J
On Jan 10, 2012, at 10:06 AM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> "I appreciate Wojtek's point, below, but I'd be interested in hearing other responses to this study/analysis, or if anyone knows if Ravitch or others have responded to this."
>
> I accept Ravitch's conversion from neocon back to basic meritocratic liberal as authentic, but I'm still perplexed to find her the go-to person in a leftist discussion. I would suggest Michael Apple as a reliable, perceptive critic over several decades, including of Ravitch and her former colleagues (Bennett, Finn, etc.).
>
> There are lots of basic fallacies in this sort of analysis that mostly relate to a naive faith in the meritocratic nature of schooling and society. A string of relationships is assumed that lead from cognitive skills to test performance to school admission to income. But all the decisions are made by privileged people, largely to the benefit of privileged children, notwithstanding the need to have a few good examples from the less privileged classes. Ultimately, who decides how much allegedly well-educated people earn for allegedly economically-productive activities? The basic privilege that privileged people have is to get to decide how much they and their associates get paid. I can't imagine that any of this has much to do with "value-added," either in a 4th grade classroom or on Wall Street.
>
> The NYT article is an appalling piece of "social science" in any number of ways.
>
> David Green
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk