The Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) was developed as part of the 1993 Education Reform Bill which mandated new learning standards, a new state test and new accountability for students and schools.  The federal government, through No Child Left Behind, requires states to ensure all students reach their states’ standards in reading and math by 2014.  Each state is judged by its own tests and its own definition of proficiency. 

Proponents of the WASL, like the Washington Roundtable the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, argue that students will have up to five chances to take the test, so that students’ future don’t rest on a single scores.  They view the WASL as a strong test, reviewed by some of the nation’s top testing experts.  They say that abandoning the tough job of raising expectations for students will hurt them far more in the long run than the stress of a high-stakes test.   

Critics, like the 2007 best education beat reporter in the country and Seattle Times reporter Linda Shaw and the Washington Education Association, question whether high stakes such as graduation should rest on one exam, even with retakes.  They worry that too much emphasis on testing crowds out other subjects.  They charge the state raised the expectations for students and schools without providing them with enough additional resources to achieve them.  Some also say that the WASL’s standards are far from basic – and are beyond what the average student can be expected to achieve.   

On the Seattle Public Schools website, you can check out the WASL results for each individual Seattle School by browsing their Annual Report.

            Erica Johnson’s article, Democracy Defended: Polibloggers and the Politics Press In America, analyzes “the success of blogs in carrying out the democratic responsibilities of journalism during the 2004 presidential debates.”  By selecting Instapundit, a conservative blog, Eschaton, a liberal blog, and the New York Times, the author “underlines the magnitude of the blogging phenomenon.” 

            The press fulfills two key roles in American representative democracy: gatekeeper and government watchdog.  So journalists and editors and media in general must filter information for the public to avoid information overload.  And journalists must act as the fourth estate in order to keep our government in check.      

            Because the American public does not trust media and believes it is too commercial, Americans are turning to other news sources, like blogs, which the author defines as “public websites on which the author provides commentary.” 

Two distinct categories of blogs exist:

            Personal blogs – focus on internal world of blogger

            Filter blogs – concentrate on topic

            This paper focused on filter blogs since they are considered the more influential kind of blog.  And even narrower, political filter blogs whose authors are referred to as polibloggers. 

            In the summer of 2004, it became clear that government officials viewed blogs as both credible and influential when political bloggers were given press credentials to attend both the Republican and Democratic political conventions.  Landmark stories broken by blogs followed which include the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal and Dan Rather falsely reporting on George W. Bush’s military record.   

            Focus turned to the three 2004 presidential debates between the two candidates, Republican incumbent George W. Bush and Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry.  The blogs provided valuable commentary like praising John Kerry for his consistency in his answers, body language, and demeanor and attacked Bush for a suspected bulging earpiece in his suit.  Also, debate fact-checking by the blogs was higher quality and more timely. 

            Blogs as the “fifth estate”: Instapundit and Eschaton analyzed the media’s bias several times during the 2004 campaign.  Examples include Fox News’s pro-Bush bias and the media’s positive spin on Kerry.     

Summary points

Both Instapundit and Eschaton posted information similar to New York Times

Both Instapundit and Eschaton analyzed the veracity of both the 2004 candidates’ statements, therefore being a government watchdog.

Both Instapundit and Eschaton assumed the role of the fifth estate, revealing media political bias. 

Both Instapundit and Eschaton should be considered forums for political journalism.