Re: A request for an explanation from a Congressional staffer

[Bussardre@aol.com]

These kind of things ought to be reported to Media Watch, Reliagle  Sources 
or one of the journalism watchdog groups.  At very least, the  reader advocate 
of the paper ought to be contacted to set the record straight  when such 
contortions appear.
 
--billee
 
 
In a message dated 7/26/2007 4:02:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
Csubstance@aol.com writes:


In a  message dated 7/25/07 7:31:58 PM, Bussardre@aol.com writes:

<<  FYI: My experience with Toch several years ago in doing research on   
education topics as an editorial page writer was he was too quick to  parrot  
information provided by certain interest groups without  questioning the  
data.  I 
called him on a couple of  occassions to ask about the figures he  used in 
various 
stories  and found he really didn't do his homework on the  sources providing 
 
the information. >>

7/26/07

Thanks Billee,

This  was what I suspected, without having had you first-hand experience with 
 
him.

Most educational pundits today are simply recycling clip files  and 
pre-cooked 
data sets that are used to market corporate "school  reform." How many of 
them 
even cite the sources of their data any more,  let alone ask to see the 
sources for the summaries they then glibly  quote?

One recent example in Chicago really galled me, so I'll share it  now (as 
we'll be sharing it again in Substance later).

Recently,  the University of Chicago's "Consortium on Chicago School 
Research"  
presented a report which proported to demonstrate that only six percent of  
the graduates of Chicago's public high schools ever graduated from  college. 
At 
least that's what the translation was after it got into the  hands of 
corporate 
reformers and propagandists like SEIU's Andy Stern, who  actually cited it in 
TV interviews while he was in town promoting his book  last Fall. 

What the Consotrium had done behind the scenes in its study  was claimed to 
have studied those who graduated from "quality" four-year  institutions. By 
the 
time people were done going back over all the data  and all the claims, the 
whole study was disgraced. But the originaly  headlines never were repealed, 
and I 
got in some trouble within SEIU  because I lost my temper when Stern went on 
TV 
here in Chicago and just  glibly cited that teacher bashing piece of racist 
slander as "fact"  (because, after all, it came from my alma mater, the 
University of  Chicago). 

All I could get out of that flap was an agreement that the  next time Stern 
came through Chicago, maybe the research director of the  local that 
represented 
public school workers (me, Local 73) could sit down  with Stern and go over 
the 
data before he went around prattling it as one  of his talking points. Of 
course, that never happened, and Stern actually  hangs out with guys like Eli 
Broad 
and others of that ilk when it comes to  learning more about "school reform."

Eventually, SEIU decided that they  didn't need the kind of research I was 
doing, and they ran out of funding  for the position after spending hundreds 
of 
thousands of dollars on local  elections last November, February and April. 
So 
now there is no one there  who might suggest that Andy Stern and Eli Broad 
are on 
the same  wavelength, and that quoting a "study" that comes out of the 
University of  Chicago's Consortium is like quoting the University of 
Chicago's 
economics  department on how "market reforms" helped Chile 20 years ago. 

Same  people. 

ame ideology. 

Same problem.

George N.  Schmidt
Editor,  Substance

www.substancenews.com


 



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour