When using ACT scores to grade Gross et al.'s report card , I used the letter grade for comparison. However, the letter grades bundle 50 scores into five groups. Thus, I went back and used the actual "Average Raw Scores" for each state. The reviewers looked at 23 criteria, each worth 3 points. This means the maximum score was 69. Here are the results of comparing the average raw scores from Gross et al.'s report to the state's respective science ACT scores:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
December 9th, 2005 at 8:36 pm
When Data Collide with Dogma
MikeGene at Telic Thoughts plots the states' average ACT scores vs. the grades they received from the Fordham Foundation. You should find, if the Fordham Foundation's report is relevant, a scatter plot with a highly sloped line of best fit. But you d…
Trackback by He Lives — December 9, 2005 @ 8:36 pm
December 10th, 2005 at 12:04 am
I should point out that their report is not bad. After all, they are also critical of the educational fads such as "inquiry-based" learning, having students "discover" instead of being taught, and mutlicultural approaches. Clearly, they take many swipes at "Intelligent Design Creationism," but this is what we expect from Paul Gross. Anyway, I'm just pointing out that unless you are a bureaucrat or politician, these grades don't seem to mean much.
Comment by MikeGene — December 10, 2005 @ 12:04 am
December 10th, 2005 at 2:50 am
What is the correlation coefficient? It looks like it might be slightly negative.
Comment by ragesoss — December 10, 2005 @ 2:50 am
December 10th, 2005 at 4:04 am
Why compare with total ACT scores, instead of the science component?
And, if the Fordham Foundation report were inaccurate, wouldn't it be likely that ACT scores over time would be a better measure? How are the ACT math scores since 1960?
What is it you have against high academic standards? Why shouldn't even fundamentalist kids have an understanding of biology, especially Darwinian theory, since it's the consensus best explanation available? In what other endeavor are critics encouraged to be ignorant of the reigning thought?
Comment by edarrell — December 10, 2005 @ 4:04 am
December 10th, 2005 at 8:35 am
ragesoss,
Very perceptive. r= -0.19252
Comment by MikeGene — December 10, 2005 @ 8:35 am
December 10th, 2005 at 8:47 am
Ed:
If you bothered to read both blogs, you would have known that I was using the science component. But why read something you are criticizing, right?
I didn't say the report was inaccurate. I'm questioning the fundamental assumption that motivates the report. Gross et al. write:
It sounds good. But is this belief backed up by evidence? If the ACT scores are a significant metric, it looks like delivering a good education has little to do with the bureaucrats' standards.
Now that's an illuminating response. I present Ed with data that conflict with his perspective on the world and he reacts by attacking me. No, Ed, I'm not "against high academic standards." I'm questioning a core assumption.
Comment by MikeGene — December 10, 2005 @ 8:47 am
December 10th, 2005 at 10:05 am
State Science Standards vs. ACT Scores
(Science booster) Paul Gross and The Fordham Foundation (a public education think tank that promotes charter schools) released a report on state science standards, grading each state, with evolution sub-scores. But, as it turns out, these grades of t…
Trackback by Ragesoss 2.02 — December 10, 2005 @ 10:05 am
December 11th, 2005 at 5:32 am
I think MikeGene's point is that a state can have high academic standards (resulting in higher test scores) without teaching evolution the way the study in question wants it taught. This brings into question a core claim of Darwinism, that it makes sense of everything in biology. Apparently one doesn't need pro-Darwinian instruction to be strongly grounded in science.
Comment by jasonng — December 11, 2005 @ 5:32 am
December 28th, 2005 at 3:40 am
Hmmm. Machine hiccups, I presume. My post in this thread was intended for the other thread on ACT scores. And my post has been garbled. I did not write "science component." Those ain't my words. I was referring to the math section.
Very odd.
Comment by edarrell — December 28, 2005 @ 3:40 am