It all started with a post of mine that argued that??Diane Ravitch is wrong to say that Massachusetts's situation proves teachers unions to be a non-factor in education reform. After Ravitch responded with a rebuttal post, Jay Greene added a follow-up that challenged her to "point to a rigorous piece of social science research that supports her argument."??Sol Stern then joined the discussion to add his take on what Greene said. We've now arrived at Part 5 of this Massachusetts Miracle series, where Jay Greene is back to defend his positions:
Diane Ravitch was not, as Sol Stern suggests, only countering the view that unions are "the main, sometimes the only,??institutional bulwark against reforming school systems and raising the achievement of disadvantaged students." Her clearly stated argument was that "[t]eachers' unions do not themselves raise or lower academic achievement." That is, she wasn't simply knocking down the hyperbolic claims of certain advocates, she was indeed "presenting her own??theory" ??that teacher unions, on average, do not harm student achievement.So, Sol Stern is wrong to assert that Ravitch would never "say anything as absolute as ???unions do nothing.'" She said almost precisely that.
Moreover, contra Sol's interpretation, I am not arguing that a "rigorous piece of social science research" is "required every time someone makes a comment" on any educational issue. Social science research is highly relevant, however, when it supports only one side of a debate. When I am able to cite a rigorous study by Caroline Hoxby on the negative effects of unions, Ravitch's claim that "unions do not themselves raise or lower academic achievement" is then brought into serious doubt.
When there is a dispute and one side presents rigorous social science evidence, the other side cannot continue to hold its view without presenting its own comparably rigorous evidence. It is obviously unpersuasive to counter a rigorous study finding that teacher unions, on average, raise costs and lower achievement, by spinning a story about the success of Massachusetts and Finland.
Sol is mistaken in saying that "pointing to specific cases where the theory doesn't seem to explain the empirically observed outcome" is "what social??scientists??do all the time."?? At least good social scientists don't do this.
