Re: Public Agenda

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@EARTHLINK.NET>]

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.