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.
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 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.
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?
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?
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?
Anonymous wrote:
DP: just look up "evidence-based practice."
The standards are pretty clear
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, did I wake up in 1957?
The discussion is about economic integration.
Not only.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sorry, did I wake up in 1957?
The discussion is about economic integration.