What is a journalist?

I am lost with the journalism ordeal.  I feel as if I am being asked to not be a human being as I move into the world of being a reporter/photographer/technology perfector/editor/everything that goes into a single article (online and offline).  I attended a SPJ conference in Portland, OR a few years back while I was working at The Torch at Lane Community College.  It was a three day conference where each individual could pick the specific talks he/she found important to their career path.  Along with those, each individual went to keynote speakers presentations who usually were very entertaining.  In these conferences technology was of course a huge deal; however, even more so was the change that was taking place in many newsrooms across the nation.  At the time, I believe I was a little uneducated in the material they were referring to.  Now, I know what they were discussing as it relates to the journalism professions, which is the need to actually bring a little more “human” into the article because it actually can bring articles to life.  The funny thing about all those professionals telling me those things is that I have yet to hear a teacher say they agree with the approach.  Thus, I must say I am uneasy approaching news like I was told to at the conference.  I mean granted they weren’t saying “write everything from your perspective” but at the same time they were saying “bring in emotions that are important to the situation if they will further the readers understanding.”  I am looking to write more along the lines of magazines anyways; however, the scary thing is if I have to start as a news reporter that I should be very aware not to take part in organizations that may “damper” my reputation.  I don’t agree with that approach because I believe outside of work I should be able to take part in what every other American is able to take part in every day.  I should be able to have a personal blog where I get to discuss what ever issues are on my mind without it affecting the continuity and stories that I report on.  After all, every journalist has an opinion and believes in things and just because they are not telling you them doesn’t mean they are not there.  Thus, I think by being forthcoming with the beliefs is actually a more honest and ethical approach to allowing the public a personal view on your character instead of trying to hide it all from them to keep an illusion of “objectivity” with everything the reporter is involved in.  I would say the idea seems to stretch far enough to tell a reporter to be hesitant in voting because it would be playing a part in the democratic system they are reporting on.  I believe that idea is wrong and should be reevaluated by the many journalists already in the industry and also by the new journalists entering the field.  I want to be a human being taking part in life even when I do have a job to do.  I want to be an employee like everyone else.  I would like to leave my job at work and my personal life at home and allow for my ideas and opinions to remain separate entities from the work that I am writing about.  I wouldn’t go as far as the SPJ conference was talking about; however, I would like to see some changes in the stylistic qualities of news but I will save that conversation for another entry.

Final Assessment of Sources for the Speech (1000 words)

The topic I have chosen is based on the question “Should Education Secretary Duncan, leader of education reforms, fund Title I with any of the $115 billion in stimulus money?”  The answer to this question is yes; however, there are things that need to be changed before the money will be effective in changing education for the children at an education level of K-12.  The main problem that needs to change is shifting from the state-level structure to a national-level structure.  Since that is not a straightforward process, I will cover the aspects within that to include a better understanding of the problem with current formulas at a state level, teacher retention at a state level and some of the proposed methods by critics of Secretary Duncan.

            The use of Title I funds across the country, in more than 50,000 public schools, is to provide additional academic support to help the low-achieving children across the country develop to meet the standards in various core academic subjects.  The allocation of funds, up to this point, has been a decision by a state educational agency that receives the grants and pushes them directly to the local educational agencies (LEA).  The LEA provides the money to the schools that are identified as needing school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.  The Title I funds is the funding process under the No Child Left Behind.  The name of the act changes but the allocation systems have always remained the same.

            First, I want to talk about the formulas used at the state-level and the problems with them because they are directly to the allocations of funds.  In line with this idea is the comparability loophole.  According to a study done in June of 2008 by Marguerite Roza, Center on Reinventing Public Education, “It is paragraph (B) above that creates the most glaring loophole.  By exempting staff salary differentials based on years of employment, this paragraph essentially endorses the practices that serve as the root cause of inequities in teacher salaries” (Source Form #14). Paragraph B is within the written law and is about the determinations of the expenditures per pupil from State and local funds and how teacher salaries shall not be included in this figure.  The consequence according to Roza is that Title I reinforces tradition instead of giving high-need students a leg up.  She also claims that the exemption here implies that “a school with chronic teacher turnover and no ability to hire or retain more qualified teachers is no different from one with a stable, committed, experience faculty” (Source Form #14). Thus, built into allocations is a flaw that doesn’t take into account teacher retention, which is a big piece of the puzzle in regards to keeping Title I funding a functioning unit.  The next problem within the formulas is the accountability illusion, which is based on Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).  According to a study in February of 2009 by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, they wanted a study to show how AYP varies across the country and how it has a relationship to the effectiveness of NCLB (Source Form #19).  The study claims that NCLB may impose strict expectations for schools by 2014 but also allows schools to have a lot of movement with some key variables.  The variables are crafting their own academic standards, establishing their own annual targets, apply margins of error to a school’s proficiency rate and determine when the size of a student subgroup within a school is large enough that it must meet AYP.  The study took 36 schools from 28 different states to prove that this way of functioning is having an effect on the efficiency and equality of AYP. (Show Graphs from Source Form #19 here as visual aid to how the results appear [visually strong]). Thus, accountability is a built in problem with the law of Title I that must be fixed before funds can be beneficial to education.

            Second, I would like to address the problems with teacher retention that are being addressed by some states.  The idea here is many of the current models that states are using are proving to work. The nation could set standards within the law to equalize that benefit across all states.  The first example is a year-round schedule, which Timber Lane Elementary in Virginia has chosen to switch to (Source Form #4).  The results according to the teachers and parents at this school are that the year-round schedule cuts a day off the week—Friday—and leads to parents having to find one day of daycare a week instead of 11 weeks in the summer.  At the same time, teachers are more relaxed and have more time to adjust curriculum benefiting the atmosphere of the students.  The next example is a program that formed within the Boston Public Schools, which is called the Boston Teacher Resident program. The incentive for a teacher to mentor gives benefits by a bonus in pay to remain in the Boston area after mentoring there (for a certain amount of years).  The objective here is to keep the good teachers in areas where struggle and disadvantage are apparent by rewarding the teachers for staying (Source Form #3).  These examples seem to echo the desire of Secretary Arne Duncan as he talks to the public about his desires for the education system.  However, no real initiative is given about how he plans on doing this–besides providing funds.

            Last, I would like to look at what some critics are saying about Arne Duncan’s method of allocating funds and how those methods could hold back the education system.  According to Bob Compton, a venture capitalist and director of the documentary Two Million Minutes, the speed Duncan plans to spend the money is too fast to provide any new changes within the education system.  Compton believes that such methods will lock education into a 20^th century way of functioning–throwing money into a state level system that is broken to begin with (Source Form #26).  According to Carla Wade, Oregon Department of Education,  “At this point within the law a national test would not work because it is not setup to work; however, if they changed the law and put a national standard for teachers, the national assessment level model could work” (Source Form #28).  Wade continues by stating no one test can meet all the different standards of states across the U.S. because in no way does the law have a built in standard for the expectations of teachers.  The qualifying agent for her is the need to provide a better structure of teacher assessment and quality that will trickle down to the kids.  Duncan agrees that both of these are important in his interview with NPR on March 5, 2009; however, he never provides us with any real direction  (Source Form #27). Duncan’s only immediate plan seems to be spend money as quickly as possible to save jobs, save the kids in education right now and to fix the system after money is put in.  He plans to do this using data systems, race to the top initiatives, and rewarding teachers who are serving disadvantaged areas (Source Form #30). 

            In conclusion the idea of reform and change in the education system is important and must be acted upon to provide a structure worth putting money into.  At this point, money is not exactly the answer until the system is corrected.  However, Duncan wants to spend now and fix structure as the money is spent, which is basically throwing money back into this state-based allocation system that has been shown to not work.  A slower approach now could save the education of millions in the future at the cost of those in the education system right now who could benefit drastically from receiving the money now to save their schools.  The money is needed for Title I but should be appropriated into a system that will use it to the fullest potential.  Putting money into the Title I funds right now will only further the destruction of education across the board for all future generations but provide a quick fix for teaching jobs and current students for the time being.

 

Source Form Links:

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/source-form-30/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/source-form-29/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/source-form-28/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/source-form-27/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/source-form-26/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/source-form-25/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/source-form-24/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/source-form-23/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/source-form-22/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/source-form-21/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/source-form-20/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/source-form-19/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/source-form-18/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/source-form-17/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/source-form-16/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/source-form-15/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/source-form-14/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/source-form-13/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/source-form-12/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/source-form-11/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/source-form-10/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/source-form-9/ http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/source-notes-8/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/source-form-7/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/source-form-6/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/source-form-5/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/source-form-4/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/source-form-3/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/source-form-2/

http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/source-form-1/

Source Form #30

Title:  Economic and Moral Imperative

 

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21922523/economic_and_moral_imperative.htm#q=OR+%22Arne+Duncan%22+OR+%22Education+Secretary+Arne+Duncan%22+OR+%22Secretary+of+Education+Arne+Duncan%22

 

Summary:  Shepard Smith interviews Education Secretary Arne Duncan about the allocations being made with the stimulus money.  Smith also analyzes the decision making of Duncan, through a series of questions, when looking at the reforms that should be taking place before the money is spent.

 

 

Topic: http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/question/

 

Category: This is a journalistic source via broadcast media.

 

What is it? This is a recording of the Fox News interview of Arne Duncan.

 

Publication Information:  Published on February 24, 2009

 

Author:  Shepard Smith is the Fox News reporter covering the story.

 

Location: http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21922523/economic_and_moral_imperative.htm#q=OR+%22Arne+Duncan%22+OR+%22Education+Secretary+Arne+Duncan%22+OR+%22Secretary+of+Education+Arne+Duncan%22

 

Accessed: March 11, 2009

 

Support:  New York City schools are used as an example of how throwing money into an education system doesn’t necessarily fix anything.

 

Data Systems, Race to the top, Rewarding teachers and serving rural and disadvantaged areas are examples how the kind of ideas going to be more reformed for the money coming in. 

 

These are really the only sources used.  The first source is used by the reporter to dig and try to get Duncan to reveal more about what he is talking about.  The second source is used by Duncan as examples of the kinds of things to expect from him as time goes on and money is spent in the future of education.  Being that Arne Duncan is the Education Secretary, his words are support enough in the sense of him being accountable for everything he says.

 

Audience and Agenda:  The audience is huge for Fox News—totaling around 147.7 million page views per month among 13 million unique users.  Approximately 80 percent of the viewers are earning $75k, which is middle-upper to upper class.  With an audience in that range the amount of business coverage is probably the main use of this news source.  The agenda of Fox is to provide current news for their viewers with questions that are important to the general population of viewers.  The reporter was definitely asking questions that were very skeptical of Duncan’s decision making thus far.  Shepard fulfills his position as an active journalist by doing so but also keeps the stations political affiliations in mind as he questions—the types of questions make this very obvious.

 

Usefulness:  This news coverage is important in listening to what kind of information is going through the public.  Secretary Duncan has ideas in mind as he initiates conversation about the topics he plans to accomplish with the stimulus money.  The interview with the Carla Wade gave some insight into the fact that making a national standard is a long ways away and may be harder to do than Duncan is making it out to be.  As the public is being fed this information, experts are conversing and angling at the fact that Arne Duncan will not be able to get the money to the right places; however, Duncan is adamant in making national standards a goal of this money.  The coverage here is important to keeping in mind the information the general public is aware of and the information that is available through evaluation of sources and deeper structural analysis.

 

Works Cited: http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/source-form-28/

Source Form #29

 

 

Title:  New Education Secretary Announced and Texas Program Takes Off

 

http://roysblog.edin08.com/

 

Summary:  Roy Romer, chair of Strong American Schools, was interviewed on CNN about his opinion of the selection of Secretary Duncan by Obama and also gives some feedback on a program that is working in Texas.

 

Topic:  http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/question/

 

Category:  This is a citizen source with a media link that is an institutional source.

 

What is it?  This is Romer’s personal blog with a video link.

 

Publication Information:  The blog was posted on December 17, 2008.

 

Author:  Roy Romer, Chair of Strong American Schools and former governor of Colorado.

 

Location: http://roysblog.edin08.com/

 

Accessed:  March 11, 2009

 

Support:  A CNN video of an interview with him is used to provide the actual coverage that took place rather than giving the explanation of it.

 

Dallas Morning News article is used to provide the source where Romer got the information of the program that is new in Texas but seems to be working.

 

Both of these sources provide a resource to the reader to go take a first hand look at what Romer is talking about.  Giving the sources to the reader builds Romer’s credibility and allows the reader to make a first hand judgment of the information provided within them.

 

Audience and Agenda:  This blog is all about schools and is aimed towards an audience who would be interested in the plethora of topics about them.  Romer covers a lot of issues, current and past, about changes and reforms that he wants to see take place as the chair of Strong American Schools.  It is hard to say how big the audience but based upon the fact that Romer was on CNN the size of the audience would be considerably larger than expected because people around the United States must know who he is.

 

Usefulness:  The information in the source is important because it provides the interpretation of Duncan before he gets the stimulus money and before he really gets the ball rolling in the political spotlight.  The video interview is a nice addition to the blog article because it gives some depth to Romer and allows the viewer to take a first hand look at how Romer looks at education.  The ideas at the end of the blog are also useful because they deal with Texas structure changes that seem to be working and have been working in other areas.  Although the blog isn’t very lengthy, the hyperlink and video feed provide enough to make this source worthwhile and useful.  I plan on getting another video of Romer because I think it would be interesting to see what he thinks once Duncan gets the money and starts making adjustments to the education system (which is what this article is lacking).  This and the interview on NPR are a good compilation of Duncan’s thoughts on a lot issues facing education up to this point.  

 

Works Cited:  http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2009/03/education-secretary-arne-duncan/

Source Form #28

Title:  Carla Wade from the Oregon Department of Education Interview           

 

What kind of work do you do with Title I-A funds?

Works with anything on Title IA districts.  Monitoring and allocations and looking through assessments to determine whether standards are being met.

 

 

Could you tell me about any new plans with Title I-A and how the new administration is having an affect on them?

Will be getting more funds and the focus is the same “To improve acheivment with disadvantaged students.”  We’ve improved kids as a whole to improve their education but its difficult because you get new kids through pipeline every year.

Its getting more funds to the schools in need that have not met AYP for two years.  Believes the current structure is providing the most need schools with the money.

Educators who go in to districts to work with them specifically are Oregon School improvement facilitators—go in to work one on one with the school and help them review their data and find out what their issues are.  They help with them strategic planning. 

 

 

What do you hope will happen as changes are being made by Secretary Duncan?

We all hope that we are going to meet the needs of all of our students and help them meet the needs with their counterparts across the world.  We want them to be as well prepared as they can be for the workplace. 

 

 

Are you receiving any funding from the new stimulus package?

Ed.gov page. 

If so what are you going to be putting it towards?

Money allocations will vary from district to district.  Some will be for title I teachers to assist students in need.  Reteaching.. Some will be for additional resources—books, hardware and software.  The allocations are really dependent on what the district data is showing which will determine what in fact a particular district or school will need.

If not, why are you not receiving any funding?

 

 

NCLB name for what was reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  The title keeps on changing but the funds for the grants within will never go away.  The guidance of the Department of Education changes and it puts

Title IA—allocations set here set the bar for the rest of the allocations among the rest of the Title Funds.  These allocations are the determining factor in what other allocations should be made.

 

Is there anything else I should know about Title I-A funds?

It is hard to prove whether this works across the nation because every state has there own set of guidelines to follow—in regards to the assessments.  At this point within the law a national test would not work because it is not set up to work; however, if they changed the law and put a national standard for teachers the national assessment level could work.

 

Tests are different from state-to-state.  If we had a national test all teachers would be expected to teach at the same level.

 

You can’t do one test that meets all the different standards of states across the U.S. because the law does not build those standards into the expectations of the teachers.

Source Form #27

Title:  Education Secretary Arne Duncan

 

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2009/03/education-secretary-arne-duncan/

 

Summary:  Tom Ashbrook interviews Secretary Duncan about the $100 billion he received to work on American Education.  Duncan is also answers to callers who have various questions about charter schools, No Child Left Behind and higher education.

 

Topic:  http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/question/

 

Category:  This is a journalistic source.

 

What is it?  This is a radio interview of Arne Duncan on NPR.

 

Publication Information:  The broadcast was on March 5, 2009.  The broadcast is playable at onpointradio.org.

 

Author:  The interviewer is Tom Ashbrook, On Point’s host and an award-winning journalist.

 

Location: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2009/03/education-secretary-arne-duncan/

 

Accessed: March 8, 2009

 

Support:  This is a straightforward interview and no supporting characters are brought in to backup or fight against Secretary Duncan.  Duncan uses Chicago schools as his main basis of argument for change in education.  Duncan’s experience in Chicago leads listeners to believe he may be experienced enough with disadvantaged students, teachers and districts to handle the issues facing Title IA funding.  At times Ashbrook brings in recorded feeds of President Obama talking, Duncan is asked to respond to these by explaining how he is living up to the expectations being laid down by President Obama in his speeches.  These clips are a way to get conversations going between the interviewer and interviewee about certain topics or to shift from one topic to another. 

 

Audience and Agenda:  The show covers topics interesting to many walks of life.  The audience is growing as more people find out about its topics.  The show has only existed since 9/11.  This is an interactive source where people can call in and ask questions they are having about what’s going on with the show.  The effect of interactivity leads to people against the views of Ashbrook to listen because they can call in and criticize.  Radio is an important source in that it provides people with a medium to listen while they may be doing other things at work or on the way to work. 

 

Usefulness:  This broadcast provides 45 minutes of one-on-one with Arne Duncan.  The importance is high because he is answering the many questions people are having with what is going on with the money and specifically what is going on with NCLB which directly relates to Title I-A Funds.  As a result, the information is in line with many of the conclusions I have drawn from other sources, which is that the administration has no idea what they are going to do because so much needs to be changed before it is going to work—money or no money.  As a validation of such it was interesting to here so much emphasis on charter school programs and data based ideas.  Another source I have located ridicules data as a whole for producing anything that can transfer from state-to-state.  Thus, the relevance of Duncan talking about how much of a need there is to use such strategies is going against the grain of another voice and adds to the disagreement—creating a more structured line for both sides.

 

Works Cited: http://www.aei.org/include/pub_print.asp?pubID=29301

Source Form #26

Title:  Out Takes:  Will the stimulus package stimulate education reform?

 

http://www.thetakeaway.org/stories/2009/feb/24/will-simulus-package-stimulate-education-reform/

 

Summary:  John Hockenberry interviews Bob Compton, a venture capitalist and director of the documentary Two Million Minutes, about how to interpret what Secretary Duncan is going to do with the $100 billion dollars of stimulus money.

 

Topic:  http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/question/

 

Category:  This is a journalistic source.

 

What is it?  This is a radio broadcast interview of an expert on education—Bob Compton.

 

Publication Information:  The broadcast is downloadable at thetakeaway.org website.  The broadcast was done on February 24, 2009.

 

Author:  John Hockenberry, co-host of the take away show with 15 years of experience in broadcast and television.

 

Location: http://www.thetakeaway.org/stories/2009/feb/24/will-simulus-package-stimulate-education-reform/

 

Accessed:  March 8, 2009

 

Support:  The interviewer brings in clips of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and asks Compton to analyze what he is saying and what it could mean for education.  Compton has done some extensive studies with the K-12 education system, which he uses to be critical of what Duncan is portraying as the plan of action.  Other than the clips the interview is a one-on-one interview with no sources.

 

Audience and Agenda:  This broadcast is national and a part of the Public Radio International (PRI) organization.  There are 29 million listeners who tune in to get the updates of news that is important to them.  The funding is through partnerships with BBC, independent-based and station-based producers.  The station’s location is Minneapolis.  The audience would be people who listen to NPR and want a little variety in their talk radio.  This station provides another outlet and another voice to portray what is going on in the nationally and internationally in the news.

 

Usefulness:  Bob Compton breaks down a lot things wrong with everything Duncan is trying to do.  The idea of this interview is to provide a first-hand interpretation of how things are going to stay at a state level of functioning and how such a procedure will keep us locked into a 20^th century makeup of education.  The negative interpretation of Duncan, by Compton, is important in analyzing what opposing people are thinking as the money is (at this point) still not yet being spent.  The assertions by Compton is that the money will be spent too fast because that is what it is designed to do.  Through to quick a spending, dysfunction will take its course full throttle because money is being thrown into a state level system that is broken to begin with.  The information here is a concrete step in determining what kind of expectations people are holding about the incoming stimulus money.  From an expert on education, the information provides a good structure of how to go about relating information on both sides of the incoming “reforms”—or lack thereof.

 

Works Cited:  Although previous to the radio interview with Arne Duncan on NPR, the interview compliments what came about once the money was released, which is important to consider.

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2009/03/education-secretary-arne-duncan/

Source Form #25

Title:  Committee on Education and Labor Letter to Arne Duncan

 

http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/Media/File/PDFs/022709duncanletter.pdf

 

Summary:  Howard P. McKeon, Senior Republican Member of the House of Representatives, writes to ask Secretary Duncan to begin holding meetings about how the nearly $100 billion from the stimulus packages is going to be allocated within ARRA and why such meetings would be beneficial.

 

Topic:  http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/question/

 

Category:  This is an institutional source.

 

 What is it?  This is a letter to Secretary Duncan provided online to be viewed.

 

Publication Information:  This letter was published on February 27, 2009.

 

Author:  Howard P. McKeon, Senior Republican Member of the House of Representatives. 

 

Location: http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/Media/File/PDFs/022709duncanletter.pdf

 

Accessed:  March 2, 2009

 

Support:  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  The source is a reference to what exactly this letter addresses and why the timeliness of writing could prove to be vital.

 

Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General (OIG).  Sourced to provide a place of concern and why it is desired by this committee to receive information on more enhanced monitoring activities.

 

The two sources are just an addressing of topics pertaining to where questions are arising from and then the questions are asked in a–1, 2, 3… –format.

 

Audience and Agenda:  The intended audience of this letter is specifically Secretary Arne Duncan.  It is addressed to him and questions are pointed directly at him in regards to a response the committee is asking for.  This is government body to government body and thus remains a source of institutional significance as it is from a Republican member of government to a Democratic member of government.

 

Usefulness:  This letter provides insight into how the Republican members of government are responding to the money being allocated to education within the stimulus package.  This is the most money that has ever been given to a Education Secretary and thus the heavy hitting sentences throughout the letter are in-line with how radical this allotment of money is to the current members.  The usefulness is the opposition and seeing what the other party is resistant to do and how they are addressing their concerns.  The idea in this letter of having meetings for accountability of disbursements seems to echo that of President Obama in that it is calling for transparency.  I cannot yet find the response to this letter as perhaps it was never written but I am very interested in the resulting letter of Secretary Duncan towards McKeon and the committee.  That is the only thing missing from the letter.  However, the letter by itself is still a very important piece of the topic because knowing where republican members stand is important to getting a full spectrum relating to education funding.  The response to this letter is not available; however, an interpretation of what Duncan is going to do with this money is on his radio interview with NPR.

 

Works Cited: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2009/03/education-secretary-arne-duncan/

Source Form #24

 

Title:  Michigan’s Schools:  More of the Same

 

http://brigitteknudson.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/michigan-schools-more-of-the-same/

 

Summary:  Brigitte Knudson writes this blog in an attempt to open people’s eyes to the inefficiency of assessments and accreditation—calling out for a deeper change beyond surface criteria as the stimulus money is being allocated.

 

Topic:  http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/question/

 

Category:  This is a citizen source.

 

What is it?  This is a personal level of writing addressing the new stimulus money moving into education.  This is a blog to allow others to read into the ideas of the writer.

 

Publication Information:  The entry was published on wordpress.com.  Published on March 1, 2009. 

 

Author:  Brigitte Knudson, working towards a PhD in English Education at WSU.  Knudson has eleven years of full time teaching.

 

Location: http://brigitteknudson.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/michigan-schools-more-of-the-same/

 

Accessed:  March 2, 2009

 

Support:  Detroit Free Press.  This source is hyperlinked and used to provide an example of the new proposals by schools looking to move along the same line of agenda as before with little attempt at a dramatic change.

 

Michigan education officials.  This source is hyperlinked and used to show a new system Michigan is planning to put into action.  The new system would switch from A-F grading to a 3-tier grading scale of accredited, interim accredited, and unaccredited.  Knudson uses the source to argue against assessment tests and anything related to such because it is too small of a piece to be important.

 

The author pulls these two sources together to provide a place of information in regards to where her view to argue is coming from.  They work together in providing a relevance of a system moving towards supplying nothing innovative but instead the same stale bread that led education to be hungry in the first place.  The blog provides numerical values without sources which takes away from the credibility of the author; however, the idea behind the paper fits in line with much of the other sources I have been reading—actual change needs to happen first and foremost.

 

Audience and Agenda:  The audience for this entry is specific to people in Michigan—when considering the title of the entry and sources given.  The audience is also people who are interested in what the stimulus package is affecting across the nation—specifically people interested in education on this platform.  The author has a lot of other entries relating to education and reform ideas around such.  Since the author is a blogger, Knudson’s funding is not an element of the reason behind what she writes.  WordPress.com is a free blog site where anyone and everyone can post something.

 

Usefulness:  This blog precedes the NPR interview that took place March 5, 2009 with Arne Duncan.  It was interesting to read this blog before listening to the interview because it held value in many of the callers who had questions for Secretary Duncan.  This blog is a hesitation to submit to giving money to an unfixed system.  It clearly states in the article that it is a good idea to give education as much money as they did but the money needs a very precise direction—not giving more to broken programs.  Knudson is looking for more reform beyond a scope of fixing assessment tests to be “better” marks of intelligence.  She is asking the government to take the time to go very deep into the education issues on the table and fix the system as a whole instead of staying focused on such a small piece of it.  This article is useful in that it gives a voice of a teacher involved in education (for quite some time) who knows what may or not work based on a place of real experience.  Of course Secretary Duncan has a good deal of experience in education, which would give a strong place of conversation based on two different ideals of what may or may not work.  I think a combination of people are going to give the pieces of the puzzle needed to put it all together—not just one.  This is a very important piece as it relates a teacher’s view of what seems important and what does not.

 

Works Cited: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2009/03/education-secretary-arne-duncan

Source Form #23

Title:  The New Stupid: Limitations of Data-Driven Education Reform

 

http://www.aei.org/include/pub_print.asp?pubID=29301

 

Summary:  Frederick Hess completely diminishes the importance of data because the majority of educators are trying to take policy figures and use them in places where the circumstances are different—thus leading to a reoccurring failure among policy from state-to-state.

 

Topic: http://msaraceno.wordpress.com/question/

 

Category:  This is academic research document.

 

What is it?  This is a research document providing a look into how unreliable data in the education sector can be.

 

Publication Information:  This document is published on the AEI for Public Policy Research website.  Published on January 29, 2009. 

 

Author:  Frederick M. Hess, Resident Scholar and Director of Education Policy Studies. 

 

Location: http://www.aei.org/include/pub_print.asp?pubID=29301

 

Accessed: March 1, 2009

 

Support: Frederick M. Hess uses his own article as a basis of information to what he is talking about in this document.

 

George W. Bohrnstedt and Brian M. Stecher.  Used as a reference to the problems in California schools, who took standard data from another states schools who became successful through class size reduction, and how they failed because the data was not appropriate to those schools (based on data).

 

 These sources just provide a guideline for how the author is putting information together.  The author is working to provide the inadequate use of data and how using such data in schools could work but not under the current conditions it is being used.  This research really lacks a lot back up and support but seems to fill in with expert opinion of standard practices.

 

Audience and Agenda:  AEI is a private, nonpartisan, not-for-profit institution dedicated to research and education on issues of government, politics, economics, and social welfare.  This organization is sponsored by tax-deductible contributions.  The audience is people who are interested in research documents on a large list of topics.  This specific document about education is probably read by a majority of educators or anyone involved in making policy reforms at any level.  The research here is a compilation of data from many sources that work together to provide a large scope of peoples work.

 

Usefulness:  The article is helpful in understanding how data is being misused and misinterpreted along spectrum of education programs and policies.  The ideas represented seem to come from an educated perspective looking to describe how to better use data as a whole to make sounder decision making for the education arena.  Although this is not a direct relationship to the topic I am addressing, the information is useful in understanding how information and data-decision making should be used—to its most effective potential.  A blog used this as a source of information in reference to the problems of how the administration is addressing and moving in on policy reforms for education. Hess merely expands the horizon of how misleading information can be and how hard it is to use information in order to better direct a set of principles that don’t necessarily apply to every other school out there.  Important information in here to be cataloged on how useful or misleading a data-research decision-making tool can be.

 

Works Cited: http://mets2006.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/beware-of-geeks-bearing-formulas-is-the-rush-to-data-the-new-stupid-education-must-begin-with-kids-and-teachers/