Talk:Eric Hanushek

Untitled

This article reads like it was written by the subject. Eugh! 58.96.105.191 (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if we start cutting this page WAY down now that we know all the contributors were banned sock-puppet users? Stephenbreton (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the article is way too long and lists too many associations, some of which are not very notable, apparently, of which Hanushek is a member. 173.52.253.11 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hanushek's work in general refers excessively to works he himself has authored while ignoring objections that others have made and so does this bio. 173.52.253.11 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Truism

An obvious fact. A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device .... 173.52.250.208 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Political material

Editor Labourdemand has reverted many of my edits to Eric Hanushek on the grounds that he or she believes them to be "political" and inspired by a vendetta against Dr. Hanushek. Actually, I have no vendetta against Professor Hanushek. I am only interested in clear language. Basically, I found the article to be full of circumlocutions and obfuscations. I am puzzled that this editor considers it "political" to suggest that Hanushek's research focuses on using a metric based on student test scores to evaluate teachers. This seems to me the basic thrust of his recommendations.

The citations I removed from to charts 213 and 140 on government spending on education did not support the statement in the article. Perhaps in my haste, I misread them (they are available on the web). If someone can show me how they support the statement I will be glad to see them restored. I don't have them in front of me, but as I recall, one of them did not even address the topic of government spending. Perhaps Editor Labourdemand would care to improve the article by showing specifically how these charts support Hanushek's contention. Also, the statements about spending rising and student achievement falling did not seem to have much to do with what came before and after, and so maybe Editor Labourdemand would like to move them to a position where they would make more sense.173.52.250.208 (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC) 173.52.250.208 (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Testifying "for the state"

Editor Labourdemand maintains that testifying "for the state" in cases where the state is fighting equalized funding is "not the same as testifying against increased funding of schools". But it is in fact the very same thing. How is it different? Does Hanushek ever testify in favor of increasing funding for schools? He is not ashamed to say he does not, so why does Editor Labourdemand wish to obfuscate this fact? It makes no sense. 173.52.250.208 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, Labourdemand comment that "Chetty et al. have revised; debate nothing to do with Hanushek" is not a valid one, since the article said that Ravitch and others have charged that Chetty did not revise and used old data. That they did so charge is a fact supported by the citation. If they are wrong and he did revise and what they are saying is not true, then Labourdemand should provide a citation to that effect. Also, Labourdemand needs to explain why this debate has nothing to do with Hanushek, since the studies by Chetty in question were offered to confirm the validity of Hanushek's early research. I am awaiting Labourdemand's response with interest. 173.52.250.208 (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

See also the criticisms of Columbia economist Moshe Adler as reported by the Educational Policy Institute http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2014/06/adler-response-to-chetty

BOULDER, CO (June 24, 2014) – Although policymakers may grab onto easy answers, questions about teacher effectiveness—how we measure it and what we can conclude about a teacher’s long-term impact—are being heatedly debated among scholars.

Today, the National Education Policy Center published a clear and detailed response to some of the most influential research claims about teacher effectiveness.

Those claims were made by researchers Raj Chetty, John Friedman, and Jonah Rockoff, who assert a connection between teachers’ “value-added” scores and what their students will earn over their lifetimes. Those assertions made their way into President Obama’s State of the Union message two years ago; they also surfaced in this month’s ruling by a California judge, in the Vergara case, who found that certain due process protections for teachers violated that state’s constitution.

That research, however, cannot bear the weight of critical scrutiny, according to an expert review by Moshe Adler published by the NEPC in April.

Adler’s review – published by NEPC as part of its Think Twice think tank review project – examined two working papers presenting research by Chetty and his colleagues and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Adler is an economist affiliated with both Columbia’s Urban Planning Department as well as the Harry Van Arsdale Jr. Center for Labor Studies at Empire State College, SUNY, and the author the 2010 book, Economics for the Rest of Us: Debunking the Science That Makes Life Dismal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.227.81 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)