Re: Fwd: Public Agenda

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@EARTHLINK.NET>]

 Generally good points, Roxie.
 In this case FairTest was not aware of the existence of Public Agenda's
"Reality Check 2002" report and survey until a major media reporter
forwarded it to me mid-day on Tuesday seeking to confirm a sense that
the news release was distorted. I got the email and returned the call
between flights at the Atlanta airport (Monty is still on vacation).
There was no time to post anything to the ARN lists until I got home
last night, after most newspaper deadlines. Thus, FairTest did not
"ignore" the report: we simply did not know about it in a timely manner.
Obviously, I cannot speak for when anyone else on the list might have
become aware of it.
  Moreover, the actual details of the Public Agenda poll were not up on
the web until after 10:30pm Tuesday (the last time I checked), despite
the fact that their news release said they would be available at 4:00pm.
As soon as I had a chance to read them this morning, I posted an
analysis to all the FairTest lists.
  My message did not say that the Times-Dispatch was "manipulated," just
that Public Agenda was attempting "manipulation" by its skewed summary
of poll results (by the way, I've had a good email exchange with the
Richmond reporter today). No generalization about journalists was
intended: clearly, national education reporters at such major outlets as
the Associated Press, Washington Post, and New York Times -- all of whom
passed on the story -- were able to see through Public Agenda's
disinformation campaign.

Bob Schaeffer, Public Education Director
FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing

Roxanne Grossman wrote
> Subject: Re: Public Agenda
> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:57:34 EST
> From: CMWUNCHEEL@aol.com
> To: bobschaeffer@EARTHLINK.NET, ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU
>
> Bob et al. -
>     Thanks for the info. I'd like to suggest that, in the future, when anyone
> becomes aware of the existence of new polls, etc., from known sources like
> this, including their defects, s/he share it here. Forewarned, as they say,
> is forearmed. It would be helpful for everyone to know when this stuff is out
> there, warts and all, given that some papers are bound to report it and state
> ed. off'ls bound to applaud whatever they can find to applaud about said
> stuff - i.e. I think it's better to acknowledge and refute if/as necessary
> than to ignore. In fact, I think ignoring it does us all a disservice.
>     BTW, while I might have preferred that the local story have led instead
> of ended with the negative responses about overemph. on test scores, I do not
> think the reporter in question was "manipulated." He did, as I said before,
> report on that part of the poll (which the major outlets obviously did not,
> if they ignored it altogether), did include quotes from local kids refuting
> the "bravado"-spouting ones, and did call to get the "opposition" response.
> Let's not unfairly generalize, okay?
> Roxie
>
> In a message dated 3/6/02 2:55:26 PM, bobschaeffer@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
>
> << The Public Agenda news release on their latest public opinion poll (AKA
> "Reality Check 2002") amounts to survey research malpractice. The
> summary the group sent to the media is a ham-handedly skewed
> interpretation of what the results actually show. It cynically attempts
> to obscure widespread opposition to high-stakes testing behind vague
> support for "higher standards," whatever that term means. Their real
> "agenda" is revealed by the way the news release is structured: it leads
> by over-interpreting the youthful bravado that most kids say "they can
> handle" standardized tests while dumping data about the large percentage
> of all groups who oppose high stakes into the last few paragraphs.
> Moreover, Public Agenda failed to make the actual response data
> available until well after last night's media deadlines to report the
> story, a violation of the polling profession's code of ethics.
>
> Fortunately, reporters at many major outlets saw through Public Agenda's
> manipulation. That is why there are so few stories about the report in
> this morning's newspapers.
>
> Roxanne Grossman wrote:
> >
> > How come no one's mentioned the latest Public Agenda polling results showing
> > most teachers, parents, students polled think there's too much emph. on test
> > scores? Of course, it also shows most don't think test prep  has been at the
> > expense of other kinds of learning, states and districts have been
> reasonable
> > and careful in how they've gone about current reforms, and that 98% of
> > secondary students aren't stressed at all by std'ized testing or can handle
> > the stress. (The latter was the headline and lead of the story in today's
> > Richmond Times-Dispatch. The over-emph.-on-scores part was at the end - at
> > least it was there at all. Besides what the reporter attributed to me re
> > testing hurting ed. quality regardless of HS stress or not, I also told him
> > they should've polled parents of 3rd graders who've thrown up on their
> answer
> > sheets, asked how many at-risk kids were included in the random sample, and
> > whether the stress Q specified high- vs. low-stakes testing. He said Q
> didn't
> > specify, but his story quotes local jr. and sr. who say they would be
> > stressed if they needed to pass the tests to grad.)
> > Roxie
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> > to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
>
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <owner-arn-l@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
> Received: from  rly-st12.mail.aol.com (rly-st12.mail.aol.com
> [172.20.114.201]) by air-xa03.mail.aol.com (v83.45) with ESMTP id
> MAILINXA38-0306145526; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:55:26 -0500
> Received: from rly-xg04.mx.aol.com (rly-xg04.mail.aol.com [172.20.115.201])
>       by rly-st12.mail.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0)
>       with ESMTP id NAA00523;
>       Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:18:52 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from  cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109])
> by rly-xg04.mx.aol.com (v83.35) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXG44-0306122753;
> Wed, 06 Mar 2002 12:27:53 -0500
> Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com
> (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id
> <18.005642C8@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:27:54 -0500
> Received: from LISTS.CUA.EDU by LISTS.CUA.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d)
>           with spool id 282143 for ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU; Wed, 6 Mar 2002
>           12:24:04 -0500
> Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (207.217.120.12) by
> lists.cua.edu
>           (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id
>           <12.CD8668C0@lists.cua.edu>; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:24:03 -0500
> Received: from sdn-ar-002flfmyep169.dialsprint.net ([168.191.79.209]
>           helo=earthlink.net) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp
>           (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ifCY-00003F-00 for ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU; Wed, 06
>           Mar 2002 09:27:43 -0800
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD   (Win98; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> References: <128.d91833b.29b79501@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID:  <3C8651A4.231A3335@earthlink.net>
> Date:         Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:28:04 -0500
> Reply-To: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
> Sender: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
> From: Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@EARTHLINK.NET>
> Subject:      Re: Public Agenda
> To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU
>
>  >>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.