Revision: Correlation is not Causation

Posted on

Correlation is NOT the same as Causation

People often mistakenly believe that students who go to schools that are higher scoring must have gained more education at that school. In reality this confusion leads readers to think that attending high performing schools is the cause for higher achievement. For these reasons, people misunderstand claims made about Hartford student achievement in choice programs. In my opinion much of this confusion is due to the fact that many writers attribute success of students in choice programs to what school they attend. It is possible, however, that some students who applied to the program were already high achieving. Many articles that address the achievement gap between choice programs and district schools do not give evidence as to how or why choice programs are outperforming district schools, they simply say that integrated schools are the better schools. A major theme that I found while reading articles that express the issue of the achievement gap reflect correlation as being causation. In other words, these articles are implying that students’ high achievement in school is caused by which school they attend.

The article headlined, “State report: Students in desegregated schools test higher” by Jacqueline Rabe Thomas may imply to readers that there is a cause and effect relationship between desegregated schools and higher test scores. The headline of the article is technically correct because it is a fact, however, the problem is that readers may interpret the correlational statement to mean a causal one that “desegregated schools cause higher test scores”. This connection has yet to be proven because sufficient data has not been collected and examined such as records and comparisons of all students who have applied to and been accepted/denied to Choice Programs over the years. Later in her article Thomas quoted Martha Stone, “the lawyer behind the successful school desegregation lawsuit [in Connecticut]…” (Thomas, 1). Stone said, “The performance of Hartford youth soars once they attend magnet schools and schools in the suburb” (Thomas, 1). Stone jumps to the conclusion that attending magnet schools and schools in the suburbs causes the performance of Hartford youth to soar, leading readers to misunderstand the achievement of students within choice programs. Thomas later goes on to say, “When city students attend schools that enroll a mix of suburban and Hartford students, city students test higher” (Thomas, 3). This again is a fact, but the wording of the claim confuses readers and makes them think that the school they attend causes the success of the student.

A Research Analyst who commented on Thomas’ article clearly understood the correlation vs. causation conflict and stated it well that:

“The lawyer, Martha Stone would like everyone to believe that it is the desegregation that is causing the higher test scores… it is important for lay people not familiar with statistics to know that Correlation is NOT the same as Causation. In other words, just because it appears that 2 things are connected, it does NOT mean that one of those things caused the other” (Comment page in first article titled: “Correlation is not the same a Causation).

This comment helps readers understand how confusion arises out of the way people interpret the claims made about achievement in choice programs. Much of Thomas’ article states cause and effect; attending choice programs causes better test scores and academic achievement. In order to clear up this confusion, readers must understand that it is unknown whether or not choice schools are, in fact, causing higher academic achievement. In order to know what is causing higher academic achievement, data must be collected linking higher achievement to choice programs.

An article entitled, “Can Interdistrict Choice Boost Student Achievement” The Case of Connecticut’s Interdistrict Magnet School Program” written by Casey Cobb, Bob Bifulco, and Courtney Bell, explores whether or not student achievement is “boosted” by choice programs. Jack Dougherty, an Associate Professor at Trinity College, asked questions in a letter to Cobb, Bifulco, and Bell expressing his confusion and questions about how data was collected on Hartford students in comparison to non-Hartford students. In a letter responding to Jack Dougherty’s questions Bob Bifulco stated that the EEPA article which spoke about the high achievement of magnet school students, was based on assumption rather than fact because they “[could not] demonstrate [it] empirically” (Dougherty, 1). Correlation is not Causation, and because it is unproven that magnet schools indeed cause high achievement, causal language should not be used in articles that speak about student achievement in choice programs.

 

 

CorrelationCausationFinal1
Figure 1 Illustrates that Correlation is not Causation. Credit to Doug Neill

 

The image above is an example of the correlation/causation conflict. In the image it is implied that because one has an umbrella it will rain. The umbrella causes it to rain, which is not true, the umbrella and rain are simply correlated and the umbrella does not cause it to rain. Similarly, misunderstanding claims made about Hartford student achievement in choice programs is caused by the false connection between correlation and causation.

All too often people assume that because students attend higher achieving schools, the school causes the achievement. And not often enough do people think that students are high scoring and high achieving before they apply to choice programs. In my opinion, less causal language will equal less confusion among readers. There is information that can help people understand the correlation between Choice Programs and academic achievement. If all students who have applied to a Magnet lottery were tracked and compared over time (comparing those who were accepted to those who were not accepted) it would be more clear if the schools caused the achievement. Knowing what actually causes the achievement of students is very important to the public because it allows parents to make an educated decision for their children’s schooling, which ultimately effects their future. For these reasons, simply saying that a school causes academic achievement does not suffice when it comes to determining the “better school”. Without concrete proof that choice schools cause student achievement, writers should not use causal language that confuses readers.

 

I chose to edit this assignment because it was one that interested me a lot. The idea that Choice Programs cause academic achievement is a misconception that many people have. In the essay I gave more evidence to a lot of my points as well as sharpened some of my claims to be better understood by the reader. I agree that Magnet schools are great, however the assumption that these schools cause success undermines the intelligence of the students attending the schools. I gave more reasons why it is still unknown whether or not Choice Programs cause academic achievement as well as ways in which research can be done in order to tell if Choice Programs, in fact, cause higher academic achievement.

Work Cited:

Jack Dougherty, correspondence with Robert Bifulco re: their EEPA article.

 

Thomas, Jacqueline R. State report: Students in desegregated schools test higher.

2013. <http://www.ctmirror.org/source/jacqueline-rabe-thomas>.

 

Thomas, Jacqueline R. State report: Students in desegregated schools test higher.

2013. <http://www.ctmirror.org/source/jacqueline-rabe-thomas>. Comment: “Correlation is NOT the same as Causation”

 

http://www.thegraphicrecorder.com/2012/01/18/freakonomics-correlation-≠-causation-money-cant-buy-elections/ (for image).

 

 

 

 

Educators, Policy Creators and History Makers Come Together for a Conference Seeking Integration Within Education

Posted on

 IMG_2159

Last weekend, educators, policy creators, and history makers gathered for the, “Where Integration Meets Innovation” conference, organized by One Nation Indivisible, and in collaboration with the Sheff Movement Coalition. The conference was a two-day event, hoping to bring public attention to, “creating, sustaining and improving dynamic and diverse public schools for the 21st century. [1]” Friday afternoon’s events included a luncheon and panel discussion, utilizing space at the Hartford Public Library, and Saturday morning’s events incorporated a diverse number of speeches at the Greater Hartford Academy of the Arts. Both of these events shed light on the paradigm of school reform, specifically in relation to the Sheff movement and its goals. Friday’s panel included Attorneys for the Plaintiff’s in Sheff v. O’Neill, such as Martha Stone, Dennis Parker and Alex Knopp, Columbia University Professor Amy Stuart Wells, and Senior Policy Fellow at Connecticut Voices For Children and Hartford Board of Education member Robert Cotto. Elizabeth Horton Sheff, lead plaintiff for the Sheff movement withstanding 24 years, addressed both Friday and Saturday’s attendees, calling attention to the irony within the “hollow victories” in which the government stakes it’s claims for acute and active school reform. For example, the ideology of an idealized “Sheff school choice” versus the currently implemented “school choice” within Hartford and its surrounding suburbs was debated. “Magnet schools with high achievement rates, do not mean integrated,” noted Knopp, a Yale Law School graduate. Open choice is a program that offers suburban kids the opportunity to attend urban schools, and vice versa; it is a process which is intended to create more integrated schools and bridge achievement gaps between white and minority students. However, Knopp pointed to the differences between schools under school choice which have higher achievement levels, and schools under the choice program that have higher achievement levels and an integrated learning environment. The topic provoked further questions offered up by Knopp, such as, “to what extent should open choice be mandated for suburb schools to give seats to urban schools?” These topics spiraled into questions of locational poverty amongst the city, racial steering and redlining practices, as well as projections on how to connect integrated schools with integrated housing, all of which the panel members addressed from their point of expertise.

In contrast with Friday’s panel discussion, the opening remarks on Saturday morning were not intended to educate the public on Sheff goals or how the current education system is failing its students. Saturday’s goal was to ignite a spark within the conferences attendees, a spark that had the potential to create actual change within the system. “We are spending too much time talking, and not enough time taking action,” preached Bruce Douglas, the Executive Director of the Capital Region Education Council. He continued, “There is more poverty and family dysfunction within schools now than ever,” and concluded that, “Education is in a state of emergency, and it must be addressed with a sense of urgency.” But the goal of his sermon, as others that Saturday morning, were not to convince people to get up out of their seats and take action. Most of the people at the conference were those who had already taken action, and were already “heroes” in the fight for a better education system. “That’s the problem with these conferences,” Douglas professed. “I am not talking to try and convert you….I am already talking to the converted.” The tone of Saturday’s conference was less informative about the issues, but moreover the beginnings of an instruction manual, on how to bring the information to the public and encourage others to take action. Because talking the talk is one thing, but walking the walk takes guts.

 

Conference, 2013
Friday Panel
IMG_2158
Saturday’s Conference

 

 


[1] Where Integration Meets Innovation, Conference Agenda Packet

Harnessing Diversity’s Potential: Employing Student-Centered Learning and Technology to Achieve Equity

Posted on

On Friday night, November 8th the two-day school integration conference in Hartford held an open panel at Environmental Sciences Magnet School at Mary Hooker titled, “Harnessing Diversity’s Potential: Employing Student-Centered Learning and Technology to Achieve Equity and to Build 21st Century Skills.” Principal Peter Dart opened with welcoming remarks and then Susan Eaton introduced the panel. In her introduction Susan spoke of the importance of working together and how all struggles should be tied together instead of everyone working in isolation in order to work towards greater racial, social, and economic. With that statement she introduced six different panelists who employ their own methods of student-centered learning in order to achieve equal opportunity in education, which would lead to a more equitable society.

Robert Cotto, from Connecticut Voices, was the moderator for the panel discussion and asked each panelist to introduce him/herself and briefly discuss his/her method for student-centered learning. Nicholas Donohue, CEO of Nellie Mae Education Foundation, was the first to speak and said that his organization promoted very high student agency by teaching mastery and competency in the use of technology. Shandra Brown, Principal of CREC Museum Academy, then said how Museum Academy has collaborations with museums in Hartford, in which they use their ideologies to engage students in art in order to educate them in not what to think but how to think. Alicia Iannucci, teacher at Quest to Learn, spoke about how this school, which many have called the “xbox school” promotes situational learning using technology because “life is one large game.” Barbara Cervone, Founder and President of What Kids Can Do said that the goal of the program is to change people’s views on what children are capable of because they are part of the solution to equity in education. Helen Soule, executive director of The Partnership for 21st Century Skills discussed the importance of career skills, self-direction and the 4 C’s: creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration. Lastly, Melissa Giraud, digital media and learning strategist and consultant, spoke of media projects and radio stories and the significance of increasing opportunities for student internships that count for credit.

Robert Cotto then asked the panelists “Why are these methods well suited for racially/culturally/economically diverse schools?” Shandra Brown explained how at the end of the year each student has to present in front of students, parents, and community partners and how students politely critique one another in which they ground opinions in evidence “without seeing color.” Melissa Giraud discussed described her experience teaching in a Northern Mexican neighborhood in Chicago, in which she took the students on a trip, many of whom were flunking out of school, and had them make national scripts through interviewing. Melissa explained the significance of having students construct their own knowledge that is relevant to them. Nicholas Donohue ended the panel discussion by explaining that education is a politically and culturally constructed system that is becoming more individualized. He said that although the technological aspect is significant for increasing equality, it will not work until our society’s current cultural set of values and beliefs are challenged and shifted.

Harnessing Diversity's Potential

Integration Meets Innovation Conference

Posted on
photo9
Where Integration Meets Innovation: Conference Agenda

On Friday November 8th, the Hartford Public Library hosted the “Where Integration Meets Innovation” conference organized by One Nation Indivisible and the Sheff Movement Coalition. During the conference, a panel of six, which included Elizabeth Horton Sheff, Martha Stone, Dennis Parker, Amy Stuart Wells, Alex Knopp, and Robert Cotto, all discussed their roles and involvement in creating and sustaining diverse school settings and methods for a successful classroom. Focusing primarily on Elizabeth Horton Sheff, the lead plaintiff of the 1989 Sheff vs. O’Neil court case, her main argument was that racial isolation was affecting the city of Hartford and its children as well as deeming the segregation of schools as unconstitutional.

Sheff began to speak on the time frame that she had been an activist of the integration of Hartford region schools. The main reason why she wanted to stay in Connecticut and keep her son enrolled in school in the Hartford region was because she as well as other parents was committed to their children’s education. She had mentioned that in 1989 74% of the students in 8th grade in Hartford needed assistance in remedial reading. It wasn’t that the kids were failing, but it was the school system that was failing the kids.

As Sheff emphasized that the children come first, she mentioned that it is the parents’ sole responsibility to prepare students to not have an isolated education. As a justice seeker, Sheff at that time took her son around the country to many meetings and activist movements, specifically the March on Washington, which led Milo to become engaged, just at the age of 10, in the Sheff vs. O’Neil court case. This court case, she stated, wasn’t just for the sake of her son, but it was so that parents could provide equal access to education for their children. Sheff closes by stating, “Adults need to stand up to keep the justice road plowed like those before us did”.

 

 

Learning How to Create Safe Space for Discussions about Race

Posted on

Saturday, November 9, 2013
An intimate group of parents, educators, and community activists sat in a sunny classroom on the Learning Corridor’s campus to learn how to create and promote effective dialogue about race and identity in their respective communities. The workshop, entitled Creating and Enriching Spaces for Multiethnic Community Dialogue and Making Room for Community Conversations about Race, was facilitated by Pamela Pinnock of D.C.’s own Busboys and Poets.

Excerpt from Pinnock's suggested reading list to promote dialogue about race.
Excerpt from Pinnock’s suggested reading list to promote dialogue about race.

Pinnock opened the workshop giving a brief description of Busboys and Poets’ rich history. The restaurant which boasts a “Peace and Struggle” wall was named in honor of Langston Hughes, also known as the busboy poet. Initially opened in 2005 by an Iraqi born immigrant, the restaurant was intended to be a space where “art, culture, and politics collide”. For two hours on the first Sunday of every month, Busboys and Poets hosts A.C.T.O.R. (A Continuing Talk On Race) in the Langston Room. The monthly event gathers strangers from all walks of life into a safe space equip with ground rules to exchange ideas about race and current events. Pinnock says that there are key components to hosting productive conversations on the sensitive subjects of race and its intersectionality with gender, class, nationality, and sexual orientation. She listed four components to community dialogue success:

1. Safe space
2. Ground rules
3. Someone knowledgeable to moderate discussion
4. A format that allows EVERYONE to participate

Pinnock stressed the importance of a neutral space, mutual respect, and reservation of judgement. For recurring events, like the A.C.T.O.R discussion series, she said that consistency of date and time is crucial to the success of the talks. She endorsed partnerships with other organizations as a great way to diversify discussion participants and topics. Pinnock cited a host of approaches that would work beyond the restaurant model and translate well into everyday settings. After her presentation and a brisk round of Q&A, the attendees seemed confident and prepared to bring the Busboys and Poets method of conversing across lines back to their campuses and communities.

The workshop was a part of the “Where Integration Meets Innovation” school diversity conference hosted by One Nation Indivisible. The event was free and open to the public.

Conference Panel Day Two
A broad view of conference panelists. Photo credit: Karen Taylor.