| Thursday,
June 19, 2008 No Child Left Behind means
no child get's ahead...as you predicted
The following is from the Executive Summary of a study
just published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute:
• “While the nation’s lowest-achieving youngsters made
rapid gains from 2000 to 2007, the performance of top students was languid.
Children at the tenth percentile of achievement (the bottom 10 percent of
students) have shown solid progress in fourth-grade reading and math and
eighth-grade math since 2000, but those at the 90th percentile (the top 10
percent) have made minimal gains.”
• “This pattern—big gains for low achievers and lesser
ones for high achievers—is associated with the introduction of
accountability systems in general, not just NCLB. An analysis of NAEP data
from the 1990s shows that states that adopted testing and accountability
regimes before NCLB saw similar patterns before NCLB: stronger progress for
low achievers than for high achievers.”
Here is a link to the full report:
http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/news.cfm?news_id=732&id=17
This was entirely predictable and predicted, by you
and others. Still, some hard evidence never hurts. Not that I expect that
this report will have any more effect on the Educationist establishment than
the hundreds of others that preceded it. The Iron Law is alive and well.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery from the bronchitis
and the radiation therapy,
John DeVries
It used to be commonplace in science fiction to
accept the notion that 90% of the gains made by the human race were due to
the efforts of 10% of the population. (Some have made that division
considerably more stark, up to 99% / 1%, but that's not important; 90 / 10
will do.) This means that while one cannot neglect the 90%, one neglects the
10% at one's peril.
It is no longer politically correct to say this, of
course. Worse, if you somehow select out the 10% with a view to giving them
a different kind of education, the racial composition of that selected group
will be all wrong: there will be too many Ashkenazi Jews, Orientals, and
Whites, and too few of every other group you can define, and it won't matter
in the least how carefully you avoid racial considerations in making the
selection, it's going to turn out that way.
It remains true that 90% of the gains made by the
human race depend on the efforts of 10% of the population, and one neglects
that 10% at one's peril. Nations that recognize this will have an enormous
advantage over those that don't.
Of course one solution to problems like this is
freedom. We used to think that a good default answer to most social
problems. Certainly we thought this when I was growing up. But over time we
have decided that the best answer to any social problem is a well funded
bureaucracy.
=====================
Subject: Never talk to the
police.
Jerry,
the URLs link to the videos of a law professor and a
policeman, explaining respectively, why you should take the fifth, and how
you get confessions. These taped lectures to law students run for a total of
fifty minutes. I found it impossible to stop watching. If you need to relax
for an hour you will not find a better use for your time. Highly recommended
to everyone, not just US citizens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
John Edwards
In case you missed this first time. It appeared
with my comments here.
===========
AP & CBS pwned by aura-reading
charlatan
http://geoff82.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/ap-cbs-pwned-by-aura-reading-charlatan/
"I'm kind of an agnostic on global warming, because I
think it has been a poster child for bad science. The politicization of the
field has corrupted the research so badly that I despair for the ethics of
the profession.
But today we have something much, much sillier than
bad research. What we have instead is the AP and CBS news being completely
duped <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/18/tech/main4191556.shtml>
by a new age guru from Australia:
New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr. Tom
Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now five times more
energetic than it was just 20 years ago.
The research proves that destructive ability of
earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to
continue, unless the problem of "global warming" is comprehensively and
urgently addressed."
The article covers some of the interesting parts of
the theory, and those pesky facts that get in the way. However, the really
fun bit is the biography of Dr Chalko.
"He plays classical guitar exceptionally well, enjoys
windsurfing (he calls himself a speed addict here), takes time to practice
meditation, telepathy and astral travel. His hobbies include challenging
paradigms and paradoxes in geophysics, studying puzzling properties of
electro-photonic glow (Auras) using Kirlian camera, learning to see human
aura, discovering purpose of life, as well as organizing controversial
seminars."
I remember watching an episode of "In search of" many
years ago, about the disappearance of some indigenous peoples in Latin
America, before we evil white men showed up. One of the "scientists"
consulted said that while some believed the disappearance was connected to
droughts, he personally believed these people had vast mental powers and
could thus create rain when they wanted it, and thus we had to search
elsewhere for a reason they left. This pretty much kicked me out of the
show, even though I was not yet a teenager. Surely AP and CBS can come up
with somebody capable of pre-teen levels of science to review these.
Graves
Kirlian Global Warming!!
Is the solar system warming? Possibly. Are we in
for a Little Ice Age? Possibly. Do we need to find out more, including
agreeing to a reliable and obtainable measure of "the Earth's Temperature"?
Yes. Will we? Probably not. We'll probably spend money buying carbon credits
from Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore.
===========
Getting Power From Salty Water
LONDON, U.K. - In the quest to tap new sources of
renewable energy, scientists are turning to the sun, to the wind, and of
course, to a variety of bio-derived fuel alternatives. But in Norway, one
company is also turning to salty water.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2008/06/18/
european-energy-innovations-tech-innovationeu0
8-cx_vr_0618energy.html?feed=rss_technology
Bill Shields
I'll try to look at this, but perhaps one of my
physicist readers will comment?
===========
Question on how to get to space
Jerry,
I read
your
report on how to get to space and a question came into my mind. In the
report you mention that it takes about the same amount of fuel to fly 1 lb
from LA to the Land Down Under as it does to take that same pound to LEO.
Herein lies my question, when you say "fuel" are you including oxidizer in
that?
Mind you I am dangerous right now as I have a little
bit of knowledge from reading "How Apollo Flew to The Moon" by W. David
Woods. All I can say is fascinating. I have read several books on the
subject but this is the first one that goes into subtle details of the
various pieces of equipment. It truly makes me wonder if we could do that
then, what are we capable of now given the right stimulus?
My best wishes for your continued recovery,
Toby Borge
Well, what I meant to say is that it takes the same
energy. Rockets don't scoop up oxidizers from the atmosphere, and thus have
to carry them along. That sounds like an enormous advantage for aircraft
over rockets, and led to among other things the NASP or National Aerospace
Plane research projects.
At one time nearly all of us, including Arthur C.
Clarke and me, (but not Heinlein) thought the right way to get to orbit was
to fly an airbreather to the edge of space, and have it then launch a true
rocket that went the rest of the way. It all seemed so logical.
What NASP found is that to get much velocity out of
air breathing flight you have to spend a lot of time in the atmosphere.
Atmosphere has drag. Drag heats the leading edges and the input channels of
your air scoops. They get melty hot pretty fast unless you can make those
leading edges of unobtanium.
The NASP lesson was that you don't want to spend
much time in hypersonic flight. Rockets get out of the atmosphere; we want
them out fast. When they achieve orbital velocity they don't need any
more fuel or oxidant until it's time to come down.
The energy equivalents of getting to orbit and
flying to Sydney are roughly equivalent.
At to the can do attitude of Apollo, yep. We could
do anything in those days. And did. But that was before No Child Left
Behind, and before political correctness.
=========
Universe made of math
Jerry,
I haven't had a chance to read the whole article
linked by Mr. Dobbins, but...
"Is the Universe actually made of math?"
(http://discovermagazine.com/2008/
jul/16-is-the-universe-actually-made-of-math/article_print)
is if anything an overgeneralization. The universe is geometry...that is,
points in space-time (or any higher dimensionality in which consensus
space-time is embedded) Physics describes the relationships of the matter at
those points as it evolves, which evolution is itself geometric.
Or else...it's not geometry, but can still be
described in geometrical terms.
Jim Woosley
Well -- yes. One of the principles of General
Semantics, which appears trivial at first encounter but isn't, is "The map
is not the territory." We often forget that. When people are reading
my novels I want them to...
==========
The Rough Road to Space
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-rough-road-to-space/
"But NASA, at least Mike Griffin's NASA, has no
intention or desire to really build an interstate highway system for space.
Instead, NASA, in keeping with its tradition for the past half century, has
opted to build a transportation system for NASA and its astronauts, and of
little or no use to anyone or anything else. And maybe it's not NASA's job
to build an interplanetary IHS.
But it ought to be NASA's job to encourage the
development of such an infrastructure, which would enable not only many
private activities but dramatically reduce NASA's own costs for space
exploration and development. There are many ways in which it could be doing
so. For example, it could incorporate orbital gas stations into its lunar
plans and put out bids for delivery of propellant. It could be focusing on
the development of the technologies necessary to build it, reducing the
technical risk to the point that private funds can be raised for
construction. It could be purchasing a lot more crew and cargo transport
from the private sector, demanding reduced cost, thus nurturing a growing
private space transportation industry with multiple providers so we aren't
dependent on a single means of getting into space."
Worth reading.
Graves
The late Fred Osborne, Treasurer of the L5 Society
when I was Secretary, was fond of saying "It is the historic mission of the
military to build roads to the new frontiers and protect the early
settlers."
I have no quarrel with that at all.
========
Of Fighter Pilot Generals and
Failed Tanker Bids
Jerry,
Please read summary paragraph #4 in the Government
Accounting Office (GAO) report on the Tanker deal closely. (I found it at
this link:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004257.html)
4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal
discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a
key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but
later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without
advising Boeing of this change in the agency’s assessment and while
continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its
satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.
In the bidding process, the USAF originally wanted to
use as much of the existing KC-135 infrastructure as possible. That is why
Boeing was bidding the KC-767 rather than the larger KC-777, which could not
use the same hangers and shorter air fields that the smaller KC-135 could.
The USAF decided mid-competition that fewer, bigger,
tanker planes was better for the USAF procurement budget, and went for the
KC-30.
In so many words, the USAF changed the tanker
requirements in the middle of the bid process, they told Northrop-Grumman,
BUT DID NOT TELL BOEING that it did so.
That is the biggest reason why the GAO upheld Boeing's
protest, in my opinion.
I strongly suspect the reason why both Tanker
replacement bids blew up on the USAF was the Fighter Pilot General's
insistence to maximize F-22s buys in the USAF's limited procurement budget.
The USAF brass involved with the bidding process were playing cost shifting
games to move tanker replacement costs out of the service’s procurement
budget and into the operations and facilities/infrastructure budgets.
Any infrastructure cost hits for switching to the
larger Northrop-Grumman KC-30 mid-bid over the Boeing KC-767 would come from
either the operations or facilities budgets; hence the USAF could buy more
F-22s with the KC-30 than the KC-767, even if the latter cost less over all.
The original "Tanker leasing deal" was built around
"using a different color of money" than what would be used to buy the F-22.
Leasing would be part of the USAF Operation budget. By law, you cannot use
“Operations dollars” to buy new equipment. That is what the procurement
budget is for. Yet that is what the first “Tanker deal” did, leaving the
F-22 “funding wedge” intact without the competition of tanker planes.
There are far more Congressional financial and
reporting controls placed on the DoD procurement budget than either the
operations or facilities line items. This "color of money" funding game is
what attracted Sen. McCain's attention to the first tanker deal and
uncovered the procurement fraud that senior USAF officials were involved in
with senior Boeing officials.
This time, Boeing found out all of these latest rounds
of USAF cost shifting games in their failed bidder out brief, and here we
are.
Based on my professional experience in American
military procurement, I would say the failure of both Tanker bids lies at
the feet of the Fighter Pilot Generals, for their insistence of playing
budget games to buy more F-22s.
Iron Law, anyone?
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Thursday |
