In my wanderings I came upon a Web site called “Third Education Group,” an organization that says it plans to present independent analyses of education policy issues. Though I’ve only read some of the material available there, the site presents an interesting perspective on some issues. Here is the group’s self-description.
There are two sides to every U.S. education policy debate …and that is the problem.
Those two sides – public education’s entrenched groups allied with the Democratic and Republican Parties – represent the interests of few U.S. citizens on education issues. Yet, with the cooperation of most education journalists, and some wealthy foundations, these groups have become the source of virtually all the information provided the public about education policy. Their biased information is then sold to the rest of the world as neutral, objective, scientific research that, when trusted, can compromise education policy in other nations like an invasive, exotic species of weed.
Third Education Group provides an alternative. We are allied with neither side. We have no vested interest. Unlike the many allied education pundits and researchers who call themselves independent, we actually are. And, we prove it by criticizing both sides, though probably not nearly as much as they deserve.Third Education Group’s purpose is to provide education information the public can trust.
I like the idea, but I’m left a little at sea about how the group proposes to decide educational policy questions. If the proposition is simply to criticize recommendations made by policy analysts associated with either and both US political policies, then I fear TEG will be mostly of entertainment value. If, as I hope, it takes on the task of establishing standards for educational research, presents syntheses of trustworthy research, and communicates those in clear and actionable terms, then TEG will serve a valuable purpose.
There are many essays available (see “foundational essays” in the sidebar). I’ve read several and can recommend some of them e.g., one on preparing reading teachers by Sandra Stotsky). However, two of those essays (one that’s unsigned but is listed as written by Phelps, who is probably Richard Phelps, and another by Suzanne Franco) dampen my optimism about the prospects for TEG promoting effective practices. (In another post I hope to provide an analysis of the problems with those essays.)
[By the way, the CSS for the site hasn't apparently been tested with multiple browsers; readers should not use Safari to view the site. The site apparently also uses a script that blocks right-clicking, so you won't be able to use right-clicks (or control-clicks, probably) to navigate backwards, bookmark, open a link in a new window or tab, and etc. In addition, it appears that the site may hang browsers while it makes calls to other sources on the Internet (e.g., Yahoo and some scripts site). The navigation is a bit convoluted, too. Sigh.]
I encourage readers (both of you!) to jump over to Third Education Group and take a tour. There’s plenty to read there. Don’t limit the review to the essays by Sandra Stotsky, Suzanne Franco, and Phelps. There is also a plethora of references to papers by Will Fitzhugh, who is involved in TEG and whom I’ve mentioned here previously.
Sphere: Related Content
it’s an interesting idea, but the 3 people on their board of advisors whose names I recognize have–deserved or not–reputations for being on the conservative side of things: two people from NYC HOLD and Will Fitzhugh of the Concord review. the problem with the site’s premise is that you can stoutly declare that you are independent, but observers will peg you to one side or the other if they can as a way of discrediting you.
Dan, thanks for stopping by and dropping a comment. It’s interesting how the left-right designations apply in education. I often think it’s pretty mistaken. For a long time (and perhaps still, in some folks’ thinking), favoring teaching of phonics seemed to indicate that one was affiliated with the Barry Goldwater feathers on the right wing of the US Republican party.
But, on to a substantive reply to your comment: Stoutly declaring one’s independence is fine, but I’d like to see more than assertions. A declaration of procedures or rules for reaching recommendations would help. Given the apparent rejection of evidence, I have reservations about how they’ll decide things. I’m left with the suspicion that decisions will be made on an ad hoc basis.
Dear JohnL,
We look forward to reading your reviews.
Not to be too nosy, but would you be so kind as to let us know how you came to the “apparent rejection of evidence” conclusion?
By the way, our records indicate that we attempted to invite Dan Willingham to participate at the outset (but, we don’t know if he received the invitation).
Best Regards,
Philip (for Third Education Group)
All,
For legal reasons, our Group has changed its name and web address. We are now the Nonpartisan Education Review .
Best Wishes,
Richard P. Phelps
Thanks, Mr. Phelps.
By the by, in response to that long-ago question regarding why I had reservations about the embrace of evidence by the Nonpartisan Education Review (nee Third Party Review), here are a few notes:
Hi JohnL,
Thanks much for the feedback. You are correct that essays (i.e., op/ed pieces) outnumber our empirical research articles. Perhaps that is, at least in part, because we have very high standards for acceptance for our empirical research articles–we reject twice as many as we accept. With essays, we are fairly willing to accept anything so long as it does not include blatant falsehoods.
Perhaps also we should revise our mission statement, which now reads that we are willing to criticize both of the “established” “sides” in education debates. While true, it seems that we have come mainly to serve to provide a forum for those who have important and useful things to say, but do not belong to the cliques on either of the “two sides” of current education policy debates. Prominent in this population are the high-standards folk (also called “traditionalists,” sometimes disparagingly) and testing experts who happen to believe that tests should be used.
The Franco article, I believe, does not criticize “scientifically-based research” so much as the tendency for a certain tiny clique with money and power to classify what the few of them do as “scientifically-based” while dismissing out of hand a cornucopia of work done by any of the multitude outside their clique as “non-scientific.”
As for this statement: “Children at risk for academic failure frequently lack support and encouragement from parents or guardians and in some cases live in homes where basic needs may not be met.” Simply because an abundance of empirical evidence already supports this statement we did not require that the author cite the evidence. Had we so required, the author could easily have produced citations that supported the statement, but we felt that we would have been wasting the authors’ time doing bibliographic work to support what is virtually a truism.
We would relish any other critical observations you might have. Your criticisms can only help improve our journal. Thanks much. Best Wishes, RP