In his latest assessment of the field of education, Arthur Levine, former President and Professor of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, argues that education research preparation programs
in general are weakened by the condition of education as a field. It lacks focus and has amorphous boundaries. Agreement about appropriate research methodologies and standards is absent. And the research is little cited by scholars or read by practitioners and policymakers.
Levine is right. But his recommendations are hackneyed with a hint of mumbo-jumbo. Like his previous papers on “Educating Leaders” and “Education Teachers,” Levine says a lot about clarifying this, strengthening that, quality control, linkages to practitioners, and, of course, more funding. He forgets that ideas have consequences, and the more education researchers cling to faddish theories, the less relevant (and prepared) they will be.
