5984	Assessment Initial Draft	Final Draft comments
Abstract	Clear, direct.	Good (unchanged)
Research Question	The research question is clear and well defined.  It is, however, perhaps a bit less ambitious than it might be.	Okay (unchanged).  Perhaps the biggest disappointment  for this proposal is that it simply does not aim high enough.  Hopefully,  it will unavoidably stumble across more interesting results than it is looking for.
Literature Review	The literature review is clear and effective.  The final version should expand it, but this is a good start.  The references to controlling for SES are sometimes unclear whether this concerns the SES of individuals or that of neighborhoods or school parents.   The review seems to overlook relevant characteristics that are correlated with the "independent variable", such as average school size. It would help to review some literature on the education system in Puerto Rico and how it differs from the education system in the United States. Since social capital seems to be an important part of the main hypothesis, a bit more attention to social capital theory might be worthwhile. Note that some authors disagree that strong network ties are automatically beneficial (sometimes close ties prevent a person from seeking outside opportunities).	The literature review is broad and effective.  The revisions respond to the specific feedback from the previous version, but still fall short in some ways. While the review now does a better job portraying Puerto Rican education, it still has some big holes.  It fails to mention that learning English is compulsory in schools, and how that language education is conducted (which is crucial to the central hypothesis).  It mentions that affluent people send their children to private schools, but does not show what percentage of children go to public schools, how this varies by the urban-rural comparison, and as a result what percentage of children come from poor families in rural versus urban settings.  The literature review still does not suggest why we might expect Puerto Rico to differ from mainland U.S. with respect to the project's central issue, rural versus urban schooling.  While it is true that the population is relatively poor, that might suggest only that we expect them to be more like the poorest states.  While it is similarly true that the dominant language is Spanish, it is not clear how this matters to education.  With respect to the research question, it seems mainly to imply that the comparison to English skills in Puerto Rico on the mainland would be the variation in foreign language learning (if any valid comparison is possible, which is not obvious).
Data & Analysis	The data described in the draft proposal seem on target for the research agenda.  However, it also appears, as the proposal seems to recognize, that it may be insufficient for an effective analysis.  However, the geolocation data may help resolve this.  With respect to this location data, it may be worth considering something different from using it with a population density map.  Rather, it could be used to locate the schools' census bureau tracts or "subminor civil divisions", which will then allow attaching data from the Puerto Rico Community Study (the PR version of the ACS) or the census.  This probably would give greater traction for the research goals. Does the TETA-PR anywhere provide  scores by grade, even for PR as a whole?  The research seems to face a potential compositional problem.  If the distribution of scores varies by grades, and the distribution of students by grades differs between urban and rural, then a difference in scores by urban/rural could be magnified or suppressed by differences in the distribution of students across grades.  Another potential issue to consider is differential attrition.  Is there a difference in the numbers or type of students dropping out of school?  This is a possible selection bias issue.	The data seem reasonable.  Having revised the proposal as suggested to use the ACS data in conjunction with the PR education data seems likely to produce a stronger research project.  One key question for this project is whether the PR ACS includes appropriate language use information that would allow estimation of English usage in the areas surrounding schools.  If the class level PR education data becomes available, that will also propel the project further forward.
Causal Interpretations	The causal interpretation offered seems well-reasoned, but it is not readily apparent how it fits the research question.  If we expect urban dwellers to do better on English because they are exposed more to the language, we would seem to be arguing that it is not a difference in schooling outcomes, but rather a spurious compositional effect. The PRCS (as mentioned above) could help with variables to examine potential alternative causes.  Of course, if the PR Dept. of Ed. has other school level data, that would also be valuable. At the bottom of p. 2, does the proposal need to "guess" at the residential patterns of bilingual residents - is this available this from the Puerto Rican Community Survey or other data?	Note that if the argument that English achievement in schools will vary with the regional presence of English speakers is valid, we should expect that the learning of Spanish by native English speakers in the U.S. would vary by the presence of Spanish speakers.  So the only causal argument on the table has no special application to PR. The revised proposal has not really responded to the feedback that if the only expected finding is that exposure to English speakers in urban settings improves the acquisition of English, then the research does not appear to expect any findings of schooling effects.  In short, it largely aims to show an absence of urban rural differences in schooling is the same in PR as in mainland U.S.  It is difficult to see the point of this.
Research Contribution	The potential research value is evident, but the proposal still should address this directly in a brief paragraph, rather than just in the general opening and closing.  Remember to stress the goals of filling lacuna in the scholarly literature (such as the simple absence of information about PR) and the potential to extend existing research (as in the different language and the ethnic homogeneity).	The proposal still lacks a clear statement about the expected contribution, although we can glean some of this from varied statements dispersed throughout, and the conclusion makes some effort toward this.  Unfortunately it is not convincing.  It makes a case for doing more research on Puerto Rican schools in general, but does not credibly show a value to the specific research question regarding rurality.
Citations & Bibliography	Fine.	All fine.
Quality of Writing & Organization	Very good.	The proposal would benefit from a more thorough proofreading to correct minor grammatical errors that are common. However, the writing style is clear and easy to read.
Priorities for Revising / Responsiveness to Feedback	Overall, the proposal development seems to be on track.  Aside from the obvious goals of improving all parts incrementally, the revisions might stress extending the data and the causal analysis (which are interdependent).	The revisions have done an uneven job responding to specific feedback.  They ideally should have gone further than this.
Miscellaneous Notes	The proposal draft benefits considerably from the clear writing style.  The conclusion could be more focused and shorter (the clarity of the proposal as a whole supports having a brief conclusion, unless you have something new you want to present in the conclusion). The proposal notes that 96.7% of residents identify as Hispanic or Latino and conclude that the island is very racially homogeneous. However, doesn't the US Census currently ask the Hispanic/Latino question separately from the racial identity question?  On the racial identity question, isn't there significantly less homogeneity because there are many Puerto Ricans who identify as Hispanic & White and many who identify as Hispanic & Black?
Proposal		Overall, this proposal okay, but with some weaknesses that look even more problematic because it is uninspired.  In short,  the research plan seems workable, but falls short of where it could and should be.
Class Overall		Throughout the course, in all ways a solid job that could have been an exceptional one.