Little of your reply is valid. Elizabeth wrote a short post – 250 words? – with a provocative point for everyone’s consideration. It wasn’t a dissertation and it wasn’t a scientific study [which was a wonderful decision - I'll get to that]. She wrote primarily about her experiences – which is perfectly appropriate for her own site. I didn’t agree with every word, but I found her opinion interesting and worth revisiting.

Your point about ‘attacking ideas’ is a mix of guilt and fiction. You suggested that another professional was intellectually irresponsible for the purpose of personal gain – and at the expense of another outfit in the sector, too. Attacking one’s motivation and then trying to take some logical/argumentative high road aren’t compatible. You hit a pothole.

It’s worth noting that there really isn’t any available evidence that could back up Elizabeth’s claims. That’s unfortunate in a way, but it also means we’re fortunate to hear a unique, informed perspective that isn’t readily available as a bar graph. None of the examples of evidence you cited would be worthwhile to prove/disprove Elizabeth’s claim, and aside from a massive, comprehensive study on student attitudes before, during and after prep and the test itself, I can’t think of any data or evidence that would stand up to a challenge. If we can’t do a bit of social science properly, it’s best not to pretend or try. That’s responsible social science.

Heal thyself, Mr. Truman. A blog with a post tendentiously titled “University of California Rejects the SAT Subject Tests and Focuses on Stuff That Matters” with no cited evidence isn’t a blog that should be calling out others.

However, her post didn’t do that. It asserted that TPR has fundamentally changed the way everyone takes the test without offering a lot of direct evidence for the ways it would do so. She didn’t cite the number of copies of “Cracking the SAT” that were sold last year or the number of schools currently working with TPR. She didn’t tell us about the number of students that TPR sees every year or the ways that other test prep companies have changed their methods because of TPR.

Instead, she simply asserted that something was true without a single link to the outside world to back up her claims. She is using TPR as a strawman for the purposes of providing an “alternate” way of taking the test. I’m not accusing her of dishonesty, I’m saying that I think this particular post is much more about selling herself than it is about convincing kids to be unafraid. That’s not wrong, but I think it’s unfair to TPR to accuse them of something you don’t have much evidence for simply to make a point about your own programs.

I think that both you and Elizabeth need to differentiate between attacking ideas and attacking people. I’ve done a lot of the former and none of the latter.

I too have a blog, as you so noted. I would be happy to have you come to my site and debate my evidence, arguments, conclusions. In fact, I would be ecstatic for you to do so! The blogosphere is a tough place. Ideas get challenged, old ways of thinking can be torn down. But only if we talk to each other and stomach a bit of intense questioning. I’m not hear to pick up business or tear down a competitor (I doubt that EK is close enough to me geographically anyway), but to engage in the conversation that she started.

Mark, you’ve called on Elizabeth to provide “direct evidence” and provided none of your own. Nothing of value, just a couple anecdotes. That’s poor argumentation and is a bit priggish, both things those of us with our own sites deal with frequently and easily.

But accusing another professional, especially one in the same sector, of such dishonesty for personal gain – when there’s a valid point, no less – is too much.

Your comment links confidently to Omniac. Imagine if I suggested that you were e-fighting for the purpose of picking up a little business, or what’s more likely, hurting a competitor. It would be ridiculous. It’s far kinder – and more realistic – to suggest that you’re just plain wrong.

And Mark, this is my blog. Of course I am using it to promote my ideas. That’s sort of the point.

If you are encountering these ideas with students who were active participants in their classes, I’m glad you brought it up! That’s exactly the kind of evidence you should have included in your original post instead of asserting that it was affecting ALL students without explaining the vector of transmission.

I like the idea that understanding the core concepts will improve student’s scores. I have found in my tutoring that working on fundamentals often results in larger score improvements than any fancy techniques. I think you and I probably agree more than we disagree.

However, I think you’re attacking TPR to promote yourself far more than to make your point….

I’m glad to hear that you are not experiencing this problem, although it is certainly rampant with my students. I’m sure TPR will be pleased to hear that it still has at least one ardent supporter!

And you’re right, I’m not promoting new ideas. Competency, confidence, hard work, problem solving–these are all as old as the redwoods. Why you would attack me for wanting to emphasize these values is beyond me, but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you missed the cart for the horse? Somehow those values have been pushed aside, not only in test preparation (a largely irrelevant and idiosyncratic moment itself), but also in our broader culture. But that’s another blog post. ~e