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

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:

1. Suzanne Franco’s Essay, “Reauthorization of NCLB: Time to Reconsider the Scientifically Based Research Requirement,” expresses reservations about, if not a rejection of, strong forms of evidence, in favor of less rigorous forms.
2. “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” (from “Mentoring At-risk Youth…“) reads to me like a statement of fact. Do the authors have evidence establishing its factual basis? Shall I accept it on its face?
3. In general, the entries at the site are more like op-ed essays, not evidence-based analyses.

For legal reasons, our Group has changed its name and web address. We are now the Nonpartisan Education Review .

Best Wishes,
Richard P. Phelps

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)