A fact from National Council on Teacher Quality appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 June 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the National Council on Teacher Quality's first report and rankings of U.S. teacher preparation programs refer to the field as "an industry of mediocrity"?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
The NCTQ is a political organization formed by politicians for political purposes and funded not by grassroots money, i.e., not by popular support. This apparently needs to be made more clear to Wikipedia readers. I do not understand why political advocacy groups are lent an aura of nonpartisan objectivity by being quoted in Did You Know. I really do not want to complain, but someone needs to point out the emperor has no clothes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.65.107 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources to add on those merits, you're free to do so. The article is covered as the reliable sources do, which is to say as even-handedly as possible. None of the sources I've found make your above claim of partisanship (other than a Diane Ravitch post, and her opinion doesn't weigh the same as supposedly objective journalism), but if you find (reputable) ones that do, please post them here for discussion and consideration. czar··15:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this entry does not give enough information about the political character of the NCTQ. Nor does it give enough information about the critics of the study and its limitations. One sentence callings its methodology "ridiculous" isn't an adequate explanation of the controversy. I don't think they've ever published their results in the peer-reviewed literature, or have validated their scores. Ravitch says that they basically rate education schools by how well the schools advocate standardized testing.
Diane Ravitch is a well-established authority, who was assistant secretary of education in both the Bush and Clinton Administration, published books and articles, has academic appointments, and is widely quoted by newspapers like the New York Times. She meets every standard of WP:RS, and her blog also meets WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave the editorial commentary for the "Response" section. The recent Merrow edits put his subjective statements about the study into what is supposed to be the study's objective description. Merrow's "bad study" stuff can be put in the next section. czar⨹17:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
