[aredox]

You are strawmanning my argument as I didn't say anything like that. I said that if you are going to evaluate a policy with statistics, you need to compare apples to apples because statistics are easily biased.

See this example of a paradox that applies a lot in educational settings: you can raise the average level of two classes just by shuffling students from one to another:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Rogers_phenomenon

[pc86]

So explain to me what "eliminating bad data points" in this context means. Should MS schools not hold back failing 3rd graders?

[motorest]

> So explain to me what "eliminating bad data points" in this context means. Should MS schools not hold back failing 3rd graders

The data point is the number of 3rd graders failing. If you insist in filtering out those 3rd graders, limiting your analysis to the subset of kids who didn't failed does not represent a success story. It represents an attempt to arbitrarily remove inconvenient data points to portray a false idea if success.

[pc86]

I disagree, I think it points to a core educational policy difference between states. Some states will not fail a 3rd grader, and Mississippi will. This has an obvious impact on 4th grade scores, yes, but I'm willing to bet if you followed those "failed" 3rd graders in MS and compared to other states where they were pushed ahead, holding under-achieving students back is a net positive.

[motorest]

> (...) holding under-achieving students back is a net positive.

Even if we assume that's the case, that's not the problem.

The problem is that the school system fails to provide the necessary and sufficient services that would prevent a statistically significant number of 3rd graders from being held back. Feeling the need to hold kids back is a symptom of the problem, not a solution.

[Kon-Peki]

This way of thinking is how we end up with a ton of spending and not a ton of results.

I strongly suspect that Mississippi should be allocating more resources to education. But this is a political problem and the schools have nearly no say in whether the legislature does or does not increase funding.

So. Do we close down the schools and wait until it is resolved?

Or do the schools do the best they can with the resources they have? Do you have evidence that placing kids in the most skill-appropriate classroom is a worse use of available resources than placing them in the “correct” classroom based on age or previous cohort?

[motorest]

> This way of thinking is how we end up with a ton of spending and not a ton of results.

"Ton of spending" are weasel words. "Not a ton of results" is already the problem.

If your school system fails to teach kids how to read after 3 years, this is a school system that fails at it's primary and most basic responsibility. These third-graders are not the problem, they are the canary in the coal mine.

Advocating for holding back third graders and expelling underperformers is a kin to advocate for getting rid of canaries because they are a nuisance when assessing health and safety.

[joshka]

An obvious comparison seems like it would be to compare age cohort rather than grade cohort. Your question confuses a comment on objective methodology with one a more subjective one on the response to that.