Comments on: Open Letter to Jersey Jazzman http://www.bluffcityed.com/2014/06/open-letter-to-jersey-jazzman/ Sharing The Memphis Teacher Voice One Story At A Time Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:28:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0 By: bluffcityed http://www.bluffcityed.com/2014/06/open-letter-to-jersey-jazzman/#comment-385 Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:14:29 +0000 http://bluffcityed.com/?p=1318#comment-385 Again, thank you for the well thoughout comment. My intent is also to do a similar quantitative analysis to JJ’s. Unfortunately I find myself abroad with limited internet access so I am unable to do so at the moment. However, I felt that the tone and semantics of JJ’s piece warranted a response in it’s own right, hence this piece. Reading your comment I realize I should have included this information in the original letter.

]]> By: Bert Turner http://www.bluffcityed.com/2014/06/open-letter-to-jersey-jazzman/#comment-384 Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:43:59 +0000 http://bluffcityed.com/?p=1318#comment-384 While Jazzman’s style is not my . I think his argument is much stronger than both yours and Aycock’s. Jazzman is using data readily available to the public and used within the city and state. Aycock is using data that is not comparable (MAP and whatever Grizzlies Prep is using), that is not open source information, and is really inconsequential as it’s not aligned to TCAP (the end all be all of data points today). Additionally, Aycock opens with a logical fallacy, the straw man that critics of ed reform say poverty needs to be fixed first. No one that I have read has said such a thing. They, including Jazzman, say we cannot ignore poverty and that it matters. However, I have heard those defending the corporate model of reform, like Aycock, deliberately misrepresent the critics.

As for your defense, Jazzman comes packing data and statistical analysis and you come with semantics and rhetorical sidestepping, focusing on they way Jazzman has framed the piece rather than the information presented. It really is a poor response and I’m disappointed. In no way does it address the very real issue and consequence of poverty in education, which in a very thinly veiled way is what Aycock is arguing against.

]]>