So you're denying that there's no such thing as saturation? That there's no ceiling for the test, because what I have shown is HOW saturation can play a part in skewing the results, which you're ignoring. I'm starting to wonder if you have ANY clue about mathematics if you're willing to ignorantly deny one of the somplest factors on gathering averages that contain a ceiling.

What you're doing is using this graph as a basis of student performance, when in fact it's limited to the scope of the exam. You're not going to go ahead and deny that too, are you? You did admit, after all, that the results obtained were from the NAEP exams, which are apparently so good that they're able to justify every cent being spent on a student.

The difference between evolutionclimate change and this is, there has been substantial evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that it they both existm whereas your argument is "Education spending is out of control with zero result ON THIS ONE EXAM  TYPE that has a ceiling and NO ACTUAL DATA ON THE SCOPE OF SAID EXAM" for all you've provided, it could be something as easy as an entrance exam. Your argument is RIDDLED with holes, so don't you dare place it anywhere near the same places as evolution/climate change.

The problem is... YOU don't know what saturation is.  Saturation to any real degree would only happen if everybody scored high on the test.  Do you have any proof that they do?

I do by the way do know... it's a pretty easy thing to find for yourself if you actually want to do some actual research or thinking on it.   I'm just kinda sick of shooting down every irrelevent and alreay disproven idea you have because you don't care to justify anything.

And no... there is no difference.   Please look into how scientific journals and debates go.

It's evidence, then counter evidence.

If you have some... feel free...

if not... it's just because your arguement is lacking.  If you'll note practically anytime i debate someone... I tend to actually facts to the table.

In this situation, saturation occurs when students who are able to achieve higher cannot, because of the limits of the scope of the exam. It does not need to have everybody scoring high, but that would certainly assist in the situation had it occured in the 1970 data, simply because there there is not much more rooom for improvement. However that's the ONLY way you're seeing it, and not on the basis that you'r emeasuring student performance based on a limited scope.

Why don't you actually go back and read my previous posts? I've stated numerous claims to back up my position, and all you say is "you have no evidence". You're saying that the scope of the test extends and measures the full performance of a student? You're saying these test results can be measured on a limitless scale? The system that this test is based on is flawed, due to it's scope. Every point I HAVE brought up you've willingly ignored, and ask for further justification. It shows that you're either only finding things out that you didn't take into account before and refuse to admit it, or you STILL have absolutely no grasp of the situation.

What you call facts is actually data yes, but my argument is that it does little to help what you're arguing about, which is student performance. You're providing data that looks at one aspect at this and saying "Well it works here, so it must work everywhere else", not to mention that a limited scope is being used to measure limitless potential.

A claim would be a fact  Like "Such and such percentage of students do this on the CAB."

backing up a position with claims is meanigless if your claims are unsupported.

I could come up with 30 claims as for why cocacola is the world's greatest fuel source.  Without any sort of fact to bring them up... they're pointless.  There is actually plenty of data pretaining to the claims your making.  I'd suggest actually doing some actual research on it.  If you care enough to have an opinion you should care enough to have an informed one.  It get's tiring explaining to someone for the 100th time why they aren't a monkey, or why you don't see things going through pokemon style evolutions.

I'm not going any further with this until you answer those quuestions truthfully. I'm sick of running in circles with your bullshit.

Once again, is your stance that the scope of the test extends and measures the full performance of a student?

 You're saying these test results can be measured on a limitless scale?

You seem to be missing my point.  Which is, I'm not answering those questions because your being EXTREMELY lazy in this debate.  Expecting me to provide both ides of the data.

My stance is that the test is the best measure of performance of a student.  It's why we use it.  Though i could pull out plenty of other graphhs and info about poor student performance.  However again, your being extremely lazy and not bothering to offer any data to back up any claims.  If you had an informed opinion, you wouldn't be asking this stuff.