Is Our Kids Learning, Revisited

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Just a quick followup to yesterday’s post about NAEP reading scores. Over at The Quick and the Ed, Chad Aldeman suggests that reading scores have improved more than I suggested — possibly due to a statistical anomaly called Simpson’s Paradox1 that can produce different results for an entire group than it does for all its subgroups. But that’s not what’s going on here. The main issue is that he’s looking at different test scores than I am: he uses the Long Term NAEP for 4th graders to look at progress since the mid-70s, while I used the Main NAEP for 8th graders to look at progress since 2002. The former shows significant progress for all ethnic groups, while the latter is virtually flat for every group except Asians.

Click the link for more. I don’t have any special axe to grind about the use of either version of NAEP or about which timeframe is appropriate to look at. It all depends on what you’re investigating. But it’s worth knowing that different data is out there.

1A simple example is below the fold. I either wrote this myself about a decade ago or else copied it from somewhere else. I’m not sure which.

Simpson’s Paradox

A sex discrimination case in California a while ago has become a sort of classic illustration of Simpson’s Paradox. Looking at the proportion of women admitted to the graduate school at the University of California, some women sued the university claiming they were being discriminated against by the graduate school. When administrators looked for which departments were most guilty, however, they were a little astonished to find that there was actually a positive bias for women.

To keep things simple, let’s suppose there were only two departments in the graduate school, economics and psychology. Making up numbers, let’s further assume that 70 of 100 men (70 percent) who applied to the economics department were admitted and that 15 of 20 women (75 percent) were. Assume also that five out of 20 men (25 percent) who applied to the psychology department were admitted and 35 of 100 women (35 percent) were. Note that in each department a higher percentage of women was admitted.

If we amalgamate the numbers, however, we see what prompted the lawsuit: 75 of the 120 male applicants (62.5 percent) were admitted to the graduate school as a whole whereas only 50 of the 120 female applicants (41.7 percent) were.

Such odd results can surface in a variety of contexts. For example, a certain medication X may have a higher success rate than another medication Y in several different studies and yet medication Y may have a higher overall success rate. Or a baseball player may have a lower batting average than another player against left-handed pitchers and also have a lower batting average than the other player against right-handed pitchers but have a higher overall batting average than the other player.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend