This post is about manipulations of statistics in terms of how they are presented. In this case, data was drawn from
Jack Dougherty, Jesse Wanzer ’08, and Christina Ramsay ’09. “Sheff v. O’Neill: Weak Desegregation Remedies and Strong Disincentives in Connecticut, 1996-2008.” In From the Courtroom to the Classroom: The Shifting Landscape of School Desegregation, edited by Claire Smrekar and Ellen Goldring, 103–127. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2009. http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cssp_papers/3/.
Using the same data, the following line charts were created. The data and x-axis were kept constant to show the importance of the y-axis values, specifically the minimum and maximums though the increments of the y-axis are also important.
The first graph lists percentages up to 100% (complete integration) in increments of 10. In this chart, minimal progress is revealed (though the goal of Sheff II is only a modest 30%).
This graph shows leaps of progress with a deceptive minimum of 10% and maximum of 18% with increments of 2. In this way, the line seems to increase dramatically though the graph above illustrates this isn’t so.
Question what is being measured and reported when “consuming” statistics. Do test scores show ‘education’ rate? Is there something to be noted about whether suburban residents are coming into urban schools or vice versa? The starting point, the target goal, and actual possibilities of racial integration need to all be taken account.
Should these charts show the goal result as the maximum or to give context? What increments would be most illustrative of the progress of Sheff I and Sheff II remedies?
The goal of this post to the public is to warn consumers of knowledge to be skeptical when being presented with statistics in the media and in research. Look out for what exactly is being reported (progress from a starting point versus progress from zero) and how certain variables are being defined and presented.