This is not really a media opinion. It is more of a rant about the way that the term research gets used in the formation of public education policy.
The term research has ceased to have meaning and has taken up an almost magic quality. It is used to trump ideas and quash discussion as well as to endorse specious policy. It seems like it has gotten worse this year.
At the start of this year, during the mandatory professional development time teachers participate in before the beginning of school, we listened to a presentation dealing with the “9 Traits of High Performing Schools” (You can read the traits here.) This was a perversely fascinating presentation. The presenter chose, presumably in the interest of time, to only present 2 of the traits. What drew me in (and infuriated me) was not the content. There is nothing, on the surface, wrong with these traits. What stunned me was the way that the presentation showed an absolute disregard for the logic of research.
The presentation began as the normal staff meeting drone and looked to be a pre-lunch time filler of little consequence until some staff members began to ask questions. There were two questions that got me interested. The first dealt with the definition of one of the terms in the presentation title. How the study defined the term “high performing”. To my surprise, the presenter did not know and moreover did not seem to care. I don’t think it occurred to him to wonder about this and he seemed surprised that I would ask. It was research, and I should not worry about it.
I guess I should not be surprised. The term “High Performing” is so positive, so desirable that we should not be worrying about what it is, instead we should just focus on achieving this high performance. To think too hard about what it means to be high-performing and whether this is what we want (as a building, state or country) for our children is fruitless navel gazing. We should focus on the traits.
I was still sitting in sort of a perplexed silence when another teacher asked a logical question. If someone were to do the opposite of these traits would the school not be high achieving? This is a wonderful question about the ideas of necessity and sufficiency. In short did the result the research claim come as result of the traits presented or some as a result of some other heretofore unconsidered factor. Again the presenter seemed annoyed (or confused) by the question and continued to describe the wondrous traits without acknowledging the question.
It was research! How could it be wrong? Why should it be questioned? It is research!! Just hear it and do it!
The way that this work is presented on the State of Washington’s website indicates this reluctance to present a full picture of research. The page presents a list of 9 traits as “Common characteristics of High Performing Schools” and then a list of traits. This is list of traits is proceeded by the question, “What makes a Successful School?” (Clearly, it must be these traits!) Following the list is short explanation behind the list.
There are a series of citations at the bottom of the page and each trait links to a further list of citations. No where, though, does the state define what the consider a high performing school to be (nor, do they for that matter, offer a definition of a successful school). It is not hard to read between the lines of the 9 traits and see that “high performing” (an thus successful) schools are schools that do well on tests like the WASL.
To be fair, a comprehensive list of citation is included. This list is a wide ranging collection of studies (all between 1990 – 2003, I am left to guess that no new ideas about high performing schools have been generated in the last 4 years) and all it would take for me to find out the specifics of the studies and the answers to my questions would be a free afternoon and access to the ERIC database and a quality educational research library.
I don’t think, though, that the state is including the citations to encourage me to research. I think that the inclusion of the citations is meant to demonstrate the seriousness and credibility of the traits. Often times, particularly in the face of real questions from classroom teachers, the response is, “This has been very well researched and we know it works.” The translation: “Look, lots of really, really smart people wrote a paper full of numbers and tables about this, so you don’t have to think so hard about it. See, look at this long list of studies.”
The fact that a research is only really useful if you know the definitions of the terms, the population researched and the research protocol seems insignificant to policy makers. It is the brief, sound-bite like conclusions that get the attention.
The problem with all of this is that teachers seem to be encouraged (although many need no incentive) to delegate personal critical thought (which is messy, hard and time consuming) to administrators and policy makers. If the administrators and policy makers prove to be wise and critical thinkers this could be an efficient move. All too often, however, those in leadership positions do what the presenter at my school did, they accept the cure-all program from above and pass it on as gospel truth without putting in the necessary critical thought. Orthodoxy is trumping truth in the form of “research”.
