<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NY Times Enrollment Story Only Half the Picture</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts/2012/07/24/ny-times-enrollment-story-only-half-the-picture/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts/2012/07/24/ny-times-enrollment-story-only-half-the-picture/</link>
	<description>A listening post monitoring public education and teachers' unions.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:53:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mick Raike</title>
		<link>http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts/2012/07/24/ny-times-enrollment-story-only-half-the-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-9313</link>
		<dc:creator>Mick Raike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:29:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts/?p=5204#comment-9313</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As a doctoral student, one of the mysteries of research that I have noticed is that one can use one piece of research or data to prove or disprove a myriad of different ideas or opinions.  For instance: &quot;One can argue that 75% of educators believe that 3 out of 4 teachers can use a particualar educational innovation that enables 50% of their students to test higher than half of their peers.&quot;  AMAZING!

I am sure that this NY Times reporter was given a rough outline of what the editors wanted for her next article and she merely found a few peices of data to give it legs while the folks in the editoral department came up with a sensational headline to lure in the readers.  It happens everyday in every publication or news broadcast around the world.  As a consumer of research, we all must dig deeper into what &quot;they&quot; (whoever &quot;they&quot; are) say and review the facts for ourselves.  The Truth Is Out There!

Mick
Local 211, UAW]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a doctoral student, one of the mysteries of research that I have noticed is that one can use one piece of research or data to prove or disprove a myriad of different ideas or opinions.  For instance: &#8220;One can argue that 75% of educators believe that 3 out of 4 teachers can use a particualar educational innovation that enables 50% of their students to test higher than half of their peers.&#8221;  AMAZING!</p>
<p>I am sure that this NY Times reporter was given a rough outline of what the editors wanted for her next article and she merely found a few peices of data to give it legs while the folks in the editoral department came up with a sensational headline to lure in the readers.  It happens everyday in every publication or news broadcast around the world.  As a consumer of research, we all must dig deeper into what &#8220;they&#8221; (whoever &#8220;they&#8221; are) say and review the facts for ourselves.  The Truth Is Out There!</p>
<p>Mick<br />
Local 211, UAW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
