Seattle Times Education Lab Blog check-in
The Seattle Times started Education Lab on October 24. Education Lab is supposed to be a public conversation about what works in education.
I've just made a quick review of the most recent Education Lab stories, the ones on the front page. About half of them have no comments at all. Nearly all of the others have only one comment. Public participation on this blog appears low.
Surely they must be concerned that Education Lab isn't achieving its ambition to spark meaningful conversations about education solutions in the Pacific Northwest. Surely the sponsors are also concerned. Surely the Seattle Times, the Education Lab team, and the sponsors are monitoring public participation as a measure of success? On the other hand, the project is less than a month old. This may not be enough of a sample to form the basis for a judgement. Maybe it's just too early to say. On the other hand, the participation was much, much higher when the project was new. It appears that the initial novelty has worn off and the effort is languishing in neglect.
Hey, even if the current amount of participation isn't a concern for the Education Lab team, the Times,or the sponsors, they must want more public participation than they are getting now.
It's not due to a lack of interest in education issues. During the same period we here have had literally hundreds and hundreds of comments from dozens and dozens of commenters and over tens thousand page views a day.
What can the Education Lab team do to increase public participation in their conversations so that they actually are conversations?
I've just made a quick review of the most recent Education Lab stories, the ones on the front page. About half of them have no comments at all. Nearly all of the others have only one comment. Public participation on this blog appears low.
Surely they must be concerned that Education Lab isn't achieving its ambition to spark meaningful conversations about education solutions in the Pacific Northwest. Surely the sponsors are also concerned. Surely the Seattle Times, the Education Lab team, and the sponsors are monitoring public participation as a measure of success? On the other hand, the project is less than a month old. This may not be enough of a sample to form the basis for a judgement. Maybe it's just too early to say. On the other hand, the participation was much, much higher when the project was new. It appears that the initial novelty has worn off and the effort is languishing in neglect.
Hey, even if the current amount of participation isn't a concern for the Education Lab team, the Times,or the sponsors, they must want more public participation than they are getting now.
It's not due to a lack of interest in education issues. During the same period we here have had literally hundreds and hundreds of comments from dozens and dozens of commenters and over tens thousand page views a day.
What can the Education Lab team do to increase public participation in their conversations so that they actually are conversations?
Comments
I mean, really, who takes the Times seriously when it comes to education?
I've been to school events for families, never saw adult members of families act up, wondering what it is about the school blog that leads its admins to expect the visiting parents to need to read twice reminders to behave.
If they want more traffic, I think they'll have to do what all media eventually resorts to --- bring up controversial issues like reform math, school boundaries, the Mann takeover, etc. or do articles on divisive people like Michelle Rhea, Diane Ravitch, etc.
--- swk
Sticking with Seattle Schools Community Forum. Atleast we can be assured this blog hasn't been bought and sold.
I'm hearing the Seattle Times will now be partially funded by grant dollars. Not good.
Thanks Melissa and Charlie!
Charlie, while I would like the widest possible discussion of public education issues, it's not going to happen at the Times and I (for one) am not going to help them out.
What they've tried hasn't worked and is losing credibility daily. So, how can they turn things around? Start by mimicking the SSS blog, but aim to please the establishment while beating back the grassroots ground forces. Meanwhile build a little street cred with the people.
Be prepared. They are honing in on your market share and trying to replicate your success. It's a classic case of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
WSDWG
zb
Go Times
But the fact that they completely ignore crucial, urgent topics like the current boundary proposals before the school board dooms them to irrelevance. If they are going to do a "Daily Round-Up", how can it not include School Board meetings, community feedback deadlines, etc.? Maybe they don't need to go for controversial as much as timely and relevant.
Central
I 100% agree with WSDWG about a goal of "manufacturing consent" it has been their MO. They are not honest in their intentions or open ended curiosity about educational policy issues, or politics in general. It saddens me but I think that the voting patterns here in Seattle show that many, not all, read through it. I will not cry for them if they suffer economically as they will have been the source of their own undoing.
I'd probably hire a researcher for some big-picture stories.
I'd might hire a consultant for marketing to reach more parents and community members.
That's off the top of my head.
Also, Mary Griffin's point about Gates and conflict-of-interest is dead on. It's a Journalism 101 example of what not to do, taking funding from an active, highly opinionated player in education policy and pretending it doesn't influence what you write. It lessens their credibility even more, though at least it's consistent with providing free ads to Rob McKenna for Governor, etc.
Our mandate is to provide news and a forum for discussion. So we report on the committee meetings, community meetings, task force meetings, work sessions, and Board meetings, which provides us with frequent and timely subjects for discussion and information.
Also, we only edit comments for content on rare occasions. For them it is part of their structure to do so. They deleted a couple of my comments that were unflattering to the Seattle Times editorial board.
Even on the area that is supposed to be their strength, in depth coverage of the big issues, has yet to be as in depth as ours. They had a story this week about a columnist telling educators about how to do their jobs.
I do too and, in fact, I teach medical literature evaluation skills to doctoral degree candidates at a local university, so I have a slight quibble with this statement. I don't think a study's funding per se is sufficient reason to reject its results. And when my students tell me that the latest headline article from the New England Journal of Medicine is "poorly done" because it has industry funding, they don't get points for the answer because it's too simplistic. The *potential* for bias is not evidence of bias.
I view the funding source as an alarm or red flag that alerts the reader to proceed with caution and conduct a critical review. Don't reject out of hand, but look for ways that the funding source might have influenced the study design and/or results. In my field, what did they compare their drug to? Did they chose a placebo when there is a standard of care treatment available? If an active control, did they chose an optimal dose? A dose too low won't be effective; a dose too high may lead to toxicity that could bias the results toward the sponsor's drug. What statistical tests did they use? How did they determine their sample size? And on and on...
Sorry for going tangential, but we live in a society where we make too many decisions based on headlines and press releases. It takes time and is hard work to critically analyze every claim laid out before us, but I'm strongly biased (ha!) to say that that's what opinion leaders and decision makers really need to do.
(and whether there's anything of value in the Times Education Blog, I don't know because I don't read it!)
I'd like to be able to agree with your quibble, but I guess I am going to quibble back. When research is funded by a firm with a financial interest in the outcome, the likelihood that the result of that study will be favorable to that firm is dramatically increased. As an example, David Michaels, an epidemiologist at George Washington University, cites cigarette manufacturers who initiated a special program to fund, publish and promote studies that found secondhand smoke harmless.
"When researchers at the University of California examined 106 review articles on this topic in the scientific literature, they found more than a third concluded that secondhand smoke was not harmful. Three-quarters of these dissenting reviews had authors who were affiliated with the tobacco industry.
It has become clear to medical editors that the problem is in the funding itself. As long as sponsors of a study have a stake in the conclusions, these conclusions are inevitably suspect, no matter how distinguished the scientist."
As the largest private funder of education policy in the nation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds think tanks, policy development, "grassroots organizations," research, guidelines, publications, speakers, governmental organizations, and media outlets. They have a large stake in education. As an example of the investment that they have in Common Core, I did a simple search on their website and came up with 152 grants that I estimated totaled in excess of $183 million. That is a low estimate. That is in addition to their educational database initiative now known as inBloom which totaled in excess of $100 million to develop. Do I think that an organization that is funded by Gates could report objectively on Common Core State Standards? Absolutely not.
All of this griping and drawing of lines and name calling takes the focus off of SPS who are SIMPLY NOT DOING THEIR JOBS FOR OUR KIDS.
--Working Together
Our "agenda" is a well-managed, organized and coherent district that works to satisfy parents, staff and deliver great academic outcomes to ALL students. So if that's an agenda, that's mine.
The Gates Foundation is not some innocent yet smart philanthropic group. I have never said they are the enemy. But they are not a friend and not even a critical friend to public education.
Our focus is always SPS but I'm not going to forget to look out of the corner of my eye or behind me to see who is coming.
Your comment is fairly ironic, especially since you blame Seattlites, and you blame SPS, and you blame the state and you accuse of paranoia and "handwaving"--whatever that is, and then you say we're name calling and griping and then in capital letters say SPS is simply not doing their jobs. And then you sign it "Working together?" Who are you working together with?
My comment regarding Gates has to do with the bias I see in the way it formulates educational policy. My comment talks about facts and numbers and quotes the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA. How is that "handwaving" or paranoia or name calling?
Reach across the aisle yourself, please, and read something enlightening about education that isn't funded by the Gates Foundation. Pluralities of view points is often a good thing.
I think it's more nuanced. I don't agree with a lot of Gates' agendas, so no loss to me on their particular funding...
But... the Gates perspective does also seem to speak to the District's ability to cohesively function, as viewed from an outside grant funder. To see that the District continues to be viewed as 'dysfunctional' is at minimum unhelpful and at most devastating to the families in the system and to our city as a whole.
EdVoter
@WorkingTogether: I think you miss the point of many criticisms of Gates & others involvements in education policy. Those groups want to replace what they see as a broken system with their own, unproven systems, often saying things like "30% of kids don't graduate" and declaring the entire system to be a failure or "in crisis," which is simply false. Were they sincere and honest, they'd instead apply real critical thinking and work toward helping the remaining 30% do well also, which could start be engaging and partnering with teachers. But they don't do that. They want it all. And that's the problem.
If they were looking for ways to truly improve the system, instead of taking it over entirely, we could talk. But thus far, they've largely scapegoated teachers and unions, which demonstrates their collective bias and ignorance, about what actually matters in the classroom.
Partner means "partner," not owner, dictator, or master. Thus far, Ed Reformers haven't been willing to engage with teachers, unions, and other front-line soldiers. Instead, they attack them with "friendly-fire." Who would partner with groups who operate that way?
If they really want to help, start by respecting the people who bust their collective butts every day, step outside their echo-chamber silos once in awhile, and abandon their class-based arrogance and paternalism for once.
WSDWG
So you, too, buy the Gates/Duncan/reform kool-aid: "Ooh, our schools are generally failing! We simply must give them to non-public entities!"
Not buyin' it. SPS does plenty right, has for years, and is constantly improving, if you believe graduation rates and test scores. And this improvement comes while our schools have to address more and more issues AND change course every few years to meet the manufactured demand ginned up by the likes of Gates, Inc.
Those who are ACTUALLY working together acknowledge succeses, something you failed to do, so those don't get swept away in "reforms."
Why on earth would I want to work together with an entity that is intent on denigrating public schools and public school educators?
As you write, they are OUR schools, not products of the astroturf Gates puppet "Our Schools"....