It’s kind of like letting Madonna dictate foreign policy. Sure, she’s got a big mouth and opinions, but she’s no expert.

Either way, this misses the point entirely made on eduwonkette: the Springer paper has serious design flaws, and is inconsistent with other very good research on this subject (see papers by Reback and by Neal and Schwazenbach, both unmentioned in the fair-and-balanced Ed Next). I consider it quite responsible of her to point her readers to these facts, so they can make their own informed assessment. Nowhere did I see her use language that said, in effect, “take it from me–anonymous blogger–that the Springer paper is wrong.”

Check out eduwonk’s very first post about eduwonkette, http://www.eduwonk.com/2007/09/new-edublog-11.html, in which he describes her as “an academic who taught for a few years in an urban school.” Hmm, Cooler Heads. Maybe eduwonkette actually does know more about teaching than you do. Of course, maybe Andy got this wrong too.

*Springer’s article in EdNext begins with a longish quote from Jenning’s published work (fully attributed). In other words, he uses her work as THE counterpoint upon which to frame his article. If “critique” was the wrong word to describe Springer’s treatment of Jenning’s work, I believe most honest brokers would be dismayed by the lack of transparency involved in eduwonkette’s retort. I wouldn’t accuse her of outright deception, but I do think her actions ought to raise some questions about the value of a respectable media institution allowing its contributors to cloak themselves in anonymity.

*The “she’s-just-a-graduate-student” argument holds no water. A month ago, GC would not have been able to use that argument because no one knew that she was “just a graduate student.” She was just an anonymous blogger who could have had any number of conflicts of interest safely hidden from public scrutiny. We could only speculate (and perhaps arrive at false conclusions… as per ‘kette fan’s beef). And who’s to say the next anonymous blogger given free reign at Ed Week wouldn’t possess such conflicts of interest? I will say again, bad precedent. How could we ever discredit said hypothetical anonymous blogger for being on the payroll Wal-Mart!?

For someone who so haphazardly throws around accusations of swiftboating, I would think that GC might have a little bit more concern about the use of anonymous sources and anonymous bloggers, especially by reputable trade publications that nearly every professional in the field consults. The potential for swiftboating is rife!

Sociologists see teaching through the lens of organization and institutions. But that’s a bit like trying to understand medicine by considering the layout of patient rooms, or the distribution of patients into the rooms. it doesn’t tell anything about the quality of instruction.

I’m not a teacher, and never have been. But I’ve studied enough teaching to know that there is a technical core of the work of teaching, and the few if any policymakers (or sociologists) bother to learn anything about it.

The idea that a sociologist is blogging about teaching, on the EdWeek website, is a joke. The joke’s on anyone who took her seriously. Please, Eduwonkette, go back to grad school and study the effect of the role of gender on automobile usage, or something.

* The article he/she refers to (Springer, in the Economics of Education Review, and Education Next) does not contain a “longish critique” of her work, or any critique of her research for that matter. The journal article does not even cite her work (look for yourself). The only similarity is the research question of interest. Even there, Springer looks at low-stakes tests, and Jennings looks at high-stakes tests. Readers can look at these articles and judge for themselves.

* Jennings refused “to reveal her own identity and open her own affiliations to similar scrutiny?” What affiliations does this graduate student have, exactly? As far as I can tell, she does not sit on the board of *any* advocacy organizations, and has not taken money from any of the usual suspects who fund the other bloggers. And somehow we’re supposed to accept the critique of the likes of Jay Greene, who sits in a Wal-Mart funded faux academic department that doesn’t have a counterpart in any other university, and publishes the vast majority of his work un-reviewed through the largesse of advocates? This makes no sense.

The fallout from the Jennings revelation has demonstrated one thing clearly: the education blogosphere is populated by bullies, who–having little substance to stand on themselves–turn to swift boat techniques to discredit those they disagree with. I don’t blame her for going anonymous.