Submitted by Lois Weiner, Jan 27, 2007 09:56

Andrew Wolf has many times cited my research scrutinizing the academic gains attributed to professional development in District 2. As a researcher I am gratified by the publicity paid to my scholarship, however I should note that precisely the same kind of "cheerleading" I suggest has marred research on District 2 occurs with the Manhattan Institute's findings on school reform. In both cases, ideology trumps scholarship - and evidence. However, because the research on District 2 was conducted under the auspices of universities, I had full access to all of the available data. Not so with the work done by the Manhattan Institute on NYC schools. I have tried, unsuccessfully, for many years to engage with its researchers, to no avail. My requests to be invited to its sessions on NYC school reform have not even been answered.

So if the Manhattan Institute, which produces scholarship that conforms uniformly to ideological premises (primarily "free market" principles), wants to participate in a research consortium, it must first follow the protocols of research that permit scrutiny of its work. That means engaging with the scholars who produce work critical of its premises.

A more interesting question is why CUNY, and in particular the Grad Center's program on Urban Education, is not included in this partnership? What were the politics there?

Lois Weiner, Professor
Elementary and Secondary Education
New Jersey City University

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.