---

Robinson and Levin (2019) suggest that the term “quackery” has been used to describe the promotion of practices that have not been proven to be effective. Quackery has not gone unnoticed in education (cf. Levin, 1994, 2004, 2011; Levin & O’Donnell, 1999; Robinson et al., 2007, 2010; Shaw et al. 2010) and some argue that many “…‘promising’ educational advances are in fact overpromises, in that the research from which the advances are derived is not based on replicable, scientifically ‘credible’ evidence…” (Robinson & Levin, 2019, p. 35). I believe there is quackery in unfounded beliefs and unwarranted opinions as well as in unfulfilled promises of questionable practices; and I believe it has gone uncontrolled in education but I do not believe the purveyors of this nonsense act knowingly with malicious intent often evident in medicine and other health promotion (e.g., selling radioactive suppositories or useless dietary supplements). In education, those touting questionable practices seem to believe what they are promoting works and is necessary and potentially beneficial; and, in the end, questioning credibility comes down to simple questions (cf. Kang & Pedersen, 2017): Is there sufficient evidence beyond social validity that the stuff is needed, that it works, and that benefits are replicable and cost effective? In the case of practices I am questioning, I believe the answer on all counts is “No.”

The “academic achievement of millions of American children is abysmal….[i.e.,] low or wretched, extremely poor or bad…” (Fuchs et al., 2018, p. 127) and in times of continuing challenge and stress there is a strong proclivity to bandwagon, promote, and promise more than deliver in efforts to solve the problem (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1982; Ysseldyke et al., 1992, 2000). This is especially true when what you do is funded in large part by the federal government as field-initiated or other opinion-valued work. Special education is a field where progress is celebrated by the number of people served (i.e., compliance-driven accountability) and sadly not by the number of people who have benefited (i.e., evidence-based accountability) from the service.

In the posts that follow, I provide reasoned opinion in an unpublished article, comments, and letters questioning the work of others. For the most part, I accept how the work was done and focus on the extent to which it is justifiable in efforts to better outcomes in special education. The collection is by no means complete or exhaustive with respect to practices I believe are not working and at the same time elevating the risk of continued failure for millions of children in America’s schools at a cost of billions of federal, state, and local dollars. I offer the ranting in a “caveat-emptor” spirit and with a fading hope that things will change.

---

Fuchs, D., Minowitz, H. C., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., McMaster, K., & Lemons, C. (2018). Students with disabilities’ abysmal school performance: An introduction to the special issue. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 33, 127-130.

Kang, L., & Pedersen, N. (2017). Quackery: A brief history of the worse ways to cure everything. Workman Publishing Company.

Levin, J. R. (1994). Crafting educational intervention research that’s both credible and creditable. Educational Psychology Review, 6(3), 231-243.

Levin, J. R. (2004). Random thoughts on the (in)credibility of educational-psychological intervention research. Educational Psychologist, 39(3), 173-184.

Levin, J. R. (2011). Educational research, for better or verse. Educational Psychology Review, 23(3), 297-297.

Levin, J. R., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). What to do about educational research’s credibility gaps? Issues in Education, 5, 177-229.

Robinson, D., & Levin, J. (2019). Quackery in educational research. In J. Dunlosky & K. Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 35-48). Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, D. H., Levin, J. R., Schraw, G., Patall, E. R., & Hunt, E. (2013). On going (way) beyond one’s data: A proposal to restrict recommendations for practice in primary educational research journals. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 291-302.

Robinson, D. H., Levin, J. R., Thomas, G. D., Pituch, K. A., & Vaughn, S. R. (2007). The incidence of “causal” statements in teaching and learning research journals. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 400–413.

Shaw, S. M., Walls, S. M., Dacy, B. S., Levin, J. R., & Robinson, D. H. (2010). A follow-up note on prescriptive statements in nonintervention research studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 982-988.

Ysseldyke, J. E., & Algozzine, B. (1982). Critical issues in special and remedial education. Houghton Mifflin.

Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. (1992). Critical issues in special education. Houghton Mifflin.

Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. (2000). Critical issues in special education. Houghton Mifflin.

Note. Quackwatch is a collection of websites and resources focused on health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct. Quackery in education in general is not included.