tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post9214402311381447890..comments2024-03-29T06:46:56.337-04:00Comments on Half an Hour: Disingenuous and myopicStephen Downeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-44933209890444849572008-08-12T00:00:00.000-04:002008-08-12T00:00:00.000-04:00Stephen, here are your citations:* Evans D, Clark...Stephen, here are your citations:<BR/><BR/>* Evans D, Clark NM, Feldman CH, et al. A school health education program for children with asthma aged 8-11 years. Health Educ Q. 1987;14(3):267-279<BR/><BR/>* Clark NM, Brown R, Joseph CL, Anderson EW, Liu M, Valerio MA. Effects of a comprehensive school-based asthma program on symptoms, parent management, grades, and absenteeism. Chest. 2004; 125(5):1674-1679. <BR/><BR/>Unlike double-standard Downes, I cited these two research studies because they actually met some minimum standards of social-science research. See Coordinated school health programs and academic achievement: a systematic review of the literature, Journal of School Health; Nov 1, 2007; Murray, Nancy G. Low, Barbara J. Hollis, Christine Cross, Alan W. Davis, Sally M.<BR/><BR/>These two studies were only two of about a half dozen studies related to school health programs that met generally accepted research standards.<BR/><BR/><I>"One disappointing result was the failure of the investigators to connect with the children’s primary care clinicians and obtain an asthma action plan. Baseline data indicated that only one quarter of the asthmatic children in the study were receiving adequate treatment..."<BR/><BR/>Gee, don't you think receiving treatment might be important?</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for unwittingly proving my point once again.<BR/><BR/>I don't doubt that the school bungled the treatment; that's what schools do -- they bungle. Here's what the study tells us: even under experimental conditions, the school couldn't implement the treatment regime adequately such that it could improve student outcomes.<BR/><BR/><I>In the study where adequate medical care *was* provided (Halterman JS, Szilagyi PG, Yoos HL, et al.) a positive result was obtained in many cases</I><BR/><BR/>No citation? No determination if it meets minimal standards. It was excluded from the 2007 Murray et al. meta-anlysis cited above. Oh, that's right, it agrees with your world-view so it must be true. The Downes double-standard rears its ugly head again.<BR/><BR/>Substantively, however, I fail to see how gaining two school days (a 1 % increase) has ever led to an increased student achievement. Maybe you can find a cite for that?<BR/><BR/><I>"Overall, the intervention provided significant benefits, particularly for children with persistent asthma."</I> <BR/><BR/>Benefits which apparently didn't include student achievement.<BR/><BR/><I>So an examination of the research shows that it does[n't:sic??] support the conclusion you say that it does, and indeed, explicitly states the opposite.</I><BR/><BR/>Only if we count outcomes not related to student achievement--the explicit reason given by Broader, Bolder. If we limit the outcomes to student achievement related measures the benefits, as usual, are elusive.<BR/><BR/><I>Rather, you will map their results against your own idiosyncratic definitions (of, say, 'improvement') and declare, contrary to all the researchers, that the asthma programs are ineffective.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't remember claiming that these studies didn't show any benefits, just none related to student achievement, a sine qua non for using limited educational resources which might be used more productively on other educational programs. (And let's not discount the infirmities of extrapolating generalized results from these small scale studies which in all likelihood have methodological infirmities)<BR/><BR/><I>eye problems impact the ability to learn how to read<BR/><BR/>lack of proper medical care heightens the severity of childhood illnesses and makes them last longer <BR/><BR/>untreated asthma leads to more absences from school </I><BR/><BR/>Nice Downesian (i.e., dishonest) framing. The question is whether providing a school-based version of these kinds of intervention will show an improvement over what is already being done.<BR/><BR/>You seem very confident in your opinions here. Surely you can cite specific school-based programs on each point which has been researched and has shown a positive impact on student achievement. Large scale, no doubt, and replicated.<BR/><BR/><I>screening for lead poisoning happens least for children in poverty</I><BR/><BR/>Current lead exposure levels are soundly in the <A HREF="http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn031601.htm" REL="nofollow">realm of junkscience.</A> But maybe I'm wrong and really have a study that shows increased achievement due to better school-based screening. Prove me wrong.<BR/><BR/>If you're going to carry Casey's water, at least do a competent job.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.com