<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Engelmann&#8217;s new book</title>
	<atom:link href="http://teacheffectively.com/2007/01/16/engelmanns-new-book/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://TeachEffectively.com/2007/01/16/engelmanns-new-book/</link>
	<description>Evidence-based teaching methods for helping students who are at risk for school failure or who have disabilities.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:44:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Liz Ditz</title>
		<link>http://TeachEffectively.com/2007/01/16/engelmanns-new-book/#comment-8413</link>
		<dc:creator>Liz Ditz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:47:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://TeachEffectively.com/2007/01/16/engelmanns-new-book/#comment-8413</guid>
		<description>I sent you an email to this effect, but it might be useful to put it here, too: 

What do you think of Charles Murray's claim


http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25452,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

    Some say that the public schools are so awful that there is huge room for improvement in academic performance just by improving education. There are two problems with that position. The first is that the numbers used to indict the public schools are missing a crucial component. For example, in the 2005 round of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 36% of all fourth-graders were below the NAEP's "basic achievement" score in reading. It sounds like a terrible record. But we know from the mathematics of the normal distribution that 36% of fourth-graders also have IQs lower than 95.

    What IQ is necessary to give a child a reasonable chance to meet the NAEP's basic achievement score? Remarkably, it appears that no one has tried to answer that question. We only know for sure that if the bar for basic achievement is meaningfully defined, some substantial proportion of students will be unable to meet it no matter how well they are taught. As it happens, the NAEP's definition of basic achievement is said to be on the tough side. That substantial proportion of fourth-graders who cannot reasonably be expected to meet it could well be close to 36%.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I sent you an email to this effect, but it might be useful to put it here, too: </p>
<p>What do you think of Charles Murray&#8217;s claim</p>
<p><a href="http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25452,filter.all/pub_detail.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25452,filter.all/pub_detail.asp</a></p>
<p>    Some say that the public schools are so awful that there is huge room for improvement in academic performance just by improving education. There are two problems with that position. The first is that the numbers used to indict the public schools are missing a crucial component. For example, in the 2005 round of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 36% of all fourth-graders were below the NAEP&#8217;s &#8220;basic achievement&#8221; score in reading. It sounds like a terrible record. But we know from the mathematics of the normal distribution that 36% of fourth-graders also have IQs lower than 95.</p>
<p>    What IQ is necessary to give a child a reasonable chance to meet the NAEP&#8217;s basic achievement score? Remarkably, it appears that no one has tried to answer that question. We only know for sure that if the bar for basic achievement is meaningfully defined, some substantial proportion of students will be unable to meet it no matter how well they are taught. As it happens, the NAEP&#8217;s definition of basic achievement is said to be on the tough side. That substantial proportion of fourth-graders who cannot reasonably be expected to meet it could well be close to 36%.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LDblog &#187; Zig&#8217;s new book</title>
		<link>http://TeachEffectively.com/2007/01/16/engelmanns-new-book/#comment-8383</link>
		<dc:creator>LDblog &#187; Zig&#8217;s new book</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:55:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://TeachEffectively.com/2007/01/16/engelmanns-new-book/#comment-8383</guid>
		<description>[...] Over on Teach Effectively I&#8217;ve posted a note about Siegfried Engelmann&#8217;s new book, The Outrage of Project Follow Through: 5 Million Failed Kids Later. He will be publishing it serially on the Internet before it appears as an actual trade book in the general market. The book recounts Zig&#8217;s recollections of his career in education. Interested readers will want to download copies of the chapters. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Over on Teach Effectively I&#8217;ve posted a note about Siegfried Engelmann&#8217;s new book, The Outrage of Project Follow Through: 5 Million Failed Kids Later. He will be publishing it serially on the Internet before it appears as an actual trade book in the general market. The book recounts Zig&#8217;s recollections of his career in education. Interested readers will want to download copies of the chapters. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
