Joseph Viteritti, Political Science Quarterly
Summer 2003
This superb essay by Princeton's Joe Viteritti exposes the double standard of much education scholarship, particularly when any form of school choice is under examination: "The burden of proof has been placed very heavily on those who seek alternatives to the common school model, as if the system were doing just fine. But the risks of change are relatively small in a system that has neglected the needs of a large population of urban students. . . . The burden of proof must be lifted from reformers who want to improve the range of options for children stuck in failing public schools." Viteritti offers several cases in point, including famed education historian David Tyack's shift from critic to defender of monopolistic ("one best system") schooling arrangements, the one-sidedness of Clarence Stone's and Jeffrey Henig's huge Civic Capacity and Urban Education Project, and the inadequacies of a purportedly definitive RAND review of research on school choice. This is a powerful indictment of the education research community for its role in RETARDING the reform of urban education in America. You can purchase the article online at http://www.psqonline.org/.
