Example Student Organizational Plans/Outlines

Example Student Informal Organizational Plans/Outlines
integrating Source Citations & Notes

J. J. Howard
WR 123, Prof. C. Agatucci
Informal Organizational Plan for Critical Research Paper
Spring 1990

Oregon School Finance Reform

CURRENT (WORKING HYPO) THESIS: Oregon public education is not always equal and fair for each student, and one important reason is inadequate and inequitable funding. Therefore, public financing system for Oregon public education needs to be changed.
[**TO DO: Need to Revise Thesis statement – to include Solution/s:
After critically evaluating others’ proposed solutions . . . Recommend what seems to ME the best solution/s to funding problems.**]

A. INTRODUCTION
--Introduce (Thesis) Problem (stated above), its Primary Cause: Inadequate & inequitable funding; and Recommended Solution/s to (Thesis) Problem
[my claims to be tested & investigated in cont’d research]
--Preview main points (i.e. B-E below) to be developed in body of Critical Research Paper.

B. PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT FUNDING STRUCTURE

Problem 1. Heavy Dependence on a Single Funding Source.
Key Research Question: What sources of public school financing does Oregon have now?
[Cora’s Note: this paper was prepared in spring 1990.]
A/c to Financing Oregon Public Schools, by Verne A Duncan, former Superintendent of Public Instruction, there are four funding sources:

a. federal funds,
b. state funds,
c. intermediate level funds,
d. local property taxes and non-tax funds.

But **50-80% of the school district's resources currently come from (d) property taxes, and Duncan (but also other sources) point out that if anything goes wrong with this major funding source, schools are immediately in serious trouble.
TO DO: Find & cite other sources relevant to Problem 1 here

Problem 2: Inadequate Revenue from Tax Bases and Safety Nets.
Key Research Question: Why do some Oregon school districts now have trouble generating adequate property tax money?
Duncan's Financing Oregon Public Schools, "'Steady Erosion of Quality' . . .," and Hayes's "Educators Urge . . ." explain the problems that arise if a district has an inadequate property tax base and their levies to raise that tax base are defeated by district voters. While the "safety net" guarantees the school district the same operational budget it had the year before, inadequate funding levels force damaging budget cuts.

Problem 3: Inequities in Funding & the Consequences.
Key Claim: How well an individual district is funded depends upon the voters in that district--if district voters are unwilling or unable to vote an improved tax base, that district is penalized, while a neighboring district with a more affluent or supportive constituency may be much more adequately funded.
*Various sources summarize these consequences of inadequate funding:
--increased class size,
--poor student-teacher ratio,
--arrested curriculum development,
--neglect of building maintenance,
--curtailed transportation,
--& other consequences.
*TO DO: Cite relevant sources on Problem 3

C. RECOGNITION OF THE FUNDING PROBLEMS AND INEQUITIES
Inequality of educational financing is already widely recognized, and many groups are calling for action to be taken to remedy the problem.

Groups 1 & 2: Oregon Public and Oregon Legislature
Summarize sources, including:
--"Oregonians for School Finance Choices" (1968) cited in B. Roberts' Official 1990 Primary Voters' Pamphlet.

Group 3: Educators
--Oregon Supreme Court Case: "State School Finance Suit Dismissed";
--Teachers' Concerns in Hayes's "Educators Urge Stable Financing";
--Verne A. Duncan, former Superintendent of Public Instruction, is most outspoken critic of problems with current funding system (summarize several sources by Duncan--esp. "'Steady Erosion of Quality' in 48 Safety Net School Districts").

D. PROPOSED REMEDIES FOR FUNDING PROBLEMS AND INEQUITIES

1. Law Suit: Present districts’ proposal - 51 school districts seek equal educational financing by filing suit against the Legislature, but Explain (why) case was dismissed
"State School Finance Suit Dismissed," Edugram.

2. Measures 5A - 5E in 1990 Primary Election - state committee on school finance asks Oregonians what they feel the best solutions would be through several proposals:
a) reduce or eliminate dependence on property tax;
b) institute a sales tax;
c) increase income tax .
Vote in May 1990: see Roberts, Official 1990 Primary Voters' Pamphlet.

3. Comparative Studies of Other States' School Financing Problems
Present comparative analysis of Roberto Suro's report on Texan system and Englund's report on Kentucky's problems - both situations similar to Oregon's.

4. Application to the Federal Government
Suro examines [first President] Bush's unwillingness to address this dire problem that more and more public school systems are facing; Suro argues for need to make public school funding a higher priority with President Bush's government.

E. My Recommended Solution to the Problem
My (working hypo) thesis notes: My Sources (so far) agree that there is a problem and that funding is the primary cause of the problem. BUT . . . Disagreement resides in how the problems may best be remedied.
**Work I have left to do - preparation for writing my Critical Research paper**:
Analyze and evaluate the proposed solutions, and present what I consider the best solution/s, based on my research.

<Page Break>

Jennifer Walker
Wr 123, Prof. C. Agatucci
Informal Plan for Critical Research Paper
26 Feb 2004

The Genetically Engineered Food Debate

and Discussion of a Possible Solution to the Controversy

Introduction & Thesis:
--Genetically engineered (GE) foods are found in numerous foods that we consume on a daily basis. (Present preliminary definition of genetic engineering & GE).
--GE technology involved is still new and is highly debated today. As with any highly controversial topic, there are positive and negative aspects of GE foods:
--THESIS:
1. Explain & assess pros and cons of GE foods (& other products),
including effects on economy, personal health, and the environment.
2. Explain & assess pros and cons of Labeling of foods & other products that contain genetically engineered materials as a possible solution to current controversy
Preview My concluding Recommendations - **TO DO !!! **
What is genetic engineering and how does it work?

1. Genetic engineering is a new technology that everyone, worldwide is affected by. Six out of every ten processed foods contain genetically modified food products and can be found in items like Kellogg’s and General Mills cereal, Hershey bars, Pepsi and Campbell’s soups (Deneen, 2003).

2. A chosen gene is selected, harvested, incorporated into the DNA of the desired host then the organism is able to produce proteins from the gene exhibiting the desired trait (Biotech, 2003). Another term for the process of genetic engineering is recombinant DNA technology.

3. “The first genetically engineered whole product-a tomato-went on the market in 1994” (Bren, 2003). Biotech foods are not a new topic but are still highly debated in their controversial impacts on the economy, health and the environment.

Positive aspects of genetically engineered foods
1. Economic impact

Several aspects of the economy have been affected by the rise of genetically engineering. The amount of money that farmers spend on pesticides and herbicide treatments is greatly decreased with genetically engineered crops. A 2002 study by the Center for Food and Agriculture Policy concluded that “…herbicide-tolerant soybeans helped farmers reduce annual costs by $15 and acre” (Ruth, 2003). Not only does the cost for farmers decrease but the annual yields also have the potential to increase. Biotechnology has the potential to “…increase yields 10 to 15 percent…” (Piore, 2003). Crops can be designed to stand up to its greatest enemy whether it is weather, limited water resources or an insect pest.

Health impact

The possibilities of genetic engineering seem almost endless. Genes are simply chemicals that can be transferred from one organism to another through the processes of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering has the capabilities of doing wonderful things for health. Vitamins that are essential but numerous people around the world are lacking can be incorporated into foods that are consumed on a regular basis. Golden corn, a genetically modified food containing vitamin A has the potential to benefit children of developing nations from disorders associated with vitamin A deficiency (Piore, 2003). Increased product yields due to GE crops have the potential to fight world hunger and combat overpopulation and overuse of resources.

Environmental impact

Biotechnology allows for fewer pesticides to be used on crops and is instead incorporated into the genetic makeup of the organism allowing for fewer pesticides to be entering the environment. Decreased spraying of crops with insecticides and herbicides exposes the environment and ground water to fewer toxins (Biotech, 2003).

Negative aspects of genetically engineered foods

1. Economic impact

International trade is currently being greatly affected by the genetically engineered food debate. Some countries are setting very strict GE content limits including Japan who like Europe is setting their standard at 1% GE content.
TO DO: Cite Sources!!

2. Health impact

Incorporating new genes into regularly consumed foods without letting the consumer know could have great health risks. Allergies have been the most common and documented health risk known to be associated with GE foods, “Genetic engineering may increase the risk that they will accidentally consume foods that contain allergens” (Why, 2003).

3. Environmental impact

In an article claiming that risks from GE crops were low, concerns were still found lingering in the topic of the effect that biotech crops will have on the environment, “…greatest area of uncertainty was the crops impact on the environment and wildlife” (GMO, 2003). The separation of GE crops and non-GE crops is nearly impossible. Through natural methods of cross breeding and pollen grains traveling in the wind, it is highly possible for GE crops to contaminate non-GE crops. There are also concerns of resistance being transferred from a GE gene to a natural one creating undesired outcomes.

The issue of labeling genetically engineered foods

1. The international standard

The Europeans have defined 1.0% genetically modified content to be the maximum before labeling becomes mandatory and is considering lowering it to 0.9% (Betts, 2000). The United States has yet to set any standards on GE content but an Iowa company, Genetic ID has created a traceability program called Cert ID that certifies that a product has less than 0.1% GE material (Ruth, 2003).

2. Advantages

If given the information, consumers can make a more informed decision in their food consumption. The greatest concern in the genetic engineering debate is the issue of uncertainty pertaining to the effects of GE foods. New technology always requires caution and labeling is an excellent way to track the effect of GE foods and provide caution for consumers who wish or find it necessary to take extra precautions. Labeling will allow those with allergies to better regulate the possible allergens that they may be ingesting (Why, 2003).

3. Disadvantages

The cost of testing produce, processed foods and many other products for genetically modified content is expensive. Hermann Broll of BGVV (Federal Institute for Health Protection of Consumers and Veterinary Medicine) “…estimates that each test costs $150 in Germany to qualitatively indicate whether GMO [Genetically Modified Organism] material is present or absent in a sample…” (as cited in Betts, 2000). Detecting the presence of GE genes can prove to be a difficult task that’s methods are still being developed and refined. Genetic ID, Inc. says, “Real-time PCR technology allows GMO content to be quantified precisely” (as cited in Betts, 2000)

F. My Conclusions!! [see Thesis & A. Introduction above] **TO DO !!! **

References [cited so far - APA Style]

Amaizing. (2003, Nov 8). Economist, 369(8349), 78. Retrieved February 3, 2004, from

EBSCO Academic Search Premier (11347873).

Betts, K.S. (2000). GMO testing hurdles. Environmental Science & Technology,

34 (21), 472-476.

Biotech foods: No going back now? (2003, Jun 14). Business Week Online.

Retrieved February 3, 2004 from Ebsco Academic Search Premier (10210035).

Bren, L. (2003, Nov/Dec). Genetic engineering: The future of foods? FDA Consumer,

37(6), 28. Retrieved February 3, 2004 from EBSCO Academic Search Premier (11357417).

Deneen, S.E. (2003, Jul/Aug). Food fight. E Magazine: The Environmental Magazine,

14(4), 26. Retrieved February 3, 2004 from EBSCO Academic Search Premier (10035674).

Erickson, B.E. (200, Jul 1). Detecting genetically modified products in food. Analytical

Chemistry, 454-459.

Findings. (2004, Jan). Harper’s Magazine, 308(1844), 88. Retrieved February 3, 2004

from EBSCO Academic Search Premier (11676523).

Genetically modified organisms: Panel says risks from GM food are low but warns of

uncertainty. (2003, Aug 11). Life Science Weekly, 11.

Genetically engineered foods and the environment. (2003). The campaign: To label

genetically engineered foods. Retrieved January 13, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.thecampaign.org

Genetically engineered foods and your health. (2003). The campaign: To label

genetically engineered foods. Retrieved January 13, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.thecampaign.org

Herbert, M. (2002). What is genetically modified food (and why should you

care)? The campaign: To label genetically engineered foods. Reprinted from

EarthSave Magazine, Spring 2002. Retrieved January 13, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.thecampaign.org

House of Representatives. (2001, Sept 25). Strengthening NSF sponsored agricultural

biotechnology research: H.R. 2051 and H.R. 2912. Washington, DC: U.S. Governemnt Printing Office.

Human Genome Project Information. (2003). What are genetically modified (GM)

foods? U.S. Dept of Energy Office of Science. Retrieved January 10, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.doegenomes.org

Lappe, M., & Bailey, B. (1998). Against the grain: Biotechnology and the corporate

takeover of your food. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press.

McHughen, A. (2000). Pandora’s picnic basket: The potential and hazards of

genetically modified foods. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Piore, A. (2003, Sept 15). What green revolution? Newsweek, Atlantic ed., p. 42.

Ruth, L. (2003). Tailoring thresholds for GMO testing: Social and economic factors

shape new regulations that in turn drive technology. Analytical Chemistry, 393-

396.

Smith, N. (2000 Apr 13). Seeds of opportunity: An assessment of the benefits, safety,

and oversight of plant genomics and agricultural biotechnology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Senate. (2002, Jul 12). The role of biotechnology in combating poverty and hunger

in developing countries. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Senate. (2002, Apr 5). Biotechnology in Portland. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Why label genetically modified foods? (2003). The campaign to label genetically
engineered foods. Retrieved January 13, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.thecampaign.org