Love reading Wednesday Journal, but regarding your reporting of OPRF freshman grade statistics [Early line on OPRF frosh curriculum is: too early to draw conclusions, News, Nov. 16] you should include the bases for the segments you are reporting on.

As admitted in the article, the Asian/PI sample size was too small to actually determine any conclusions. By this very admission, reporting “it’s falling” as a direction is misleading. In practice, sample sizes over 30 are adequate (over 50 even better) to actually report a significant statistical direction. Not sure if you did this analysis, but I would recommend doing stat testing of some kind to determine if grades going up or down are significant. Based on the very limited data you reported on, it looked as if grades were largely flat for the whole class (very minor differences — but again hard to tell without knowing the sample size). Overall, I was dismayed on how this was reported. The language used did not match a rigorous statistical analysis (it seemed), thus it was hard to gain any insight into how meaningful this was.

Love the paper, but stats are tricky and can be dangerous and often misleading.

Thanks again for being a great community resource. Hope future stats reporting can improve.

Daniel Urbina-McCarthy
Oak Park

Join the discussion on social media!