Studies on "integrated schools"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, did I wake up in 1957?

The discussion is about economic integration.

Not only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, did I wake up in 1957?

The discussion is about economic integration.

Not only.

So?

The discussion is about many of the so-called "studies" not really being rigorous.

It is not about whether "integrated schools" are good or bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, did I wake up in 1957?

The discussion is about economic integration.

Not only.

So?

The discussion is about many of the so-called "studies" not really being rigorous.

It is not about whether "integrated schools" are good or bad.

Define "rigorous", please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, did I wake up in 1957?

The discussion is about economic integration.

Not only.

So?

The discussion is about many of the so-called "studies" not really being rigorous.

It is not about whether "integrated schools" are good or bad.

Define "rigorous", please.

The OP already explained why they are not. If you believe they are, you can state your reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, did I wake up in 1957?

The discussion is about economic integration.

Not only.

So?

The discussion is about many of the so-called "studies" not really being rigorous.

It is not about whether "integrated schools" are good or bad.

Define "rigorous", please.

The OP already explained why they are not. If you believe they are, you can state your reasons.

Did the OP explain what IS a rigorous study, or just reasons why the ones they cited are not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, did I wake up in 1957?

The discussion is about economic integration.

Not only.

So?

The discussion is about many of the so-called "studies" not really being rigorous.

It is not about whether "integrated schools" are good or bad.

Define "rigorous", please.

The OP already explained why they are not. If you believe they are, you can state your reasons.

Did the OP explain what IS a rigorous study, or just reasons why the ones they cited are not?

If you want to say these are (or what are) rigorous studies, then you might want to do that. I don't see a reason for the OP to do your job for you (of course you may prefer someone doing it for you?)

[Anonymous]

boundary studies = "integration" = busing

Says who?

Now, as it happens, there actually is a boundary study going on - the Clarksburg/Seneca Valley/Northwest boundary study. And, as it happens, several of the options include rezoning kids FROM wealthy (or non-poor) white areas TO a low-income school. Since these kids are already taking buses to school, I wouldn't call it busing. Not to mention that in most of the options, the low-income school is geographically the closest.

The BOE and MCPS does have a pattern of floating out their latest grand idea, getting a "study" done that says exactly what they want it to say, collecting feedback then dumping it in the trash can, holding a dog and pony show, developing some PR spin by getting local coverage of only their position and then doing it. Afterwards, they duck and cover and years later when its all a failure pretending that no one is accountable. Its a pattern folks.

The word study in reference to what the BOE is doing is really a misnomer. It is not an independent study and will not follow any methodology, It isn't designed to find knowledge. Its a consultant's report. Anyone who has been in the upper level of any large organization knows that a consultant's report says what the person driving it wants it to say. This is the purpose of a consultant's report. Its to make the case to leadership or provide political cover for larger initiatives that the staff within the organization are not trusted or able to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, did I wake up in 1957?

The discussion is about economic integration.

Not only.

So?

The discussion is about many of the so-called "studies" not really being rigorous.

It is not about whether "integrated schools" are good or bad.

Define "rigorous", please.

The OP already explained why they are not. If you believe they are, you can state your reasons.

Did the OP explain what IS a rigorous study, or just reasons why the ones they cited are not?

DP: just look up "evidence-based practice."

The standards are pretty clear

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DP: just look up "evidence-based practice."

The standards are pretty clear

That's for medicine. Are you ok with it if we include your children, at school, as test subjects in experimental studies like that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP: just look up "evidence-based practice."

The standards are pretty clear

That's for medicine. Are you ok with it if we include your children, at school, as test subjects in experimental studies like that?

For medicine? That is a commonly accepted practice for scientific activities, why single out medicine?

As for the rest - if you can't find out what kind of studies can be considered rigorous concerning schools, that is fine. Why would others want to help you find evidence based on "rigorous" studies? If you don't (have it), we just point out that you don't. Very simple, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP: just look up "evidence-based practice."

The standards are pretty clear

That's for medicine. Are you ok with it if we include your children, at school, as test subjects in experimental studies like that?

For medicine? That is a commonly accepted practice for scientific activities, why single out medicine?

As for the rest - if you can't find out what kind of studies can be considered rigorous concerning schools, that is fine. Why would others want to help you find evidence based on "rigorous" studies? If you don't (have it), we just point out that you don't. Very simple, isn't it?

Good grief. You're getting more-scientific-than-thou at anonymous posters on an Internet message board. It's a simple question - what kind of studies in education would be "rigorous" studies? OP brought up rigorous studies; OP can answer the question, or not, as OP wishes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP: just look up "evidence-based practice."

The standards are pretty clear

That's for medicine. Are you ok with it if we include your children, at school, as test subjects in experimental studies like that?

Oh my.

Nope, that's not just for medicine. Look it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP: just look up "evidence-based practice."

The standards are pretty clear

That's for medicine. Are you ok with it if we include your children, at school, as test subjects in experimental studies like that?

Oh my.

Nope, that's not just for medicine. Look it up.

Kids. Yours. Experimental test subjects. In school. You ok with it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP: just look up "evidence-based practice."

The standards are pretty clear

That's for medicine. Are you ok with it if we include your children, at school, as test subjects in experimental studies like that?

For medicine? That is a commonly accepted practice for scientific activities, why single out medicine?

As for the rest - if you can't find out what kind of studies can be considered rigorous concerning schools, that is fine. Why would others want to help you find evidence based on "rigorous" studies? If you don't (have it), we just point out that you don't. Very simple, isn't it?

Apparently only those who wish to prove a point, needs to find rigorous studies (as evidence). Do you? If not, why keep asking others about it?



Good grief. You're getting more-scientific-than-thou at anonymous posters on an Internet message board. It's a simple question - what kind of studies in education would be "rigorous" studies? OP brought up rigorous studies; OP can answer the question, or not, as OP wishes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For medicine? That is a commonly accepted practice for scientific activities, why single out medicine?

As for the rest - if you can't find out what kind of studies can be considered rigorous concerning schools, that is fine. Why would others want to help you find evidence based on "rigorous" studies? If you don't (have it), we just point out that you don't. Very simple, isn't it?

Good grief. You're getting more-scientific-than-thou at anonymous posters on an Internet message board. It's a simple question - what kind of studies in education would be "rigorous" studies? OP brought up rigorous studies; OP can answer the question, or not, as OP wishes.

Apparently only those who wish to prove a point, need to find rigorous studies (as evidence). Do you? If not, why keep asking others about it?