We should listen to experts, right?
I’ve had trouble with this idea for a long time because those who are supposed to be experts in education are often full of bad ideas. Worse, they frequently advocate the opposite of what the evidence demonstrates and when someone points this out, they label a preference for empirical, objective evidence as ‘positivist.’ Reason and rationality are boo words. They may even be oppressive.
Instead of focusing on evidence, they start their reasoning from ideology. This ideology is usually romantic in nature. As yet uncorrupted by the adult world, children are still in a state of nature in which they are inherently good and wise. They should, therefore, be given choices and the opportunity to figure things out for themselves, developing generic, vague skills and abilities as they do so. If they struggle to manage their behaviour then it is because the adults have failed them in some way, and because it is the only avenue open to them to communicate their unmet needs.
It makes us feel good about ourselves to hold such romantic, affirming ideas about young people. And as long as those ideas don’t crash into hard reality — as long as we don’t have to deal with the consequences of trying to apply them to the real world of schools and classrooms — it’s a good feeling that comes without cost.
So, I struggle to listen to such ‘experts’ and I have a tendency to put their expertise in scare quotes. Yet at the same time, there are genuine education experts who have plenty to tell us and who do draw from evidence. I don’t want to dismiss all educational expertise because that would mean dismissing Sweller, Wheldall and Chall.
The ‘experts’ I am cautioning us against are qualitatively different. The denial of empirical evidence in pursuit of justifying the opposite of what is true could be characterised as quackery, but is perhaps more accurately described as antiexpertise — the opposite of what a genuine expert would advise.
It’s not that I’ve had enough of education experts; it’s that I’ve had enough of antiexperts.
What happens when you listen to antiexpertise? Scotland is what happens.
Since 2007, Scotland has been ruled by the single-issue Scottish Nationalists. With little time left over after campaigning for independence referendums and contemplating the prices of motorhomes, it is understandable they left education to those they thought were experts but who were really antiexperts. This has messed up the system on two fronts.
Firstly, antiexperts designed Scotland’s curriculum for excellence. It decentered the acquisition of knowledge from adults and instead refocused the curriculum around nurturing four nebulous ‘capacities’ that are not generic and therefore probably cannot be taught. If it had stopped there, that would have been bad enough. However, the designers created a complicated beast, as if intentionally making it difficult for teachers to grapple with.
Since its introduction, Scotland has declined precipitously in the international PISA series of assessments.
Secondly, Scotland has become a laboratory for lax approaches to behaviour management. An enforced ‘toxic positivity’ that includes a focus on restorative approaches, where students have meetings to talk about their behaviour rather than receive a ‘punitive’ consequence, has coincided with an increase in school disruption and violence.
Fortunately, Australian politicians seem to have grown wary of antiexperts and have begun implementing policies in the teeth of their opposition. I’m not sure exactly what changed or how long it will last, but it is a welcome development.
The existence of antiexperts is a structural issue for education throughout the world. Medicine, engineering and law do not, from an outsider’s perspective at least, seem to suffer from the same issue. Yes, they have their quacks, but their quacks are on the outside and not part of the establishment.
I think this is because education is not led by practising teachers but by others who can afford to adopt a romantic ideology. Couple this with the gagging of teachers and the only people we hear from are these antiexperts.
It is time to call them out for what they are.
A powerful post. One that resonates with me considering I was sold for too long on the progressive ideology you speak of.
It's comforting to know there are voices like yours gaining more traction against this tide. When I speak with colleagues about the evidence I see and read, I notice more teachers coming out of the woodwork in agreement. However, it takes a lot of courage from school leaders to accept the loss of face that comes with changing course. I'm still frustrated by this lack of courage. Schools are traditionally hierarchical and inertia is often overwhelming. This is felt most in head of department meetings.
All I can do is chip away but sometimes I feel this comes at a professional cost.
I work for the Dept and the PDs often deify his name. Liejladal is the latest craze but I’ve also noticed more people catching on to Rosenshine and Science of Learning, as the top public schools are becoming increasingly non ignorable. It’s just annoying trying to explain to people that a weird amalgation of both sides is not always the best way forward