This weblog entry is part of a continuing paragraph by paragraph critique of Jay Greene’s essay about myths in education.

The introduction is here.

I’m going to let Greene get a solid start on his case against certification by letting him present some of his evidence before I discuss it, so we begin with his first three paragraphs on this issue:

Jay Greene’s “Education Myths,” paragraph 37, 38 & 39
The certification myth

Receiving professional certification is generally regarded as a reliable sign of expertise, because in most occupations, credentials are given to those who have proven their worth. Few people would see a doctor who wasn’t licensed, or a lawyer who hadn’t passed the bar. Teacher quality is certainly a crucial factor in students’ academic achievement, but having an extra education degree is not linked to success.

In a review conducted for the Abell Foundation, researchers found that teachers holding a master’s in education did not produce higher student performance, and among new teachers, traditional certification made no difference in student performance. After examining every available study on the impact of teaching credentials on job performance–171 in total–Eric Hanushek found that only nine uncovered any significant positive relationship between credentials and student performance, five found a significant negative relationship between the two, and 157 showed no connection. Looking at Teach For America–a program that lets recent college graduates become teachers without obtaining traditional education credentials–three scholars at Mathematica Policy Research found that students taught by these non-credentialed instructors made significant gains in math in one year, and kept pace in reading. Current policy–which generally centers on teachers having education certificates–therefore appears to be seriously misguided.

Many researchers, politicians, and most Americans assume that more credentialing means better teachers, but the evidence suggests that it doesn’t. One of the strongest and most consistent findings in the entire body of research on teacher quality is that teaching certificates and master’s degrees in education are irrelevant to classroom performance. Yet most school systems reward certification and experience, instead of rewarding more reliable direct indicators of good teaching.

Here’s the real problem: Are the facts guiding the conclusion, or is the conclusion guiding the facts? Both sides of this argument ask this question. To separate the research from the propaganda is difficult. I will come back to the issue of certification in my next post, but I feel this is a good time to address one of the most serious problems in education today. Ideology disguised as legitimate research.

Paul Shaker (California State University, Fresno) and Elizabeth E. Heilman (Purdue University), address this in their article “Advocacy Versus Authority: Silencing the Education Professoriate.” [1] I encourage you to read this article in its entirety, but here is a glimpse of its contents:

A counter-establishment of academic educational institutions, [seemingly] peer reviewed journals, centers, think tanks, organizations, funding sources, and foundations has been developing with increasing sophistication over the last few years. This parallel world serves to legitimize information which ultimately aims to discredit public institutions, open education as a new market for profit, and consolidate a conservative world view.

…To legitimize their advocacy, the education punditry is moving beyond the manipulation of the research of others and traditional lobbying to the creation of their own “research” and organs for funding, affirming the respectability of, and disseminating that “research.” Media and public leaders will be rendered unable to sort out the new welter of “science,” polemics, and propaganda, all of which will come in traditional scholarly packaging and from similarly labeled sources. [2] (emphasis mine)

The example brought forth by Shaker and Heilman applies directly to this discussion because it mentions both Jay Greene and Eric Hanushek.

The new journal Education Next (formerly Education Matters) garners its support from Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. With editors and an editorial board that includes Chester Finn, Jay Greene, John Chubb, Eric Hanushek, E. D. Hirsch, Terry Moe, Diane Ravitch, and Herbert Walberg, Education Next would appear to have a built-in point of view. The initial three issues of the journal appear, however, to be striving for the appearance of balance and, therefore, an unexpected scholarly respectability. A closer reading raises questions, however. There is a range of opinions on issues such as school choice, teachers unions, Houston’s reforms, and Left Back, but this range is around presumptive ideological themes. Open inquiry is effectively constrained, but not in a crass or overt manner. Instead, we have propagandizing through context and by limiting the scope of options to by considered. This technique is reminiscent of how empirical studies can be manipulated most effectively, not be doctoring statistics, since this is easily revealed, but by using inappropriate statistical methods, not accounting for important variables or influences, or making unfounded generalizations that lead to wrong-headed conclusions(Earley, 2001, p. 1). [3]

As you can see, scholarly integrity does not appear to be the guiding rule. Eric Hanushek’s previous research has been criticized by respected scholars. Gerald Bracey reports on a paper issued by Alan Krueger, an economist at Princeton University, where he evaluates Hanushek’s overview of small class research. Hanushek claims money doesn’t matter. Bracey points out:

Hanushek’s primitive methodology cannot find a strong or systematic relationship, or find a lack of one, for that matter. As Krueger says in his new paper, “Hanushek never defines the criterion for a strong or consistent relationship.” Keith Baker had earlier made a similar point in the April, 1991 Kappan. [4]

To add to the lack of legitimacy to Hanushek’s conclusions Bracey says of Krueger’s findings:

Many studies have little to do at all with class size and many are methodologically problematic, to say the least. About one study that generated 11 estimates, Krueger declares “Class size is just an ancillary variable in a kitchen-sink regression.” A mere nine of the 59 studies generated 122 or 44% of all estimates used. Two studies alone generated 48 estimates. These studies, both by the same authors, carry the titles, “The Merits of a Longer School Day” and “Classmates’ Effects on Black Student Achievement in Public School Classrooms.” Boy, they sure don’t look like direct tests of the impact of class size on achievement to me. [5]

I find myself asking: How many of the 171 certification studies examined by Hanushek were actually studies on the effectiveness on certification? If you have been following the entire series of posts about Greene’s myths, you certainly have noticed many credibility issues with the arguments Greene presents. You have also read that his research, methodologies, and conclusions have been challenged by prominent academic researchers. Greene’s essay on education myths is not about sincere intellectual inquiry. It is about bending reality to fit Greene’s vision of how he sees the world.

Notes & References:

1. Shaker, Paul and Elizabeth E. Heilman. April 2002. “Advocacy Versus Authority: Silencing the Education Professoriate,” Substance News, Chicago, IL. 0riginally published in Policy Perspective Mss/AACTE, 2002. Because Substance News is moving their site, and I’m not sure how long the link to this article; will remain active, I have provided the article here (63 KB) as a pdf file.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Bracey, Gerald. October 2000. “Small Class Size: 1, Eric Hanushek: 0, Small Class Size: 1, Vouchers: 0,” Education Disinformation Detection and Reporting Agency, website.
5. Ibid.