>
> April 16, 2009 Deborah Meier, progressive educator, on the awfulness of
> Bush's No Child Left Behind, which Obama is likely to retain * Adolph Reed
> on genes and politics, and politics without politics
Both really interesting interviews. I was especially glad to hear what Meier said about 'the numbers' in education research. I work a couple of days a week on research in a small corner of the NSW education bureaucracy. This is despite not having any background in education research; they hired me because they were specifically looking for a grad student in economics, which in itself says lots about what's happened in the field over the last decade or two.
As I've found out, there's been a huge statistical movement in education research, which seems to have sidelined the ethnographic/qualitative tradition, which many policymakers and statisticians treat with open contempt. The dominant paradigm is now 'what works' in terms of 'value-added' to quantitatively measurable student 'achievement'. 'Value-added' meaning that they statistically control for factors like socio-economic background, prior achievement, etc. For quite a while the right has been able to bamboozle policymakers, and the 'well-meaning' billionaire charitable foundation types with this kind of complex research... but like Meier says the numbers don't actually come up in their favour, and there's plenty of sloppiness in the research behind NCLB, or at least exaggerated claims not based on the statistical evidence.
So yeah, even though I don't think qualitative work should be pushed aside like it has, it was great to hear her not just complaining that it shouldn't be about the numbers, but pointing out that even the numbers are not on their side.
Mike