Comments on Weiner, Resnick and Scientific Debate
Jonathan Goodman
New York University
Citation:
Goodman, J. (2003, August 19). Comments on Weiner,
Resnick and scientific debate. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(29). Retrieved [date] from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n29/.
Abstract
Lois Weiner (2003) and Lauren Resnick (2003) have advanced
substantially different views of the success of the reforms
undertaken by Community School District Two (CSD2) in
New York city. Weiner's position vis a vis District Two
has probably conferred a greater measure of objectivity
to her views. Criticisms of scholarly work, even when
sharply worded, are neither personal nor unscientific; indeed
they are quite common in all the sciences.
|
Lois Weiner, Lauren Resnick, and the Archives are to
be commended for initiating
a public peer-reviewed debate on the studies used to support what is
unfortunately called "reform" education, fuzzy math and whole language
reading. As is becoming clear nationally, statistics about educational
programs are not always what they seem. The scientific method includes
the axiom that adversarial scrutiny of data is the only path to correct
conclusions. Researchers challenging fuzzy math have often been denied
access to education journals and their criticisms have gone unanswered and
unrecognized in the education community (See the web site
http://mathematicallycorrect.com for instances of this.)
Another
axiom of scientific objectivity is that the most reliable evidence for a
particular reform is not likely to be from the proponents of that
reform. In medical practice, for example, a new procedure must be
tested in clinical trials by researchers other than those who propose it
before it is accepted. Precisely because Weiner was not involved in
implementing the District 2 reforms, her analysis of the results is less likely
to be biased, though it might be biased for other reasons.
Anyone
who actually lived in District 2 and had children in District 2 schools during
the period in question—as I did—would be aware of the huge shift in
demographics that Weiner pointed out. For one thing, at least two new schools
serving well the "well-to-do" (PS 234 and PS 98/IS 89) began operations. Moreover, a
number of magnet schools (Lab, Salk, School of the Future, etc.) began
drawing top students from throughout the city. It would have been more
informative to present results from individual schools whose student
populations were more stable. Having seen such data but not having
access to them now, I do not recall that it was nearly as positive as the
overall numbers quoted by Resnick.
It
is hard to agree with Resnick's complaints about
the tone of Weiner's article. Criticism of the structure of a
scientific study is not a personal attack on the ethics of the researchers. Scientific
journals that engage in debate, such as Physical
Review Letters, regularly use such language. The fact that
scientific opinions are colored by personal factors does not make them wrong.
Having interacted with officials of District 2 over the years, I can testify
that it is difficult to describe their actions dispassionately. Weiner
has done remarkably well, given her conclusions.
Reference
Resnick, L. B.
(2003, August 7). Reforms, research and variability:
A reply to Lois Weiner. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
11(28).
Retrieved August 14, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n28/.
Weiner, L. (2003, August 7). Research or
“cheerleading”? Scholarship on Community School
District 2, New York City. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
11(27). Retrieved August 14, 2003, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n27/.
About the Author
Jonathan Goodman is Professor of Mathematics at the Courant
Institute of New York University.
Email: goodman@cims.nyu.edu
Homepage: http://www.math.nyu.edu/faculty/goodman
|
