Arizona School Superintendent Tom Horne has lost his ever-loving mind.
In yet another example of state politicians abusing their power to harass the state’s minority population, Horne has filed a subpoena against researchers at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University. The subpoena seeks the release of confidential, personal information that can identify participants in a study looking at the effect of the state’s English Language Learning (ELL) policy.
Here’s the deal: Arizona’s ELL programs require that all ELL students be segregated from general classes for four hours every day, and taught English language skills, until the student is capable of passing a standardized English test. Critics of the program, however, assert that ELL classes provide sub-standard teaching of course material, causing ELL students to lag behind their English-speaking peers.
Researchers at The University of Arizona and Arizona State University addressed this question by looking at the quality of education in ELL classrooms. One investigator assessed ELL implementation in 18 classrooms in five school districts and found the instruction to be inferior than that received by other students. In January 2000, Arizona was cited by the U.S. District Court for Arizona for failing to provide equal funding for ELL classes compared to non-ELL classes, thereby violating the Equal Educational Opportunities Act.
Currently, the January 2000 decision is being reconsidered in a federal court case, Horne v. Flores, which contends that changes in Arizona’s ELL policy and funding once more make the program compliant with federal regulations. However, the studies cited above are being used as part of the case against Arizona’s ELL classes.
Which is why Horne’s lawyers have filed for a subpoena, demanding that the researchers involved turn over their raw data, which includes the names and addresses of study participants.
The problem is that it would be unethical for investigators to turn over their data. All researchers who work with human subjects — every single one — must have their studies reviewed and approved by their institution’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). This is a lengthy and detailed process that includes a requirement that the identities of subjects be protected under all circumstances. There are even instances in some studies where the identities of study participants (or other sensitive information) are even protected from certain investigators.
Horne’s lawyers argue that they require the raw data from the studies in order to determine if they were appropriately collected and analyzed. Magaret Dugan, Arizona’s Deputy School Superintendent, suggested that study authors may have deliberately picked school districts critical of ELL, and thereby biased their study.
However, Dugan and Horne fail to acknowledge that the study methodologies of these studies have been peer-reviewed by the IRB committees of their respective institutions. Any issues of bias or sample size have already been addressed by these scrupulous reviewers. Furthermore, if the study is to be published (I’m not sure if it has been), than the methodology will undergo a second round of peer-review. It’s naive for Arizona’s Superintendents to insinuate that the investigators in this study deliberately biased their sample, and that none of the study’s peer-reviewers caught on; they are, in essence, accusing an entire community of researchers of conducting bad science.
In fact, the accusation would be insulting, if it weren’t hilariously ironic. Explaining the state of Arizona’s reasoning for requesting release of the study participant’s information, Dugan characterized the classroom selection as“slanted”. She further said, “At least I would like for them to have surveyed districts and teachers who are positive about the model.”
In other words, Dugan takes issue not with the possibility that the studies were biased… but that they were biased in the wrong direction! And how should we correct it? Choose to sample classrooms in such a way as to fix the outcome.
I don’t think Horne and his colleagues can even spell “scientific method”, let alone recognize the flaws in Ms. Dugan’s proposed solution.
(And Ms. Dugan is running to replace Tom Horne as Arizona School Superintendent, folks. This state is so fucked.)
