I love it when people actually look at the data when considering how to assess arguments based on some data set or another, like this one (archived) that says, in part, "33 percent of eighth graders are reading at a level that is 'below basic' ... That is the highest share of students unable to meaningfully read since 1992." So, we have data about a similar cohort? "This seems like a perfect chance to do a little research. After all, those low scoring children of 1992 and 2000 are now grown up. Class of 1992 would be about 45 now, and the sad non-readers of 2000 would be about 34." Now we can't "dismiss the possibility that these low-scoring readers did not in fact suffer consequences." After all, "both cohorts would have been old enough to vote in the 2016 and 2024 elections." But putting taht on this specific cohort seems a little harsh. More likely, we should conclude that "Back in 1992 we had the lowest NAEP reading scores ever and that was followed by life going on as before. Those low scores didn't signal a damned thing."
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
