We think he is. Education, as it currently stands, is clearly not a science-based profession. When teachers face a tough classroom problem, they rarely turn to research for answers. More often, they rely on instincts, experience, or strategies picked up from colleagues. That’s not to say these things don’t have value—they absolutely do. But it’s striking how seldom research is consulted.
Research also plays a surprisingly small role in inservice training. 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. Countless hours of professional development have been spent — and are still spent — on edu-fads like learning styles and multiple intelligences, in spite of decades of research that have failed to show any benefits for student learning.
Experienced teachers have told us stories of their schools committing to a new educational initiative one year, only to see it quietly abandoned the following year. This can cause teachers to become skeptical or even cynical about new initiatives. When the latest “big idea” is rolled out with great fanfare but disappears without clear results, teachers begin to see these efforts as trends rather than meaningful improvements. Over time, this pattern erodes trust in leadership and reduces teacher engagement with future professional development. Instead of asking, “How can I apply this to improve student learning?”, teachers may start to wonder, “How long until this one fades away too?”