OLDaily

Teacher Qualifications Emerge as Major Predictor of Student Achievement in New Report
Anne Podolsky, Linda Darling-Hammond, Christopher Doss, Sean Reardon, Learning Policy Institute, 2019/05/17

As summarized by Jonathan Kantrowitz, " The new report, California’s Positive Outliers: Districts Beating the Odds, finds that the proportion of teachers holding substandard credentials—such as emergency permits, waivers and intern credentials—is significantly and negatively associated with student achievement for all students." (44 page PDF) This stands in contrast to the other report I read today emphasizing the role of family income in education outcomes. But for this report we have to read carefully and sometimes between the lines. As the authors write, "We find that, aside from socioeconomic status, a major predictor of student achievement is the preparedness of teachers." So there's isn't really a contradiction between the two reports, just a (potentially misleading) difference in emphasis.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

Study Finds Wealth More Advantageous Than Smarts
Anthony P. Carnevale, Megan L. Fasules, Michael C. Quinn, Kathryn Peltier Campbell, Anthony P. Carnevale, Megan L. Fasules, Michael C. Quinn, and Kathryn Peltier Campbell, 2019/05/17

I think that those that are smart already knew this. But it's always healthy to have the research (59 page PDF) to support one's views. The authors do take pains to argue that education does move the needle a bit, and something is better than nothing. But there should be no illusions here; being born wealthy conveys significant advantage. I would add this: the comparisons are made in terms of socio-economic status (SES) - in other words, wealth. But it extends far beyond that. Wealthy people are more influential in society, more likely to become political leaders, to be published as authors or recognized as scientists. The wealthy

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

Who wins from public debate? Liars, bullies and trolls
Steven Poole, The Guardian, 2019/05/17

This perspective is not wrong: " We are told debate is the great engine of liberal democracy. In a free society, ideas should do battle in the public forum.... In practice, modern debate has a structural bias in favour of demagoguery and disinformation. It inherently favours liars." So what do we do instead? The author suggests, ultimately, "the peerless technology of writing," but I don't think that's it either.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]