Advising Places

Subtitle

Blog

view:  full / summary

Picking holes and taking a dig (The language of criticizing)

Posted by [email protected] on Comments comments (0)
RachelMcCloudPhotography / iStock / Getty Images Plus

by Kate Woodford

Even the most positive among us now and then say that we think something is bad. Very often we do it for the right reasons, hoping for improvement or even suggesting ways in which something can be improved. Sometimes, we do it because we are angry, upset or jealous. This week we’re looking at the words and idioms in this area, as ever, focusing on current, useful language.

The verb criticize is frequently used, often with the collocating preposition ‘for’: The government has been criticized for failing to take action. The derived noun ‘criticism’ is often used after the phrasal verb come in for. Someone or something that comes in for criticism is criticized: The manager has come in for criticism following his team’s early exit from the tournament.  Two stronger verbs in this area are condemn and denounce. To condemn or denounce a person or thing is to criticize them severely and publicly, usually for moral reasons: The attack has been condemned around the world./The policy was denounced by human rights groups.  We can also say more informally that someone bashes a person, meaning that they criticize them publicly. This often suggests that the criticism is unfair:  It’s just another opportunity to bash the opposition leader. 

A number of idioms exist in this area. One that is frequently heard in an official context is come under fire, meaning ‘to be criticized’: The government has recently come under fire for its failure to address the pay gap between men and women. Related, if someone is (UK) in the firing line/(US) on the firing line, they are in a position where they are likely to be criticized: As their manager, of course, I’m in the firing line.

Other idioms with this meaning are more informal. If someone or something gets or takes flak, they are criticized: I got a lot of flak for posting that comment.  Meanwhile, if someone takes a dig at if someone, they say something that criticizes them, often in a slightly humorous way: I couldn’t resist taking a dig at her. To pick holes in a piece of work is to try to make it seem bad by finding things in it to criticize. This phrase is often used in a negative way: I wanted to offer constructive criticism on the essay and not just pick holes in it.

A slightly informal phrasal verb that is heard a lot nowadays is call out. To call someone out is to criticize them and demand that they explain their actions. You can also call out a particular sort of behaviour: They’ve recently been called out for lying. / Voters are being given false information and this needs to be called out.

Finally, I’ll end with a relevant saying. If someone criticizes other people a lot but is offended when other people criticize them, we may say that they can dish it out but they can’t take it!




Source: https://dictionaryblog.cambridge.org/2018/08/22/picking-holes-and-taking-a-dig-the-language-of-criticizing/

The Vegetarian Resource Group Scholarships in the USA, 2019

Posted by [email protected] on Comments comments (0)

The Vegetarian Resource Group is now accepting applications for the scholarships for graduating U.S. high school students who have promoted vegetarianism in their schools and/or communities.

One award of $10,000 and two awards of $5,000 will be given. Entries may only be sent by students graduating from high school in spring 2019.

The Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public on vegetarianism and the interrelated issues of health, nutrition, ecology, ethics, and world hunger.

Scholarship Description:

  • Applications Deadline: February 20, 2019.
  • Course Level: These scholarships are available for graduating U.S. high school students.
  • Study Subject: These scholarships will be awarded in any field.
  • Scholarship Award: One award of $10,000 and two awards of $5,000 will be given.
  • Nationality: US applicants are eligible to apply.
  • Number of Scholarships: Three scholarships are available.
  • Scholarship can be taken in the USA

Eligibility for the Scholarship:

To be eligible, the applicants must be following all the given criteria:

  • Eligible Countries: Scholarships are available to students from the USA.
  • Entrance Requirements: The Vegetarian Resource Group each year will award $20,000 in college scholarship money to graduating U.S. high school students who have promoted vegetarianism in their schools and/or communities.
  • Entries may only be sent by students graduating from high school in Spring 2019.

Application Procedure:

When applying, include the following (Use additional paper if necessary):

  • Name:
  • Street address:
  • City, State, Zip:
  • Email address:
  • Phone number:
  • Date of birth:
  • Date of expected graduation from high school:
  • Grade average in high school:
  • College(s) applied/accepted to (if known):
  • Anticipated major in college:
  • Parents’ or Guardians’ names:
  • Parents’ or Guardians’ addresses:
  • City, State, Zip:
  • High school principal:
  • Name of one high school teacher:
  • Name of high school:
  • Address of high school:
  • City, State, Zip:
  • People in the vegetarian movement, if any, who know you (include contact information):
    • Extracurricular activities (please describe):
    • Favorite subjects in school:
    • How did you hear about the scholarship?
  • submit an essay addressing the following:
    • How you promoted vegetarianism in your high school and/or community
    • Your successes
    • Your challenges
    • What you learned/what you would do differently
    • How you expect to promote vegetarianism in college and beyond
    • Your future goals
    • Your strengths
    • Your weaknesses
    • Your “perfect” life in five years
    • Why you should receive this scholarship
    • How you became vegetarian and why you are vegetarian
    • How you define vegetarian
    • Why vegetarianism is important to you
    • What else is important to you
    • What vegetarian foods you would recommend to a non-vegetarian
    • What restaurants you would recommend to a non-vegetarian
  • Also, attach:
    • A copy of your transcripts or report cards for the past two years. (An official copy is not necessary. Photocopies of your report cards will suffice.)
    • Three or more recommendations (including at least one teacher).
    • Any documentation related to your promotion of vegetarianism in high school and/or community including photographs, newspaper stories, etc.

How to Apply: To apply for the scholarship, the applicants must download the application form and send application and attachments to The Vegetarian Resource Group, P.O. Box 1463, Baltimore, MD 21203. For more information call (410) 366-8343 or email [email protected]

Scholarship Link

Post navigation

Need Scholarship Help? Comment and Discuss.

Advertisements

RSS Featured Scholarships

RSS Free Online Courses (MOOC)




Source: https://scholarship-positions.com/vegetarian-resource-group-scholarships-in-the-usa/2019/02/11/

US Government TechGirls Programme for International Students, 2019

Posted by [email protected] on Comments comments (0)

The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is delighted to announce TechGirls Programme 2019. This award program is available to the student who has demonstrated advanced skills and a serious interest in technology, engineering, and/or math in their academic studies.

TechGirls connects the next generation of women leaders in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and offers them the opportunity to pursue their skills and further their dreams.

TechGirls is an initiative of the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ (ECA) mission is to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural exchange that assist in the development of peaceful relations.

Advertisements

Scholarship Description:

Applications Deadline: February 1, 2019.
Course Level: This award is open to pursuing higher education.
Study Subject: This award will be offered in the field of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
Scholarship Award: The TechGirls program covers the following costs:

  • Roundtrip international airfare from participant home country to the United States
  • Housing during the program: Double occupancy hotel or dormitory accommodations
  • Meals during the program: Breakfast, lunch, and dinner
  •  Local transportation to group program events
  • Cultural events organized by Legacy International
  • Emergency health insurance

Nationality: Applicants from the United States Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Territories, and Tunisia; Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan are eligible to apply.
Number of Scholarships: Not known
Scholarship can be taken in the USA

Eligibility for the Scholarship:

To be eligible, the applicants must be following all the given criteria: 

·         Eligible Countries: Scholarships are available to students who are from one of the following eligible countries:

  • United States
  • Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Territories, and Tunisia;
  • Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan

·         Entrance Requirements: Students eligible to apply are those who:

  • Are between the ages of 15 and 17 at the start of the exchange;
  •  Have demonstrated advanced skills and a serious interest in technology, engineering, and/or math in their academic studies;
  • Intend to pursue higher education and/or careers in technology;
  • Have strong English language skills;
  • Exhibit maturity, flexibility, and open-mindedness;
  • Will attend at least one additional semester of secondary school upon their return to their home country; and
  • Are committed to completing a community-based project upon their return home.
  • Preference will be given to those who have limited or no prior experience in the United States. You are not eligible if you have traveled to the United States in the last three years as part of any other ECA exchange program.

Application Procedure:

How to Apply:  To apply for the scholarship, the applicants must submit an online application through the given link: https://legacyintl.org/techgirls/online-application/

Scholarship Link

Advertisements
Post navigation

Need Scholarship Help? Comment and Discuss.

Advertisements

RSS Featured Scholarships

RSS Free Online Courses (MOOC)




Source: https://scholarship-positions.com/us-government-techgirls-programme-for-international-students/2019/01/14/

How to Get Back on Track in Your Class after Falling Behind

Posted by [email protected] on Comments comments (0)

How to Get Back on Track in Your Class after Falling Behind

By Trudy Doleman, APUS

Just as you hit your stride finding the right balance between study times, work, family and personal time — something happens. It could be a 24-hour illness, an increase in your workload, a death in the family or even an unexpected deployment to a part of the world with spotty Internet connectivity at best. Any number of factors have the potential to cause you to miss at least one of your weekly class deadlines. Before you know it, one missed assignment grows into several missed assignments and you have fallen way behind in your class. What are your options? Is it possible to recover and complete the class? Yes, it is possible to recover and there are several options available to you.

How to Get Back on Track in Your Class after Falling Behind

Share on Facebook

Comments Off on How to Get Back on Track in Your Class after Falling Behind

No comments yet.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.



Source: http://people.uis.edu/rschr1/onlinelearning/?p=47009

What Does It Mean When a Book Flood Fails?

Posted by [email protected] on Comments comments (0)

Maybe it's just on social media, but I often read this proffered solution to improve children's reading: "just get 'em reading" or "just surround them with books."

Certainly, there's some logic to the idea. We might hope that children's desire to learn about their world is natural, innate. That might mean that most of the problem is one of access. If we provide easy access to books, children will happily read. That's the idea behind book floods: flood a classroom with books, and kids will read, and will end up with better attitudes toward reading and greater motivation to read in the future.

​In a recent study, researcher Susan Neuman found that a book flood, even with a great deal of support, is not a guaranteed success.

​Neuman focused on information books in childcare centers for 3-4 year olds. They ensured there was a comfortable room with at least 500 books, child-size furniture, and a few puzzles and games. Even better, they had preschool specialists who read information books to the children, they made the books available to take home, and they had an outreach program for parents.

There was also a 20-hour per week librarian who used carefully planned sessions to draw kids in to book topics. Here's a description from the paper: "The librarian would begin with songs and rhymes, then read
three information-related books to the children, pointing out new words (e.g., considered essential to story understanding), asking questions, getting children to predict events, and holding a brief discussion following the general mnemonic of the INQUIRE model, described below. Children were then encouraged to check out a book after the reading (e.g., open choice) for the week."

At the end of the year-long intervention, compared to children in a control group, the intervention kids showed no improvement in receptive or expressive vocabulary, word naming, or knowledge of information text. Nothing.

What are we to make of these null results? 

Neuman has done book flood studies before that have shown positive effects, as have others...but there is at least one other null effect published. What might have made the difference here? 

As Neuman notes, there are several possibilities. She speculates that, although they tried to engage the children with read-alouds and other activities, perhaps more needed to be done, especially from a psychological point of view. She notes that the specialists doing the read-alouds were not the children's classroom teachers, and so didn't know the kids well, and might have had a harder time connecting with them. Neuman aptly contrasts physical proximity of books (which they provided) to psychological proximity of literacy (which they might not have provided).

That observation makes sense, and brings to mind Jimmy Kim's work on providing children with books for summer reading. Kim reports these programs don't do much good unless you ensure that kids discuss the books with their parents, or in some way interact with them. 

Taking this "it's not quite so simple" still further, it calls to mind Freddy Hiebert's observation that, for children to learn vocabulary for text, the to-be-learned word must be repeated. That's unlikely to happen by chance, and so requires some planning in the reading program. 

The same applies for background knowledge. As Marilyn Jaeger Adams has pointed out, even if you succeed with the "just get 'em reading" plan students are unlikely to bump into all the knowledge you hope they will (given that background knowledge is a key contributor to reading comprehension). What they need to read to gain the knowledge needs to be planned in a curriculum. 

There message here, I think, is that we should not underestimate the challenge of what we're trying to do. If we aim to raise children who love to read and who read well, we are taking on a significant challenge. It may look easier than it really is, because when it happens in families, we don't see most of the interactions that matter. And of course parents have many advantages over teachers in getting their children to love reading and to excel as readers. That should make us redouble our determination and our effort.




Source: http://www.danielwillingham.com/daniel-willingham-science-and-education-blog/what-does-it-mean-when-a-book-flood-fails

Encountering Racism in the Faculty Lounge – A Guest Post

Posted by [email protected] on Comments comments (0)

I am delighted to offer another guest post contributed in response to my recent call for contributions to the blog by black women and other women of color.

If you’d like to submit a post or an idea for a post for consideration, email me at [email protected] I pay $150 for accepted posts. The posts can be anonymous or not, as you prefer. I welcome content on #MakeupMonday (the initial impetus was a Twitter follower asking for #MakeupMonday posts oriented toward women of color) as well as anything related to the academic and post-academic career.

Dr. Shahla Khan is an author, blogger and YouTuber when she isn’t teaching or researching. Life forced her to convert to feminism and she never looked back since.

She tweets from @ShahlaSparkle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, this happened in 2010.

I was 23, a second-year Ph.D. Fellow and also a part-time lecturer at the university that shall not be named for some boring legal reasons.

The university building was divided into student area and staff area. There were 4 floors and each floor had classes on the left and faculty offices on the right. Not sure if every university has this privacy feature but the only faculty could enter the faculty area (as the doors would need a card barcode to open).

One fine afternoon I was in the faculty lounge waiting for some papers to be printed off of the common printer. As there were plenty of them, I sat by the lounge sofa and began reading one of the academic magazines. A colleague arrived to fill water in his bottle by the nearby kitchen sink. I looked up, smiled and descended back to the world of academic luster.

Suddenly I heard him “hi”. I looked up and responded “hello” thinking this would lead to some small talk.

He had a stern look on his face as he questioned: “you know this part of the lounge is for faculty only, right?”

I didn’t get the implication yet but naively affirmed “yes of course” and went back to my magazine.

He interrupted me again “which means no student is allowed in here, for any reason unless with a faculty member?”

Now puzzled, I respond “yes”.

At this point, I felt the discomfort of this guy about me being there quite strongly.

And then it dawns on me, he thinks I am a student!

Before he blurted out other questions with disgust, I showed him the lanyard and the card it held.

As he looked at the card, his face turned red realizing that he misbehaved with a colleague who is a woman of color. The bias just spat across the whole room.

To me, this was unpleasant, certainly disrespectful, but hardly a surprise. I am asked over and over again to prove my identity, show my documents and fight to be in a place because I am a woman of color. My other British and European counterparts, unsurprisingly have never once talked about any such thing happen to them. They just belong.

If you think this was bad, he added, after pausing for the redness from his face to calm,

you know it’s a compliment, right?”

I get the vibe of an expensive Dior Rouge lipstick being put on a pig, but I ask hesitatingly  “sorry, what?”

And with that weird look on his face he says “you know, I thought that you were a student because you are so young and good looking…”

At this point, I don’t utter a word because frankly, I couldn’t think of a decent way to respond to this piece of #’!& but I have that look in my eyes that roughly translated to ‘seriously dude, WTF’!

I assumed he got the message because his pathetic smile transformed into a fearful look as he rushed to leave the room.

Within a matter of a few minutes, my entire experience of academia was reduced to two stereotypes. First that as a woman of color, I need to prove my worth at every spot, even at the lounge where others just hang out. And second, that this privileged ignorant idiot thought that I would take it as a compliment if he called me young and student looking. The first one was racist and the second one was sexist.

Women have hard enough time in academia and other professional fields to be taken seriously. And then there are people like him who think that calling a fellow colleague young (outer appearance) would make up for the fact that he just misbehaved with me.

I know that many people won’t even see the first act as misbehavior as he just wanted to know if a student was hanging out in the staff lounge. But this is awfully painful because this is a pattern and not a single incident. When you look at this from the other side of the table, only then you feel the depravity of it. And while I politely I assured him that I was aware that students were not allowed in the faculty lounge, he still continued to pester me.

Am I supposed to forget that my academic worth and right to belong was questioned just because he called me ‘young and good looking’ before he left? Is that all female academics aspire to be? Put the brains in the bin and just dress hotter?

Our society puts this pressure on women to look younger and sexier and then punishes and mocks us for being vain and dumb. For women of color this gets worse because we are either ‘exotic’ or ‘uncivilized/unworthy’. And neither of these are helpful when you are out there to be an academic. It is like asking if the ripeness of a tomato would help fuel the rocket.



Source: http://theprofessorisin.com/2018/08/30/encountering-racism-in-the-faculty-lounge-a-guest-post/

News story: Annual Safety Review 2018 published

Posted by [email protected] on Comments comments (0)
Annual Safety Review 2018 published - GOV.UK var ieVersion = 6;var ieVersion = 7;var ieVersion = 8;var ieVersion = 6;var ieVersion = 7;var ieVersion = 8;

The AAIB Annual Safety Review for 2018 has been published.

Investrigations in 2018 - pie chart.

The Annual Safety Review 2018 contains information on the AAIB’s activity during 2018 and includes an overview of the 15 Safety Recommendations published in the 31 field and 184 correspondence investigations during the year.

The review includes statistical information on the accident causal factors established by AAIB investigations across the aviation industry. There are articles on how we investigate drone accidents and how we use communication as part of our investigations.

Published 18 April 2019




Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/annual-safety-review-2018-published

On the Law of Diminishing Specialization

Posted by [email protected] on Comments comments (0)
October 3rd, 2018 · 22 comments

On Productive Technology and its Discontents

Recently, I’ve been dipping in and out of Edward Tenner’s provocative 1996 book, When Things Bites Back. In following one of Tenner’s footnotes I came across a fascinating 1992 academic study from the National Review of Productivity, authored by the Georgia Tech economist Peter G. Sassone

The paper has an innocuous title, “Survey Finds Low Office Productivity Linked to Staffing Imbalances,” but its findings are profoundly relevant to our recent discussion of attention capital theory, and the value of deep work more generally.

Beginning in 1985, Sassone began a series of twenty office productivity case studies spread over different departments in five major U.S. corporations. His initial goal was to measure the bottomline benefits of the front office computer systems that were new at the time, but as he notes, this soon changed:

“[I]t became apparent that [my] data collection and analysis techniques were yielding important productivity insights beyond the cost justification of office computer systems.”

Deploying a technique called work value analysis, Sassone measured not only the amount of work conducted by his subjects, but also the skill level required for the work. He found that managers and other skilled professionals were spending surprisingly large percentages of their time working on tasks that could be completed by comparably lower-level employees.

He identified several factors that explain this observation, but a major culprit was the rise of “productivity-enhancing” computer systems. This new technology made it possible for managers and professionals to tackle administrative tasks that used to require dedicated support staff.

The positive impact of this change was that companies needed less support staff. The negative impact was that it reduced the ability of managers and professionals to spend concentrated time working on the things they did best.

Among other examples uncovered in his case studies, Sassone highlighted:

  • A corporate marketing department where senior marketing professional were spending more than a day per week of their time preparing charts and graphs for presentations.
  • A large commercial bank where corporate bankers were devoting more than a quarter of their time to handling routine interactions with clients.

This reduction in the typical deep-to-shallow work ratio (see Rule #1 in Deep Work) became so pronounced as computer technology invaded the front office that Sassone gave it a downright Newportian name: The Law of Diminishing Specialization.

What makes Sassone’s study particularly fascinating is that he used rigorous data collection and analysis methods to answer the question of whether or not this diminishing specialization was a good trade-off from a financial perspective.

His conclusion: no.

Reducing administrative positions saves some money. But the losses due to the corresponding reduction in high-level employees’ ability to perform deep work — a diminishment of “intellectual specialization” — outweighs these savings.

As Sassone explains:

“The results of a comparison of a ‘typical’ department, with a department with a reasonable high level of intellectual specialization were startling. The typical office could save over 15 percent of its payroll costs by restructuring its staff and increasing the intellectual specialization of its workers.”

To make this more concrete, he calculated:

“[T]he typical office can save about $7,400 [around $13,200 in 2018 dollars] per employee per year by restructuring its office staffs and improving its levels of intellectual specialization.”

In other words, Sassone found that the corporate divisions he studied could produce the same amount of valuable output by reducing the number of managers and professionals while increasing the number of administrative staff.

This rebalancing works because more administrative support means the higher level employees can spend more time working deeply on the activities that produce the most value. Because the former are cheaper to hire than the latter, the result is the same work for less total staffing costs.

An important lesson lurks in these results that’s just as relevant now as it was then, back in the early days of the front office IT revolution: optimizing people’s ability to create value using their brains is complicated. Just because a given technology makes things easier doesn’t mean that it makes an organization more effective, you have to keep returning to the foundational question of what best supports the challenge of thinking hard about valuable things.




Source: http://calnewport.com/blog/2018/10/03/on-the-law-of-diminishing-specialization/

Betsy DeVos' Team Holds School Report Card 'Design Challenge'

Posted by [email protected] on Comments comments (0)

ESSA_StateMap-blog.jpg

Washington, D.C.

One of the biggest changes in the Every Student Succeeds Act is that states must publish a host of new information. School report cards must now include data on school-by-school spending, long-term English-language learners, homeless and foster students, and more.

So how should states make sure all that information is clear and easy for parents to understand? Enter the U.S. Department of Education's "Report Card Design Challenge," held in Washington earlier this month.

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos' staff put an all-call out to teams of graphic designers, district and state leaders, data wonks, and other specialists from around the country to take a crack at coming up with a user-friendly report card that includes all of the information required under ESSA. And they invited parents, policy wonks from organizations like the Data Quality Campaign, and state officials to offer feedback on those designs.

The challenge is a recognition that creating parent-friendly report cards is difficult, said Jim Blew, the assistant secretary for planning, evaluation, and policy analysis at the department. "We're looking for ways to be helpful without telling people what to do," he said.

In particular, there is a need to make school-level financial data transparent and accessible, Blew added, given new requirements in ESSA.

The designs—including feedback from parents and policy experts—will be shared on the Education Department's blog and website. And they will be displayed in a "gallery walk" at the December Combined Federal Programs Meeting, which brings together state coordinators for Title I-III programs.

Organizations like the Data Quality Campaign have said many current state report cards make information difficult to find and understand.

That's something the parents participating in the November  event have noticed too.

"For Virginia, I don't think the transparency is there, as far as all of the information of what makes a good school and being able to track that, and even if it is, it's not accessible," said Tony Shivers, a Virginia parent who operates his own lobbying consulting firm and offered feedback on the designs. "And even if it's accessible it's not easily digestible for parents. This is a good initiative to really simplify the information in a concise way."

He would also love to see report cards go beyond ESSA requirements and include information on things like whether a school offers a particular sport, or after-school activity.

The teams cooked up report cards that are more colorful and easy to digest than the typical school report card. Some presented information in both English and Spanish, or put a priority on being easy-to-read on a mobile phone. Others steered clear of words some parents can't easily grasp—like "academics"—in favor of easier-to-understand terms, like student success or achievement.

Some included clear language putting a school's data in context, explaining that a school's graduation rates were on the rise, or that it has recently slipped in academic achievement. And some went beyond student achievement, offering information about extracurricular activities, school facilities, and more.  

"These kids have been amazing, and I say kids because they have several university teams," said Frances Frost, a Maryland parent who helped critique the designs. "A couple of them have the data and then they have another narrative about why that data is important, which is very helpful to parents. Because I could look at a suspension rate and say is that good is that bad, what does that mean? So some of them are being thoughtful in that way."

The teams approached the report card design by asking themselves "what data supports what people are going to want to know, as opposed to the school district [which] is like, 'We've got the math scores, how do we get this out there?'" she said.

In making information easier to understand, however, districts and states may face pushback from schools and districts that are anxious about having certain information—like a drop in test scores—made plain in report cards.

That's something that happened in Michigan. The state created a new dashboard for parents that included things like staffing metrics, postsecondary enrollment, and other factors that hadn't been heavily promoted in the past, said Chris Janzer, the assistant director of accountability for the state, who also gave feedback on the designs  But he said that district officials have realized the information is helpful to parents.

Blew noted that some of the report card designs in the challenge offered schools a chance to provide information beyond the numbers. That could help cut through political tension, he said.

"I think the way we counteract [the politics] is to allow people to explain the data where a school can say yes, it's true our graduation rates have gone down, and here's what we're doing to fix that," he said.

In addition to the design challenge, DeVos and company have also released a "parent's guide" to ESSA report cards, to help families who are trying to make sense of the data. The guide highlights a couple of states that have strong report cards in the department's view, including Ohio and Virginia. The department has also released an explainer for parents on the law itself.

Some state officials have signaled that they could use more-formal guidance on how to design ESSA report cards. The department hasn't said one way or the other whether it will be issuing that guidance. But Blew said he expected the department would take further action on the report card issue—he wasn't sure just what that would look like at this point. 

Want to learn more about the Every Student Succeeds Act? Here's some useful information:

Don't miss another Politics K-12 post. Sign up here to get news alerts in your email inbox.

Follow us on Twitter at @PoliticsK12.



Source: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2018/11/betsy-devos-essa-report-card-design.html


Rss_feed