Comments on: Sandy Hook & Schools

By: bill jones

bill jones — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:28:48 +0000

If we continue down the path of expert advice from social scientists we will go over the cultural cliff.

We bow down to assault weapons.

We beat down teachers, cops, and firemen.

Who thinks this is NOT headed in the direction of other select groups. Who thinks they can predict the frustration, rage, and fury of the masses?

And please show me your data.

By: bill jones

bill jones — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:26:18 +0000

To Da Professor,

I am familiar with this report done at the University of Chicago by an economist firmly allied with the gun lobby. His work was seriously questioned by the NBER.

Social science is having serious credibility problems. Particularly economics, which is driving the education reformation debate, has failed in its core mission of predicting business cycles, explaining or predicting either rational individual or market behavior, and relying on less than robust theories to explain black swan phenomena.

I would like very much to believe your data driven methodology, but assumptions matter. And economic research and regression is littered with questionable assumption and made up laws in much the same way Central Park in New York is littered with trash. In fact, the issue is so pressing that Roubini has questioned the usefulness of the discipline.

A finance professor at M.I.T. made a pithy little presentation in which he said the social sciences suffered from physics/math envy and that in their rush to quantify their results they were creating even more inaccurate results.

If physics were to behave and perform as social science does, we would all be dead. It is time to rely on common sense more than on social science. It has provided results that are abysmal for our nation and society.

By: adam

adam — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:08:56 +0000

DaProfessor,
Actually, I never said that I would prefer public policy be based solely on common sense. What I said was that sometimes common sense is enough. Did we need peer reviewed studies to confirm that slavery was unjust and not good public policy? Do we need quasi-experimental designs to demonstrate that driving while impaired is a public safety concern? Do we need research findings to tell us that dog fighting should be banned? My point is not to diminish the role that research can and should play in policy development. In fact, as someone who is involved in policy development, I frequently rely on research for guidance. However, research is not and should not be the only tool in the toolbox. How should we handle situations when the research is inconclusive or contradictory in its findings. While there may be research that shows the gun control efforts have little or no impact on crime, there is also research that shows that gun ownership leads to increases in accidental fatalities. There was a recent study that reported that people that carry guns are more than 4 times more likely to be shot than unarmed people (the difference is even more stark when you look at armed people attempting to defend themselves).

I will end my argument where I began it. Explain to me the public policy goal that is accomplished by allowing individuals to possess semi-automatic assault rifles?

By: bill jones

bill jones — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:02:36 +0000

Rand’s books are NOT on the required reading list for Navy officers and enlisted.

Case CLOSED.

Our binding oath to this country is Honor, Courage, Commitment.

But the public thinks that self sacrifice is part of a teacher’s job description. Using their logic, what is the metric? Is there some kind of VAM model for this?

How will VAM account for traumatized children and how will that affect teacher evaluations?

IF we demand objective measures, then how do we ACCOUNT for these kind of BLACK SWANS.

By: bill jones

bill jones — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:59:18 +0000

You ask for VOLUNTARY RESPONDERS. You give them guns.

The incident starts: The kid has an AK47 this time. Spraying bullets everywhere.

The first responder teacher has second thoughts:

WHAT ABOUT ME? WHY AM I NOT IMPORTANT? WHAT ABOUT MY DREAMS? THESE ARE NOT MY CHILDREN. I HAVE CHILDREN OF MY OWN. I WAS ONLY GOING TO DO THIS JOB FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE IVEY LEAGUE LAW SCHOOL. THIS IS MY PUBLIC SERVICE. HECK, I DO NOT EVEN KNOW THESE KIDS. THEY DO NOT PAY ME ENOUGH TO DO THIS. WHERE ARE THE COPS?

Teacher heads for the side door and safety.

Gunmen continues rampage killing hundreds.

So the teacher ACTED IN THEIR OWN BEST INTEREST.

How do you require their own SELF SACRIFICE? Would their desertion be a fireable offense? Would they lose their job because they REFUSED TO PERFORM HARI-KARI?

So,right wing loons, how does it work that YOU are the center of your own universe, reading your Ayn Rand books, while YOU DEMAND AND COMPEL others to give their lives to protect YOUR CHILDREN?

Hey Rotherham, it is time to head to your edu-reform get togethers, scratch your heads, and wonder whether your view of education is a bit detached from reality.

One more time, the patron saint of individualism and free markets, says that SELF SACRIFICE IS AN IMMORAL AND ILLOGICAL POSITION FOR ANY RATIONAL INDIVIDUAL TO ADOPT.

By: PhillipMarlowe

PhillipMarlowe — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:59:46 +0000

Last Thursday, Michigan legislators passed a bill that would allow certain people to carry concealed firearms in schools and other previously gun-free zones.
…
One group that has taken no position on the legislation is StudentsFirst, the education reform group… that happens to be active in Michigan politics.

Asked about its stance, StudentsFirst spokeswoman Ileana Wachtel said, “StudentsFirst believes that schools have to be a safe haven for kids. It is incumbent upon our elected officials to ensure that every single child is protected, particularly those under the care and direction of our public schools.”

Asked whether that means the group supports or opposes the concealed-carry expansion, Wachtel said, “We’re focused on education reform policies. That’s what we do.”

Although the group takes no public position on the measure, StudentsFirst’s allies in Michigan politics have no problem with concealed carry in schools. Indeed, the vast majority of the Michigan legislators whom StudentsFirst recently endorsed voted in favor of the legislation. Of 22 legislators who received election endorsements from StudentsFirst, 14 supported the bill (all of them Republican), one voted against it (a Democrat), and seven others aren’t in office.

http://goo.gl/xmQDy

By: DaProfessor

DaProfessor — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:18:53 +0000

Adam,

Of course you’d “prefer” for public policy to be made based on common sense. But whose common sense? Sounds like… ahem, your own? Now that sounds well-reasoned, doesn’t it?

Not really. The reasons we do things like teach evolution in schools, fight for sex education being taught, and are trying to do something about climate change are because we purposefully looked at the scientific evidence on these various subjects rather than the ideological, emotional, or religious convictions of a bunch of rubes who’d prefer to make policy based on *their* version of common sense.

That’s the problem when you worship common sense > unemotional data-driven causal inference. And yes, there is plenty of research suggesting that gun control has perverse effects on crime published in some of the leading journals in social science (e.g. American Economic Review). I suggest, but won’t hold my breath, that you dig into some of the research yourself. It’s always better to be fact-driven than emotionally-driven in figuring these things out.

By: Linda/RetiredTeacher

Linda/RetiredTeacher — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:36:52 +0000

Well said, Adam.

By: adam

adam — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 02:33:55 +0000

To DaProfessor:
Causal inference and peer reviewed research are not are not necessary ingredients for good public policy- especially when simple common sense is readily available. I don’t need a peer reviewed study to convince me that restricting access to assault weapons is good public policy. I have yet to hear anyone explain the public policy goal that is accomplished by allowing basically any adult the right to possess a weapon whose only purpose is to kill en masse. Emotions don’t make bad policy- policy makers who don’t have the necessary courage or wisdom make bad policy.

By: DaProfessor

DaProfessor — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:39:24 +0000

If those of us interested in education research and policy are dismayed at the frequent inability of the media and talking heads to understand K-12 research and report on it accurately, we can at least take solace in the fact that we’re light years ahead of the dimwits who weigh in on gun control policy and research.

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard a media talking head report correlations between countries with gun control laws and higher murder rates as if it were *definitive* causal evidence that gun laws increase safety, I’d be retired by now. It drive me nuts that we allow people on TV (e.g. Piers Morgan) to discuss research without having a clue about things like peer review, causal inference, etc.

We’re doing so much better in education, but the “study laundering” is still a problem. I understand that these issues are emotional, but whether one is pro or anti-gun control, bad policy is made based on emotions. Good policy is made based on causal inference in peer reviewed research.