Talk:Politics in education

Untitled

Article Evaluation (1): Politics in Education

The article's information was definitely relevant to the topic. The article starts off by explaining the definition of politics in education, then continues to show the examples that the author believes supports this claim.

The article itself is not as detailed as I would have hoped for it to be. The definitions and explanations given were a bit vague and did not give many examples that could fully help me wrap my head around the subject matter.

Another item that could be included would be some quotes from some political science persons who would possibly be able to give more insight to the point that the author is trying to get across to the audience.

After reading the article it is clear to see that the article is pretty unbiased because it is not trying to persuade me to take a side, the article is simply trying to better inform me on the information that is crucial to the understanding of the claim.

If anything there wasn't a lot of information in the article period. So, it is hard to say if anything was over or underrepresented.

The citations do support the article and give much of the missing information and background information that would help describe the article in a better light.

There are no discussions in the "Talk" Section on the article.

BAMSHKAPOW1 (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blerd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andreiuconn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Geeknpink. Peer reviewers: Geeknpink.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Evaluation on Politics in Education

There is a missing comma after the phrase "academic discipline" and there needs to be another citation at the end of the first paragraph for the definition of "political science" and "organizational theory."

The key concepts were simply placed in the article, with no or lead into any of them. It was very scattered and I lost focus of the main point of the article. Additionally, the article touches on some very interesting subjects but does not go into enough in-depth discussion on these topics. With more sources, more ideas can be incorporated and the definitions can be expanded. I did not come away from the article with a true understanding for the topic at hand and I think that the article should do more to frame itself as a discussion on Politics in Education and not just explain some of its subsections.

I think the biggest issue, however, is that the article never truly explains what "politics in education" is. I was left with little understanding as to the point of the article. I think it needs to be made much clearer that this article is about the teaching of politics in education institutions. I would maybe add different examples of politics being taught in educational institutions and add a more in-depth analysis of micro- and macro- politics, as that is at the core of politics in education. Furthermore, it could also be discussed how politics are taught differently in educational institutions, not only throughout America, but throughout the world.

Benbram (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

A difference between politics in education versus politics of education was mentioned yet not explained, defined, compared, contrasted and cited. More information as well as sources explaining both is needed. CJRose94 (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: Politics in education

Almost all sources are outdated.

Could explain macro and micro in a way that relates to education.

Uses the word "power" a lot

No discussions in talk section besides one user evaluation, similar to the one I am going to make

Blerd (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Blerd Peer Review by Bmg89

      At first glimpse, all the sources are extremely out of date. There have been major changes in education since 2003 that would be impactful to this article. There also is no clear definition of the meaning of politics in education. Also, the structure could be better in the article. There are subtopics of politics in school and a change in formatting to make them each a section themselves would be beneficial to the display of information and additionally, the comprehension of the information. 
      Overall, the article seems to lack information. The two main subgroups of politics in education are given at most two sentences, they should have more information and explanation in their own sections. Also, the ending sentence is something that should be expanded on, but is only given itself in face value. The the sentence should be elaborated on more and be cited. 
      The article does keep a neutral tone and, although both sources are outdated and from the same source, have reliable sources. There are still multiple points of improvement. 

Bmg89 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)bmg89 Bmg89 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

Hello, great job on maintaining a neutral tone. However, I find the article to be conversational rather than formal. A Wikipedia article's first sentence should be succinct. This is not the case. Before diving into the "two main roots" of the study of politics in education, perhaps give some background on politics in education, or how politics in education counts as an academic discipline. It cannot be taken for granted that a reader will automatically agree that politics in education counts as an academic discipline. How does politics in education count as an academic discipline?

Three sources are used in the first sentence alone. This is a good start, however these sources simply redirect to other Wikipedia articles. Additionally, the article used to support the notion that political science is rooted in organizational theory is not a good source. This is because the article is biased in that its point is to convince that political science is rooted in organizational theory. Perhaps an article where different arguments were made as to what political science is rooted in would be a better source.

Additionally, a point is raised that there is a difference between "Politics of Education" and "Politics in Education". Says who? Is this a universal truth agreed upon by many credible scholars? Making that statement without proper evidence is concerning. And what constitutes a "significant" difference? In the world of statistics, the phrase "statistically significant" is taken very seriously and requires much proof to back up that kind of a statement. The meaning given to the word "significant" is not universal. What is a "significant" difference to one person is not a "significant" difference to another person. Quantifiable data would allow for the use of such a word. Or better yet, don't use the word "significant" at all.

Sources used are very out of date. Using sources from 17 years ago — particularly in a sector as constantly evolving as education leaves audience with stale information and does not inform them on what is happening today. --Erikabucb (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

FlorenceOpoku98 Politics in Education article evaluation

This is my article evaluation for Politics in education. Thanks for reading this review. --FlorenceOpoku98 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Name of article: (Politics in education)

<nowiki>I have chosen this article to evaluate because I didn't know that there was a concept called politics in education and since the topic is new to me, I would like to find out more information about it, and if any new schools of thought have been spun off from it.

   From the opening, the Lead clearly introduces and defines politics in education and describes the article's topic.

The article doesn't have multiple sections in it, it is just one paragraph describing what politics of education is, its two distinct branches, and differences between micro-politics and macro-politics. Based on the article, the two branches of politics in education are political science, which explains how our society uses its power to set rules and regulations to follow and organizational theory, which uses different management techniques to try to understand the functions of organization. political science. It then goes into distinctions of micro-politics (use of formal and informal power by students to achieve a goal) and macro-politics (how decisions are made and power is used in district, state, and federal school districts). Everything in the Lead is based on information given in its reference articles, and there's no information outside to that. The lead is relatively detailed and concise without being overly specific. The topic of Politics in Education seemed broad and detailed so I was surprised to see a lot less information than I expected to see in the article.

      I would say that the article isn't up to date because both references at the bottom of the screen date back to 2002 and 2003, which is over 18 years ago, so there's no way of knowing if there was any new updates or knowledge of the topic since then. There are also further readings from 1986, 1987 and 1991, so the references section is very outdated. 

One thing that's missing is the history of politics in education, like when the topic was first looked into, if there are any scholarly debates over politics in education, etc. Also, the last sentence of the article explains how there is a significant difference between Politics in Education and Politics of Education, but the authors don't really go into detail, so I'd like to see what these differences are and how they impact each other.The article doesn't focus on a historically underrepresented population, it seems like it's a generalization or summary of what Politics in Education is. It would be interesting if there was an article that focused on Politics in Education specifically for minority groups or for students managing conditions like dyslexia, autism, speech difficulties.

   The article does a good job of maintaining neutrality throughout. There aren't any claims or statements that are heavily biased and the authors are not trying to convince the reader to favor one viewpoint over another, but at at the same time I don't think there are viewpoints hat standout in this article, not enough to be considered overrepresented or underrepresented. The facts are backed up by reliable secondary sources, but there are only two sources attached so there are not a good number of citation sources. The sources available are not current. They date back to 2002 and 2003, which is a long time ago. And even though the links at the bottom work perfectly, the sources do not reflect a diverse spectrum of authors and there isn't a focus on historically marginalized individuals. 
  The article is very well-written and concise, it was easy for me to understand what the article was about. I didn't notice any major spelling or grammatical errors, but the article is not broken into multiple sections or split into sub-topics that express different themes of Politics in Education. It also doesn't contain images or videos that enhance topic understanding. It seems like there aren't a lot of conversations going on to improve the article or enhance it in any way that would expand the topic itself. The way this Wikipedia page differs from how we discussed in class is that there are not many diverse, opinionated sources to back up the statements, so it's not like you're learning anything new just from reading the article unless you do your own individual research and look through academic databases on the topic. 
   Overall, I think that this is a decent article but it needs to be improved. The article opens by going into what Politics in Education is, as well as the two branches under it, and that's a strength because the reader is getting a clear definition over what he or she is reading. This article could be improved by including more up-to-date references, preferably from 2016-2020 just to show development of the topic over time. When I pressed the "View History" on the top right corner, I noticed that the article had been edited in August 2019, but I didn't know if there was a way to see relevant changes once I opened the article instead of seeing what I read now. It could also use more references, and maybe include a video or image in order to appeal to audiences visually/ auditorily. After reading this article, I would rate this article as underdeveloped because it lacks multiple sources or opinions from different people and it seems to just explain at surface value what politics in education is without going into much detail so you're not gaining multiple perspectives on the topic; the article doesn't leave you wanting to know more information or asking your own questions on the topic. 

Two questions that I have about the article: Are there any opposing opinions to Politics in Education? What are the differences between Politics in Education and Politics Of Education?

FlorenceOpoku98 (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Evaluation of Article

As stated above, the citations are outdated and the article lacks adequate examples that exhibit the politics in education. DonavanKA (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead Section

The introductory sentence seems to be get straight to a point, rather than offering a broad overview of the topic. There are no major sections in the article besides the lead, so there is no preface given to other sections. The lead does not include information that is not in the rest of the article. The lead is too detailed; there needs to be more sections about the topic. Content

The content is relevant to the topic. The content is not up to date; the only cited references date back to 2002 and 2003. There may have been developments in the field since those resources were published. There are not viewpoints presented so much as just general, basic facts. There is a lot of content that is missing. Politics in education is such a broad topic, and I feel that there could be examples of issues in politics, court decisions that have been crucial to the development of politics in education, and discussion or mention of current issues / popular debates. This article could deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps. With elaboration and examples of issues, it could shed light on the history of why underrepresented groups are marginalized specifically by politics in education. Tone and Balance

The article is neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily based on a particular position, except the third paragraph seems to be based on personal evaluation of significance. There are no overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints; limited viewpoints are given to begin with. There are no minority viewpoints given, but there are not really any viewpoints offered at all. The article does not seem to persuade the reader towards one position or the other. Sources and References

Not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable source. The comparison of macro- vs. micro-politics has no cited sources and there is no evidence to support the existence of debates surrounding "politics of education vs. politics in education." The sources do reflect available literature on the topic about twenty years ago. They should be updated. The sources are not current. The sources are not written by a diverse array of authors. Historically marginalized authors are not referenced. There are better sources available because the ones provided are outdated. The links in the article do work properly. Organization and Writing Quality

The language in the article is clear and easy to read. There are no grammar / mechanics issues in the article. I may suggest adding a comma or two. The article does not have sections breaking down the topic, so I can not offer commentary on the quality of organization. Images and Media

There are no images included to help the reader's understanding of the topic. There are no images, so I can not comment on the quality of the captions. There are no images, so I can not comment on their adherence to Wikipedia's copyright policies. There are no images, so I can not comment on whether or not they are laid out in an appealing way. Talk Page Discussion

The conversations in the article's Talk Page are mostly posted evaluations (from others in similar education courses), rather than conversations about the actual topic itself. This article is rated as a stub. It is not a part of any Wiki Projects. This article is much more limited in its discussion of the topic, compared to our discussion of it in class. We go into more depth on a daily basis than this continuously posted articles does. Overall Impressions

The article's overall status is that is in desperate need of updated sources, as well as added content. It limits the discussion of the topic tremendously. The article's strength is that it is a very basic foundation that can be easily expanded upon. The article can be improved by adding more sections, images, links, and overall content. I would assess the article's completeness as poorly developed.

Dowhannah (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation of Article

The lead section/ sentence is pretty good; I found that it does a good job at explaining the two parts of this concept.

In regards to content, it seems to lack a lot of information and seems like its still a work in progress. More detail can be added, even some examples from different countries or states if we are talking about the US. 

It also lacks proper citation, does not include any pictures therefore the quality and content of pictures cannot be evaluated. Looking at the view history, the last edit was made in 2021 and the one prior to it was in 2019. As we are in 2022, it may be good to have a more updated edit on this article in case any new information is relevant to the topic. Daniela.rojasg (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR1 pm

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jshinnn (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jshinnn (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)