1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

BAME SLT members of staff could help alleviate issues in some schools.

Discussion in 'Education news' started by mark_oviri1, Mar 15, 2020.

  1. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Established commenter

    So t-test were performed on samples

    Picking 100 random samples of teachers from the control group that matched the teachers in the treatment group gave different results – sometimes the t-test comparing means for each sample showed that the treatment group was statistically significantly different from the control group and sometimes not.

    It does not state at what level of confidence the significant difference was calculated for these t-tests. Different levels can produce different conclusions. What is significant at one level is not significant at another. The 95% refers to the number of tests needed to conclude statistical significance (seems a particularly high bar) not the confidence interval for each particular t-test.

    You will note that all this does anyway is show statistical significance. It is not proof of anything.
     
  2. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    So write a paper to explain how they are wrong then!
     
  3. Skeoch

    Skeoch Lead commenter

    No - you've misunderstood the methodology of the research and of t-testing,
    "Not significant" unless qualified means not significant at the 95% level. 95% does not refer to the number of tests needed. 95% isn't a high bar - it's the normal level that we work at.
     
  4. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Established commenter

    What is this all about then on page 73?

    For us to be confident that the outcome from the treatment group was statistically significantly different from the control group we required 95% of the t-tests for these samples to be significant.



     
  5. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Established commenter

    I didn't say they are wrong, they do show no statistical significance at the level they have used, I am saying they do not prove that race is not significant in career progression. To be able to do that you would have to be able to read the minds of people making the promotions.
     
  6. drvs

    drvs Star commenter

    I see you've recognised that localised grouping has statistical significance.
     
    Stiltskin and alex_teccy like this.
  7. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Established commenter

    I never said there wasn't. You can provide the quote where I said this?
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2020
  8. drvs

    drvs Star commenter

  9. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    Yes it shows no statistical significance in disparity of the promotion of teachers by ethnicity. Race may be significant in some career progressions, but they are looking at the mean rate for groups not individual cases. When looking at groups of teachers who all other things being equal, then on average there is no difference.

    So if, on average, there is no difference in progression of teachers based on ethnicity it suggests that it is not this that is the reason for the disparity of the number BAME in leadership positions. Which is what you initially questioned. If there is less BAME teachers though, then there would be a small proportion of them being promoted. This would be evident in regional disparity - there are more BAME in leadership positions in London because there is a bigger pool of BAME teachers to start with.
     
  10. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Established commenter

    Wrong. I have never questioned the conclusion of the report at the confidence level given. I said if different confidence levels were used you could get a different conclusion in terms of statistical significance. I have always said that racism cannot be ruled out when talking about career progression of BAME. It cannot be ruled out and statistics cannot prove that it can.

    Do you think the report proves that race plays no part in the career progression of BAME teachers? And when I say prove I mean it can be stated with 100% certainty that race is not a factor in the career progression of ethnic minority teachers.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2020
  11. Skeoch

    Skeoch Lead commenter

    No. It doesn't prove things either way. What it does is to fail to disprove the hypothesis that there is no difference between the groups.
    And as it's working at the 95% level, any lower level (90%, say) wouldn't be an acceptable approach as the result might come about by chance. Clearly if it's not significant at 95% it cannot be significant at 99%.
     
    Stiltskin likes this.
  12. thin_ice

    thin_ice Occasional commenter

  13. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    There is a difference between probability and possibility. What you are asking is to prove the non existence of something, which in this case is not possible. There are too many variables to account for.

    What the report is telling me is it in not very probable (EDIT - based on the data they have) that the difference in the number of headteachers who are BAME or white British is due to the lack of progression of teachers because of their ethnicity. That the reason is probably due to some other factor(s). It is still possible that some teachers find they don't progress because of their ethnicity (and this can be true even if they are white British - you can not rule that out either). The report does show that a teacher's gender will probably effect their chances of progression to leadership. Similarly it is possible that some teachers this won't be a factor.

    So let's flip this around and you show the proof that race plays a significant part in the career progression of BAME teachers?
     
    drvs, alex_teccy and Rott Weiler like this.
  14. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Established commenter

    Why do I need to do this when I have never claimed this was the case?

    You still haven't answered this question either.

    Do you think the report proves that race plays no part in the career progression of BAME teachers? A simple yes or no will suffice.
     
  15. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Established commenter

    At last. Took a while but we got there.

    Well done.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2020
  16. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Established commenter

  17. drvs

    drvs Star commenter

    You failed to be able to see how localised grouping could account for any disparity, then later you used localised population figures to argue a disparity.

    You then failed to see the link between the two quotes I had already posted and quote challenged me, now you're going for a semantic challenge and patronising me.

    If you've set out in this thread to prove that you're not as bright as you think you are, I would say that you are making a great success of it. Keep up the good work.

    :rolleyes:
     
    alex_teccy likes this.
  18. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Established commenter

    This is what you first said

    I have never said anything about not recognising statistical significance in localised groups. I was saying I could not see how disparity in localised groups could affect the overall statistics given in the Guardian article.

    We have since moved onto another report.

    Do keep up.

    Easy with the insults as well. Anyone would think you were getting flustered.
     
  19. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    If you don't think that then why bother to ask...
    I did answer, see previous post. Your wording of the question suggests you possibly misunderstand what the report is showing.

    Tbh I'm not sure you know what point you are trying to make either.
     
    alex_teccy likes this.
  20. Spoofer4114

    Spoofer4114 Established commenter

    The point I am making is clear and always has been. You cannot rule out race as a factor in the career progression of BAME teachers. I have even bolded the point to make it clearer. You have not been able to prove you can rule it out. The report you introduced certainly doesn't do that as you now admit.

    I will take this as your acceptance that the report is not proof so in the end you agree with me. I, for further clarity, have never said that racism was a factor in determining career progression, I just said you can't rule it out. It was that second part you (and others) don't like for some reason and why this thread has gone on for several pages.
     
    corgie11 likes this.

Share This Page