Talk:Education Week
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Common Standards
[edit]These two words together form an oxymoron. Anything that is "common" is mediocre. The only standard worthy of consideration is excellence and excellence is unique. Everyone is unique, but not everyone is excellent because some have not yet reached their full potential. This achievement of full potentials is the purpose of education. Educational performance standards should be doing better than last time. This means adjusting for the shortcomings of our last attempt. Where groups are concerned, these adjustments are the responsibility of the group, otherwise the adjustments are the responsibility of the person doing the acting. We will never improve education until we teach towards getting students to pursue excellence and to take responsibility for their own learning and to correct their own mistakes. This means paying attention to errors and not to right answers. How dare anyone presume to say what is best for a unique fellow human being? Jay Powell18:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)98.236.145.115 (talk)
- It is very hard to see what you are arguing for here, except that you clearly have some sort of dislike for standards, and judging from your repeated use of the codeword "responsibility", I would guess you are coming in with a right-wing political agenda (though for the life of me, I don't understand the right's objection to setting a generally accepted lower bar on what constitutes an adequate education).
- For someone who apparently demands careful attention to words, you should do so yourself. "Mediocre" as a definition for "common" comes way down on the list - for example, it is the fifth definition on Merriam-Webster. The first definition they show is "of or relating to a community at large"; the second is "belonging to or shared by two or more people or groups". Both of these are intended by "Common Core" - they are standards of education that have been adopted (and so are shared) by (so far) 37 states and are intended to be accepted by the American community at large as a set of standards defining the core elements that all students should master to be prepared for their next educational steps and/or the work force. No one has ever claimed that these are to be maximums (which I assume you are claiming with your "How dare anyone presume to say what is best for a unique fellow human being?") but rather widely accepted (Common) elements that all students, regardless of their potential, should achieve. Obviously, the students with greater potentials will be expected to achieve more. Further, your comment "This means paying attention to errors and not to right answers." implies you haven't read the Common Core and its supporting documentation, or you would know that the core standards are not "questions and answers" but are elements and approaches that specifically encourage problem solving and critical thinking.108.74.28.81 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Education Week. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://abcas3.accessabc.com/ecirc/magform.asp - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307091034/http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Training_Sandbox/carnegie_results_win06.pdf to http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Training_Sandbox/carnegie_results_win06.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307091034/http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Training_Sandbox/carnegie_results_win06.pdf to http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Training_Sandbox/carnegie_results_win06.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Offline 00:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
COI Requests to (Begin to) Address Tags
[edit] | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Dear Wikipedia Editors,
Education Week has hired me to try to address the tags on its page. To that end, I’ve disclosed my COI on both my Talk page and the Talk page for Education Week, and I’ve identified ways to make the page less promotional and to use third-party footnotes from the media.
I’ll offer up the first set (of two) requests right now. At your convenience, I welcome your feedback. Thank you very much.
Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Edit request |
|---|
1. Rewrite the “History” Section[edit]The bulk of the page consists of the “history” section. (I can understand why the page was tagged for being promotional.) Rather than trying to tweak this section, which would entail a ton of edits, I propose TNTing it. Here’s what the current "history" section says: In 1957, Corbin Gwaltney, founder and then editor of Johns Hopkins Magazine for alumni of Johns Hopkins University, and a group of other university alumni magazine editors came together to discuss writing on higher education and decided to form Editorial Projects for Education (EPE), a nonprofit educational organization. Soon after, Gwaltney left Johns Hopkins Magazine to become the first full-time employee of the newly created EPE, starting in an office in his apartment in Baltimore and later moving to an office near the Johns Hopkins campus.[1] He realized that higher education would benefit from a news publication.[2] Gwaltney and other board members of EPE met to plan a new publication. In 1966, EPE published the first issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education.[2][3][4] In 1978, EPE sold Chronicle to its editors and shifted its attention. With the support of several philanthropies, EPE went on to launch Education Week under the leadership of Ronald A. Wolk.[5] The first issue of Education Week appeared on September 7, 1981, and sought to provide Chronicle-like coverage of elementary and secondary education.[6] It launched with a splash by running a scoop[7] about efforts by President Ronald Reagan's administration to downgrade the U.S. Department of Education, which was then still in its infancy.[8] In August 1981, EPE officially changed the name to Editorial Projects in Education. Here’s a proposed write: In 1962, on leave from his job as editor of the Johns Hopkins University alumni bulletin, Ronald Wolk wrote a report for the nonprofit Editorial Projects in Education (EPE). Wolk recommended a “communications vehicle for college and university trustees.”[9] As a result, in 1966, EPE established the Chronicle of Higher Education.[10]
In 1978, EPE sold the Chronicle to its editors.[11] With the resulting funds, EPE began Education Week, in 1981.[12][13] Education Week was envisioned by its cofounders, Wolk and Martha Matzke, a fellow journalist,[14] as a version of the Chronicle focused on kindergarten through 12th grade.[15] Wolk was Education Week’s first publisher and editor in chief.[16] Matzke was later named executive editor.[17] The first issue of Education Week appeared on September 7, 1981.[18] Its lead story reported that President Ronald Reagan’s Education Secretary, Terrel Bell, was effectively trying to dismantle the agency he headed.[19][20] Note: Here's the pertinent passage from the book, Covering the Campus (footnote #2): “The hands-on, entrepreneurial Editorial Projects board envisioned a publication that would make a lot of the existing reading material unnecessary. They sketched out a plan for The Chronicle of Higher Education ... On November 23, 1966, The Chronicle of Higher Education made its debut.” 2. Add Footnotes for 1st Part of the Lead Section[edit]The first part of lead section says this: Education Week is an independent news organization that has covered K–12 education since 1981. It is owned by Editorial Projects in Education (EPE), a nonprofit organization, and headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland in Greater Washington DC. None of this is footnoted; here are third-party, media sources: a. “K-12 education.” According to an article in the Omaha World Herald (“Bill would restrict how Nebraska schools, government treat race and sex,” 2022), “Education Week [is], a news organization focused on K-12 education.” b. “1981.” According to an article in the New York Times (“Ronald Wolk, Innovator in Covering Education News, Dies at 86,” 2018), “He [Ronald Wolk] ... began Education Week in 1981.” c. “Editorial Projects in Education.” According to an article in Adweek (“Education Week Editor in Chief Virginia B. Edwards Is Stepping Down,” 2016), EPE is the “parent company” of Education Week. d. “Nonprofit.” You can verify that EPE is a nonprofit by viewing its Form 990s in ProPublica. (The IRS requires nonprofits to file this form annually.) e. “Bethesda.” According to an editorial in the Las Vegas Sun, “Quality Counts is researched and published by Editorial Projects in Education Inc., the Bethesda, Md., company that produces Education Week (www.edweek.org), a respected trade publication” (“Our schools get a D-plus,” 2018). Thus, here’s a revised lead: Education Week is an independent news organization that has covered K–12 education[21] since 1981.[22] It is owned by Editorial Projects in Education (EPE),[23] a nonprofit organization,[24] and headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland[25] in Greater Washington DC.
3. Remove Items From the Lead Section[edit]To lessen the promotional tone, I recommend removing the following items from the lead section: a. The word “independent.” While Education Week is independent, other Wikipedia pages for similar media — for example, The Information, Entrepreneur, and Fast Company — don’t mention this fact in the lead. b. The phrase “in Greater Washington DC.” It’s well-known that Bethesda, Maryland is located in Greater DC. c. The word “special.” Let’s just say “annual reports.” Thus, we’d change the lead section from this: Education Week is an independent news organization that has covered K–12 education since 1981. It is owned by Editorial Projects in Education (EPE), a nonprofit organization, and headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland in Greater Washington DC. The newspaper publishes 37 issues a year, including three special annual reports (Quality Counts, Technology Counts, and Leaders to Learn From). From 1997 to 2010, Quality Counts was sponsored by the Pew Center on the States.[26] to this: Education Week is a news organization that has covered K–12 education[27] since 1981.[28] It is owned by Editorial Projects in Education (EPE),[29] a nonprofit organization,[30] and headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland[31]. The newspaper publishes 37 issues a year, including three annual reports (Quality Counts, Technology Counts, and Leaders to Learn From). From 1997 to 2010, Quality Counts was sponsored by the Pew Center on the States.[26]
4. Add a Section for “Projects”[edit]The page seems incomplete without a section for the work that Education Week does. What do you think about adding something like this? In addition to publishing a newspaper, Education Week conducts surveys and publishes research. Its surveys, on topics such as school safety,[32][33] graduation requirements,[34] teacher satisfaction,[35] and student access to technology,[36] are cited by the media, as is its research, on topics such as school shootings,[37] critical-race theory,[38] and school closings during the COVID-19 pandemic.[39][40] Phi Delta Kappan, a journal for education, called the school-closing tracker “a go-to resource for education reporters.”[41]
Education Week’s signature report, Quality Counts, is an annual scorecard that ranks states on their K-12 education. Started in 1997, Quality Counts is cited by the media.[42][43] Education Week also runs TopSchoolJobs.org, which the Atlanta-Journal Constitution called “a top education publication where job-seekers often look for openings and career opportunities.”[44]
5. Reference EdWeek’s Reputation[edit]Here’s how Education Week is described by the media. Would adding any of these third-party statements help resolve the notability concern? a. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution says Education Week is “perhaps the most respected source for education news” (“Georgia’s schools get so-so rating,” 2019). b. The Washington Post says Education Week is “a leading institution in education journalism” (“Ronald Wolk, whose Education Week put national spotlight on schools, dies at 86,” 2018).
c. The Media Bias Chart from Ad Fontes Media rates Education Week as “unbiased” and “reliable” (“Education Week Bias and Reliability”). (I had never heard of Ad Fontes or its Media Bias Chart until now, but they’re both documented on Wikipedia.) References
|
BlueRoses13 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply 2-JUL-2023
[edit]
Unable to review
- Exact, verbatim descriptions of the text and references to be removed should be included with your request.[1]
- When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the
{{request edit}}template's answer parameter to read from|ans=yto|ans=n. Thank you!
Regards, Spintendo 21:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
References
- ↑ "Template:Request edit". Wikipedia. 30 December 2019.
Instructions for Submitters: Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution.
- Thanks so much, Spintendo, and sorry for overlooking that requirement. I will rectify this now, then change "y" to "n." Best, BlueRoses13 (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- I thought the easiest way to handle this request would be to insert my comments amongst your text above. I've formatted the comments in a way that ensures those comments are separate from your text (placed in quote-boxes and individually signed) so there is hopefully no issue from other editors confusing your text from mine. The changes that I'm asking for should all be placed as a new, level 2 heading section at the bottom of this talk page. I hope this feedback is helpful. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Regards, Spintendo 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
References
Response to Spintendo
[edit] | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
@Spintendo Many thanks for your clear and organized feedback! I notice that you’ve spent a lot of time recently cleaning out the COI queue — and that you’ve done so with precise explanations and without ill will. Thank you for your helpfulness and your civility!
Now, let me see if I can respond to your requests. As you suggested, I’ve tried to place all the changes in a new, level-2 heading section at the bottom of this talk page. Please don’t hesitate to let me know if I can do anything else, or any of my requests remain problematic. Thanks a lot!
Extended content | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1. Rewrite the “History” Section
The bulk of the page consists of the “history” section. (I can understand why the page was tagged for being promotional.) Rather than trying to tweak this section, which would entail a ton of edits, I propose TNTing it. Here’s what the current "history" section says. And here’s a proposed rewrite, which, in response to Spintendo’s feedback, I’ve tried to make more formal and dispassionate:
2. Remove Items From the Lead Section
To lessen the promotional tone, I recommend removing the following items from the lead section: a. The word “independent.” While Education Week is independent, other Wikipedia pages for similar media — for example, The Information, Entrepreneur, and Fast Company — don’t mention this fact in the lead. b. The phrase “in Greater Washington DC.” It’s well-known that Bethesda, Maryland is located in Greater DC. c. The word “special.” Let’s just say “annual reports.” Thus, we’d change the lead section from this, to this (in response to Spintendo’s feedback, I removed the footnotes I previously added):
3. Add a Section for “Projects”
The page seems incomplete without a section for the work that Education Week does. What do you think about adding something like this? (In response to Spintendo’s feedback, I name-checked, and Wikilinked, the news outlets.) In addition to publishing a newspaper, Education Week conducts surveys and publishes research. Its surveys, on topics such as school safety,[1][2] graduation requirements,[3] teacher satisfaction,[4] and student access to technology,[5] are cited by media outlets such as The New York Times, The Economist, and The Washington Post. Its research, on topics such as school shootings,[6] critical-race theory,[7] and school closings during the COVID-19 pandemic,[8][9] has been cited by outlets such as The Associated Press, NBC News, and NPR. Phi Delta Kappan, a journal for education, called the school-closing tracker “a go-to resource for education reporters.”[10] References
|
Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC) BlueRoses13 (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Reply 29-AUG-2023
[edit]
Edit request implemented
- Thank you for revising your request. This revision added secondary sources and was helpful in removing the promotional tone of the article. I made a few formatting changes to your request which made it easier to read. Nothing was deleted, just moved or placed under templates to help with the request.
- I went ahead and removed the 4 maintenance templates at the top of the article, however, other editors may, in the future, re-add these as they see fit.
- I've limited the references from EduWeek, as in many of the cases, these were not needed (because they were covered by other secondary sources). I've also consolidated those references which were duplicated. If anything was missed, please let me know either here on this talk page or on my talk page.
- In the lead section I would like to Wikilink Pew Center on the States, but I could not find a Wikipedia page for that precise title, There are other Pew articles on Wikipedia but maybe you could help narrow down the title of this item. Is it actually called Pew Center on the States? Please advise. Regards, Spintendo 03:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Spintendo Thanks so much for taking the time to review these requests, for your guidance, and for removing the maintenance templates. I'm deeply grateful.
- To answer your question (#4): My research suggests that the "Pew Center on the States" should be changed to "Pew Charitable Trusts." An article from EdWeek.org ("Foundation Support Plays Key Role for Newspaper," 2006) confirms this: “In the late 1990s, the Pew Charitable Trusts began financing the annual Quality Counts reports."
- Please let me know if you'd prefer that I request this change via
edit COI. - Thanks again.
- Signed,
- BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Done Thank you for your feedback on this. I've changed the lead according to your research. Regards, Spintendo 17:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Changes to Infobox
[edit] | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello editors, On behalf of Education Week, I'd like to request that the outdated info in the infobox be corrected. I'm referring specifically to the following four items:
1. President: Michele J. Givens
2. Editor-in-chief: Scott Montgomery
3. Managing editor: Kathleen Kennedy Manzo
4. Staff writers: 35
I propose updating these as follows:
1. Add "and CEO" to Michele's title.
2. Change Scott to Beth Frerking.
3. Change Kathleen to Lesli A. Maxwell.
4. Change "Staff writers" to "staff," and "35" to "94 (2023)."
1 - 3 are confirmable via https://www.edweek.org/about/our-people. As for 4, https://www.edweek.org/education-week-employees-take-steps-to-unionize/2023/08 says that EdWeek, as of August 2023, has "94 full-time employees."
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Done Everything except the
|staff=parameter, which cannot be changed. Please make your request using the|custom_label=parameter. Regards, Spintendo 17:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)- Thank you very much, @Spintendo!
- I'm happy to open a new edit request for the number of staff (#4 above), but I thought it might be easiest just to reply here:
- Would it be possible to change, in the infobox, "Staff writers: 94" to "Number of employees: 94 (2023)"?
- An article from EdWeek.org ("Education Week Employees Take Steps to Unionize," 2023) says that as of August 2023, Education Week has "94 full-time employees."
- Note: I couldn't crack the code for
|custom_label=. Instead, you may want to change the|staff=parameter to|num_employeesand|num_employees_year. - Please let me know if I can provide any additional info, or if I need to make this request in a different way.
- Thanks so much!
- Signed,
- BlueRoses13 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Change "Staff Writers" to "Employees"
[edit] | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
Hello editors,
On behalf of Education Week, I wonder if you'd be willing to correct, in the infobox, "Staff writers: 94" to "Number of employees: 94 (2023)"?
An article from EdWeek.org ("Education Week Employees Take Steps to Unionize," 2023) says that as of August 2023, Education Week has "94 full-time employees."
Note: I couldn't crack the code to use |custom_label=. Instead, you may want to change the |staff= parameter to |num_employees and |num_employees_year.
Please let me know if I can provide any additional info.
Thank you.
Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Spintendo 18:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, @Spintendo! Done. (I figured out the "custom_label" parameter. :) Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Start-Class magazine articles
- Low-importance magazine articles
- WikiProject Magazines articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Start-Class education articles
- Low-importance education articles
- WikiProject Education articles
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions
- Implemented requested edits
- Answered requested edits