EGDP 2009. Reasonable doubt (I). already commented above that the Ministry has published a report on the Diagnostic Evaluation of Primary General 2009, the first of its kind to be held in our country. The approach to evaluation is not wrong, but you are missing a greater impact on issues such as the functioning of the heart, the characteristics of directors or which approach classes are taught by teachers. The evaluation seems to have the required technical level (although there are a couple of things I have to look closely to make sure), but it seems clear that the published report no.
is a report that could pass as one of the first results, but as the final report-and, remember, without any revision, the Appraisal Institute does not disclose the microdata from simple evaluations political veto is a joke . There is an evaluation report of the education system is a policy justification report and hide the head in the sand: the politics to justify is the the ministry, of course, and you have to hide so much and affect so many people, politicians from various parties, of popes English education, faculties of education, which would start and not stop.
One problem the report is the treatment they deserve the external conditions affecting education. Is an important issue, widely studied in recent decades, but at this point the weight attached to them (more than half of the analysis of the report) is absurd. At this point, socioeconomic factors surrounding the students have demonstrated their importance and necessary measure, but they are things that an education policy can hardly be changed. It is time-and more influence on national review "in policies and their effects on schools, culture center, management director, in the work of teachers in the effects of certain measures of students. And that, little.
As there is much to tell, inaugurated here the first chapter on the reasonable doubts aroused by the report. And start with the treatment given to the role of cultural and socioeconomic index (ISEC) on performance, the section entitled "autonomous communities ISEC and the cities of Ceuta and Melilla "(pp. 125-129). Is a key point for the report because it is the justification for the importance of ISEC on performance, but not addressed anywhere. For example, we know what percentage of the variation in results explains the ISEC: the report does not say which is the R2 from ISEC for students and their performance. Neither total nor autonomous. Yes
does two things to justify the importance of ISEC, but none served. First, Table 4.1, actually four tables to explain the differences in performance of the CCAA if they all had the same ISEC. Very nice, but not the R2 and also the report says the following:
"However, to correctly interpret these data [Table 4.1] should be noted that the differences between the average (first column) and the average detracting from the ISEC (third column) are not significant in most cases ; in these regions can not, therefore, ensure that the average increase or decrease by discounting the effect of socioeconomic and cultural level. The differences are significant in Cantabria, Ceuta and Melilla in all competitions, in Madrid in communication skills and mathematical language, and Aragon in the competition in knowledge and interaction with the physical world. "
Come on, that without significance is difficult for us to believe the importance of ISEC.
The second is a regression between the average performance of the regions and their average ISEC. Here it is "agreed" to put the R2, which is considerably high when the results in reading and math: a 0.63 in the first case and 0.69 in the second. No less that 63 and 69% of the variance in performance between the Autonomous Communities ISEC explains. Why keep looking? Nothing we do our leaders suffered autonomic lead to anything, because the results will depend on the ISEC half, something that is difficult to change.
Fortunately, that's not true. Then I put the chart in a serious analysis should be found. And, of course, not the importance accorded to it (just put the one for reading):
is basically the same graph, but showing the weight of the two most influential, Ceuta and Melilla. These two autonomous cities schooled to 0.47% of students in 4 th grade in Spain, and yet are responsible for the R2 rises from 0.36 to 0.63 in Reading, and a 0.49 a 0.70 in mathematics. If 0.47% of the students can increase by more than 20 points explanation model, it seems that the more water than the Titanic.
Then in the report are allowed to say:
"The distribution of student scores shows that the social, economic and cultural influences in a remarkable way"
Which no doubt. But, of course, the report is far from showing it. And besides, I would like to know how much is "so good". And the report does not say is, at least, curious. I feel so eager to technical issues that are not available to everyone, but I'm a little tired of that education policies, the famous
Covenant is a good example-are based on beliefs and not data, media studies hair and not on rigorous analysis.
taurine hour
