Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson--professional race pimps--don't like the idea of there being a President Obama. For all of the reasons they give, do you know what the real reason is?
Jesse Jackson, 2009: There is still racism in America!
Public: We elected a black man to be President. STFU, asshat.
...that's why. And the same goes for Sharpton. These two men have built very lucrative livelihoods around the myth that race relations in the United States are no better than they were in the 1950s, and are only barely better than they were at the end of the Civil War. And so those who rely on there being racism in the US can't let a black man be elected President.
* * *
"[E]minent Australian literacy researcher Allan Luke, from the Queensland University of Technology, questions the validity of using evidence-based research in assessing teaching methods."
The quoted article is on a study, in Australia, showing that phonics-based reading instruction outperforms other methods.
The educational establishment doesn't like phonics. Phonics is the best way to teach a child to read; it evolved as the best method because it works so well. If you see a word you've never seen before, usually you can puzzle it out and not be too far wrong with what it should sound like, and pick up the meaning from context.
But somewhere, sometime, a study showed that proficient readers read an entire word at once, and so the tried-and-true phonic method was thrown out in favor of "whole word" reading--which forces the student to treat each word as a single unit, making comprehension and pronunciation that much harder.
In other words, phonics wasn't developed by people with the right degrees. It's traditional, which means it can't possibly work.
Except for the rather inconvenient fact that it does, and much better than any other method out there.
The idea that "evidence-based research" somehow cannot produce a valid result--that's such a mind-bogglingly asinine notion I can barely get a handle on where to begin explaining what's wrong with it.
What kind of "research" doesn't look at evidence? When you are researching something don't you, you know, actually have to look at data?
I think this Allan Luke asshat is suggesting that instead of looking at how real students perform using various teaching methods, instead we should "research" teaching methods by writing papers about how other experts feel about teaching methods. Except what Allan Luke is suggesting is not "research".
Some people call that a "circle-jerk".