Talk:School of education

Request for sources
I'm a graduate student in the School of Education at Stanford (SUSE), and I've been working on adding citations to this article. Most of the ones that I've found have been in support of the points in the Criticism section, and I can't seem to find any sources saying that the Anti-Establishment's criticisms are invalid or even exaggerations. (To be perfectly honest, nothing in my own experience really calls these criticisms into question either.) If anyone has some sources that could help, please add them.

It seems that there's a "bimodal" consensus about Ed Schools, which is making it difficult to develop this article. Most people who are not directly involved with Ed Schools don't know much about what goes on within their walls, beyond a vague assumption that it's got something to do with studying education. However, the majority of people outside of the Education field who do know a lot about what Ed Schools do have a very negative view. Therefore, empirically speaking, "criticism" is the majority (or rather, plurality) view within American society. - Skaraoke 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot to add that, even within schools of education, there is some fundamental criticism going on. David Labaree, an Associate Dean at SUSE, just published a book called The Trouble with Ed Schools. - Skaraoke 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV section tag
The language in this section implies that the only criticism about schools of education comes from the right wing attacking the left. This is an imbalanced perspective, promoting the notion that all critics are (1) conservatives, and (2) in agreement. A neutral perspective would provide multiple perspectives. Please do not remove this tag until broader criticisms are added. - Freechild 04:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The language implies nothing of the sort. Criticism is, by nature, not neutral, so putting a POV tag in that section makes no sense, and could be seen as trolling. - Skaraoke 02:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious
The phrase "Education Anti-Establishment" is tantamount to original research and must be cited with reliable sources or removed. Please add such or remove the phrase. • Freechild   'sup?   20:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand what is meant by "original research." - Skaraoke (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

POV
The majority of sources in this article are POV and need to be balanced with sources from other perspectives. Titles such as "Progressivism, Schools and Schools of Education: An American Romance", "Ed Schools in Crisis", "Why Johnny’s Teacher Can’t Teach", "The Ed Schools’ Latest—and Worst—Humbug", "Ed Schools vs. Education", and "Social Justice and Political Orthodoxy" are revealing. Additionally, the majority of the links to these articles are dead. The POV tag needs to stay on the article until their are counter sources. • Freechild   'sup?   03:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Notable Scholars" Section
I streamlined this section, based on the standard of including only professors who have had significant lasting impact on the field of Education. (i.e. Since all professors publish articles and get involved with research associations as part of their jobs, merely having a long list of publications or having served as the head of a research organization does not qualify a professor as "notable.") First, I removed red-linked names, based on the assumption that if the names were really notable enough to be representative of the Education field as a whole, someone would presumably have written an article about them already. Also, I removed many contemporary professors who haven't (yet) made any lasting impact on the field. - Skaraoke (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also just changed the name of the section from "Notable scholars from schools of education" to "Notable scholars of education," because many of the most influential people in the field were not formally associated with a school of education. On second thought, I'd rather have changed it to "Notable education scholars," but I've already messed around with the article enough for today. - Skaraoke (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section
The entire last paragraph is misleading. After reading the source reference (NYTimes, Oct 2009), I noted that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said nothing about graduate degrees from schools of education, neither positive or negative. The subject of his invective was undergraduate programs. He does mention "cash cows" though.

The other reference in that paragraph, via Wash. Monthly's Dan Luzer ("The Pedagogy Con", Feb 2010), appears prior to the Arne Duncan speech, and is partially sourced from the same NY Times, Oct 2009 article, though it was written several months later. That's not a problem of course. Regarding the "cash cows", though, WashMonthly's Dan Luzer directly sources, by inline URL, Teacher Revised WordPress blog (31 Mar 2009), "Graduate Schools of Education Cash Cows Says Harvard Lecturer" which sources Harvard University's Katherine Merseth, from a speech in March 2009, and initially reported by U.S. News and World Report (25 Mar 2009), "What you should consider before education graduate school".

Everyone seemed to be jumping on the bandwagon of criticizing teaching colleges, (dare I say "Normal Schools") as bovine streams of currency in 2009. I don't suppose that Katherine Merseth has an exclusive right to the "cash cows" epithet. Even though she said it in March 2009, Arne Duncan could have thought that up on his own in October 2009. It isn't clear in the NY Times if he is referencing her, and I have spent too much time on this already. However, I am going to add the additional sources, both the WordPress blogger (he has a WordPress dot org blog, he is a teacher, and he is still around now, over four years later), as well as venerable old U.S. News & World Report, from whom the original reporting was derived. I'm also going to rephrase the paragraph slightly so it doesn't make it sound as though all schools of education are useless and need "disruption" or razing to the ground. --FeralOink (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)