I really like this new organization of CSSP. I especially like this list of Research. It is accessible and also illustrates how collaborative the project is.

2. Is the reasoning persuasive and well developed? Are the claims supported with appropriate evidence? Is counter-evidence fully considered?
Yes. The arguments are very well developed and supported with appropriate, diverse, and compelling evidence. Counter arguments are addressed and handled well and convincingly.

3. Does the web project make effective use of the online format by integrating narrative text with digital elements (such as maps, charts, photos, videos, and online source materials)? Are all digital elements credited?
Absolutely. The authors pulled articles from multiple online resources, photos, videos, graphs, screenshots, and links to other websites. The authors present a case study, which they link gracefully to many external sources. All sources are thoroughly credited.

4. Is the writing well organized with smooth transitions between focused paragraphs? Does it include sufficient background for audiences unfamiliar with the topic?
Yes, the authors provide a compelling and beautifully-written background of Jumoke Academy, smoothly transitioning into the thesis of the project.

5. Did the author(s) choose precise and meaningful wording, with fluent syntax and correct grammar and spelling?
Yes. The whole project was thoughtfully constructed and free from typos and other errors.

6. Did the author(s) cite sources in a standard academic format (such as Chicago-style footnotes, or MLA/APA in-line citations with a bibliography) so that readers may easily locate them?
Yes.

2. Is the reasoning persuasive and well developed? Are the claims supported with appropriate evidence? Is counter-evidence fully considered?
The authors provide a lot of great information, providing a wonderfully thorough background on the issue of school choice in Hartford, but it is unclear what thesis they are supporting. The information does not come together to form any one argument, nor does the information help parents make decisions about school choice.

3. Does the web project make effective use of the online format by integrating narrative text with digital elements (such as maps, charts, photos, videos, and online source materials)? Are all digital elements credited?
Yes, the authors use a lot of great multimedia material, but again, it was unclear what purpose these graphics were serving—for example, how does it help parents navigate the school choice process by providing a map that shows where SmartChoices website users live? The flow-chart did not allow you to click on it as it seems it was supposed to. All sources were provided clearly.

4. Is the writing well organized with smooth transitions between focused paragraphs? Does it include sufficient background for audiences unfamiliar with the topic?
The project provided a lot of interesting information but without any kind of synthesizing thesis statement. As such, there was not much flow between sections.

5. Did the author(s) choose precise and meaningful wording, with fluent syntax and correct grammar and spelling?
The writing itself was logical and easy to follow within each subsection of the project.

6. Did the author(s) cite sources in a standard academic format (such as Chicago-style footnotes, or MLA/APA in-line citations with a bibliography) so that readers may easily locate them?
Yes.

2. Is the reasoning persuasive and well developed? Are the claims supported with appropriate evidence? Is counter-evidence fully considered?
There are no studies documenting tracking in Hartford P.S. or Magnet schools out there, is it realistic to expect policy makers, superintendents, education commissioners and others, who may be skeptical, to address a problem that may be viewed as an unconfirmed occurrence?

3. Does the web project make effective use of the online format by integrating narrative text with digital elements (such as maps, charts, photos, videos, and online source materials)? Are all digital elements credited?
Yes. You may also want to include a website that includes parents’ opinions on this topic. Achieve Hartford, has publications regarding parent involvement. The graphics included—particularly the pie charts—would benefit from having numbers included directly on or next to the graphic for clarification.

4. Is the writing well organized with smooth transitions between focused paragraphs? Does it include sufficient background for audiences unfamiliar with the topic? Yes. The project is well-outlined and easy to follow with the formatting of the webpage.

5. Did the author(s) choose precise and meaningful wording, with fluent syntax and correct grammar and spelling? Yes.

6. Did the author(s) cite sources in a standard academic format (such as Chicago-style footnotes, or MLA/APA in-line citations with a bibliography) so that readers may easily locate them? Yes.

2. Is the reasoning persuasive and well developed? Are the claims supported with appropriate evidence? Is counter-evidence fully considered?
Yes, the reasoning is clear, persuasive, thorough, and easy to follow. Each claim is backed up with ample and thoughtful evidence. Counter evidence—such as other explanations for failures in certain areas or for the stark difference in performance between the central and surrounding areas—would have strengthened the argument, but the author did a thorough job of developing a clear and supported argument for the thesis.

3. Does the web project make effective use of the online format by integrating narrative text with digital elements (such as maps, charts, photos, videos, and online source materials)? Are all digital elements credited?
Absolutely! The interactive maps were engaging and compelling, allowing readers to explore the representations of the data and draw their own conclusions based on the information provided. It is not immediately clear where the information in the graphics comes from; providing this information directly on or next to the graphics would lend credibility.

4. Is the writing well organized with smooth transitions between focused paragraphs? Does it include sufficient background for audiences unfamiliar with the topic?
Yes, the writing and transitions are smooth and the organization and layout of the project made it very easy to follow. The background information was provided in a clear and logical way and provides readers with plenty of information to understand the issues and arguments presented.

5. Did the author(s) choose precise and meaningful wording, with fluent syntax and correct grammar and spelling?
Yes, the writing was clear, coherent, and compelling.

6. Did the author(s) cite sources in a standard academic format (such as Chicago-style footnotes, or MLA/APA in-line citations with a bibliography) so that readers may easily locate them?
Yes.

2. Is the reasoning persuasive and well developed? Are the claims supported with appropriate evidence? Is counter-evidence fully considered?
The project concludes that Open Choice is an effective program overall, but seems to miss the thesis stated in the project’s title—Is Open Choice an Effective Program in Providing an Equal Educational Opportunity to Hartford Students? The supporting evidence that the author provides states that the program does not show significant benefits and that it could be effective if changes were made, allowing it to grow into a better program, all discussed in the last paragraph. These arguments did not support the final claim of the project, which stated, “Open Choice is not only an effective means of increasing the number of students in reduced isolation educational settings, contributing to the Sheff remedy, but also an effective way to produce long-term social and educational outcomes for participants.”

3. Does the web project make effective use of the online format by integrating narrative text with digital elements (such as maps, charts, photos, videos, and online source materials)? Are all digital elements credited?
The project provided one photograph, credited to the Hartford Public Library but without a clear source, and a link to Frankenburg’s report. The author did not take advantage of the online medium. The project would have benefitted from tables or charts adapted from either report cited in the project, providing compelling arguments for the effectiveness of the program.

4. Is the writing well organized with smooth transitions between focused paragraphs? Does it include sufficient background for audiences unfamiliar with the topic?
The author does provide background information and picked good quotes to represent elements of the two reports cited in the project. The information provided a brief refresher on the Open Choice program and its relationship to Project Concern. However, the transitions from paragraph to paragraph were not smooth, neither in transitions nor actual formatting. The second paragraph repeats a good portion of the first paragraph. The conclusion of the project was neither supported by the evidence provided nor the arguments developed by the author.

5. Did the author(s) choose precise and meaningful wording, with fluent syntax and correct grammar and spelling?
Elements of the writing were compelling and well-written, but the overall synthesis of the sentences involved several non-sequiturs. There were a couple typos wherein words were dropped from sentences.

6. Did the author(s) cite sources in a standard academic format (such as Chicago-style footnotes, or MLA/APA in-line citations with a bibliography) so that readers may easily locate them?
Yes, though it might benefit the readers to know more about the picture provided at the top of the project—how would one find it? When and where was it taken? There were also a couple of quotes with unclear sources.

a) The missing source info: At the beginning of each city/town section, beginning with “Hartford: The City of Hartford is. . .”, you list demographic and school data, without citing any sources in that paragraph. At the bottom of your essay, partial references appear for US Census Bureau and Connecticut’s CEDaR, but there are no web addresses. Furthermore, you need to link the paragraph with the appropriate source at the bottom, and based on what you’ve written so far, I recommend that you use APA/MLA-style inline citations. If you don’t know how to do this, see http://citesource.trincoll.edu, or ask a librarian, or ask me.

b) The caption of your map has minimal information “Map provided by UConn MAGIC,” which does not help readers who are not already familiar with this institution. It also doesn’t notify readers what will happen if they click on the image. Please replace it with a richer caption, such as:
“Click to open in a new tab/window. Map created by MAGIC, University of Connecticut (http://magic.lib.uconn.edu/otl/timeslider_homevalue.html)”

Hint: If you go to “Edit image” and click the “Advanced” tab, check the box to “open in a new window,” which allows readers to save their place on this page.

c) In your conclusion, a better way to represent your data would be to create a scatterplot, with each axis representing your key variables: test score versus median income. You’ve already done the data collection, so this would be relatively easy. Let me know if you need any help in making it.

d) Do you have any idea why the embedded Vimeo clip is not appearing? I know we’ve had problems with this earlier in the semester, and it’s probably not your fault, so I’m just mentioning it here for the benefit of the guest evaluators.

a) This direct quotation is not cited: “As the Reconstruction Era drew to a close. . .”

b) I understand that you created the data table for “District CMT Performance since 1993,” which is great. But readers still need to know the original source of your data. Please add something like: “Data source: [insert description].”

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

a) In your first map image, please add the basic web address to the caption, like this:
Source: Missing the Goal: A Visual Guide to Sheff v. O’Neill School Desegregation; from the Cities, Suburbs and Schools Project at Trinity College (http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/educ/css).

b) Your second map image currently has a placeholder (“Insert a longer caption here”), which needs to be replaced with something similar to above.

c) Similar to (a) above, the table caption needs to include the basic web address.