Re: More on Public Agenda's Public Fraud

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@EARTHLINK.NET>]

Art:
   What other words would you use for reporting research results that
are contradictory to what the data show? And how else would you describe
the relationship in which an allegedly "neutral" media outlet
co-sponsors a study and than reports its unjustified conclusions
uncritically?
   For example, let's try a different fact pattern. A newspaper
co-sponsors a survey with a politician it favors. Respondents tell the
pollsters they admire the way the politican dresses but oppose his
policies and will vote against him in the next election. The politicians
tries to spin the results in his favor and the newspaper reports the
story with the lead sentence "Voters expressed strong support for
________." How would you characterize this, and why is it "demonization"
to use legally accurate terms?
   FairTest does try to take "a higher road" -- we regularly offer data,
facts and citations to back up our claims (as we did in demonstrating
how Public Agenda's conclusions were undermined by their own data). It
is the advocates of high-stakes testing who regularly distort the
historical record, fabricate research claims, and "demonize" opponents
with charges such as "they oppose better education" or "they don't
believe minorities can learn."

Art Burke wrote:
>
> I think you're going too far with this "fraud" and "conspiracy" bit.  There's great disagreement about the interpretation and significance of almost everything in education.  That's OK.  Take a higher road, there's enough demonizing of opponents in the world already.
>
> Art
>
> >>> bobschaeffer@EARTHLINK.NET 03/07 6:35 AM >>>
> Yes, but Education Week was either duped by Public Agenda's news release
> spin or a co-conspirator in the attempted fraud (Ed. Week cosponsored
> the survey) by printing a news story which concludes the first paragraph
> with the following sentence:
>   "This year, despite some headlines trumpeting a "backlash to testing,"
> Reality Check shows strong agreement on the useful role standardized
> tests can play, and a broad consensus on how they should be used"
>    This statement is true only if one admits the "consensus" is
> standardized tests should not be used for high-stakes.
>
> George Sheridan wrote:
> >
> > Bob:
> >
> > This is an important finding:
> >
> > The Education Week news story <
> > http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=25realitycheck.h21 > on the
> > latest Public Agenda opinion poll (AKA "Reality Check 2002") shows
> > that majorities in all groups agree that a student's graduation or
> > promotion should not hang on one test. Very large majorities of
> > parents (75 percent), teachers (89 percent), employers (81 percent),
> > and professors (83 percent) say it would be "wrong to use the results
> > of just one test to decide whether a student gets promoted or
> > graduates."
> >
> > George Sheridan
> > 4467 Meadowbrook Road
> > Garden Valley, California 95633
> >
> > (530) 333 4506
> >
> > Hope is ... not the conviction that something will turn out well, but
> > the
> > certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.
> >
> >                                                 Vaclav Havel
> >
> > Are standardized tests hurting our kids? Go to www.fairtest.org
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

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