Spinning The Spinners: Henig On The HotSeat

Lots of folks have noted that Teachers College political scientist Jeffrey Henig has a new book out called Spin Cycle in which he dissects the relationships between education research, media coverage, and policymaking.  But no one's put him on the HotSeat -- until now.

As you can see below, Henig tries valiantly but doesn't stand a chance under intense questioning.  He says that education is still a fringe topic for political scientists but is getting better, claims that there's more agreement on things like class size, phonics, and charter school effectiveness than there used to be, and says he's more concerned about misuse of research than some people think.  He distinguishes between "independent" think tanks and others, and gives shout-outs to the feisty group of folks who write about this stuff. 

Not many political scientists at AERA this year – why not? 

Education is still something of a fringe topic for political scientists.

What exactly is this "quiet consensus" on charter schools research?

Compared to what advocates claimed in the early days of the charter school movement, even sympathetic researchers recognize today that many charter schools are poor. Compared to what early charter opponents predicted, even researchers who remain skeptical about choice tend to agree now that most charter schools are not “creaming” off the most advantaged students.

No one seems to have told the unions or Democratic candidates.

The national unions and a small number of the local affiliates (e.g. the UFT in NYC) are recalibrating their initial fear and hostility. Right now neither Democratic candidate sees a tactical advantage in getting specific about education policy, but that may change after the convention.

Where else in education is there fundamental agreement that the press or the political parties may not know about (or pay attention to)?

There is growing recognition of the fact that smaller classes are not necessarily good if they are staffed with weak teachers, that good reading programs probably require a dose of phonics but not simply phonics and not to the exclusion of making reading enjoyable, that even if it is true that “all children can learn” remaining racial, class, and neighborhood effects present huge challenges to the goal of eliminating the achievement gap.

You've written a book about the media and education research, and now you're out there promoting it in the media. Who's spinning whom?

My objection is not to researchers communicating with non-researchers, it is to doing so in ways that oversimplify at the cost of accuracy and that oversell the certainty and policy implications of their findings.

What (if anything) is the press missing or getting wrong about what your book has to say?

Some commentators, in picking up on my general optimism about the potential for research to contribute to good policy even in highly charged areas, have under-played my residual concerns about the ways in which misuses of research may erode the confidence of citizens and policymakers and reinforce a knee-jerk suspicion that research is nothing more than a political tool.

Clearly, there are problems with both the media and with education research.  Which is worse?

Education research is getting better and I’m not sure whether that’s the case with media coverage.

There's been lots of internet chatter about foundation-funded think tank research vs. university- or think-tank funded research.  Are there any differences between reports and findings, or experts and scholars?

Yes, on average if not in every case. University and independent think tanks are less likely to oversell findings for short-term political gains.

What makes a think tank “independent,” and are there any that cover education issues?

Those that rely heavily on a single donor, or cluster of single-minded donors, tend to be less independent than those that rely on a variety of funders or have large endowments. Research organizations that work contractually with government may be tightly constrained in what they can say and write, but they also have an incentive to avoid over-spinning their findings since they need to maintain credibility when a new administration comes to power.

Given the overwhelmingly political nature of policy decisions, what does it matter if research is good or reporters cover it accurately?

Good information does not ensure smart decisions, but I’m convinced that it increases the probability.

I hate to ask, but are there any education researchers who blog, websites that cover education research, or bloggers or journalists who don’t’ regularly make things worse?

I’m a relatively new and relatively sporadic visitor to the blog world and haven’t developed favorites at this point. So far, though, I find the jabbing and counter-jabbing among you, Eduwonk, Eduwonkette, and some others to be more informative than the jousting among some of the school choice researchers. And month in and month out, I think Education Week is filling an important role.

Spin Cycle

Comments

[Samantha]

Full disclosure: I'm Jeff Henig's daughter, but he in no way put me up to this post. (In fact, he's likely to be a little embarrassed by it.) But I'm confused by the statement that "Henig tries valiantly but doesn't stand a chance under intense questioning." Is there some part of the interview you're leaving out? Seems to me he answered all of your questions quite well.

[alexander]

sorry -- it was a joke. he did great.