En garde!
A few weeks ago, I wrote about Newsweek/Jay Mathews' "Challenge Index" and an Education Sector report that challenged its findings. Today this story was back in the news as Jay Mathews used his Washington Post column to respond directly to the Education Sector report and many of the criticisms/critiques contained therein. Although Mathews does not cover a whole lot of new ground, some of his answers are sufficently enlightening (including his defense of the use of the number of graduating seniors as a component in the index, despite what we know to be high drop out rates) to make it worth the read even if you are already familiar with the story.
I don't have a whole lot to say beyond what I said last time: The Education Sector charge that the index is based too much on a single indicator is beyond a "no-brainer," but for me that does not negate the value of the enterprise, especially as a rigorous high school curriculum has been shown to be crucial to a student's success in high school and beyond.
I think Mathews' is right to push back against any index that is essentially a stand in for the socio-economic status of a school's student population, but his comment that any index that produced a list of "best schools" that did not include Garfield High School in East Los Angeles does give me pause. No matter what the field of research, one should never begin an inquiry by determining the end result and working backwards. So this begs the question: Is the Challenge Index all a matter of, as Pirandello might say, a data point in search of an index?