Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (201631)	9/23/2023 8:57:33 AM
From: Julius Wong	2 Recommendations Recommended By marcher Pogeu Mahone Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217786

In Hong Kong teachers are highly respected and good salary. In US teachers are not respected and low salary.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (201631)	9/23/2023 11:32:38 AM
From: ggersh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217786

R's have tried and succeeded in destroying public education since the way back when chronicle.com

To: TobagoJack who wrote (201631)	9/23/2023 2:39:38 PM
From: marcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217786

yep, 20+ years of neofolk leadership has destroyed public education. one neoliberal trick/gaming mechanism is numbers play... and in public ed, state academic achievement test scores/numbers are the shell in the shell game: youtube.com yes, it's a con. most folks believe a construct like 'math proficiency' is a stable, consistent target, however: "...individual states determine criteria for 'proficiency' according to their own tests..." publicschoolreview.com as well, states are known to adjust the criteria for 'proficiency' over time. so, the criteria for 'proficiency' may increase or decrease each year. the cons know this. so, the base conclusion of folks is inaccurate, as they assume 'math proficiency' is a stable construct, something someone can zero in on and use for judgment. however, 'math proficiency' is a flexible notion, varying from state to state, and leads to faulty 'apples to oranges' comparisons. the cons know this. to add to the con, there is considerable confusion as to whether 'proficiency' = 'grade level' as suggested by the papst article. however, the national assessment governing board posts: ”... State assessment systems may use the terms “proficient” and “proficiency,” but there is wide variation in how states define proficient, e.g.,equivalent to grade-level performance OR a description of what students already know..." nagb.gov because of the shell gaming, interpreting math scores within any u.s. state requires a great deal of work. to start, one would need to evaluate the construction of the math test, the types of items, the guiding educational standards, the test administration standards, the demographics of the standardization population, etc. then, one would need to evaluate the conditions in which the test was administered (each high school) and whether the testing standards were followed or violated. evaluation should also consider how the educational context changes overtime, e.g., how covid19 remote-learning affected educational progress. maybe the most significant 'game' by the cons, however, is misevaluation of demographic variables, e.g. ethnicity, poverty/wealth, language proficiency, etc. comparisons within each demographic subgroup is essential information. honest interpretation of u.s. standardized test scores has been replaced by neofolk gaming and its corresponding fakenews, unfortunately. aera.net journals.sagepub.com nepc.colorado.edu