"Least influential of education's most influential information sources."
-- Education Week Research Center
"full of very lively short items and is always on top of the news...He gets extra points for skewering my high school rating system"
-- Jay Mathews, The Washington Post
"a daily dose of information from the education policy world, blended with a shot of attitude and a dash of humor"
-- Education Week
"unexpectedly entertaining"..."tackle[s] a potentially mindfogging subject with cutting clarity... they're reading those mushy, brain-numbing education stories so you don't have to!"
-- Mickey Kaus
"a very smart blog... this is the site to read"
-- Ryan Lizza
"everyone who's anyone reads Eduwonk"
-- Richard Colvin
"designed to cut through the fog and direct specialists and non-specialists alike to the center of the liveliest and most politically relevant debates on the future of our schools"
-- The New Dem Daily
"peppered with smart and witty comments on the education news of the day"
-- Education Gadfly
"don't hate Eduwonk cuz it's so good"
-- Alexander Russo, This Week In Education
"the morning's first stop for education bomb-throwers everywhere"
-- Mike Antonucci, Intercepts
"…the big dog on the ed policy blog-ck…"
-- Michele McLaughlin
"I check Eduwonk several times a day, especially since I cut back on caffeine"
-- Joe Williams
"...one of the few bloggers who isn't completely nuts"
-- Mike Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
"I have just three 'go to' websites: The Texas Legislature, Texas Longhorn sports, and Eduwonk"
-- Sandy Kress
"penetrating analysis in a lively style on a wide range of issues"
-- Walt Gardner
-- Education Week's Alyson Klein
-- Susan Ohanian
Smart List: 60 People Shaping the Future of K-12 Education
6 Replies to “Choice Irony”
Well, if you only read Hess, Hirsch and the rest of the same old, same olds, you will only hear their voices. Think tank reports, commentaries, and whatnot have their place, but pick up an impartially peer-reviewed journal from time to time. If you think Education Next counts as a peer-reviewed journal, then you’re probably hopeless. There is great research out there that is very critical of market-oriented solutions, but shoddy research from the likes of Peterson, Greene and company tends to get all the air play. Pundits don’t incorporate this stronger research into their work or aren’t aware of it in the first place.
Nice try Heartland Wonk but but both Petersen and Greene have published school choice work in peer review journals.
Not that anyone actually submits to the torture of reading peer review journals, mind you, but just in case they have published in them.
The vast majority of their work is not peer-reviewed, as are most of the papers they cite. More importantly, virtually all of their work is very heavily criticized on methodological grounds. Yes, they have published a paper or two in respectable journals, but they make their strongest claims in papers that go straight to the web. Seriously folks, look at the methods. Or just admit that your position is ideologically driven and the research findings mean nothing to you.
More importantly, virtually all of their work is very heavily criticized on methodological grounds.
What crap. There’s plenty of peer-reviewed research that is “heavily criticized” on methodological grounds as well, and there are plenty of partisan hacks within the education research community who are all too happy to come up with nitpicky reasons to ignore the results from randomized experiments re: vouchers.
So, “virtually all” of the research of admitted voucher advocates is criticized on methodological grounds, and you’re defense is “well, other people get criticized sometimes too.” That’s not much of a defense, norskie.
Sure, some peer-reviewed work faces methodological critique, but it passes a basic threshold test for quality. Most school choice advocacy research faces no such test. A lot of their randomized studies have major problems with small sample sizes, significant attrition, comparing apples and oranges, inconsistent use of data, manipulation of variables, and misrepresentation of previous research. Such critiques are not “nitpicking”. Those issues are the bread and butter of quality research.
Petersen’s case is particularly unfortunate because his earlier work in urban poli sci and ed policy is so important and influential. And now he’s a laughingstock, sometimes called a “choice-nik”. Too bad
No, I’m not admitting that these “methodological” critiques of voucher research are valid. My point is that the vague and unsubstantiated claim that “there are critiques” is meaningless. In fact, the critiques you mention are brought forth by the typical partisan hacks who are determined to find flaws no matter what.