Once upon a time there was an unassuming guy from Kansas named Bill James. Big baseball fan. Great with statistics. Uncanny knack for seeing things in the stats others didn’t. Scary smart. Through pure statistical analysis, James was able to show what factors led to teams scoring runs and winning games, and how the efforts of individual players contributed to wins. He was often able to show with hard, empirical data, why many time-honored “truths” about the game were simply not borne out by statistics—why RBIs matter less than on-base percentage, for example. Or why stolen base attempts tend to hurt a team’s offense. He didn’t have a lot of luck getting his observations about baseball published, so he ended up self-publishing an annual book called The Bill James Baseball Abstract. It started out as a cult item with a certain kind of geeky, fanboy appeal. But 25 years later, what James discovered about baseball ended up transforming the way we look at the game and even how some major league clubs put their teams together. It’s probably no coincidence that two years after hiring Bill James in 2002, the Boston Red Sox won the World Series for the first time since the end of the war. World War, that is. The first one.
Before Bill James, baseball was all batting averages, bromides and intangibles-more than a century of baseball men who knew what they knew based on experience and instinct. They didn’t need numbers. They knew the game. Then teams like the Oakland A’s, as chronicled in Michael Lewis’s book Moneyball, started putting Bill James-style statistical analysis to work and found they were frequently able to compete effectively with large-market, big-budget teams like the Yankees. In effect, they used data to close the baseball equivalent of the achievement gap.
Education may have found its Bill James. Her name is Jennifer Jennings, but she’s better known as Eduwonkette. She made a name for herself in 2008 by demystifying the process of using statistical evidence to make rational decisions in education. More to the point, she used her extraordinary, Jamesian grasp of data to call out those who claimed they were using statistical evidence to make rational decisions. Sol Stern puts it bluntly, calling Jennings “the best bullshit detector on the web.” Diane Ravitch, another fan, put Eduwonkette at the top of her ballot naming this year’s most influential people in education. At her best, Jennings implicitly challenges education policymakers to be objective, to pay attention to what the data is telling us about education rather than what they want to believe-or want us to believe. And much like James, she makes the potentially dry world of statistical analysis not merely digestible, but fun. She wields a livelier pen than most professional education journalists, and on data she’s simply without peer.
“The amazing thing about Eduwonkette is the fact that pretty much everyone in the EdBlog world either loves her or deeply respects her work, or both,” says teacher-blogger Nancy Flanagan. “Her commenters are free to argue with her-and she will acknowledge her arguments’ shortcomings with grace and smarts. She makes statistics sing. Her occasional snarkiness is buttressed by scholarship and a finely-tuned sense of humor.”
Launched in late 2007 as an anonymous blog featuring a masked superheroine icon, Eduwonkette quickly won plenty of attention in the edusphere for what seemed like a nonstop stream of posts questioning the gains claimed by New York City’s Department of Education. The blog was accurately described by the New York Sun as “a stubborn thorn in the Bloomberg administration’s side.” But Jennings is no one-trick pony, having spilled varnish remover on Teach for America, Washington think-tanks, proponents of pay-for-grades schemes and dozens of others who seek to use data to promote their programs or points of view. Recently she offered one of the first analyses of incoming Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s record running the Chicago school system. “Have gaps separating white/black and white/Hispanic students in Chicago shrunk in the last 5-6 years?” she asked rhetorically. “Nah.” Note to Mr. Duncan’s future press secretary: You’ve been warned.
“Rather than merely toiling away in the vineyards of the American Educational Research Association, writing papers for fellow academics, [Eduwonkette] recently overtook Eduwonk as the top education policy blogger,” Mike Petrilli wrote in the most recent issue of Education Next, “even though her competitor is a former Clinton White House aide and cofounder of a major Washington education think tank. It’s clichéd to say that the Internet evens the playing field and makes the traditional trappings of power and influence obsolete, but so it is.”
What makes Eduwonkette particularly effective is Jennings’ relative lack of ego or apparent agenda. Guessing Eduwonkette’s identity became a favorite parlor game and gave early buzz to the blog. Her voluntary unmasking (done out of concern that incorrect suspects were being fingered with consequences for their academic work) was even covered by New York Magazine. But coming out has arguably given Jennings even more clout. Where critics were once able to speculate that she had “skin in the game” those whose ox she gores now have to grapple with what she writes, rather than attempt to discredit her with speculations about her affiliations and motivation.
Describing his role with the Red Sox, Bill James told the Wall Street Journal, “I see it as being my job to ensure as much as I can that we act on the basis of actual evidence.” That’s also a pretty fair description of Jennifer Jennings’ job in education. Indeed, if I were a savvy charter school operator, or even an urban schools chancellor, I might be tempted to ring up the talented Ms. Jennings and offer her a job. If Bill James could help the Red Sox break the Curse of the Bambino, who knows what Jennings might accomplish as an insider. It took over 20 years for Bill James to leave his mark on the game of baseball. It wasn’t until Michael Lewis’ book came out that “Moneyball” became a household word. Today, some education wonks are fond of invoking Moneyball as a paradigm for public education. “Bill was an outsider, self-publishing invisible truths about baseball while the Establishment ignored him,” Red Sox owner John Henry said in a piece about Bill James in Time Magazine. “Now 25 years later, his ideas have become part of the foundation of baseball strategy.”
A prediction: In the above quote, change ”baseball” to “education,” and “Bill” to “Jennifer.” Fast forward 25 years.
You heard it here first.
Love the Bill James analogy. Eduwonkette calls ‘em as she sees ‘em, too–statistics are nothing without judgment.
Let’s hear it for sociologists, as well. Education policy thinking has recently been dominated by economists; social science research, heavy on qualitative data and thick case studies, often seems mushy in the face of razor-sharp figures and economic theory. (Until you get to the classroom, where nothing much matters except how to get that kid to learn something.) Eduwonkette elegantly bridges the gap between numbers and narration.
Robert
Analogy question….
Bill James put forward 2 types of claims, based on all his data.
A) Certain guys were overvalued
B) Certain guys were undervalued
And James’ idea is to build a team around the undervalued, those with hidden value. Like Dustin Pedroia.
Eduwonkette writes often about those she sees as overvalued. Duncan – scores suck. Rhee – too much Blackberry. TFA, Jeanne Allen, Klein, etc.
But for Bill James analogy to work, she needs to identify some people or things that “work,” no?
Mike G.,
She does. She is continually pointing to people doing good work in the field of education. See the ongoing series on her blog: “Cool People You Should Know.” She’s not talking about “cool” in the sense of “hip” or “flashy.” She means people who are doing serious, significant, interesting work.
Diana Senechal
Hey Mike,
Leave it to a Bostonian to take issue with someone praising the Red Sox for talent and insight.
Seriously, I’ll stand by my Bill James analogy, even while I acknowledge its limits. James generates his own proprietary data, while Jennifer Jennings writes from data generated by others, most notably. But my larger conceit holds true: they are alike in their groundbreaking use of data to make us question conventional wisdom and overthrow our shibboleths. And in an era when we are in a rush to proclaim What Works, that’s an essential contribution (cf. Rick Hess’s “The New Stupid”)
James and Jennings are both true data-driven originals who start asking questions long after others have made up their minds and moved on.
Yes, Diane. I think that’s great. And I enjoy reading profiles like that.
But perhaps fair to say that most are cited for (laudable) work that ID’s either failed interventions or policy measurement problems? I.e., identifying the overrated? My intramural point to RP (also a baseball fan) was that this was only half Jamesian.
BTW, your piece about “Muddy Language” was terrific.
Thanks, Mike! I’m glad you enjoyed it.
I’ll stay out of the baseball analogy, since I could never swing a bat, let alone hit or catch a ball.
But I have always found a good sad song immensely cheering. I similarly admire debunking of the best and noblest kind. When done well, for good reason, it gives cause for hope.
Eduwonkette affirms the importance of looking carefully at stats, of taking no conclusions for granted. If she goes after so-called “successes” that have been inflated, it is in the spirit of bringing out something closer to the truth. Moreover, she makes her methods clear, so that others can try it as well.
So, if she does not explicitly state “what works,” she shows it.
Eduwonkette is awesome.
It’s refreshing to see an ed policy ‘wonk’ refuse to toe the same tired “true reformer” party line, and actually think for themselves. Eduwonkette rules the roost.
Ok, obviously I have a dog in the fight, but Jennifer Jennings as Bill James–come on. Jennifer has used incorrect or selective data when discussing public education in NYC many, many times. In every instance, her data choices support conclusions that are highly critical of the city’s efforts. It’s silly to say she has no agenda–that would be true only if the data show that all Bloomberg/Klein education policy has been a failure. They don’t. Bill James could be very nasty about players he didn’t like, but he didn’t game the numbers. And he wasn’t merely a genius, he was a great writer. Jennifer is merely clever.
David Cantor
NYCDOE and Bill Jamesian
Incorrect or selective stats? Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes?
The erudite Ms. Senechal exhausted the limits of my personal core knowledge with that one. A translation and context for those left scratching their heads:
Thanks, Robert! I learned that quote from G. K. Chesterton, but am now determined to read Juvenal. My Latin is rusty, but the oil can is not empty yet.
In Chesterton’s The Napoleon of Notting Hill, our joke-loving hero Auberon Quin (soon to be King, though he does not know it) entertains his new acquaintances with the following tale:
“Dr. Polycarp was, as you all know, an unusually sallow bimetallist. ‘There,’ people of wide experience would say, ‘There goes the sallowest bimetallist in Cheshire.’ Once this was said so that he overheard it; it was said by an actuary, under a sunset of mauve and grey. Polycarp turned upon him. ‘Sallow!’ he cried fiercely, ’sallow! Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes.’ It was said that no actuary ever made game of Dr. Polycarp again.”
David Cantor:
I understand that you may not agree with the interpretations that Jennifer draws from data, but can you cite one or more specific instances in which she or I have used data that are incorrect?
Aaron Pallas
(Ed’s Note: Mr. Pallas, aka “Skoolboy,” is Professor of Sociology and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. He is a contributor with Ms. Jennings to Eduwonkette — rp)
If Jennifer goes the university faculty route, it will be interesting to see what happens with her blogging. It would be a rare university tenure committee that would know how to appropriately value her online writing…
Eduwonkette as university faculty? Say it ain’t so!
With her personality I want her to join us in the inner city. The kids recognize someone who “keeps it real” and would work their tails off for her.
I’ve seen David Cantor post such critiques of eduwonkette before – but conveniently he never has actual examples to back them up. He writes, “In every instance, her data choices support conclusions that are highly critical of the city’s efforts.” Therefore, she must have an “agenda” and can’t be trusted.
Eduwonkette responds to what she sees as important, and on subjects to which she can add value. I don’t think it’s her responsibility to seek out NYC “success stories” to balance out her critiques.
Cantor, on the other hand, heads public relations for Joel Klein and thus by definition is paid to trumpet a particular (almost always positive) message. Who has the agenda?
David, to his credit, made it clear that he has a “dog in the fight,” and made no attempt to mislead anyone about his position. He’s a smart and capable advocate for his cause, so I’ll let him respond for himself. That’s what forums like this are all about.