequate to catch kids up to college and career readiness within a reasonable time.
and
However, far too many schools also have students in poverty making low-growth rates, where they progress more slowly than their advantaged peers and that is not acceptable.
Grab two beers. Three, if you spot: “Among students that score in the bottom performance level in Colorado, the percent making adequate growth is in the single digits. The statewide goal is 100 percent. Schools with top statewide velocity for low-income students are not moving kids to proficiency within three years—and Colorado is not alone.”
When Rick Hess, Rishawn Biddle, Michael Brickman talk about lowered AP scores, the importance of entrance standards vs. the importance of high expectations, go grab a whole sixpack. Or maybe some single malt scotch.
When Jason Bedrick, Michael Petrilli, or Andrew Rotherham sneer at the public schools “failing children”, it’s time to bend an elbow.
When the primary ed school credentialing organization proudly announces that it is raising the bar on “teacher quality”, when everyone goes all atwitter about Jason Richwine‘s work on teacher cognitive ability (before he broke the rules on Hispanic cognitive ability), ask yourself why so many people are willing to discuss the impact of teacher cognitive ability on academic achievement (you mostly have to squint to find any ) but never mention student cognitive ability. But do it before you get a beer, because I find, at least, that I often start banging my head in annoyance and it’s best to do that unarmed.
When people say that income matters more than race to academic achievement, tell them they are lying or misinformed on your way to the fridge.
Tweet or email whenever you spot an opportunity to play.
Hey. Under 500 words! A new record.
August 22nd, 2013 at 2:31 pm
I don’t like beer.
August 22nd, 2013 at 3:33 pm
How many beers in this article
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-c1-cal-freshmen-20130816-dto,0,4673807.htmlstory
August 22nd, 2013 at 4:08 pm
People are scared of reality. That is why people refuse to acknowledge that schools are only as good as the quality of their students.
August 22nd, 2013 at 10:44 pm
You’ve got it all wrong. It isn’t about student or teacher cognitive ability, it’s about legislator and school board member cognitive ability.
August 23rd, 2013 at 12:31 am
I’m drunk!
August 24th, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Don’t forget this one:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/the-smartest-kids-in-the-world-live-chat
August 26th, 2013 at 12:28 pm
drink.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/08/hanushek_on_edu_3.html
August 27th, 2013 at 3:11 am
If I were in a better mood, this would make me laugh. But now it just makes me sad.
September 2nd, 2013 at 4:49 am
The STEM Crisis is a Myth
Does not mention cognitive ability at all as far as I can see.
What the tech companies want is people with high IQ and high conscientiousness, but they cannot say that. They need people at two and above SDs, but only about 2.2% are above 2SDs and only 0.1% are at 3SDs and above (probably less now with that influx of lower IQ types from South of the border.) Then, of course, they need the conscientiousness.
The article claims that some 5% have STEM degrees but we do not have 5% of our people above 2SDs.
Because the tech companies cannot talk about cognitive ability they have to bullshit about the need for more people with STEM degrees.
October 31st, 2013 at 9:53 am
[…] ability and student outcomes is twitchy and unreliable. All research continues to play the Reverse Drinking Game and ignore student cognitive ability. Math professors assure us that the only difference between […]