Problems with Evidence-based Education: Side Effects in Education
The following is the Introduction of my book What Works Can Hurt: Side Effects in Education published by Teachers College Press in June 2018.
Introduction
“Ibuprofen may cause a severe allergic reaction,” you are warned when you buy a bottle of Advil, and “this product may cause stomach bleeding.” Medical products are required to disclose clearly their intended effects and known side effects. The intended effect of the common pain reliever Ibuprofen, for example, is to temporarily relieve “minor aches and pains.” The drug’s known side effects include allergic reaction and stomach bleeding. Hence Ibuprofen products must carry a warning label of their potential adverse effects.
But it is unlikely that anyone has received such warning about educational products.
“This program helps improve your students’ reading scores, but it may make them hate reading forever.” No such information is given to teachers or school leaders.
“This practice can help your child become a better student, but it may make her less creative.” No parent has been given information about effects and side effects of instructional practices in schools.
“School choice may improve test scores of some students, but it can lead to the collapse of American public education.” The public has not received information about the side effects of sweeping education policies.
It is also rare to find published research studies in education that report the potential adverse effects of an intervention. Educational research typically has focused exclusively on collecting evidence to prove or disprove the benefits or intended effects of products, programs, policies, and practices. The recent movement toward evidence-based educational practices and policies is only about gathering and verifying evidence for effects. It shows no concern for negative side effects.
Does this mean that educational products are immune to adverse side effects? Does it mean that all educational products have no negative impact on students?
***
The old Chinese saying “drink poison to quench thirst” was my first thought when the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 2002). The law had bipartisan support and was widely viewed as the right solution to some of the most persistent problems in American education: low achievement in reading and math and the growing achievement gap. The only loud protest at the time was that it was an unfunded federal mandate, meaning that if there were more money to support its implementation, the solution prescribed in the law would really lead to transformative changes in American education.
As readers will see in Chapter 1, the main ingredients in the NCLB solution were testing and accountability, a focus on reading and math, and scientifically proven effective instructional materials and strategies. Having grown up in China, I had personal experience with testing and accountability. I knew how high-stakes testing corrupts education, turning it into test preparation. I knew how a test-driven education causes damage to the physical and psychological well-being of students, parents, and teachers. I knew that a test-driven education does not result in citizens who can defend a democracy, nor does it produce the creative and innovative individuals needed in the modern economy. I knew that it does not reduce inequity, either, Continue reading: Education in the Age of Globalization » Blog Archive » Problems with Evidence-based Education: Side Effects in Education
