Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Excess'd-Teacher Without A Room: Evaluating ATRs

Evaluate this!

LINK


If you are following the ATR blogs and such you know about the recent suggestion that the evaluation of the ATR's be based on the field observer's assessment of how well you manage a classroom.  How, really, HOW can anyone who has any teaching experience think that an appropriate measure of an ATR value as a teacher, their profession,  is to be in the arena of substitute classroom management.  The reasons one can come up with against this ridiculous suggestion are too numerous to mention.  However, it would have taken some creativity and coordination to actually come up with a true overall evaluation system; one that includes how well the entire ATR system has been implemented; what good has it done any school, excessed teacher or over crowded classroom.  Until we do that I don't see why we don't just use the evaluation system I just put together.

HOW TO EVALUATE A MEMBER OF THE ATR


Said member of ATR still desires to work as a teacher in the NYC system despite being disrespected, devalued and demeaned...............................................................................10 Points

Said member of ATR arrives every school day prepared to step into a classroom that they know
nothing about and do the best they can..........................................................10 Points

Said member of the ATR has adapted their gastro-intestinal clock to a daily schedule that may have lunch at 10:30am or 11:15 am or 12:00 pm............................................................... 10 points

Said member of ATR has managed to survive the assault on their career and continue to believe that they have made the right career choice when they decided to teach........ ..............10 points

Said member of the ATR has cultivated a Zen like stillness that comes in handy as one sits on a pointless chair in a pointless room staring, always staring...............................................20 points

Said member of the ATR has developed the dexterity, reflexes and increased peripheral vision to combat the daily assault of UFO's during lunchroom duty...........................................10 points

Said member of the ATR has remained real and vocal despite the growing efforts to make them ghostly apparitions that  have no substance................................................................10 points

Said member of the ATR  has decided not to tutor, teach at a charter, work as a tour guide, nor start a career as a stand-up comedian instead of being a member of the ATR............10 points

Said member of the ATR insists that the UFT stand up for their rights and that representation not be denied the dues paying members...............................................................................10 points


The ATR is a good thing in that we are not in Washington DC.  The ATR is also a public relations nightmare and the sooner the DOE and the UFT come to realize that they can benefit the schools and children of NYC by utilizing the teaching resources we already have and that are being paid for the better off everyone will be. This "evaluation" is a poor effort to justify an unjust system by making believe that it has a solid educational framework as its base when it is nothing but a scythe to cut down tenured teachers. We are, after all, educators are we not?

Hot Rumor From Chaz11: NYC DOE Tries To Get Rid of the Chapter 683 Program...To Save Money

Friday, March 15, 2013

LINK

Is The DOE Trying To Shortchange Special Education Students By Witholding Chapter 683 Money For The Summer?

It has come to my attention that many of the District 75 schools have informed their teachers that the DOE has not authorized the school's Administration to implement the Chapter 683 program.  The Chapter 683 program (Article Twelve, page 78 of the latest UFT/DOE contract) was originally implemented because the "best teachers" who worked with these needy children refused to work the summer (July and August) on per session pay.  Instead the Chapter 683 program was implemented to retain these teachers by increasing the teacher's salary by 17.5%, or double pay for the summer months.  Furthermore, the Chapter 683 program allowed the teacher to have more money taken out for their TDA which gives a guaranteed 8.25% annually.  While the guaranteed interest rate was reduced to 7% in December of 2009, it still is 5-6% more than you can get at a bank CD or money market fund.  Finally, it increased their annual pension by hundreds of dollars

The Chapter 683 program was a success as the"best teachers" who worked with their "high needs" students stayed with them during the summer.  This was a win-win for all parties.  The students kept their teacher who knew how to handle the child's unique problems throughout the summer and for a full, not part of a school day.  The teachers received "double pay" and could help fund their retirement. The school Administrator did not have to micromanage and worry about teachers who were unfamiliar with the students as they operated on a "trial and error" basis.  Oops, I forgot, there was one loser,Tweed, who had to hand out a couple of million dollars extra to fund the Chapter 683 program.

Over the years, under the Bloomberg Administration, the DOE tried to find ways to cut special education costs and while Chapter 683 money was relatively safe, there was one aborted attempt to change how Chapter 683 money could be spent.  Chancellor Joel Klein authorized Garth Harries to find cost savings and thankfully the opposition from parents, teachers, and school-based administrators were so fierce that he abandoned the idea and fled to Bridgeport Connecticut to become Chancellor.  Now it seems there is a rumor that Chapter 683 money may be in jeopardy and adding to the rumor is that the principals of District 75 have not been authorized to hire for the summer under Chapter 683.  Is this simply DOE incompetence or something more sinister?  Could the DOE be considering the elimination of the Chapter 683 program?  I certainly hope not.

If by some chance the DOE is considering the limiting or elimination of the Chapter 683 program, it would be their dumbest idea in quite a while.  These children are the most needy students in the NYC school system and taking away the Chapter 683 program is putting these helpless children at increased risk.  Let's hope I am wrong and the DOE's reluctance to post Chapter 683 positions for the 2013 summer school is simply a lack of competence on their part.and not part of their"children last" policy.

Results of SHSAT For Top High Schools Shows Racism

The problem with the Specialized Science HS test presents itself BEFORE the test is taken. Not only are minority students not adequately prepared, but guidance counselors do not always tell or allow students of color to take the test.

  When I was PTA President of Booker T. Washington MS 54 I did a small amount of research, by sending teams out to District 3 and District 5 middle schools and asking parents if their children were taking the SHSAT. Most said no, because the guidance counselors told their children "the test is not for you".

  Betsy Combier

 

Fewer black and Hispanic students admitted to top high schools



Screen shot 2013-03-15 at 3.45.38 PM
Students who took the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test and were offered seats in a specialized high school this school year, by race
During a year when the racial composition of the student bodies at the city’s most selective high schools came under harsh new scrutiny, the number of black and Hispanic students admitted to the schools fell sharply.
Of the 5,229 students accepted to the city’s eight specialized high schools this year, 618 were black or Hispanic, according to data the Department of Education released today, the day that eighth-graders learned their high school placement. Last year, the schools accepted 733 black and Hispanic students, more than in the recent past.
The sharpest declines came at the city’s most selective schools. Out of 963 students accepted to ultra-elite Stuyvesant High School, just nine are black and 24 are Hispanic. Last year, the school accepted 51 black and Hispanic students. At Brooklyn Technical High School, the largest of the specialized schools, the number of black and Hispanic students accepted fell by 22 percent.

The declines outpaced another sharp drop-off, in the number of black and Hispanic students who even took the admissions test that is the single determinant of whether students can attend the specialized schools. The number of white and Asian students who sat for the exam increased slightly, but 550 fewer black students and 384 fewer Hispanic students took the test.
Overall, black and Hispanic students received 12 percent of specialized high school offers, down from 14 percent last year but up slightly from 11 percent in 2011. They made up 45 percent of test-takers and make up about 71 percent of students citywide.
“It’s disappointing that the amount of students in Stuyvesant are not reflective of New York City public schools,” said Karim Camara, chairman of the state Assembly’s Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Caucus. “Obviously, there needs to be serious efforts to increase enrollment of black and Latino students in these schools.”
Camara has proposed legislation that would require specialized schools to base admissions on multiple measurements, the central demand of a civil rights complaint filed last year by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. The complaint, which the federal Office of Civil Rights is considering, says admission to the schools would be more fair if students’ grades, teacher recommendations, extracurricular activities, and life experiences were considered.
“This year’s admission numbers represent the continuation of a trend of unfairness and acute racial disparities in admissions to New York’s eight specialized high schools that has been going on for years,” Damon Hewitt, LDF’s legal director, said today. “We will not see a reversal of this trend until the schools’ admissions policy changes once and for all.”
City officials have consistently defended the admissions process — which would require legislative approval to change — and did so again today.
“We take efforts to ensure our system of great schools is diverse, but ultimately for the specialized high schools, we believe the SHSAT is the fairest measure for admission,” said Devon Puglia, a department spokesman.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Teacher Evaluation Funding Follies

David Bloomfield

 With all of the recent jockeying over the stalled New York City teacher evaluation deal, little has changed in the last several weeks. The governor's threat to withhold state aid has been temporarily enjoinedwhile the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and mayor, also prevented from implementing the State cuts, still seem at loggerheads. And has anyone noticed that the State Education Department's sword rattling deadline for withholding federal funds has come and gone? That possibility vanished because John King was blindsided when Arne Duncan blinked.
King, New York State's Education Commissioner, had previously threatened to suspend or redirect over a billion dollars of federal education aid, including our entire Title I allocation, if New York City and its teachers union did not agree to a formula for job-threatening teacher evaluations by February 15. This unilateral dictate -- holding over three million students as financial hostages to force a supposedly voluntary contract agreement -- was demolished when the U.S. Department of Education headed by Secretary Duncan, stated on February 1 that the agency "had no plans to withhold grant money," as reported by the Wall Street Journal and the city DOE issued a rehashingof its so-far incomplete teacher evaluation efforts that King had already criticized.
The pressure being put on the City and the Union to agree to a set of standardized test-based teacher evaluations is absurd. City schools' potential loss of approximately $250 million in State funds based on Governor Cuomo's decision to punish districts that failed to agree to his January deadline is threatened as contrary to the State's obligations to adequately fund City schools. In a counter-move, Cuomo has reeled in Senate and Democratic leaders to propose repeal of the collective bargaining provision that gave rise to the evaluation impasse.
Most district unions caved to Cuomo's threat since they are more dependent on State money than New York, which is routinely shortchanged by Albany and can withstand this deprivation -- while very serious -- without core instructional impact. Besides, the teachers probably reasoned, it remains to be seen if any are eventually fired as a result of the new evaluation system. Termination hearings are notoriously complex and questions over highly-variable test results may even protect teachers with poor principal evaluations. So it is understandable that union locals would take this calculated risk -- certain money now in exchange for few possible firings later -- in agreeing to Cuomo's now-suspect conditions.
These evaluation funding follies have been perpetrated by politicians, policy wonks, and their deep-pocketed patrons to solve an imaginary problem through an untested solution. Even the conservative TNTP emphasizes that our greatest need is to retain good teachers (however that may be defined) since most teachers of any stripe leave the system early in their careers. In addition to King and Cuomo, Mayor Bloomberg has damaged whatever little education credibility he has left by denouncing a sunset provision in the potential UFT agreement, though almost every other State-approved plan contains that element. Even Duncan's Pollyanna pronouncement that New York has made "notable gains" toward implementing its Race to the Top promises is fallacious. As King has noted, we are far from meeting the goals set forth in our RttT and No Child Left Behind waiver (formally, "ESEA Flexibility") proposals. Just as no knowledgeable participant thought there was truth in the phrase "No Child Left Behind" so we are caught again in a duplicitous series of false promises and gamed results.
The next steps? First, King should lose his job, having put the ideological purity of the accountability movement ahead of a billion dollars critical to the education of millions of mostly poor children in his charge. His legal arguments are wrong since, under his own Department's Regents Rule 30-2.1(c), interpreting his statutory powers regarding a teacher evaluation system, no evaluation system is permitted unless there is union signoff. As important, his letter to Chancellor Walcott presumes to speak for the federal Education Secretary in threatening "suspension and/or redirection of federal funds and/or determination that NYC DOE is a 'high risk grantee'" under federal regulations. When Arne Duncan pulled that rug out from King's empty pronouncement, he proved that the commissioner is less interested in kids than in unproven evaluation mechanics.
Second, the new commissioner should renegotiate our RttT and ESEA Flexibility agreements to provide for a more realistic implementation schedule, with substantive changes to student, teacher, and teacher prep evaluation systems more consistent with current research. The Department of Education has never walked away from a RttT or ESEA deal and is unlikely to do so now.
Finally, the governor, having at least temporarily failed to punish New York by withholding funds this year, should keep his powder dry and await results from the teacher evaluation plans already in place before re-imposing cuts next year, as he recently announced. Real cuts = real kids, Governor. Don't do it again without more information.
No one is arguing against hard-headed teacher evaluation and removal of poor performers, tenured and untenured. I have repeatedly written that the probationary period be extended from three years so that principals and teachers alike have time for evaluation and improvement without the premature attachment of increased due process through tenure. I teach my Leadership grad students that it is God's work to terminate a bad teacher. But the current use of student test scores for such decisions is so fraught with unknowns that we do a disservice to all when we pretend they have any statistical utility in personnel decisions. The chief myth underlying this set of political follies is that we know enough to do no harm. Our leaders are jeopardizing scarce funds for children in need to hide their basic ignorance.

David Bloomfield, Esq. is is Professor of Educational Leadership, Law, and Policy at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. He is the author of American Public Education Law, 2nd edition, praised by Diane Ravitch as "a user-friendly guide to education law that will prove extremely helpful to parents, teachers, and all others concerned about public education." Teachers College Record called it "a useful and distinguished school law text." 

A former teacher and graduate of Columbia U. School of Law and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Affairs at Princeton U., he served as law clerk to Hon. Robert L. Carter (USDJ, SDNY) prior to joining Hogan & Hartson, a prominent Washington, DC law firm, where he practiced Education Law. He also served as an Assistant Corporation Counsel for New York City before becoming General Counsel to the New York City Board of Education. He was also General Counsel and Senior Education Adviser to the Manhattan Borough President and Executive Director for public education initiatives at the New York City Partnership.

Press Release On FOIA Lawsuits Challenging Government Secrecy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Greetings. Federal court records show that Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits challenging federal government secrecy by news groups have declined, according to an analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

This slump in the number of media suits does not seem to indicate that there is less government secrecy. In fact, the overall number of FOIA suits by individuals and other organizations has increased under the Obama administration.

Among the reasons cited for the decline are slashes in newsroom budgets and the development of alternative organizations ferreting out more and more government information that was previously unavailable.

Included in the short list of the most active news organizations using the FOIA were the New York Times, the Fox News Network and the Associated Press. Among those who did not file a single suit during the last term of President Bush and the first term of President Obama were USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and the Huffington Post. The report also examined usage of FOIA by reporters submitting requests to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) over the last two years.

For the latest FOIA Project report, including complete listings of active media groups, go to:
        http://wp.me/p11uxO-dr

Follow the FOIA Project on Twitter:
        http://twitter.com/foiaproject
 
David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
Syracuse University
Suite 360, Newhouse II
Syracuse, NY  13244-2100
315-443-3563
trac@syr.edu
http://trac.syr.edu 


The FOIA Project
LINK 

Media Making Fewer Challenges to Government Secrecy in Federal Court

March 14, 2013
Syracuse, NY — A search by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) of thousands of federal court records indicates that media organizations as a whole appear to be challenging government secrecy at the federal level less often than in the past.
For example, during the last four years of the Bush administration (FY 2005 – 2008), news organizations filed a total of 22 lawsuits asking the federal courts to order the release of withheld government records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). By contrast, during the first four years of the Obama administration (FY 2009 – 2012), that number had fallen to 18 FOIA court actions.
 Figure 1. Freedom of Information Lawsuits Filed by the Media

The decline does not seem to be related to a drop-off in the problem of government 
secrecy because, as noted in a recent FOIA Project study, the total number of FOIA 
lawsuits brought by all kinds of plaintiffs during the Obama administration’s first term 
was higher than in the last term of President Bush. An alternative interpretation is an increasing interest by a range of different FOIA users and a decreasing interest by 
the news business.

Why?

A range of different reasons are offered for the decline. “Newsroom budgets have been slashed so it is no surprise that there is less time to pursue freedom of information litigation and less willingness to put time into stories where government may delay responding for long beyond the statutory limits,” said David Cay Johnston, now president ofInvestigative Reporters and Editors.
“I don’t think there is any question but news organizations are less zealous about FOIA matters than ever,” said David E. McCraw, vice president and assistant general counsel of The New York Times. But, after noting budget constraints and long court delays as being among the many causes for the decline, McCraw added that the growth in open government laws at both the federal and local level “have been successful in helping to foster a culture of greater openness.”
Thomas M. Susman, now director of the American Bar Association’s Government Affairs Office, has been a leading figure in the development of the FOIA since the late 1960s, when he was in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and then became a staffer on the key Senate subcommittee on FOIA matters.
“For all of the economic and other reasons, I’m not surprised by the data suggesting that media interest in FOIA suits is declining,” Susman said. But because of the significant development of third party groups like theAmerican Civil Liberties Union, Judicial Watch, Public Citizen Litigation Group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and others who have aggressively sought critical information, he was not certain that the overall media coverage has been negatively affected. “The news services,” he said, “in some ways have outsourced their investigative work.”

The Media’s FOIA Record

Table 1. FOIA Lawsuits
Filed by the Media
Fiscal YearNumber
20059
20066
20073
20084
20098
20104
20113
20123
Total40
TRAC compiled figures on the media’s FOIA record by harnessing the detailed information on FOIA lawsuits it has gathered and makes available on FOIAproject.org. Case details and documents are available for each lawsuit classified by the federal courts as a Freedom of Information Act suit and filed since October 1, 2004.
To locate suits filed by media organizations, TRAC reviewed the names of plaintiffs in each suit. A total of 40 lawsuits were identified as filed by media requestors during the eight year period of FY 2005 – 2012[1]. See Table 1.
Except for an upward bump in filings during the year immediately following a presidential election, the number of lawsuits filed by the media appear quite modest as compared with the total of 2,562 FOIA lawsuits that were filed during this same period. These 40 media lawsuits represent only 1.6 percent of total filings. See Table 2.
A year-by-year examination is more revealing. During the last four years under President Bush, 1.8 percent of FOIA filings originated from the media. By comparison, during the first four years in President Obama’s first term, media cases slid to 1.4 percent of the total. In the last year of Mr. Obama’s first term only 3 FOIA matters — 0.9 percent of the total — were filed by news organizations.
Table 2. FOIA Lawsuits Filed by Media: Bush vs. Obama
SummaryFOIA Lawsuitsby MediaPercent
Total: FY 2005-FY 20122,562401.6%
FY 2005-FY 2008 Bush1,246221.8%
FY 2009-FY 2012 Obama1,316181.4%
Most Recent Year (FY 2012)33530.9%

Who Are the Filers?

A very small number of news organizations were responsible for filing these 40 cases during the two presidential terms. Dominating this list, with 12 filings, was The New York Times. Second with five filings was the Fox News Network. Third with four court complaints was the Associated Press. And with just two cases each were Bloomberg, The Los Angeles Times, the Reno Newspapers and the Washington Post.
Table 3. Media Organizations Filing FOIA Lawsuits, FY 2005 – Present*
Media OrganizationBushObamaObama-2013Total
The New York Times Company38112
Fox News Network, LLC
5
5
Associated Press4

4
Bloomberg L.P.11
2
Los Angeles Times Communications LLC2

2
Reno Newspapers11
2
Washington Post2

2
Akron Beacon Journal Publishing Company, Inc.1

1
Argus Leader Media
1
1
Detroit Free Press, Inc.1

1
Inner City Press/Community on the Move1

1
Miami Herald1

1
Ohio/Oklahoma Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc.1

1
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
1
1
Southeastern Newspaper Company, LLC (Augusta Chronicle)
1
1
Star Publishing Company

11
Sunbeam Television Corporation1

1
Sun-Sentinel Company1

1
The News-Press (includes Pensacola News-Journal)1

1
Urban Radio I, L.L.C.1

1
Total2218242
* Source: FOIAproject.org was used to derive all counts:
- Covers all lawsuits filed from October 1, 2004 to March 1, 2013 whose “nature of suit” was classified by federal courts as a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. 
- Media counts are based on a manual search among the plaintiffs for media organizations. All large print, broadcast and online media groups were searched by name. In addition, a lengthy list of words that often appear within media organization names was searched to identify plaintiffs with those words in their name.
Almost as noticeable as those on the list of most active media in this area were the well-known news groups who were absent. They included USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, McClatchy Newspapers, Reuters, Time, Newsweek, ABC, CBS and NBC. Also missing were new media organizations such as the Huffington Post.
There is some irony in the fact that among those leading the battle for the passage of the original Freedom of Information Act in 1966 and later amendments — against a reluctant executive branch — were organizations like the American Society of News Editors (ASNE) and the editorial boards of hundreds of news organizations.

Administrative Level FOIA

The court records show the media are not the most active when it comes to filing FOIA lawsuits. But news organizations are using the FOIA in other ways. Under the law, the process starts at the administrative level by making a written request asking for federal agency records. To address the wider issue of FOIA usage, one needs data on how often the media submit FOIA requests to federal agencies.
Information on the actual FOIA usage by the news organizations is hard to come by partly because of the sheer number of these requests: 640,000 in FY 2011 alone. Several years ago, however, the former Coalition of Journalists for Open Government — an alliance of more the 30 journalism-related organizations — made an attempt to answer a part of the question by analyzing 6,439 FOIA requests made to 11 cabinet-level departments and six large agencies in September of 2005. The coalition found that news organization accounted for only 6 percent of these requests.
For this study, a different approach was adopted that began with obtaining and studying the details of over 30,000 FOIA decisions that were made by a single agency — Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — from October 2010 to August of 2012. These records, based on the agency’s augmented FOIA logs, have just been added to FOIAproject.org. Since these decisions relate to requests that were sent to a single agency they obviously cannot be generalized to the whole government. Given that immigration matters have figured prominently in the news during this period, however, the results from this one agency may be illuminating.
TRAC analyzed a total of 32,913 FOIA matters handled by ICE in the study period. Of this total only 233 — less than one percent (0.7%) — could be identified as coming from the news media[2]. At first glance this is an even lower proportion of media-related FOIA activities than was seen in the federal courts.
However, the requests that ICE receives are overwhelmingly dominated by individuals and their lawyers seeking agency files on that individual. Indeed, fully 31,368 out of the 32,913 FOIA requests acted upon by ICE involved an alien’s files (“A-Files”) and similar records on named individuals (see Table 4). Because of privacy protections, such files are not open to reporters. Thus it is not surprising that the media make few requests for the files on named individuals.
Table 4. ICE Decisions on Administrative FOIA Requests, October 2010-August 2012

Number
Total decisions32,913
Decisions on requests for an individual’s file31,368
All other requests1,545
Decisions on requests from media organizations233
But, as suggested above, FOIA requests for information on mattersother than individual files were much rarer: amounting to only 1,545 of the total. Thus, relative to this much smaller number, the total of 233 requests submitted by media organizations suggests the media during the past two years for this one agency were relatively active.

Media Topping the List

At total of 27 media organizations accounted for over two-thirds (160) of the 233 requests. Each of these had made two or more requests. The list of media organizations with multiple requests are shown in Table 5, where the method used in identifying these is also described.
Table 5. Media Organizations With Multiple FOIA Requests*
Media OrganizationNumber
Total Requests233
ASSOCIATED PRESS23
CENTER FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING17
HOUSTON CHRONICLE17
MUCKROCK.COM14
SAE PRODUCTIONS9
ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION8
USA TODAY8
BOSTON GLOBE6
NEW YORK TIMES6
ARIZONA REPUBLIC5
NEWS TRIBUNE5
DALLAS MORNING NEWS4
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW4
PROVIDENCE JOURNAL4
BLOOMBERG NEWS3
CNS NEWS3
FOX NEWS3
NEW YORK POST3
BAY AREA NEWS GROUP2
CHICAGO TRIBUNE2
FIRST COAST NEWS2
HUFFINGTON POST2
OC WEEKLY/VILLAGE VOICE MEDIA, INC.2
STANDARD-EXAMINER2
STAR-LEDGER2
THE HILL2
WALL STREET JOURNAL2
*Source: FOIAproject.org was used to derive all counts:
- Covers request-by-request information from ICE files released to FOIAproject.org in response to FOIA requests for augmented logs on all FOIA decisions made by ICE during the preceeding month.
- Media counts are based on a manual search for of name of the party submitting the FOIA request. First we compiled a list of requestors to which ICE had assigned “media” status (which exempts an organization from paying search fees), and then the name of each media organization appearing on that list was used to determine how many requests each had submitted. In addition, a lengthy list of words that often appear within media organization names was searched to identify plaintiffs with those words in their name
Topping the list was the Associated Press with 23 requests. Next, with 17 each, were the Center for Investigative Reporting and the Houston Chronicle. Then came Muckrock Communications with 14 and SAE Productions with 9.
There was a much larger list of news organizations that accounted for the remaining third (73) of all media requests. Each of these had submitted a single request during this two-year period. Their names are listed in Table 6. While quite a number of national media are on these two lists, it is also interesting how many smaller papers and local TV stations are also represented.
Table 6. Media Organizations With Single FOIA Request
Media OrganizationMedia Organization
ABC 7 LOS ANGELES NEWSMILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL
ACTION NEWSMINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO NEWS
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMANMONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY
BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIANMontreal Gazette, Bureau 200
BLAZENaples Daily News
BURLINGTON FREE PRESSNATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO
CAPITOL NEWS SERVICENBC 17 NEWS
CBS NEWSNBC 7 SAN DIEGO
CHICAGO REPORTERNBC UNIVERSAL
CHICAGO SUN-TIMESNEW MEDIA COX TV
CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATIONNEW TIMES BROWARD-PALM BEACH
COX MediaNEWS CHANNEL 5
COX-TVNEWS MEDIA & THE LAW
CRONKITE NEWS SERVICENEWVINE
DAILY HERALDNORTHWEST ARKANSAS TIMES
Daily Tar HeelPBS FRONTLINE
DAN RATHER REPORTSPOLITICO
DENVER POSTPRESS DEMOCRAT
DEPORTATION NATIONPROPUBLICA
DESERET NEWS REPORTERREUTERS
DETROIT FREE PRESSRichmond BizSense
EYEWITNESS NEWS 5RIDGEWAY SUN
FAIRFAX COUNTY TIMESSANDUSKY REGISTER
FEDSOURCESSTEEL CITY MEDIA
FREELANCE JOURNALISTTHE CHICAGO
GLOBE AND MAILTHE DAILY
ILLINOIS PUBLIC MEDIATribune Review
INSIDE EDITIONTUCSON WEEKLY
KMOV-TVUNIVERSAL MEDIA
KOKO FOX23 NEWSWATERMAN BROADCASTING
KPNX/12 NEWSWESTERN COMMUNICATIONS
KSL-TVWFAA-TV THE SPIRIT OF TEXAS
KWWL TVWFXT FOX 25
LA SEMANA DEL SUR BILINGUAL NEWSPAPERWOFL Fox NewsCorp.
LA VOZ INDEPENDIENTEWVUE-TV (FOX 8)
LOS ANGELES BUSINESS JOURNALYES! WEEKLY
LOS ANGELES TIMES
In an interview, Ted Bridis, head of the AP’s investigative team, attributed the relatively large number of administrative requests aimed at ICE to a formal and informal effort by the organization to teach its reporters and editors how “to file them and how to do it better.” In addition, he said, AP has developed a series of templates to help reporters improve the wording and relevancy of their initial filings.
The result, he said, was that improved AP filings seem to be “getting better results” and are “much more cost effective.” Bridis added that the outcomes from AP’s administrative appeals to agency denials also “are getting better.”
However, in contrast to the AP, the story behind the large number of FOIA requests submitted by media organizations who tied for second place is quite different — the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) and the Houston Chronicle (HC). In each of these cases, a single reporter — Andrew Becker (CIR) and Susan Carroll (HC) — was responsible for submitting all or virtually all requests from each organization. These two reporters stand as great examples of what many more reporters could be doing but currently aren’t: using FOIA requests to ferret out important news stories.

[1] These figures may have missed some lawsuits filed by media groups. TRAC may have failed to identify some plaintiffs as media organizations. Further, the original list of FOIA lawsuits relies upon the federal court’s classification of cases by their nature of suit. This court classification undoubtedly does not encompass every suit where the Freedom of Information Act was one of several causes of the action in the litigation.
[2] These figures are likely to somewhat underestimate the number of media requests. TRAC was undoubtedly imperfect in identifying media organization from among those submitting the 32,913 requests reviewed. Further, while TRAC had asked for information on every FOIA request the agency had acted on during this period, ICE appears not to have located a significant number of these, presumably because of deficiencies in its search procedures. For example, TRAC found a number of its own FOIA requests not included among the records ICE released. In addition, a comparison of the number of FOIA cases it reported in its FY 2011 and FY 2012 FOIA annual reports shows a significantly larger volume than the agency released, even adjusting for these covering just a 23-month rather than a 24-month period.