Short Stuff

Spring 2009

You've Been Debunked

Congratulations to the Fordham Institute and Brookings Institution as this year's big winners in the Think Tank Review Project's 3rd annual Bunkum Awards, given to think tanks for publishing education "research" that is deceptive, sloppy, and lacks quality.

These well-funded think tanks were given the "Charles Murray Prize for Identifying Who Shouldn't Be Educated" for publishing Tom Loveless' alleged education research on "wasted energies."

"[Loveless'] back-to-back winners came only three months apart but both showed his enduring commitment to convincing policy makers that too much effort is spent academically challenging the wrong children," said University of Colorado Professor Kevin Welner in announcing this year's awards.

In "High Achieving Students in an Era of NCLB," published by the Fordham Institute, according to the project, Fordham tries to build a case that there is too much emphasis on low-achieving students at the expense of high achievers, who become "languid." The report does this by presenting "NAEP score comparisons of trends among high- and low-scorers, showing faster growth at the bottom of the distribution." Not so fast.

The Think Tank Project points out that although Loveless notes that one cannot make causal inferences from simple correlations, what does the report do? Just that: it "makes patent causal inferences to bolster its policy recommendations."

Loveless uses similarly convoluted reasoning in the Brookings' report, "The Misplaced Math Student: Lost in Eighth-Grade Algebra." What binds these two misleading reports together is their assertion, without evidence, that the nation's top students are getting a raw deal. Maybe a bailout would help?

Ohio's Buckeye Institute won the "Rose Colored Blinders Awards" for its report "Public Charter Schools: A Great Value for Ohio's Public Education System." According to the Think Tank Review Project, the institute earned this award for "its determined disregard of an extensive, non-partisan, and relevant state official report, its non-existent literature review, and its decisive failure to comprehend the state funding formula lying at the heart of its analysis." Who says you can't pull numbers out of your, um, er, nevermind.

The Think Tank Review Project is a collaboration of the University of Colorado at Boulder's Education and the Public Interest Center and the Arizona State University's Education Policy Research Unit. The Bunkums are awarded based on reviews by independent experts. According to the project, "expert reviewers for the project assess think tank reports for the validity of assumptions, methodology, results, and the strength of links between results and policy recommendation." For a complete list of Bunkum Award winners, past winners, methodology, and even the etymology of the word "bunkum," see http://epicpolicy.org/think-tank/bunkum.awards. Congratulations to all the award winners for wasting energy, paper, and money.

No Mystery: Fresh Food Needed

Schools are providing more nutritious lunches than they did a decade ago, but children's plates need more fresh fruit, whole grains, and legumes, according to a new report. The federally funded study of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program was published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

The limited exposure to fresh foods students get in school—for some the only time they do during the day—is not enough. It's time for the government to step up and assure quality meals for students.

In a Feb. 20 New York Times op-ed, Alice Waters, president of The Chez Panisse Foundation, and Katrina Heron, director of the foundation and a co-producer of civileats.com, wrote: "How much would it cost to feed 30 million American schoolchildren a wholesome meal? It could be done for about $5 per child, or roughly $27 billion a year, plus a one-time investment in real kitchens."

Expensive, yes, but the long-term benefits outweigh the cost, they added.

"Yes, that sounds expensive. But a healthy school lunch program would bring long-term savings and benefits in the areas of hunger, children's health and dietary habits, food safety (contaminated peanuts have recently found their way into school lunches), environmental preservation and energy conservation."

For further research and ideas on children, food, and health, check out Rethinking Schools' "Feed the Children" issue in our online archives at www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/20_04/20_04.shmtl.

Few Cheers for Barbie

Come on, Mattel—Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader Barbie? Aim higher, please.

While the mainstream media celebrates her endurance, Barbie's makers won this year's TOADY (Toys Oppressive And Destructive to Young Children) for yet another dress-me-up, play-me-down construct of bubble-headed blondism. Yay, team!

Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood announced the award after an online vote by more than 6,000 CCFC members. Barbie buried the competition.

"The toys we give children reflect our values," said CCFC's Director Dr. Susan Linn, author of The Case for Make Believe. "And no one who cares about children's wellbeing could produce a toy like the Barbie Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader doll."

In addition to Barbie, the 2008 TOADY nominees were Baby Alive Learns to Potty by Hasbro, the Lego Batman Video Game by Warner Brothers, the Power Wheels Cadillac Escalade by Fisher-Price, and the Smart Cycle by Fisher-Price.

To see the rationale for why Barbie and four other toys were nominated, go to www.commercialfreechildhood.org/actions/today.html.