In case you don't take the time to look through all the posts, here is
something relevant to what you posted ...
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Paying for Schools
> On the subject of time series for literacy rates:
> Sorry Mike. You objected to Pat's sources of data and pointed to other
> sources. You then compared the recent statistics in your preferred
> to the earlier statistics in Pat's, and claimed that that showed the trend
> you believed. If his oranges aren't any good, you can't prove anything by
> comparing your apples to them.
> I didn't look for very long, but I didn't find time series at the URLs you
> posted. Can you say where the time series are buried, so we can tell
> according to this (you claim) more objective standard what has happened
> over time? The interesting question is what has happened to levels of
> literacy according to any unchanging standard of what it means to be
> literate. If some unvarying standards show improvement and others show
> degradation, we can argue about the merits of the different standards, but
> until we see a series that shows the same standard being applied at
> different times, we haven't learned much about changes in literacy.
> C. J. Cherryh, "Invader", on why we visit very old buildings:
> "A sense of age, of profound truths. Respect for
> Chris Hibbert something hands made, that's stood through storms and
> email@example.com wars and time. It persuades us that things we do may
> last and matter."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:21 MDT