As the author of "Why Education Experts Resist Effective Practices," I want to extend my sincere thanks to Jim Hewitt and Nidhi Sachdeva for so powerfully building upon the foundation I laid 25 years ago. Their recent essay breathes new life into those early assertions, transforming them into a well-reasoned, deeply researched, and urgently relevant call to action for 2025 and beyond.
What makes their contribution so impactful is not only the clarity of their critique but the depth of their scholarship. They draw upon a rich body of research accumulated over the past quarter-century—research that strengthens their arguments and makes their recommendations both timely and essential. I could easily point to a dozen or more ways in which they integrate these findings to illuminate the path forward for education reform.
As they so compellingly argue, while evidence-based professions have driven remarkable progress in fields like medicine and engineering over the past 50 years, education has seen only modest gains—particularly reflected in the stagnation of NAEP scores. Their analysis underscores the urgent need to bring the same rigor and accountability to education.
It is precisely this kind of evidence-driven advocacy that inspired Kelly Butler, Reid Lyon, Linda Diamond, and me to launch the Evidence Advocacy Center. Jim and Nidhi’s work exemplifies the mission we envisioned: to empower educators with the tools, knowledge, and support they need to drive meaningful improvements in student achievement.
It seems the problem is structural. Our school district is embarking on revamping math, and it's clear curriculum selection is going to be a political decision weighing the different interests of the community, with heavy teacher input; now, I want teacher input when it comes to implementation: "Can we translate this into Spanish and Arabic?" "I need more prep time this first year..." "Can we have some student teachers / aides to staff this station?" etc. Otherwise, it should be a non-controversial decision based simply on data. So frustrating.
And, to another point of the piece, how do we achieve staying power? Every teacher I talked with about our revamped literacy curriculum (to structured literacy away from Calkins) was, "Another day, another flavor."
The public school system (as well as too many fatherless families) has become a psychological abuse system with one major goal - to retard adulthood and extend infancy 'Devouring Mother' where 28 year olds are still stalling starting life while psychologically still breast-feeding, filled with programs of how to feel, not how to think, so 'men without chests' feelie-thinkys.
I recently used AI to first list what a K-12 education should cover, then paired it down to k-8th and argued that replace most of the touchy-feelie delusional women teachers and admin with get the job done focused men teachers (and the few women that can hold even with those men) and any child that can't keep up with that rate must go away into a different 'pepper-picking' education track and not hold back the class.
At end of 8th grade a systematic test given and the top 15% get university track free of cost, it they want and if they are good enough can extend to Masters and PhD. Starting in 8th grade like was normal 150 years ago when Latin and Greek was expected to a large degree by 8th grade.
Those other 85% go into trades or such so by age 20 they may be earning a level that can marry and start a family, men at 20 marrying women at 16 for example, throw out a bunch of children that bother their parents mostly raise, and march into full productive adulthood without all the Witch-Evil Mind-raping that is standard today.
Doesn't that sound better?
-------------------
Review my pro-Life arguments to great success in 2+ key articles, God's Will.
Using Constitutional and Natural Law I argue that The State must make major changes or make illegal Abortions or Loose the monopoly on violence, and father or any adult willing may replace the father and have same legal status of father with moral, legal, natural rights and obligations to protect his child from extrajudicial murder.
"Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2221:, 11th July 2025, Court Motion: State is Obligated to Assist Father/Public Duty to Protect a Child from Abortion."
This is in the form of a letter to a Bishop but contains two main arguments. 1st extends Saint Thomas Aquinas' damage from sin, 2nd uses modern psychological method to same ends, the Key-Log that is at fault.
Ever wonder Why is this world insane and most women are so Sick?
I am in total agreement but why is almost all of the education research behind paywalls?
So often (started life as a scientist) I'm reading research or looking into the research cited but can't access more than an abstract. It is so frustrating.
I regret that the standard way to publish educational research (and research in most disciplines) is via businesses (i.e., journals) that seek compensation for access to the publications. There is an effort by some to promote "open science," one pillar of which is open access. The Center for Open Science is a good source for more information about the efforts.
In addition, some journals are adopting open access policies. In special education an example is Research in Special Education from the Alethia Society https://aletheia-society.org
I should note, though you probably know this, that authors (the researchers) do not get rich from the fees that publishers charge for access to the research reports. The authors may gain in academic reputation from the publications, but they don't get paid royalties as they would for, say, a book. In fact, journal publishers charge literally $1000s to authors that want their articles be freely accessible.
There are sites that seek to circumvent the closed access system. ResearchGate and Academia are a couple of them.
But, in answer to your question about why research is behind paywalls, I offer this simple explanation: $$.
JohnL
p.s. If you can't get access to an article on which I'm an author, write to me directly. I can send you a copy.
I agree...highly frustrating -- until about a year ago when I discovered Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/
Enter the title of the article and Google Scholar will return a listing of the desired article and others with similar names. The listing has a large column (left side) and a small column (right). Click on the left to go to the official article site, where you might get access to the full article or perhaps just the abstract. Click on the entry to the right to download the full article from an unofficial source (often a college). Together, these get me the full article about 65% of the time. If the column on the right is blank, the unofficial option is not available. In that case, enter the full title into the browser search bar...the article may be available on someone's personal blog. Final effort: email the author and request a pdf copy of the article "because I found the abstract so exciting!"
I think we need to define what education is. Why do we have it. The article starts at the what, then moves to the how. We need more critical thinking and less test scoring
The philosophical baggage underpinning this post needs to be unpacked and revised. All knowledge comes in the form of belief. The content of belief is either true or false, and separate from that some beliefs are well-evidenced and some are not.
Belief-based is all anything is at bottom, whether it's based on evidence or not. You should call it fad-based or tradition-based or insular or something else. Data collection, data structure, and data analysis all leave room for personal bias.
If we're going to elevate educational practice, it has to start with clearer thinking.
Thanks, Josh. I agree that we all have beliefs. We use those beliefs to make decisions about our teaching. The point we could have stated more clearly in our post is that there’s a difference between having beliefs and being a belief-based profession.
We see a belief-based profession as one where personal convictions and preferences are not regularly held up to scrutiny against external scientific evidence. There are many reasons why this might happen. In some cases, people distrust science. They might prefer their own beliefs to findings that come from research. It’s also true (as several teachers in this discussion have pointed out) that it is really difficult for teachers to access and interpret the science in the first place. Either way, the result is the same: a culture in which there are fewer opportunities to have one’s beliefs challenged by research evidence, and where there’s little systemic pressure to revise or discard ineffective practices.
A science-based profession, on the other hand, is one where the members of that profession are able to access and interpret the science and are willing to entertain new beliefs. It encourages a mindset of critical inquiry, where practices are refined over time, informed by what evidence suggests is effective, not just what feels right.
I agree that science isn’t immune to bias. But what gives science its strength is its processes for detecting and correcting bias, like replication, peer review, and transparent methods. That’s the kind of culture we think education needs to move toward: one where teachers are better empowered to question and refine their beliefs based on the best available evidence.
They should distrust science. Science never moves anywhere if you don't distrust it, and it would proliferate every folkish trope in education without distrust for it -- it has often tried, and the methods we consider robust now were often once gatekept and resisted by scientists before.
Yes, distrust and skepticism is what we teach our students. It is interesting official reports from Project Follow Through give a very different narrative about DI compared to this article, eg Anderson (1977):
"QUESTION 2: DID FOLOW THROUGH RAISE POOR CHILDREN'S TEST SCORES?
If Follow Through didn't close the disadvantage gap entirely, did it at least
narrow it? Did Follow Through children score better than they would
have without the program?"
Results reported were, only 1 out of 16 DI sites did this for spelling, only 4/16 for reading & 5/16 for Maths.
Anderson reports, DI sites reached "this heroic level of performance with only a minority of its groups... Follow Through has not proved they can do it consistently."
Rather than the uncritical promotion of DI we should be asking why did DI succeed so well in some sites but not others?
If "achievement" and "intelligence" are distinctions without much difference (they're both based on test scores), and "intelligence" began with and is still based on eugenics/"race science," then that might tell you all you need to know about the "achievement gaps."
Okay, so I didn't think YOUR article was "spicy," as Nidhi mentioned on LinkedIn. But then I read Douglas Carnine's article. NOW I get it. His article takes aim at a whole lot of people and institutions in education, and rightly so. It's like the Emperor who has no clothes. Thank you Jim and Nidhi for highlighting this important article. Douglas Carnine's article could have been written yesterday, sadly. In his article he notes that it took medicine more than century to become a "mature profession." Modern education is easily approaching that. Let's hope we're getting closer.
He notes that "Based on the experience of other fields, it seems likely that intense and sustained outside pressure will be needed." He continues: "The metamorphosis is often triggered by a catalyst, such as pressure from groups that are adversely affected by the poor quality of service provided by a profession." Sputnik and "A Nation at Risk" moved the needle. Wondering if Covid and Emily Hanford's, "Sold a Story" can finally get us there?
Yeah! Small changes, big changes, top down, bottom up, policy makers, educators, parents, students... We are going to need all the support and then it will be like exercising/working out...we can't ever stop working at it. We will have to keep on doing what's needed to maintain and further build strength, stamina and endurance.
This piece is beautiful and absolutely relevant to the context today. Educators often speak about the change in attitudes and mindset but tend to ignore the data on socio-economic factors that impact motivation to learn n even student attendance at school.
Amen amen amen. Amen and amen. without subjecting specific practices to rigorous testing and experimentation and making choices based on evidence of learners’ behaviors, we’re just flying blind. This has been going on for my entire life and it’s so refreshing to see you two raising this flag again. science-based inquiry is more crucial than ever as AI is merging into every aspect of our lives.
“Teaching is the only major occupation of man for which we have not yet developed tools that make an average person capable of competence and performance. In teaching we rely on the 'naturals', the ones who somehow know how to teach.” -- Peter Drucker
I love what you're saying here and it's exciting to think about the potential to improve instruction and student academic success through the science of learning. However, I wonder about some of the newer instructonal approaches that our schools adopt, such as The Thinking Classroom and UDL. I feel quite sure that if I read a book promoting these approaches, there would be pages devoted to how this new approach has proven positive student outcomes; it would APPEAR to be scientifically-based with the support of scientific research. I think I would find it difficult to determine if the research was rigorous or the results were correctly interpreted. Teachers will need to be instructed on how to look at research claims with a critical eye; as a 30+ year teacher, I'm pretty sure I don't have the knowledge, skills or time to assess the veracity or validity of research claims. Preferably, school boards would have teams that fact-check each "new" initiative before teachers implement them.
For example, for The Thinking Classroom, A.I. stated that:
"The 14 practices [of the Thinking Classroom approach] are a result of extensive research in mathematics classrooms, aimed at addressing the issue of students not actively thinking during lessons."
As a teacher looking for a way to improve student learning in Math class, that might sound pretty good to me. How are we to distinguish "good" or correct research from weak research?
In addition to the good points made in the other responses to your comment, I encourage you to read Doug Carnine's comment and follow the links he provided to the project he and Linda Diamond (among many others) are creating on making evidence about effectiveness accessible. For ease, here's a link:
You make a great point. I don’t think many teachers have the skills to look at research critically, and I’m not sure they are open to learning about it, as a whole. Certainly some would be, but not a lot in my opinion. I think where the change can start is in teacher education programs as the authors suggest!
I love your idea about a team that fact checks initiatives. I’d love if the Ministry of Education did that, but they almost do the complete opposite. They actually promote Building Thinking Classrooms and celebrate the approach on the curriculum website! I find it deeply disappointing.
This is such an important discussion. I had read somewhere the notion that decisions like selecting a math curriculum contrasted to how we discover and develop medicines- and being in that field, I thought more about this analogy. When a chemical (or biological) compound is being investigated, we don't employ doctors, but rather pharmaceutical scientists who take a narrow, targeted and quantitative view of the potential drug's effects on a biological system. Hypotheses are put forward and a great deal of testing is conducted to see which drug candidate is the safest and most effective at achieving the stated goal. Only once when we are about to test it on humans are doctors brought in formally, who, being experts on the disease being treated, can inform the drug developers what works best in the field. Same with patient advocacy groups. The pharma scientists, experts in biochemistry, anatomy, genetics, and the kinds of studies that are needed to test compounds, aren't necessarily trained or familiar with what it's like to suffer from the disease in question. So if we think of teachers as doctors in this analogy, and cognitive scientists, education experts, developmental neurologists (?) as the pharma scientists, and parents and students as patient advocates, it's an interesting model.
It would imply that school districts should employ as directors of curriculum people with a background in doing educational research. As others have commented, it's not feasible to expect the overworked teacher to also assess educational research. Leave that to the director of curriculum. We would also need another function to ensure that the teachers, now updated with the latest tools, continue to use them, and to report on their success, and adjust accordingly. This is done in medicine, after the drug has been approved and is being commercialized.
When left to teachers, I'm afraid vibes or intuition reign. E.g., our school district had an open house on the work they're doing to revamp the math curriculum, something badly needed, as evidenced by the poor scores, huge racial education gap, and the proliferation of private tutoring centers in our VHCOL area. I remember a teacher opining that X online teaching system looked promising because of its graphical interface. And because teachers will play a big role in selecting the curriculum this might be all impression with little data. I fault neither teachers nor doctors from being unaware of the specific research about a potential change in their work. It's just not their lane.
Indeed, when doctors used to develop medicines from their experience, impressions, and intuition some were successful, but most just made elixirs. Cough, cough, Lucy Calkins...
“More often than not, professional development promotes ideas that are familiar, popular, or easy to present, but not necessarily ones that are science-based. Teachers who participate in these training sessions might assume that the instructional materials have been rigorously vetted. In reality, that’s unlikely.”
What a scary thought. I believe education is both a science and an art, but it feels as if these science part gets overlooked. It is amazing the amount of “bad research” that curriculum publishers use to support dubious practices and how frequently school districts fall for it.
I like the idea of making teaching science based but we would have to agree on more standardized testing to ensure that these practices are producing real results. That means testing outside of math and English. Otherwise the new fads sneak in because more than half the staff at a school don’t get assessed on the effectiveness of their teaching practices, so anything they do or get sold on doesn’t have to prove its worth. Also, the non science based component of teaching is the charisma or ability of a teacher to command their room and present in an intriguing and captivating way. Two teachers could both used the same science based approaches and get different results based on one’s demeanor and presence.
I don’t think we do. A focus on student outcomes based on science backed assessments would all it takes. With regular review of various assessments: unit tests, quizzes, homework, exit tickets, observations, it could be possible to do small iterations throughout the year and follow the progress. That gives opportunities to course correct. It takes allowing educators the time and space to make decisions and adjust without fear of being called out for trying something that didn’t work. We could start by respecting teachers as professionals and treating them that way.
I agree with treating teachers as professionals, but “real” results require some form of assessment that I don’t administer myself. Assessments throughout the year are how we critique our own methods and teaching but to convince others that one method works over another would require unadulterated results. Science based or not, I could claim my methods based on my tests and my grades work but no one should believe me if those results are unsubstantiated.
Thank you for your offering such a comprehensive and refreshing perspective on this issue. I actually wrote an article touching on the idea of change resistance, fads and research avoidance in education in the context of a unique Finnish pedagogical method. I would be very curious to hear your perspective on it. Hope you don't mind me attaching a link here: https://samuelkammin.substack.com/p/the-path-of-abstraction-a-finnish
I agree with Carnine’s view that education lacks the scientific rigor seen in fields like medicine. Too often, fads and personal beliefs influence teaching practices rather than proven research. A cultural shift toward evidence-based practices in teacher education and professional development would help transform education into a science-based profession, ultimately benefiting both teachers and students.
So true! My first question, as i started my PGCE in secondary science, was "where's the rezearch thst supports this?" went down well! Found John Hattie's Visible Learning and started looming stuff up. Then went to a ResearchEd conference oh the joy of that w/e. Then found Daniel T Willingham's work. and i was off 😁
Research had its part to play, at the core of education, but weilding that knowledge effectively, that's the artistry that only a human can bring using the context from a roomful of children.
Sad but very true. I've watched the wheel be reinveted in my district and state too many times to count over the last 3 decades. Unfortunately, teachers don't have a say in any of this, although we're the experts. Often times, ideologies and curriculum resources aren't chosen for the benefit of the students but for the benefit of the politicians.
As the author of "Why Education Experts Resist Effective Practices," I want to extend my sincere thanks to Jim Hewitt and Nidhi Sachdeva for so powerfully building upon the foundation I laid 25 years ago. Their recent essay breathes new life into those early assertions, transforming them into a well-reasoned, deeply researched, and urgently relevant call to action for 2025 and beyond.
What makes their contribution so impactful is not only the clarity of their critique but the depth of their scholarship. They draw upon a rich body of research accumulated over the past quarter-century—research that strengthens their arguments and makes their recommendations both timely and essential. I could easily point to a dozen or more ways in which they integrate these findings to illuminate the path forward for education reform.
As they so compellingly argue, while evidence-based professions have driven remarkable progress in fields like medicine and engineering over the past 50 years, education has seen only modest gains—particularly reflected in the stagnation of NAEP scores. Their analysis underscores the urgent need to bring the same rigor and accountability to education.
It is precisely this kind of evidence-driven advocacy that inspired Kelly Butler, Reid Lyon, Linda Diamond, and me to launch the Evidence Advocacy Center. Jim and Nidhi’s work exemplifies the mission we envisioned: to empower educators with the tools, knowledge, and support they need to drive meaningful improvements in student achievement.
It seems the problem is structural. Our school district is embarking on revamping math, and it's clear curriculum selection is going to be a political decision weighing the different interests of the community, with heavy teacher input; now, I want teacher input when it comes to implementation: "Can we translate this into Spanish and Arabic?" "I need more prep time this first year..." "Can we have some student teachers / aides to staff this station?" etc. Otherwise, it should be a non-controversial decision based simply on data. So frustrating.
And, to another point of the piece, how do we achieve staying power? Every teacher I talked with about our revamped literacy curriculum (to structured literacy away from Calkins) was, "Another day, another flavor."
The public school system (as well as too many fatherless families) has become a psychological abuse system with one major goal - to retard adulthood and extend infancy 'Devouring Mother' where 28 year olds are still stalling starting life while psychologically still breast-feeding, filled with programs of how to feel, not how to think, so 'men without chests' feelie-thinkys.
I recently used AI to first list what a K-12 education should cover, then paired it down to k-8th and argued that replace most of the touchy-feelie delusional women teachers and admin with get the job done focused men teachers (and the few women that can hold even with those men) and any child that can't keep up with that rate must go away into a different 'pepper-picking' education track and not hold back the class.
At end of 8th grade a systematic test given and the top 15% get university track free of cost, it they want and if they are good enough can extend to Masters and PhD. Starting in 8th grade like was normal 150 years ago when Latin and Greek was expected to a large degree by 8th grade.
Those other 85% go into trades or such so by age 20 they may be earning a level that can marry and start a family, men at 20 marrying women at 16 for example, throw out a bunch of children that bother their parents mostly raise, and march into full productive adulthood without all the Witch-Evil Mind-raping that is standard today.
Doesn't that sound better?
-------------------
Review my pro-Life arguments to great success in 2+ key articles, God's Will.
Using Constitutional and Natural Law I argue that The State must make major changes or make illegal Abortions or Loose the monopoly on violence, and father or any adult willing may replace the father and have same legal status of father with moral, legal, natural rights and obligations to protect his child from extrajudicial murder.
AI generated audio overview of article;
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/05bdb7f7-536c-4e50-90f4-e3dbfa6024b3/audio
"Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2221:, 11th July 2025, Court Motion: State is Obligated to Assist Father/Public Duty to Protect a Child from Abortion."
https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2221
-----
This is in the form of a letter to a Bishop but contains two main arguments. 1st extends Saint Thomas Aquinas' damage from sin, 2nd uses modern psychological method to same ends, the Key-Log that is at fault.
Ever wonder Why is this world insane and most women are so Sick?
AI generated audio overview of article;
https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/dcc1110c-6fdc-4966-a0a6-10948155a59c/audio
"Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2220:, 9th July 2025, A Letter to Traditional Catholic Bishops, Calling for Champions."
https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2220
--
These also provide an anti-Abortion argument that does not depend on an unborn existing.
I am in total agreement but why is almost all of the education research behind paywalls?
So often (started life as a scientist) I'm reading research or looking into the research cited but can't access more than an abstract. It is so frustrating.
Belinda,
I regret that the standard way to publish educational research (and research in most disciplines) is via businesses (i.e., journals) that seek compensation for access to the publications. There is an effort by some to promote "open science," one pillar of which is open access. The Center for Open Science is a good source for more information about the efforts.
In addition, some journals are adopting open access policies. In special education an example is Research in Special Education from the Alethia Society https://aletheia-society.org
I should note, though you probably know this, that authors (the researchers) do not get rich from the fees that publishers charge for access to the research reports. The authors may gain in academic reputation from the publications, but they don't get paid royalties as they would for, say, a book. In fact, journal publishers charge literally $1000s to authors that want their articles be freely accessible.
There are sites that seek to circumvent the closed access system. ResearchGate and Academia are a couple of them.
But, in answer to your question about why research is behind paywalls, I offer this simple explanation: $$.
JohnL
p.s. If you can't get access to an article on which I'm an author, write to me directly. I can send you a copy.
I agree...highly frustrating -- until about a year ago when I discovered Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/
Enter the title of the article and Google Scholar will return a listing of the desired article and others with similar names. The listing has a large column (left side) and a small column (right). Click on the left to go to the official article site, where you might get access to the full article or perhaps just the abstract. Click on the entry to the right to download the full article from an unofficial source (often a college). Together, these get me the full article about 65% of the time. If the column on the right is blank, the unofficial option is not available. In that case, enter the full title into the browser search bar...the article may be available on someone's personal blog. Final effort: email the author and request a pdf copy of the article "because I found the abstract so exciting!"
I think we need to define what education is. Why do we have it. The article starts at the what, then moves to the how. We need more critical thinking and less test scoring
The philosophical baggage underpinning this post needs to be unpacked and revised. All knowledge comes in the form of belief. The content of belief is either true or false, and separate from that some beliefs are well-evidenced and some are not.
Belief-based is all anything is at bottom, whether it's based on evidence or not. You should call it fad-based or tradition-based or insular or something else. Data collection, data structure, and data analysis all leave room for personal bias.
If we're going to elevate educational practice, it has to start with clearer thinking.
Thanks, Josh. I agree that we all have beliefs. We use those beliefs to make decisions about our teaching. The point we could have stated more clearly in our post is that there’s a difference between having beliefs and being a belief-based profession.
We see a belief-based profession as one where personal convictions and preferences are not regularly held up to scrutiny against external scientific evidence. There are many reasons why this might happen. In some cases, people distrust science. They might prefer their own beliefs to findings that come from research. It’s also true (as several teachers in this discussion have pointed out) that it is really difficult for teachers to access and interpret the science in the first place. Either way, the result is the same: a culture in which there are fewer opportunities to have one’s beliefs challenged by research evidence, and where there’s little systemic pressure to revise or discard ineffective practices.
A science-based profession, on the other hand, is one where the members of that profession are able to access and interpret the science and are willing to entertain new beliefs. It encourages a mindset of critical inquiry, where practices are refined over time, informed by what evidence suggests is effective, not just what feels right.
I agree that science isn’t immune to bias. But what gives science its strength is its processes for detecting and correcting bias, like replication, peer review, and transparent methods. That’s the kind of culture we think education needs to move toward: one where teachers are better empowered to question and refine their beliefs based on the best available evidence.
Thanks again for your thoughtful post.
They should distrust science. Science never moves anywhere if you don't distrust it, and it would proliferate every folkish trope in education without distrust for it -- it has often tried, and the methods we consider robust now were often once gatekept and resisted by scientists before.
I agree. Skepticism is at the heart of science.
Yes, distrust and skepticism is what we teach our students. It is interesting official reports from Project Follow Through give a very different narrative about DI compared to this article, eg Anderson (1977):
"QUESTION 2: DID FOLOW THROUGH RAISE POOR CHILDREN'S TEST SCORES?
If Follow Through didn't close the disadvantage gap entirely, did it at least
narrow it? Did Follow Through children score better than they would
have without the program?"
Results reported were, only 1 out of 16 DI sites did this for spelling, only 4/16 for reading & 5/16 for Maths.
Anderson reports, DI sites reached "this heroic level of performance with only a minority of its groups... Follow Through has not proved they can do it consistently."
Rather than the uncritical promotion of DI we should be asking why did DI succeed so well in some sites but not others?
If "achievement" and "intelligence" are distinctions without much difference (they're both based on test scores), and "intelligence" began with and is still based on eugenics/"race science," then that might tell you all you need to know about the "achievement gaps."
Re: "Distrust science"
Especially when it's used to control/micromanage. See Taylorism.
Okay, so I didn't think YOUR article was "spicy," as Nidhi mentioned on LinkedIn. But then I read Douglas Carnine's article. NOW I get it. His article takes aim at a whole lot of people and institutions in education, and rightly so. It's like the Emperor who has no clothes. Thank you Jim and Nidhi for highlighting this important article. Douglas Carnine's article could have been written yesterday, sadly. In his article he notes that it took medicine more than century to become a "mature profession." Modern education is easily approaching that. Let's hope we're getting closer.
He notes that "Based on the experience of other fields, it seems likely that intense and sustained outside pressure will be needed." He continues: "The metamorphosis is often triggered by a catalyst, such as pressure from groups that are adversely affected by the poor quality of service provided by a profession." Sputnik and "A Nation at Risk" moved the needle. Wondering if Covid and Emily Hanford's, "Sold a Story" can finally get us there?
Yeah! Small changes, big changes, top down, bottom up, policy makers, educators, parents, students... We are going to need all the support and then it will be like exercising/working out...we can't ever stop working at it. We will have to keep on doing what's needed to maintain and further build strength, stamina and endurance.
This piece is beautiful and absolutely relevant to the context today. Educators often speak about the change in attitudes and mindset but tend to ignore the data on socio-economic factors that impact motivation to learn n even student attendance at school.
Thanks Shveta, so glad it resonated with you.
Amen amen amen. Amen and amen. without subjecting specific practices to rigorous testing and experimentation and making choices based on evidence of learners’ behaviors, we’re just flying blind. This has been going on for my entire life and it’s so refreshing to see you two raising this flag again. science-based inquiry is more crucial than ever as AI is merging into every aspect of our lives.
“Teaching is the only major occupation of man for which we have not yet developed tools that make an average person capable of competence and performance. In teaching we rely on the 'naturals', the ones who somehow know how to teach.” -- Peter Drucker
I love what you're saying here and it's exciting to think about the potential to improve instruction and student academic success through the science of learning. However, I wonder about some of the newer instructonal approaches that our schools adopt, such as The Thinking Classroom and UDL. I feel quite sure that if I read a book promoting these approaches, there would be pages devoted to how this new approach has proven positive student outcomes; it would APPEAR to be scientifically-based with the support of scientific research. I think I would find it difficult to determine if the research was rigorous or the results were correctly interpreted. Teachers will need to be instructed on how to look at research claims with a critical eye; as a 30+ year teacher, I'm pretty sure I don't have the knowledge, skills or time to assess the veracity or validity of research claims. Preferably, school boards would have teams that fact-check each "new" initiative before teachers implement them.
For example, for The Thinking Classroom, A.I. stated that:
"The 14 practices [of the Thinking Classroom approach] are a result of extensive research in mathematics classrooms, aimed at addressing the issue of students not actively thinking during lessons."
As a teacher looking for a way to improve student learning in Math class, that might sound pretty good to me. How are we to distinguish "good" or correct research from weak research?
In addition to the good points made in the other responses to your comment, I encourage you to read Doug Carnine's comment and follow the links he provided to the project he and Linda Diamond (among many others) are creating on making evidence about effectiveness accessible. For ease, here's a link:
https://evidenceadvocacycenter.org
Thank you for the link, John!
Jim
For sure. I have a post tomorrow 15 July alerting folks to Doug (and, separately, Dan Willingham) creating ‘stacks.
A great resource is Anna Stokke‘s podcast, Chalk & Talk https://www.annastokke.com/podcast
You make a great point. I don’t think many teachers have the skills to look at research critically, and I’m not sure they are open to learning about it, as a whole. Certainly some would be, but not a lot in my opinion. I think where the change can start is in teacher education programs as the authors suggest!
I love your idea about a team that fact checks initiatives. I’d love if the Ministry of Education did that, but they almost do the complete opposite. They actually promote Building Thinking Classrooms and celebrate the approach on the curriculum website! I find it deeply disappointing.
This is such an important discussion. I had read somewhere the notion that decisions like selecting a math curriculum contrasted to how we discover and develop medicines- and being in that field, I thought more about this analogy. When a chemical (or biological) compound is being investigated, we don't employ doctors, but rather pharmaceutical scientists who take a narrow, targeted and quantitative view of the potential drug's effects on a biological system. Hypotheses are put forward and a great deal of testing is conducted to see which drug candidate is the safest and most effective at achieving the stated goal. Only once when we are about to test it on humans are doctors brought in formally, who, being experts on the disease being treated, can inform the drug developers what works best in the field. Same with patient advocacy groups. The pharma scientists, experts in biochemistry, anatomy, genetics, and the kinds of studies that are needed to test compounds, aren't necessarily trained or familiar with what it's like to suffer from the disease in question. So if we think of teachers as doctors in this analogy, and cognitive scientists, education experts, developmental neurologists (?) as the pharma scientists, and parents and students as patient advocates, it's an interesting model.
It would imply that school districts should employ as directors of curriculum people with a background in doing educational research. As others have commented, it's not feasible to expect the overworked teacher to also assess educational research. Leave that to the director of curriculum. We would also need another function to ensure that the teachers, now updated with the latest tools, continue to use them, and to report on their success, and adjust accordingly. This is done in medicine, after the drug has been approved and is being commercialized.
When left to teachers, I'm afraid vibes or intuition reign. E.g., our school district had an open house on the work they're doing to revamp the math curriculum, something badly needed, as evidenced by the poor scores, huge racial education gap, and the proliferation of private tutoring centers in our VHCOL area. I remember a teacher opining that X online teaching system looked promising because of its graphical interface. And because teachers will play a big role in selecting the curriculum this might be all impression with little data. I fault neither teachers nor doctors from being unaware of the specific research about a potential change in their work. It's just not their lane.
Indeed, when doctors used to develop medicines from their experience, impressions, and intuition some were successful, but most just made elixirs. Cough, cough, Lucy Calkins...
“More often than not, professional development promotes ideas that are familiar, popular, or easy to present, but not necessarily ones that are science-based. Teachers who participate in these training sessions might assume that the instructional materials have been rigorously vetted. In reality, that’s unlikely.”
What a scary thought. I believe education is both a science and an art, but it feels as if these science part gets overlooked. It is amazing the amount of “bad research” that curriculum publishers use to support dubious practices and how frequently school districts fall for it.
I like the idea of making teaching science based but we would have to agree on more standardized testing to ensure that these practices are producing real results. That means testing outside of math and English. Otherwise the new fads sneak in because more than half the staff at a school don’t get assessed on the effectiveness of their teaching practices, so anything they do or get sold on doesn’t have to prove its worth. Also, the non science based component of teaching is the charisma or ability of a teacher to command their room and present in an intriguing and captivating way. Two teachers could both used the same science based approaches and get different results based on one’s demeanor and presence.
I don’t think we do. A focus on student outcomes based on science backed assessments would all it takes. With regular review of various assessments: unit tests, quizzes, homework, exit tickets, observations, it could be possible to do small iterations throughout the year and follow the progress. That gives opportunities to course correct. It takes allowing educators the time and space to make decisions and adjust without fear of being called out for trying something that didn’t work. We could start by respecting teachers as professionals and treating them that way.
I agree with treating teachers as professionals, but “real” results require some form of assessment that I don’t administer myself. Assessments throughout the year are how we critique our own methods and teaching but to convince others that one method works over another would require unadulterated results. Science based or not, I could claim my methods based on my tests and my grades work but no one should believe me if those results are unsubstantiated.
Thank you for your offering such a comprehensive and refreshing perspective on this issue. I actually wrote an article touching on the idea of change resistance, fads and research avoidance in education in the context of a unique Finnish pedagogical method. I would be very curious to hear your perspective on it. Hope you don't mind me attaching a link here: https://samuelkammin.substack.com/p/the-path-of-abstraction-a-finnish
I agree with Carnine’s view that education lacks the scientific rigor seen in fields like medicine. Too often, fads and personal beliefs influence teaching practices rather than proven research. A cultural shift toward evidence-based practices in teacher education and professional development would help transform education into a science-based profession, ultimately benefiting both teachers and students.
Truly illuminating, thanks so much!
Thanks Aki. So glad you find it useful.
So true! My first question, as i started my PGCE in secondary science, was "where's the rezearch thst supports this?" went down well! Found John Hattie's Visible Learning and started looming stuff up. Then went to a ResearchEd conference oh the joy of that w/e. Then found Daniel T Willingham's work. and i was off 😁
Research had its part to play, at the core of education, but weilding that knowledge effectively, that's the artistry that only a human can bring using the context from a roomful of children.
Sad but very true. I've watched the wheel be reinveted in my district and state too many times to count over the last 3 decades. Unfortunately, teachers don't have a say in any of this, although we're the experts. Often times, ideologies and curriculum resources aren't chosen for the benefit of the students but for the benefit of the politicians.