I am not the first to write about the fact that education has a fraught and not very pretty history when it comes to generating, critiquing, and applying rigorous evidence in order to maximise student academic and wellbeing outcomes. Examples of this commentary can be found here, here and here. Way back in 1996, David Hargreaves observed in a Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture in London, that
“Teaching is not at present a research-based profession. I have no doubt that if it were, teaching would be more effective and more satisfying”.
In 2000, Dr Louisa Moats commented that
“Unfortunately, lack of rigor and respect for evidence in reading education are reinforced by the passivity of education leaders who feel that any idea that can muster a vigorous advocate is legitimate and deserves to be aired”.
Dr Moats was discussing reading instruction, but her words are no less applicable to other curriculum areas, most notably mathematics instruction.
Of course, there’s a bias from me right there in my opening paragraph – the idea that education exists to maximise student outcomes, academically and psychosocially. So yes, let’s be clear that that is, for me, a strong ethical and civic responsibility for those who work in education, across the university, policy, research, and classroom practice levels. And yes, I am of the view that transmission of knowledge as well teaching students how to apply said knowledge, is core business for schools. For some, that immediately casts me as “neoliberal” in my political views. I’m not now, nor have I ever been, a member of any political party but if my position that accountability matters as much in education as it does in other professional fields makes me neoliberal, I’ll take that over being what I’ve termed previously, paleoprogressive.