by Scott McLeod | Jul 4, 2007 | Law, Policy, and Ethics, Reading, Research and Evaluation |
My latest Report of the Week (ROTW) comes from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) 2007 Digital Equity Summit:
Here’s a quote from the report:
Educators must recognize connections between the digital
divide and achievement gaps in order to reframe digital equity as an essential
component of school improvement plans. However there are still a substantial
number of educators who only have a superficial understanding of the role of
technology in facilitating student learning. As a result, “teachers and, in some
cases, administrators lack willingness to embrace new technology and ways to use
digital content in learning environments,” asserted one participant. If they use
technology, it is part of an enrichment activity instead of an integrated
instructional component.
Happy reading!
by Scott McLeod | Jun 27, 2007 | Reading, Research and Evaluation |
I’ve been laying low for a few days, giving Did You
Know? 2.0 the opportunity to get some traction. So far, so good,
although I don’t expect it to get as much attention as the first version
did.
Anyway, on with the show. It’s time for the third installment of my
new Report of the Week (ROTW) feature. This week’s
report is from the Kaiser Family
Foundation:
Here’s a quote from the report:
Most parents aren’t very happy with the amount of sex or violence in the
media today. Two-thirds say they are very concerned about the amount of
inappropriate media content children in this country are exposed to, and many
believe media is a major contributor to young people’s violent or sexual
behaviors. In fact, a strong majority would support government regulations on
the amount of such content during the early evening hours. . . . At the same
time, the majority of parents see inappropriate media primarily as someone
else’s problem: only one in five (20%) say their own children are seeing “a lot”
of inappropriate content. The proportion of parents who are “very” concerned
about their own children’s exposure to sex or violence on TV – while still high
– has declined steadily over the past nine years.
I think the Kaiser Family Foundation has a
number of great reports. If you haven’t seen them, also check out their reports
on media in the
lives of 8–18 year-olds, how kids’ media use
helps parents cope, and how Internet filters
affect the search for online health information.
Happy reading!
by Scott McLeod | Jun 20, 2007 | Law, Policy, and Ethics, Reading, Research and Evaluation |
It’s time for the second installment of a new feature here at Dangerously Irrelevant, one that I’ve oh-so-creatively titled Report of the Week (ROTW).
This week’s report is from the Campaign for High School Equity:
Here’s a quote from the report:
Often, schools serving high-poverty or predominantly minority communities do not receive the resources that their more affluent counterparts receive. Such disparities must be eliminated in order to guarantee that all students are equally well-prepared for success in life.
Like most other Reports of the Week, this is listed under the Reading and Research and Evaluation categories. Happy reading!
by Scott McLeod | Jun 18, 2007 | Blogging, Communication, Research and Evaluation |
Are edubloggers mostly white and middle class? What proportion of edubloggers have advanced degrees in instructional technology?
Brian Grenier wants to find out the answers to these and other questions. If you’re an education blogger, please
- complete his quick survey (if you’re really bold, put your blog URL in the comments area!), and
- spread the word via your own blog so that others will complete the survey too.
Let’s help Brian get a decent set of data. These questions would have been great to include on my Education Blogosphere Survey in January!
by Scott McLeod | Jun 13, 2007 | Online Learning, Reading, Research and Evaluation |
Okay, it’s time to try out a new feature here at Dangerously Irrelevant: the
Report of the Week (ROTW). Can I find and feature an
interesting education-related report each and every week? I think I can!
This week’s report is from Education Sector:
Here’s a quote from the report:
There has been no shortage of solutions for improving the nation’s public
schools. School leadership, teacher quality, standards, testing, funding, and a
host of other issues have crowded reform agendas. But an important trend in
public education has gone largely unnoticed in the cacophony of policy
proposals: the rise of a completely new class of public schools – “virtual”
schools using the Internet to create online classrooms – that is bringing about
reforms that have long eluded traditional public schools.
All Reports of the Week will be listed under the Reading category (and, in most instances, the Research and Evaluation category). Happy reading!
by Scott McLeod | Apr 23, 2007 | Leadership and Vision, Research and Evaluation |
I have a research team that’s going to spend the summer interviewing as many of the eSchoolNews technology-savvy superintendents as we can. eSchoolNews has named 10 tech-savvy superintendents for each of the past 7 years, so our total number of interviews could be as high as 70.
We’re trying to learn what makes these superintendents tick: how they think about digital technologies, what makes them different from other superintendents, what they do in terms of internal support and training, etc. We’d love to have your input as to what questions we should ask these folks.
Got a great idea for an interview question we should ask these superintendents? If so, please post it as a comment below. Thanks!
by Scott McLeod | Apr 19, 2007 | Blogging, Law, Policy, and Ethics, Research and Evaluation |
[cross-posted at Moving at the Speed of Creativity]
eSchoolNews has a fantastic letter from the editor regarding the federal government’s recent evaluation of learning software for schools.
The editor lambasts reporters’ overblown headlines, inappropriate and
overbroad conclusions, and failure to adequately criticize and
critically reflect upon the report and its accompanying publicity
material.
There was a recent dust-up at Dangerously Irrelevant as well regarding information sources for Did You Know?.
As we all do our own original writing or write about others’ work,
these are important reminders that we need to be careful, thoughtful,
and appropriately critical before we put information out into the
easily-searchable, publicly-findable blogosphere.
by Scott McLeod | Apr 12, 2007 | Research and Evaluation, Tech Integration |
The National
Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) has chimed in on the U.S. Department of Education’s
recent study comparing the effectiveness of different educational software
packages:
Are you considering upgrading educational software in your building?
Before you do, consider the Department of Education’s recently released report
on the impact of educational technology on student
learning.
Please note the absence of any critical analysis or commentary
whatsoever. (sigh)
by Scott McLeod | Apr 6, 2007 | Law, Policy, and Ethics, Research and Evaluation |
Here is an e-mail I just received from the Executive Director of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Definitely worth a read if you’re interested in privacy issues…
April 6, 2007
Dear AERA Members:
As final bags and boxes are being closed for the 2007 AERA Annual Meeting, I
want to update you on an important matter for education researchers working
under federal contracts. Over the course of this past year, the U.S. Department
of Education has taken new steps to implement security clearance procedures for
contractor employees. Several AERA members informed the Association and
expressed serious concern that the process is intrusive and unwarranted for
non-classified research. Articles on the topic have appeared recently in The
New York Times and Education Week (www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/02/21/24checks.h26.html).
Over many months, AERA has been investigating this situation and pressing for
greater understanding. Since September, we have been engaged in discussions with
numerous federal officials at the Department of Education and other federal
agencies as well as working with other research organizations (in particular
with the American Association for the Advancement of Science) and individuals in
the scientific community to scrutinize this issue and learn as much as we can.
President Eva Baker described some of these activities in the January/February
2007 issue of Educational Researcher (http://er.aera.net/).
The actual clearance procedures required of contractual personnel vary by the
risk level assigned to a position, but minimally require employees on contracts
who are designated low risk to submit fingerprints. Low risk positions include
those on a contractor’s research team who conduct statistical analyses, but have
no access to personally-identifiable information. Contractor employees in
moderate-risk positions must provide a release for credit information and may
also be asked to sign a release allowing investigators to ask specific questions
of an individual’s health care provider regarding prior mental health
consultations. Researchers who collect or have access to personally-identifiable
information or sensitive, but unclassified information are considered moderate
risk under current Department of Education Directive OM:5-101, Contractor
Employee Personnel Security Screenings.
Our goal has been to understand the authority underlying the changes,
determine whether the situation is unique to the Department of Education, and to
effectuate change where needed. Our efforts in the fall, for example, led the
Department of Education to indicate that the directive would be revised and its
implementation examined. Most recently, the Department of Education also
confirmed that the medical/mental health release was not required for
moderate-risk positions (at least as an initial step). At our urging, agency
officials agreed to add an instruction to this effect so that contracting
officers and contractors would be aware of this at the onset.
An overarching concern is about the appropriate scope of security clearance
procedures. The security measures being implemented by the Department of
Education may reach beyond what was originally intended under Presidential
Directive HSPD-12, the key authority often cited by federal officials as
extending security clearance procedures to contractors. Both the Directive and
the Office of Management and Budget guidance for implementing the Directive
focus on contractors who access federal facilities and critical information
systems, not researchers who are engaged in primary data collection or use of
these data in the field. We are seeking an interpretation from senior federal
officials regarding the intended reach of the Presidential Directive and
anticipate receiving clarification quite soon.
Our fact gathering thus far indicates that security clearance procedures vary
by agency. The National Science Foundation, for example, does not typically
require security clearance screenings for contractors who collect data or
prepare analytical products for the agency. At the National Institute of
Justice, only those contractors who need access to federal buildings or
information systems must generally undergo security clearances. Currently, the
U.S. Department of Education – relying on Directive OM:5-101 – requires a security
screening process for all contractors employed for 30 days or more. Although, as
noted above, this Directive is currently in the final stages of revision,
Department officials have indicated that the changes are directed to clarifying
the intent of the policy as it is currently being practiced – that is, that it
covers all contracts.
We remain concerned about the collection of credit information and
fingerprints for researchers who work in the field and have no access to federal
facilities or information systems. While we recognize and appreciate the renewed
efforts of federal officials to provide the best protections possible for
personally identifiable information collected by researchers – and indeed, we as
an Association are continuously engaged in exercises and initiatives to improve
privacy and confidentiality protections – the measures must be balanced and
appropriate to the circumstances.
In a post 9-11 world, there could be a reasoned need for those performing
work for the federal government in federal facilities or on federal data bases
to undergo security clearances at a level appropriate to the types of access.
The issue of the appropriateness of security clearance procedures that are
broader in scope ultimately hinges on whether there is a compelling basis to do
so. The federal government has an interest in supporting research and attracting
researchers – whether working under grants or contracts – of the highest quality and
creativity. We take the view that any constraints need to be the minimum
necessary to achieve legitimate goals. Thus, we await clarification of the scope
of the security clearance requirements and the rationale underlying them. Our
next steps depend on what we learn.
For now, I want to keep you, our members, informed and to let you know that
this topic – as a matter of sound research policy – is very much on the active
agenda of staff and of strong interest to AERA Council and the AERA Government
Relations (GR) Committee. Both Council and the GR Committee have this topic on
their business agendas at the Annual Meeting. Meanwhile, please e-mail me if you
have knowledge or experiences that we should be aware of as we continue to
address the issue of security clearances for contractual research employees.
I look forward to seeing many of you in Chicago.
Warm regards,
Felice
Felice J. Levine, PhD
Executive Director
